NOW
what has large payload & high range got to with "high survivability"
if thats the case then long range bomber is more survivable than jet.
& dont think J20's electronics & sensor equal to F 35 ,there is a god damned limit to be biased
Very little if any. He does not understand the idea in the first place.
Aircraft Combat Survivability (ACS) by practical definition, not by someone who have no military experience, is...
The Aircraft Combat Survivability Education Web Site
The aircraft combat survivability discipline is dedicated to enhancing the survivability and effectiveness of aircraft that fly in man-made hostile environments.
ACS is about entrant into a hostile air environment whose threats ranges from EM to physical contacts -- bullets and missiles. Each type of threats warrant a distinct response. Enhanced survivability is possible by the integration of those responses in some ways to either avoid or nullify a threat or a series of threats that came from one or more sensor modes working in concert to create what we call 'modern air defense'.
Just as EM is a method of foreknowledge by one side to detect incoming threats such as aircrafts or missiles, intelligence about an air defense network also constitute foreknowledge by the attacking side when that side is formulating an attack plan. Knowledge of locations of air defense radar and their accompanying missile launch sites, air bases within combat distance, or commmand and control centers allow the attacker to create an ingress path to avoid the first threat -- EM. And if avoidance is successful and allow the attacking aircraft to accomplish its mission, whatever it may be, and escape relatively unharmed, then that is a successful event of ACS.
Vulnerability is defined as the degrees of ability to withstand contact -- EM or physical -- in this hostile environment. Believe it or not, in the early days of EM integration into air defense, it was found that some unprotected electronics actually did fail when the aircraft came into EM contact. Fortunately, that lesson was learned during peace time and inside friendly soil during modernization of aviation. Vulnerability can be from design weaknesses and flaws as well and nothing to do with the enemy.
For a few examples...
- The F-14's widely spaced engines enhanced battle damage survivability in the event one engine is degraded but it increases difficulty to maintain controlled flight due to asymmetric thrust. Which is more important?
- The lack of fuel tank fire suppression in one aircraft design compared to another, which is going to survive combat to accomplish its mission and get the crew home?
- How robust is the flight control systems? The A-10's mechanical FLCS is proven to be very robust in contact with the enemy whereas the F-16's all electronics FLCS must rely on strategic internal placements of components and software redundancies to maintain flight in combat if the FLCS is damaged.
Because an aircraft is an exercise in practical compromises, its combat survivability is never deterministic. Technological enhancements in one or more sub-disciplines such as avionics may increases its vulnerability to the point where whatever advancements are simply not worth the integration or reduced the aircraft's versatility. Case in point is the F-117's new low radar observable technology. The technology was deemed worthwhile enough to integrate into the overall battle plans for the USAF but because the technology's own weaknesses limited the aircraft's usability to largely night time missions to reduce its vulnerability in the visual spectrum. When the technology progressed enough, that lack of versatility disappeared with the B-2, F-22, and F-35.
Large payload and distance, long or short, have next to nothing value regarding survivability.
.
