maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Impossible?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14199
Reputation points: 9282
Russian Su-35 Display Impossible Stunt at MAKS 2017 Air Show



And a what if senario

_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:27 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9151
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10477
Can they dodge seeker missiles?

If not, strikes me as parlor tricks.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:49 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 9153
Reputation points: 14323
Closest I've been is a US jet over fmb doing maneuvers. She was there to impress and I was impressed. I could feel her power rumble my stomach from miles away. That gear is frightening. Made me feel small is the best I can describe it.

_________________
"Stay deplorable my friends"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7230
Reputation points: 14671
Anthropoid wrote:
Can they dodge seeker missiles?

If not, strikes me as parlor tricks.


Dodging as in causing a locked on missile with active evasive action to miss, yes they are perfectly capable.

Also, the video assumes that they can see the F-35s from beyond engagement distance. However, it is most often the case that US air assets are covered by serious electronic warfare assets. This means that you're never going to achieve the kind of lock you would achieve under ideal circumstances.

Also, Russian radars due to the way they are built have certain features such as the doppler not functioning when you fly sideways relative to them in which case you will easily be read as having what appears to be fixed distance in relation to ground.

There are also various tricks that can be used to confuse tracking such as flying in near proximity or two planes approaching each other from angle temporarily being seen as one and causing the radar lock to shift to the other plane etc.


Once the Meteor missile enters service in earnest it will decimate the Russians. It can change the throttle and change it's interception algorithm mid-flight to one that is optimal. Essentially, if you fire it from a long distance it will save fuel for a final pursuit, meaning it will have best velocity just before it hits it's target as opposed to having least velocity when it reaches target. It is also agile as hell and this agility is simply enhanced by the final pursuit full thrust.

Also a lot of imposed rules such as F-35 only having 4 missiles. Maybe if it went down today or so? I don't know if they only use 4 right now but look at this:

Number of planes built so far:
F-35, 231 aircraft built
Su-35, 58 aircraft built

That's, what, 1:4 ratio in favor of F-35? And Russians are in no rush to build large numbers of new Su-35, their fourth generation fighter.

F-18E/F Super Hornet is a fifth generation fighter too with 500+ built and is a much closer match for Su-35, imho. The old and sturdy F-18 vanilla is fourth generation and even it with it's all upgrades is easily on par with Su-35 with it's meager 1,480 aircraft.

In other words Finnish Air Force has more F-18s than Russia has Su-35s.


And this is why Putin talks about his nukes all the time. USMCA on their own would give Russia a run for their money.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14199
Reputation points: 9282
Impossible?

IMHO Anthropoid wins with his 'Parlor Tricks' post.

Watched another video where a knowledgeable guy points out that these a/c are stripped down to the bare essentials before flying their demos, even the fuel tank contains just enough for the show.

_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9151
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10477
abradley wrote:
Impossible?

IMHO Anthropoid wins with his 'Parlor Tricks' post.

Watched another video where a knowledgeable guy points out that these a/c are stripped down to the bare essentials before flying their demos, even the fuel tank contains just enough for the show.


As far as I'm aware, "evasive maneuvers" are about as likely to assist an aircraft in "dodging" a seeker missile as they are tp assist a soldier in dodging machine gun fire. Yes, it can happen, but your best best is to not be seen in the first place, and to "see" and kill the other guy before he even knows you are there. That is the design philosophy of the F-35, that along with "I am an F-35 stealth multi-role fighter-bomber information hub. I am a central nexus for the flow of intelligence data in threat environments and I feed this information to my human operator in ways that other machines have yet to even consider possible. My operator and I can keep all the assets in a large section of a theater (if not an entire theater) informed of potential and confirmed threats, and act as the central decision fulcrum in operations to neutralize those threats, on land, sea or air."

Anywhere an F-35 is operating within its standard operational envelope, meaning--we are not talking about a dire situation in which one has been forced to go in the air without all of its partner assets articulated--that F-35 has dozens or scores of other assets watching its back and acting as backup. The simulation video touched on this very superficially, but I believe the nature of the simulation was intentionally setup so as to give the Russian position a chance to achieve something besides a complete rout. Based on the performance of the F-35 in its simulated trials, I think that the results of that simulation are very optimistic at worst and ridiculously optimistic at best.

At least, this is what we've been led to believe by the corporation big wigs, the Generals and the politicians who sold it "to us." Only actual warfare will tell for certain, and I suspect the Soviets have no real desire to step up and engage in either real or simulated contests of their gear against ours :D Little Ukraine put the big old nasty bear into a headlock and still hasn't let it go!

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:32 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7230
Reputation points: 14671
abradley wrote:
Impossible?

IMHO Anthropoid wins with his 'Parlor Tricks' post.

Watched another video where a knowledgeable guy points out that these a/c are stripped down to the bare essentials before flying their demos, even the fuel tank contains just enough for the show.


Knowledgeable guy?

It's like there's this active campaign to put down F-35 as a failed project, corporate bullshit and whatever.

When you talk to air force people who have a better understanding of it all, they obviously cannot share everything but they tend to be more knowledgeable than some "knowledgeable" guy on youtube.

For instance it's too easy to just go "oh, stealth, yea, that stuff doesn't work". It does work, what kind of argument is that? Because someone says so or doesn't want it to work?

There are three big things concerning aerial combat
- Vectors
- Detection
- Communications

Of the three detection and comms are both handled with radiation.

Once you start throwing in electronic warfare assets and jamming into the theater you will see that both comms and detection suffer. While Russia has some cute tricks such as screwing up GPS system with their interference US actually has the capability for broad band jamming. Things like the enemy comms becoming sporadic or going down entirely while also their sensors suffer from the loud noise - "music" as the jargon goes.

It's nice and all if you have a sensitive radar but to detect a golf ball sized target from 90km distance while there is heavy jamming and interference isn't as easy. Meanwhile Russian aircraft aren't built for stealth and American planes do get radiation warning pointing the direction and often the type of radar that is trying to detect them, allowing them to take action that will make detection even harder since they are all trained on the weaknesses of Russian radars and how to use team work with all the assets to avoid detection altogether.

Seriously. Finns can take the F-18 and intercept Russians so that they never see us coming until we're at visual range. FAF has published some intercepts of Russian pilots talking among themselves while being intercepted.
"No radiation" was one thing they say on the clip.

F-35 has vastly superior stealth.

Stealth on it's own isn't magic - it requires some skill and other assets to get the most out of it.


Anthropoid wrote:
abradley wrote:
As far as I'm aware, "evasive maneuvers" are about as likely to assist an aircraft in "dodging" a seeker missile as they are tp assist a soldier in dodging machine gun fire.


It can take 60 seconds or more for a missile to close in on the target. Literally. Typical missiles have monopropellant engines, meaning they are 100% thrust until they're all out of fuel. This means that if a missile reaches 3 Mach shortly after launch it will have slowed down considerably if it has flown 30 seconds after it ran out of fuel.

It's all about vectors and how much you can turn. This is why Meteor is so amazing. It can save enough fuel for the final pursuit so that it can accelerate at the final stretch and due to having full thrust available at the final stretch it will also be highly maneuverable when compared to a 'javelin' that is bleeding speed as it tries to turn.

Russians cannot lock on to you without some kind of radar having locked on to you. This is of course immediately detected and you will get information on the type of radar as well as it's distance and direction.

What is exciting is that you can fire your own radar-guided missiles that will home in on the source of this radiation and they won't get a warning because you're not emitting anything.

So while they're still seeking for your stealth aircraft you can already fire missiles at their active radars even if you didn't have your own AWACS or ground radar assets on the scene.

And when they finally fire at you, you will have known of their presence for some time and you can position your fighters so that they will be ready to initiate evasive maneuvers while throwing chaff. And as I said previously, you can first run away from the enemy missile, bleed it's velocity and then when it starts to get close you can vector yourself so that it will not only be difficult for the missile to identify the real target but also physically difficult to follow your vector.

Missiles do have a finite amount of velocity and maneuverability. You absolutely can trick them, especially the monopropellant ones. Tricking Meteor will be a lot harder.


Modern pilot training is all about those things.

They train how to use team work and the features of the systems so that they can avoid getting hit while hitting the enemy.

Stealth when combined with electronic warfare and AWACS etc. goes a long way in helping your pilots engage the enemy before they're even aware of your presence in the battlefield. Or they might recognize that jamming goes up, get a feeling that something is not right before planes start to go boom.

For the most part I would expect the Su-35 to simply rout, rout and rout, trying to constantly disengage to preserve their strength and try to feed the pursuers to SAMs in the hopes that the SAM radars won't get taken out or that dealing with SAMs will give them enough time to fully disengage.


Doesn't mean that they couldn't score any kills on a good day but they would be woefully under equipped in almost every scenario. Not only does US have far superior numbers but it also has superior technology. The two things that tend to give enormous advantage in air war.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:38 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 12974
Reputation points: 2651
Kameolontti wrote:
...
Knowledgeable guy?
...

I understand that you served in the FAF. ;)

But so did Andy in the USAF. And everyone ducks for cover.

Fight on.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:14 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7230
Reputation points: 14671
nero wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:
...
Knowledgeable guy?
...

I understand that you served in the FAF. ;)

But so did Andy in the USAF. And everyone ducks for cover.

Fight on.


I'm a panzerjäger but pretty much everyone else is a military pilot. The sucky part is that they can't tell me the good stuff, even when they're drunk. And I've tried.

But I've gleaned as much on the contemporary modern air war as I can. I'm definitely not the expert on the subject. I argue according to the best of my knowledge and if someone shows I'm wrong I'm fully willing to accept that. I haven't personally gone through F-18 training.

Essentially, we get to talk "things in the public domain" and then the big boys excuse themselves to talk business. :cry:


We hear what they talk, no problem. They see our planes when we want them to.

Even the Swedes have difficulty seeing the F-18s approaching and we don't even have AWACS or Growlers which would considerably increase our stealth and capabilities.

Finally, if I were a pilot I would discuss these things strictly among other pilots and not online. But since I know only what is available from public sources I can talk all I want.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impossible?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:38 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14199
Reputation points: 9282
nero wrote:
I understand that you served in the FAF. ;)

But so did Andy in the USAF. And everyone ducks for cover.

Fight on.
Retired in '76 after 22 years, was never a pilot or aircrew, was an electronic tech. So like in history I have to rely on knowledgeable people to explain the situation and like in everything there are experts who have the same facts but still disagree.

OK, who were the knowledgeable gentlemen, right here they are, and you'll find the stripped down comments in the early part of the video.

Have fun.


_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group