International Aerospace Discussion

[TSJones]

^^^^^^ VAQ-134 is a closed mouth lot. They don't say much about themselves other than they fly E-6B prowlers and are currently stationed on the carrier George H. Bush. The Bush is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf near Iraq roasting the occasional ISIL road block, heavy equipment and mortar emplacements in northern Iraq.

[brar_w]

VIDEO: Inside Raytheon’s SM-3, SM-6 Missile Interceptor Factory

[brar_w]

^^^^^^ VAQ-134 is a closed mouth lot. They don't say much about themselves other than they fly E-6B prowlers and are currently stationed on the carrier George H. Bush. The Bush is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf near Iraq roasting the occasional ISIL road block, heavy equipment and mortar emplacements in northern Iraq.

[Cosmo_R]

^^^^^^ VAQ-134 is a closed mouth lot. They don't say much about themselves other than they fly E-6B prowlers and are currently stationed on the carrier George H. Bush. The Bush is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf near Iraq roasting the occasional ISIL road block, heavy equipment and mortar emplacements in northern Iraq.

Yeah! and I duly note they are roasting and toasting Humvees and sundry ISIS/L captured equipment. I was trying to do the math on a strike on an ISIS/L position. Two 500lb bombs that level a mortar position plus a Humvee or two.

What does a 500lb bomb cost excluding the F/A-18 flight hour costs?

Also excluding the humvees and 120MM mortar positions.

Reminds me of F-4s and F-105 Thuds bombing bamboo bridges in Vietnam

[brar_w]

Thats the nature of CAS halfway across the world especially if its at a moments notice. If this steps up a notch you could do so on the cheap by basing aircraft in Iraq or nearby such as the A-10 and doing it with the cannon but that would also cost a deployment that has to be planned with a lot of infrastructure and logistical train that has to be in place before they go ahead with the mission. If that is a concern (cost) and there is time to plan and base with some sort of sustainable effort..I'd use this

[Singha]

on that note the US army/USMC claims to have inflicted a massive 1:10 or more exchange ratio on the vietcong back then. considering around 55000 KIA the vietcong losses would 550,000.
but all I see are lines of B52s and F4s randomly bombing huge tracts of jungle ... there is no consideration if said jungle actually houses civilian population or enemy units...and nobody I am sure went back later to count bodies from the debris.

there were a few attacks by vietcong on isolated firebases where it may have been possible (if the US army held out) to rove around the perimeter later and count bodies (as the final battle in platoon)..but did anyone really had time for such detailed mop ups?

just asking.

[brar_w]

Vietnam was the last of the Strategic bombing doctrine of WW2. Ever since then they shifted to huge investments in precision guided munitions and precision bombing. I'll try to dig up some old books and see what I can find.

[brar_w]

Russia Developing New Interceptor, and Progressing Bomber

Russia will fly the prototype next-generation strategic bomber in 2019 and develop a new interceptor by 2020 to replace the MiG-31 fleet. Addressing the media on Russian Air Force Day (August 12) the service’s commander Gen. Victor Bondarev also said a new a combat aircraft with forward-swept wings is in development and could emerge soon as a prototype.

Production of the PAKDA strategic bomber will start in 2021-22, with flight tests completing in 2023 so that entry-into-service can take place later that year, according to Bondarev. The commander confirmed that the new bomber is subsonic. It will eventually replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-160.

In a recent interaction with the media, head of Russia’s United Engine Corporation (ODK) Vladislav Mosolov was quoted as saying that the PAKDA’s engine will be developed on the base of the Tu-160’s NK-32 “second edition” motor and use its gas-generator (core). ODK intends to invest $220 million of its own money into the project in addition to the approved governmental funding.

The new interceptor is sometimes referred to as the MiG-41. Bondarev said it forms part of the current Russian armament program ending in 2020. Plans call for replacement of the entire MiG-31 fleet by 2028.

Meanwhile, operational examples of the Sukhoi fifth-generation fighter PAKFA (manufacturer’s designation T-50) will be delivered to the Russian air force in 2016. Today, one industry-owned T-50 already flies with military pilots at the controls in the flight-test and armament trials center (Russian acronym GLITS) at Akhtubinsk airbase in southern Russia.

Bondarev confirmed that earlier this year the Russian MoD placed an order worth more than $470 million for 16 MiG-29SMT multirole lightweight fighters. Delivery is due within “two-three years.” These will supplement 28 such aircraft already in service. Bondarev further stated that the contract for the MiG-35 will be signed later this year. The Russian air force will continue upgrade efforts on the MiG-29 fleet so as to keep them in service for “another 10 to 15 years, maybe more.”

The commander also revealed that earlier plans for a light strike aircraft based on the Yak-130 jet trainer platform have been dropped.

Bondarev expects deliveries of Il-76MD-90A strategic airlifters to commence later this year, with 39 contracted for delivery by 2020. The air force also wants to receive some Il-96 airliners, from the order for 14 placed recently by the Russian government, for delivery by 2024. The military applications would include air tanker, as well as transport roles, according to Bondarev.

The Russian air force continues to build up its presence in the Arctic region. Temp and Rogachevo aerodromes have been re-opened, and work is in progress in Tiksi, Anadyr and Vorkuta. “We must withhold that region. Almost 49 percent of the Arctic territory must belong to Russia, and we shall defend it,” Bondarev said. Plans call for complete radar coverage of Russia’s northern regions.

Thanks for the article. A new bomber is much needed in the RuAF but I somehow doubt the interceptor. With the advancements in SAMs and particularly the net centricity and integration with other flying or ground based systems all backed up with potentially huge computing a better investment would be to have a wide spread of active and passive sensors and basically flood the ground with very capable SAM systems of all shapes and sizes with the Su-35's and PAKFA's providing the aerial cover. For Europe that would be more than enough to deter anything that is going to come form that side given the state of europen militaries. They would be better served with doubling PAKFA's and developing a Mig-29 successor for mass production (Soviet style). The best interceptor they would have would be the next generation bomber that would more than take care of the european air bases (and therefore make the interceptor rather redundant) unless EU really steps up its IAD capability in the coming decades (not likely beyond a token gesture)

[NRao]

but I somehow doubt the interceptor

They are doing their very best to keep the MiG experts relevant - as they should.

[brar_w]

but I somehow doubt the interceptor

They are doing their very best to keep the MiG experts relevant - as they should.

There are multiple ways to do that.

[TSJones]

^^^^^^ VAQ-134 is a closed mouth lot. They don't say much about themselves other than they fly E-6B prowlers and are currently stationed on the carrier George H. Bush. The Bush is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf near Iraq roasting the occasional ISIL road block, heavy equipment and mortar emplacements in northern Iraq.

Yeah! and I duly note they are roasting and toasting Humvees and sundry ISIS/L captured equipment. I was trying to do the math on a strike on an ISIS/L position. Two 500lb bombs that level a mortar position plus a Humvee or two.

What does a 500lb bomb cost excluding the F/A-18 flight hour costs?

Also excluding the humvees and 120MM mortar positions.

Reminds me of F-4s and F-105 Thuds bombing bamboo bridges in Vietnam

There are not that many sorties being flown compared to the old days.

In the old days we loaded up racks full of snake and nape.

that is snake eye bombs and napalm. napalm is self explanatory.

here is a diagram of a snake eye,

https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+e ... B405%3B504

Why the umbrella like fins? Well, the plane (for the Marines usually an A-4 or F-4) had to fly close to the target down low, so the bomb when released would follow the plane at approximately the same speed and explode right beneath the plane. Not good. Snake eye was the answer. The fins would slow the bomb down and the plane would speed on past the bomb. Problem solved. Wasn't very accurate, the enemy had time to duck into their fox holes, and otherwise it took a LOT of bombs and sorties to accomplish the mission. You dig?

At the end of the Vietnam war we developed laser targeting designation and laser guided bombs but for the US the war was soon over.

Since then we have concentrated on weapons accuracy, electronic warfare and smaller RCS planes. A 500 pound bomb striking from over 28kms away from the target has a huge effect on the enemy. The cost efficiency and efficacy of this weapon cannot be over estimated.

[Manish_Sharma]

I hope we don't join PAK DA as JV. Yes we can buy them like Mig 29s, but no need to join the project.

Instead develop a new hypersonic bomber with Russia which runs on some rocket fuel instead of petrol.

[brar_w]

Develop a hypersonic bomber? What would that cost

[TSJones]

And as if on cue here is a recent article about the Garudas

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/one-la ... bd2a3fd6ba

[brar_w]

There are write-ups on this matter which would be much better source of enlightenment on the EW squadrons than this tabloid entry

[Manish_Sharma]

Develop a hypersonic bomber? What would that cost

You dare to ask the question to a citizen a country that is buying 24 C-17s?

[brar_w]

LOL..C-17 will be short change compared to a hypersonic bomber. The longest scramjet flight till date is like 5 minutes.

Good luck!

[Austin]

Thanks for the article. A new bomber is much needed in the RuAF but I somehow doubt the interceptor. With the advancements in SAMs and particularly the net centricity and integration with other flying or ground based systems all backed up with potentially huge computing a better investment would be to have a wide spread of active and passive sensors and basically flood the ground with very capable SAM systems of all shapes and sizes with the Su-35's and PAKFA's providing the aerial cover. For Europe that would be more than enough to deter anything that is going to come form that side given the state of europen militaries. They would be better served with doubling PAKFA's and developing a Mig-29 successor for mass production (Soviet style). The best interceptor they would have would be the next generation bomber that would more than take care of the european air bases (and therefore make the interceptor rather redundant) unless EU really steps up its IAD capability in the coming decades (not likely beyond a token gesture)

I doubt the same , New Interceptor is more like waste of money and considering Mig-41 is suppose to do a Mach 4 plus its a bigger waste. http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140228/997594625.html

Alternate proposal put by Sate Duma is to reopen Mig-31 production line and give it more modern 5th electronics and missile. Which is more feasible and probably will win the day.

Better to spend money on LMFS program which is light weight successor to Mig-29.

[brar_w]

Even Mig-31 upgrade has little utility in a world where brute radar performance is of little threat given modern EW systems on 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft. The LMSF is the way to go and i am fairly certain that neither the new interceptor nor the mig-31 upgrade (significant one at that) will happen especially when more PAKFA's can be bought since it will be a fresh production line.

[brar_w]

Air Force Anticipates Advanced Engine Technology RFP In December

The Air Force is moving forward with its plans to transition advanced engine technology research into a program of record, announcing this week plans to issue a formal request for proposals by the end of the year for a program aimed at maturing existing technologies by designing, developing, fabricating and testing an adaptive engine that could be installed into a combat aircraft.

Earlier this month, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center posted a request for information to the Federal Business Opportunities website for the Advanced Engine Technology Program (AETP), a follow-on to the Advanced Engine Technology Development (AETD) effort initiated by the Air Force Research Laboratory in fiscal year 2012 to mature adaptive engine technologies.

On Aug. 19, in a question-and-answer document posted to the same website, the service notes that it will hold an AETP industry day Aug. 29, and states that it plans to issue a formal RFP for the program in December of this year. The service notes that the industry day will help it improve its cost and budget estimates for AETP.

"The program office has developed budget estimates based on the amount of work content it believes is required to meet program objectives within the time frame required," the question-and-answer document states. "However, the program office plans to use inputs provided by industry through the RFI responses and discussions at the Aug. 29 industry day to finalize planned content."

The goal of AETP, according to the posting this week, is to further mature the adaptive engine technologies developed through AETD and other engine technology development efforts AFRL has been pursuing in recent years. Those programs are focused on developing engine architecture capable of increasing fuel efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

"The objective of AETP is to mature adaptive engine technologies and reduce risks in preparation for a competitive, follow-on engineering and manufacturing development program," the document states. "This will be accomplished by designing, developing, fabricating and testing a complete flight-weight centerline, 45,000-lb thrust-class adaptive engine suitable for further development and ultimate installation into combat aircraft."

AETD's technology maturation efforts are ongoing and will remain so through FY-16 and will culminate with the development and testing of a turbofan engine. The service envisions awarding a four-year contract for AETP in September of 2015. At the end of that contract period, in FY-19, the program would presumably transition into the EMD phase.

In its FY-15 budget request, the service asked for $1.4 billion to fund advanced engine technology development through the future years defense plan. If Congress approves the service's plan -- so far, each of the four defense subcommittees have kept this particular request intact -- funding would begin in FY-16 at $50 million and increase sharply over the next few years to $670 million in FY-19, assuming a second sequester round does not take effect in the outyears.

The service has said its plan to ramp up funding for advanced engine technology development is closely tied to its pursuit of a fighter platform beyond the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an effort referred to as F-X. Service officials have also said that while programs like AETP are not geared toward developing a second engine option for the F-35, an advanced engine could be a candidate to replace the F135 as well as the engines of other platforms.

Of note, the two companies still involved in the AETD program -- Pratt and Whitney and General Electric -- chose to build their engine proposals to meet F-35 specifications

[Austin]

Even Mig-31 upgrade has little utility in a world where brute radar performance is of little threat given modern EW systems on 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft. The LMSF is the way to go and i am fairly certain that neither the new interceptor nor the mig-31 upgrade (significant one at that) will happen especially when more PAKFA's can be bought since it will be a fresh production line.

Radar performance will always matter else we wont have radars at all , An aircraft with big radar aperture and power output would always be an asset for any aircraft , the only difference being with AESA it just got better compared to previous gen , irrespective of EW gen Radar gen has kept up.

[Austin]

Su-35 in Blue Cammo

http://prokhor-111.livejournal.com/53593.html

[kmkraoind]

Galileo satellites go into wrong, lower orbit - Esa

The satellites Doresa and Milena went up on a Soyuz rocket after a 24-hour delay because of bad weather.

"Observations taken after the separation of the satellites from the Soyuz VS09 (rocket) for the Galileo Mission show a gap between the orbit achieved and that which was planned," said manufacturer Arianespace, in a statement.

[brar_w]

Even Mig-31 upgrade has little utility in a world where brute radar performance is of little threat given modern EW systems on 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft. The LMSF is the way to go and i am fairly certain that neither the new interceptor nor the mig-31 upgrade (significant one at that) will happen especially when more PAKFA's can be bought since it will be a fresh production line.

Radar performance will always matter else we wont have radars at all , An aircraft with big radar aperture and power output would always be an asset for any aircraft , the only difference being with AESA it just got better compared to previous gen , irrespective of EW gen Radar gen has kept up.

Not really, a bigger aperture can be used for very different things given where current technology is heading. The F-35 for example can use only 70% of its available T-R modules to gather SA while operating in dense LPD mode and use 100% of its T-R modules (in an another instance) in Passive modes listening to enemy emissions using the EW features built into the system from the start. What the Modern EW systems have shown (if you call the advanced F-22 system modern that is) is that emissions can be picked up from far far away (outside the radar range)..A non stealthy aircraft using more power to emit will only provide a stealthy aircraft more avenues to pick it up. You cannot shrink the advantage of stealth bird vs a non stealth bird by providing the non-stealth bird a bigger more powerful radar. F-22's EW has been stated to be able to pick up emissions from 200+ miles out and that was something made in the late 90's. The F-35s EW suite was made in the 2000's. Gallium nitride will provide an improvement in detection range, mtbf etc but not tactically significant. One can do the math and use the widely speculated RCS values for F-22 and F-35 to back calculate the radar emission required in the X band to pick up these things from say 40-50nm...all the time do keep in mind that a non stealth jet traveling at mach 2.8-3 will picked up from much farther back using multiple sensors...This is why everyone is migrating to 5th gen low RCS/VLO designs..the detection and kill-advantage cannot be narrowed down to tactically significant distances using more powerful onboard sensors.

PS

I have a pdf document somewhere (i'll look up and post when i find it it) with an interview of Alton Remig who is a materials guy (background and PHD) and currently heads the Skunk works. Someone asked him about the future revival of the YF-12 and he said something to the tune of " A future interceptor (sniper) would have to be highly stealthy and have a lot of loiter time which can be traded off for speed". On deeper thought this makes a lot of sense. You have massive inflow of Stealthy UAV's of all shapes and sizes, massive UCAV's that are stealthy, semi stealthy and have stand off weapons and stealthy fighters and bombers coming in from all directions. The best way is to have a vehicle with a large magazine, that can stay up over an air space for a long long time and step up when required. It won't be the YF-12 but probably a stealthy mother ship like concept with 10-12 weapons with varying range and seekers and a 6-8 hour loiter time over an airspace. This discussion was around the time Northrop grumman released pictures of its mach 2-3 deep penetrator aircraft so i would guess it would be about 4-5 years old. I'll try to dig it up.

[TSJones]

^^^^In the context a bigger more powerful radar will just light yourself up better. Hello world? I am here!

I am not sure these guys understand the advantages of electronic sniffing combined with a very low RCS will provide. As I have stated before we have been working on EW just as much as weapons accuracy. Maybe more. It's that essential.

Decades ago I worked on detection gear for the A-4. The pilot could actually hear all the different bands of radar that were painting him, The pilot was trained to listen for radars of sam sites, commie airplanes etc, all distinguished by different sounds coming over his headset. automatically alerting him. that was decades ago. think about all the equipment and computers available to a pilot now. no comparison.

[Austin]

All radars can be detected for as long they emit it , Modern AESA radar be it GaA or GaN has made it more sophisticated by introducing new tricks in which they play with frequency/power , more bandwidth and low side lobes to make counter jamming difficult.

But the advantage of high power radar be it Planner , PESA or AESA radar is as equally important then as it it now because every time you fly you wont be facing a fighter , you can be easily doing a counter-Cruise Missile mission or counter LO mission where long range detection which is only possible by radiating at high power is of key value for early detection.

Else why would AWACS or Ground Based Radar be radiating at high power even with AESA Module.

You can easily have a single Su-30MKI operating at peak power sharing data with other fighter in passive mode , or multiple MKI creating a wall of radar and acting as mini-AWACS.

As radar still remains a primary means of detection and firecontrol it will use high power but with modern AESA use it more smartly but ECM/ESM has also advanced to detect such RF even in LPI mode.

[TSJones]

All radars can be detected for as long they emit it , Modern AESA radar be it GaA or GaN has made it more sophisticated by introducing new tricks in which they play with frequency/power , more bandwidth and low side lobes to make counter jamming difficult.

But the advantage of high power radar be it Planner , PESA or AESA radar is as equally important then as it it now because every time you fly you wont be facing a fighter , you can be easily doing a counter-Cruise Missile mission or counter LO mission where long range detection which is only possible by radiating at high power is of key value for early detection.

Else why would AWACS or Ground Based Radar be radiating at high power even with AESA Module.

You can easily have a single Su-30MKI operating at peak power sharing data with other fighter in passive mode , or multiple MKI creating a wall of radar and acting as mini-AWACS.

As radar still remains a primary means of detection and firecontrol it will use high power but with modern AESA use it more smartly but ECM/ESM has also advanced to detect such RF even in LPI mode.

AWACS have to stay waaaay out there or else they're toast.

[Austin]

AWACS have to stay waaaay out there or else they're toast.

A fighter can still ran away faster than an AWACS can but the point being AWACS or GBR still uses High Power Out for Long Range detection but with AESA they do it more smartly.

Some of the Indian GBR used for Long Range Detection I am reffering to THD types uses peak power of 20 mw and they can look as far as Afghanistan.

[brar_w]

All radars can be detected for as long they emit it , Modern AESA radar be it GaA or GaN has made it more sophisticated by introducing new tricks in which they play with frequency/power , more bandwidth and low side lobes to make counter jamming difficult.

I fully understand what LPI and LPD modes are and how they function. Just finished reading a very informative book on the matter. The problem with this is that a hypothetical legacy aircraft while competing against a modern stealthy VLO RCS-optimized jet has to emit quite a bit to have any chance of maxing out the detection ranges. Its simple physics, what power would an X band FCR require to emit at to get X nm detection vs a given RCS target be it 1m^2, .1m^2, .01m^2, .001m^2 so on and so forth. Having said this a jet like the F-22, F-35, T-50, J-20 can afford to tone down the emissions and operate the radar at say 50% power in extreme LPI mode since it enjoys a vast detection range (stick lingo) advantage over legacy aircraft loaded with weapons. Reduce the power output and enter into LPI modes on a legacy jet and you do not gain much beyond the fact that the enemy would find it harder to detect you using pure ESM. Modern systems do not care whether detection is through FCR, IRST, EW..The F-35 has multiple bands through which it picks EW emissions, including a 1600+ element AESA radar optimized around the X band (Apg-81 can operate in fully passive mode where it listens to X band emissions), however even if a hypothetical legacy jet is flying with a lowered power output there are multiple avenues for the Sensor fusion to provide SA on that aircraft, especially when it is mach 2.8 and high (Lots of cold air at altitude to pick up a fast jet using IRST).

But the advantage of high power radar be it Planner , PESA or AESA radar is as equally important then as it it now because every time you fly you wont be facing a fighter , you can be easily doing a counter-Cruise Missile mission or counter LO mission where long range detection which is only possible by radiating at high power is of key value for early detection.

I am aware of high power radar and what advantages they bring to the table especially with modern AESA elements thrown in where extreme resolutions can be built up. A fighter-fighter engagement is not the right/optimum place to seek an advantage in extreme power and detection range and that was the point of the detection.

Else why would AWACS or Ground Based Radar be radiating at high power even with AESA Module.

AWACS serve a very different purpose then point interceptors, yet i can speak about the USAF that does not expect AWACS to be operational in denied airspace, and even in contested airspace they are only considered to be fringe players requiring heavy support to be in the "play". They shine in airspace that is controlled by oneself unless one wants to risk everything including lives. Long range H2K missiles can deal with AEW with easy and AWACS killers would be fairly easy and already exist in russia and china..The US has studied the ALHTK and this would be a perfect anti AEW aircraft missile if required, but i bet even they don't expect pacific players to bring AWACS into an airspace that is compromised or challenging hence the shift away from dedicated mother ship AEW to high SA fighters such as F-35's and future ISR missions for the LRS bomber and the RQ-180.

ou can easily have a single Su-30MKI operating at peak power sharing data with other fighter in passive mode , or multiple MKI creating a wall of radar and acting as mini-AWACS.

Or you could have a group of 4-6 F-35's all operating in LPI/LPD modes, linked through MADL and linked with F-22's through L band comms (in development) and build a picture through shared networking rather than through brute emissions. Legacy platforms do not have pressing LPI/LPD needs since their RCS alone will result in a positive ID from long ranges (hence they resort to jamming), VLO aircraft on the other hand have to exercise extreme EMCON (Emissions control) otherwise the entire point of lowering the RCS becomes redundant. Here your STEALTH is only as good as the LPI nature of your directional data links (hence the F-35 uses Link 16 only in non stealthy modes and relies on a directional MADL for stealthy missions) and your emitting sensors. This is the main reason why there is no longer a need for side arrays for the F-22 or a need to introduce them in the F-35, MADL, IFDL and other avenues offer the same SA without the emissions that accompany a decent "detection - range" X band sensor.

As radar still remains a primary means of detection and firecontrol it will use high power but with modern AESA use it more smartly but ECM/ESM has also advanced to detect such RF even in LPI mode.

Of course and this is why your LPI mode is only good if you exercise extreme caution while emitting and are not stupid enough to max out your emissions power and still hope that someone will be dumb enough to not figure out your direction. It used to take a 2 ship F-22 to triangulate using EW, and it seems with the F-35 it can be done by just a single aircraft. This is the most secretive aspect of any fighter and investments are all hush hush. There is no such thing as operating at max radar output and still being LPI and it is precisely for this reason that upgrading a legacy jet with a much larger, more powerful radar does absolutely nothing for it when pitted against a VLO aircraft and it is for this reason why much of the well funded air-forces are moving to VLO instead of fitting even larger and more powerful radars onto their a2a fighters. The AESA has its advantages for legacy on legacy conflict or for A2G and switching between modes but little when a legacy jet goes up against a VLO target with advanced sensor fusion, LPI AESA and a cutting edge EW suite.

[brar_w]

Some of the Indian GBR used for Long Range Detection I am reffering to THD types uses peak power of 20 mw and they can look as far as Afghanistan.

Ground based radars are something totally different from the concept we are talking about (Air 2 Air Interceptor radars). Things like PARCS, Cobra dane etc can pick up 1m^2 targets from 1500-2000 km away.

[brar_w]

High Fidelity MDO Process Development and Application to Fighter Strike Conceptual Design

Author - Clifton Davies a Skunk, Scott Zink (General dynamics texas) and AFRL



http://www.docdroid.net/gkmz/skunk-works-2012.pdf.html

[brar_w]

Deleted

[brar_w]

High Fidelity MDO Process Development and Application to Fighter Strike Conceptual Design

Author - Clifton Davies a Skunk, Scott Zink (General dynamics texas) and AFRL



http://www.docdroid.net/gkmz/skunk-works-2012.pdf.html

[brar_w]

deleted

[Austin]

You are missing the point of the original discussion and adding F-22 ,F-35 etc to the discussion.

High Power will always be used for long range detection of target irrespective of platforms or if they are VLO or not , its just that with generation of radar from Planar Antenna to AESA the way they use it has become smarter with more flexibility in the use of spectrum.

Even AWACS and GBR operate in MW class power to achieve longer range and like any emitting platform it can be detected via ESM system no running aways from that fact.

[Austin]

Check the video in the link

Iran unveils new-generation drones and missiles (VIDEO)

New generation short-range anti-ship missiles and UAVs have been unveiled in Iran. Tehran’s revamped military doctrine is based on “deterrence and effective defense,” President Hassan Rouhani said at the presentation.

Ghadir cruise missiles with a range 100 kilometers are designed to engage ships, reported the IRNA news agency. Iran uses the Ghadir system to reinforce its destroyers and coastal batteries.

The range of another cruise missile, the Nasr-e Basir, has not been disclosed, although the agency announced it could “operate in silence,” without specifying exactly what this quality means.

The Iranian military also showed two new high-altitude drones, the Karrar-4 and the Mohajer-4. The latter is capable of mapping a territory for military or civilian use.

[brar_w]

You are missing the point of the original discussion and adding F-22 ,F-35 etc to the discussion

They absolutely have to be added. How many F-22's and F-35's will be stationed in Europe by 2025? Interceptors are designed against targets they have to intercept, for any future intercept mission the targets would be the F-22, F-35, B-2, LRS-B and stealthy unmanned aircraft. The current 4th generation and 4.5th generation aircraft can be dealt with modest upgrades to the Mig-31's.

High Power will always be used for long range detection of target irrespective of platforms or if they are VLO or not

Yet the tactical utility that comes from making the sensor bigger in a non stealthy jet is negligible because the detection gap is so darn wide. There are smart ways to do things and there are brute ways to do things. The T-50 is a much better interceptor than the Mig-31 when intercepting the F-22 or F-35 since it is a VLO aircraft and therefore does not concede much in that department. Having a higher powered radar on the mig-31 and using it to emit at its max just so that you have "some chance" of getting a stand off detection is rather foolish. All you end up doing is presenting a nicely lit up target for VLO aircraft that are hard to find as it is and that have a very advanced level of sensor fusion.

High powered radars - does not mean that they are used in that mode consistently. The Apg-81 or any other modern 5th gen VLO fighter radar would not be used in the brute capacity as was done with legacy radars (or one high emitter with others passively following). The level of emissions allowed in a tactically significant mission would only be as much it does not interfere with the stealth. Stealth is not just mere Low RCS, its extreme LPD performance of the sensor, emcon and high SA through EW. You aren't going to be advertising yourself with brute power even though your radar is capable of doing it (advantages of having that capability are realized elsewhere in other missions and not in penetrating A2AD corridors). A legacy aircraft with such a radar would almost have to do so, since it cannot lower down its power (sensor) because of the huge detection advantage enjoyed by the VLO aircraft it is meant to intercept absolutely warrants that it detect the aircraft from its maximum allowed range to have any chance of surviving.

Even AWACS and GBR operate in MW class power to achieve longer range and like any emitting platform it can be detected via ESM system no running aways from that fact

Last I checked an AWACS or a GBR was not an interceptor or a flying aircraft that is meant to do frontline combat. These are totally different set of capabilities. An interceptor has to go out and shoot down an intruder or intruders before they have a chance of shooting it down. The AWACS has to stay at the fringe while it is protected by escort aircraft and provide SA to the fleet. A GBR has to provide brute coverage over a designated area. Totally different things.

[Austin]

You dont get it just because the Mig-31 is flying it does not mean it would be using its High Power PESA radar to paint the target much like if MKI is flying wont be painting target with its peak power of 6 kW

Yet if you want to paint the target at long range and guide your LRAAM close to the target it will need to use higher power for longer detection irrespective if its a Mig-31 or PAK-FA.

Ofcourse this is a very simplistic one on one situation its possible that Mig-31 would be supported with IADS and AWACS.

[brar_w]

You dont get it just because the Mig-31 is flying it does not mean it would be using its High Power PESA radar to paint the target much like if MKI is flying wont be painting target with its peak power of 6 kW

Given a pure intercept mission over a contested area (say eastern europe) how will the Mig-31 intercept an F-22? If it lowers its power its detection ranges would draw down significantly while the F-22's RCS won't change. This is the crux of the issue of a Stealth vs Non stealth engagement the non stealthy bird cannot close down the detection gap to make a tactically significant difference by simply upping the capability of the sensor or sensors. The area the VLO aircraft is free to operate in is still very huge. The detection range formulas can be easily applied to see the effect VLO has on shrinking sensor envelopes and the tactical advantage obtained from the same. There is a good reason why the Americans, Russians, Chinese and pretty much all those looking into next generation fighters are calling for a very low observable design.

If you bring in GBR's into the picture then you are basically reducing the need of the Mig-31 in the first place since for passive intercepts the PAKFA is much better since it is a VLO aircraft and does not give away its location whereas even a Non emitting Mig-31 gives it away since it has a huge relative RCS.

The biggest tactical advantage of a mach 2.5+ interceptor comes in when you have "limited SA" and need to act at a short notice. The problem was dealt very nicely by the Mig25 and Mig31's earlier (The USAF planned for the YF-12 had the soviet bomber threat been greatly upped) because the incoming force was non-stealthy and would have a huge relative RCS and jamming which also gives early warning. Mig-31's would go high and fast using cues from GBR's and launch missiles. The moment you change the situation to Mig-31 vs stealth you have to account for the fact that A VLO penetrating force would considerably shrink SAM envelopes even with greater coverage of more powerful sensors (simply physics) and therefore your utility to cue a non stealthy interceptor is reduced resulting in the interceptor having to use its own sensors much more than it would like therefore giving away its location quite early on in the engagement. You cannot send 6 mig-31's and have 1 aircraft use its radar in brute mode while the rest follow suite since one radar against a F-35 is not going to be adequate especially since 5th gen aircraft have the EW sensitivity to geolocate and avoid the main sensor sweet spots. For such an interceptor to work it would have to have VLO characteristics itself so that it can use its radars in LPI/LPD modes without loosing any tactical advantage. The PAKFA gives you precisely that. The intercept mission will greatly change with the arrival of stealth and i am pretty sure that going into the future loiter time (for pickets) would be preferred over brute speed since the SA advantage obtained from TOS is far more useful when dealing with a stealth attacking force.

Yet if you want to paint the target at long range and guide your LRAAM close to the target it will need to use higher power for longer detection irrespective if its a Mig-31 or PAK-FA

Or have a smart Data linked weapon that is able to get its targeting cues from a host of platforms and build SA until its close enough to activate its own seeker which in the future will most likely be a multi-mode seeker or a hybrid seeker of sort.

Ofcourse this is a very simplistic one on one situation its possible that Mig-31 would be supported with IADS and AWACS

The more you start to rely on IAD and AWACS the more you are better off with using a PAKFA as an interceptor since it can stay fully undetected at tactically significant distances while in passive mode while your non-stealthy aircraft cannot. The thing with AWACS is that if you start planning them to be in the PLAY in areas that are denied or heavily contested you better be prepared to loose them fast as any such doctrinal attempts would result in the opponent developing a AWACS killer weapon quite fast and without much fuss. The problem is that most air forces would not assume AWACS coverage in contested or denied environments and are planning accordingly though stealth VLO fleets and very wide range of inherent ISR and SA activities from next generation aircraft.

[Austin]

If you bring in GBR's into the picture then you are basically reducing the need of the Mig-31 in the first place since for passive intercepts the PAKFA is much better since it is a VLO aircraft and does not give away its location whereas even a Non emitting Mig-31 gives it away since it has a huge relative RCS.

Not really the Mig-31 can fly faster than PAK-FA and can sustain those speeds for long and it also carries the longest range AAM , so if GBR comes into the picture then Mig-31 can excute the long range interception of the target much better not to mention at M 2.8 the kinemetics afforded to AAM would be much much higher.

I would suggest you read Yefim Gordon book on Mig-31 and why an Interceptor is good at certain role than a general purpose multirole fighter or an air superiority fighter.

The PAK-FA can never be an interceptor reason why the Russians are working on a follow on interceptor although it wont be a dedicated interceptor we know it now in Mig-31 but more like for Aerospace Defence.