Iran unveils A2A BVR missile Fakour
- Thread starter Zarvan
- Start date
Fafnir
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Its a reverse engineered aim54,tho I would think that just like irans us supplied hawk and rim66 sams or chinese ashcm it would have been heavily re-engineered with most of/all of the internals replaced with far more up to date components,indeed its very likely that the only original aim54 component left is the design of the missiles airframe
No, space based early warning is designed to warn possible ballistic missile launch. Not to be used as alternative to AEW. And AWACs aircraft are heavily protected and enemy aircraft would be intercepted very early. Probably wouldn't even know you are being tailed.
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
There are many discussions about high kinematic performance VLO fighters equipped with very long range AAMs (200-400km) getting close enough for a shot and disengaging without entering the interception envelope of protecting fighters.
The vulnerability of AEW aircraft with these emerging capabilities is up for discussion, maybe space based early warning is the solution for the future.
The vulnerability of AEW aircraft with these emerging capabilities is up for discussion, maybe space based early warning is the solution for the future.
You seem to think that the escort fighter aircraft would be just next to the AWACs instead of hundreds of kilometers away and in friendly airspace. Space based early warning is never a good alternative to AWACs. Otherwise countries like Russia and China wouldn't keep on making them.
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
I recommend you to check the numbers (AEW radar range and LRAAM range) then also the warning and engagement times involved.
This is a emerging capability of only a few countries, like ASBM, anti-access, areal denial. Up to today AEW aircraft make good sense.
Point is: The radar range of a E-3 is limited, if its effectively 600km. A PAK-FA with a KS-172 keeps it away from the battlefield for 400km so that with all involved factors 100-200km early warning capability is left available.
Now you may think F-22 on CAP station 200km around the E-3 will make the difference?
No, with involved engagement times a PAK-FA can dash into the engagement zone, release the weapon and disengage. F-22 with with AIM-120D would be very lucky to engage the supercruise fleeing PAK-FA...
This is a emerging capability of only a few countries, like ASBM, anti-access, areal denial. Up to today AEW aircraft make good sense.
Point is: The radar range of a E-3 is limited, if its effectively 600km. A PAK-FA with a KS-172 keeps it away from the battlefield for 400km so that with all involved factors 100-200km early warning capability is left available.
Now you may think F-22 on CAP station 200km around the E-3 will make the difference?
No, with involved engagement times a PAK-FA can dash into the engagement zone, release the weapon and disengage. F-22 with with AIM-120D would be very lucky to engage the supercruise fleeing PAK-FA...
Tokhme khar
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
yeah no kidding. Most of the recent intercept shots of F-22's I have seen show it carrying huge drop tanks, struggling to keep up with the 'super cruising' Tu-16MS's or the usual Tu-22M3's/ Tu-160's. Fair to say the raptor looks very short legged.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
How can one tell from a photo that the F-22 was 'struggling' ?
Point is: We do not plan our air tactics on what Russia may have but what is available. Let US know when the PRAT-FALL is deployed in tactically usable numbers.
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Fair enough, except for that PRAT-FALL comment.
However the US has many other means to compensate a loss in AEW capability.
But for the IRIAF with its limited means to go for AEW aircraft in this age where their surviveability and effective operation is challenged by high-tech airforces... not a good idea. The ground based IADS was the right choice.
However the US has many other means to compensate a loss in AEW capability.
But for the IRIAF with its limited means to go for AEW aircraft in this age where their surviveability and effective operation is challenged by high-tech airforces... not a good idea. The ground based IADS was the right choice.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
The F-22 has no problem keeping up with most objects in the sky really, but short legged =/= slow. The F-22 is short ranged but by no means is it slow.
Fledgingwings
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Max Range ? and is it tested ?
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Tokhme khar
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 2,507
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
short legged means short ranged......unless we make up a new meaning......within 10 minutes of cruising along a Bear doing 600 knots, F-22's have to turn back due to fuel. F-35 is even worse. Look up pics of raptors flying alongside bears with huge drop tanks! lol. It's a joke.
Fledgingwings
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Looks similiar to Aim54 Phoenix.
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
ALCON,
The use of drop tanks for ANY aircraft performing CAPs is pretty standard, so the F-22 using them wouldn't be remotely unusual. The whole point of CAPs are to cover as much "ground" as possible and to do so you have two choices: external tanks or A2A refueling. A2A refueling, while doable, is logistically much more complicated (& expensive), where as drop tanks as the MUCH simpler option. Just Google "USAF Russian Bomber" and you'll find a treasure trove of various fighters (F-15s, F-22s, Typhoons, etc) carrying external tanks while intercepting Russian bombers. Why? Because these aircraft were on CAPs prior to be vectoring to the intruder and as such, were carrying externals.
Case in point, with those two external fuel tanks plus internal fuel, a F-22 has the potential range of some ~3000km (likely not using it's "supercruise" at all)...and that's without any A2A refueling. That's exactly the kind of range and configuration you'd expect for an aircraft on a CAP. Are there fighters out there with better fuel economy? Sure, the Flanker family is famous for their fuel-economy, but given they're dimensionally larger than the F-22s and didn't have to sacrifice internal space for a full complement of A2A missiles, I'd said it's a fair trade. The PAK-FA could very well have better range as well, given it's noticeably larger dimensions.
Now, the tanks do ruin the low RCS of course, but then again, "stealth" isn't quite as a high a priority when you're flying under the cover of E-3's in your own airspace and only being vectored towards a "lost" bomber. Should the F-22s be dispatched to someone else's airspace on the other hand or to a fighter that was "lost", those tanks will get scarce real quick..0
Tokhme khar,
Just a quick correction, the F-22 wouldn't really need to worry about catching up to a "Bear" doing 600kts...because the "Bear" can't do 600kts. To be clear, 600kts equates to ~690mph/1100kph (which would be supersonic at typical cruising altitude). The Bear's maximum speed (depending on source material) is somewhere between 515-574mph or 830-925kph.
The use of drop tanks for ANY aircraft performing CAPs is pretty standard, so the F-22 using them wouldn't be remotely unusual. The whole point of CAPs are to cover as much "ground" as possible and to do so you have two choices: external tanks or A2A refueling. A2A refueling, while doable, is logistically much more complicated (& expensive), where as drop tanks as the MUCH simpler option. Just Google "USAF Russian Bomber" and you'll find a treasure trove of various fighters (F-15s, F-22s, Typhoons, etc) carrying external tanks while intercepting Russian bombers. Why? Because these aircraft were on CAPs prior to be vectoring to the intruder and as such, were carrying externals.
Case in point, with those two external fuel tanks plus internal fuel, a F-22 has the potential range of some ~3000km (likely not using it's "supercruise" at all)...and that's without any A2A refueling. That's exactly the kind of range and configuration you'd expect for an aircraft on a CAP. Are there fighters out there with better fuel economy? Sure, the Flanker family is famous for their fuel-economy, but given they're dimensionally larger than the F-22s and didn't have to sacrifice internal space for a full complement of A2A missiles, I'd said it's a fair trade. The PAK-FA could very well have better range as well, given it's noticeably larger dimensions.
Now, the tanks do ruin the low RCS of course, but then again, "stealth" isn't quite as a high a priority when you're flying under the cover of E-3's in your own airspace and only being vectored towards a "lost" bomber. Should the F-22s be dispatched to someone else's airspace on the other hand or to a fighter that was "lost", those tanks will get scarce real quick..0
Tokhme khar,
Just a quick correction, the F-22 wouldn't really need to worry about catching up to a "Bear" doing 600kts...because the "Bear" can't do 600kts. To be clear, 600kts equates to ~690mph/1100kph (which would be supersonic at typical cruising altitude). The Bear's maximum speed (depending on source material) is somewhere between 515-574mph or 830-925kph.
Similar threads
