Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

[MiG-21]

The opponents in those wars were mostly flying antiquated fighters which didn't even have a decent radar, let alone Jamming & other sophisticated decoys. I don't think those wars can be considered GOOD examples. Wonder what would have happened if the opponents were formidable, like for example the Russians, with full blown EW equipment at their disposal. Not all opponents might be Third World Countries, and the USAF known it. And so does the Europeans!

 

[Pfpilot]

We haven't had a true air to air gun kill since 1982 or so, the Bekaa valley campaign. And in Desert Storm, it wasn't the super-reliable AIM-9 that scored the most kills, it was the AIM-7. Pilots chose the AIM-7 because it allowed them to stand off and take the shot.

That is pretty crucial. It is unlikely pilots will willingly fly into a situation where shooting down and being shot down becomes a 50-50 proposition. Taking shots from a distance is where modern air warfare is headed. No stealth aircraft will want to go in close and negate it's very advantages against non stealth aircraft.
This applies to the Indo-Pak theatre too, I don't see su-30mkis or the f-16s engaging at close ranges unless it is an absolute necessity...once you get close in, it may simply come down to who gets that lucky first look...with high off bore sight capability and HMS becoming the norm, all it will take is one WVR missile and it doesn't matter what maneuvers a plane is capable of.
Low observability should be the goal above all else; it will allow the stealthier aircraft to chose when and where it engages and essentially avoid WVR combat unless they find it advantageous for themselves.

 

[MiG-21]

That is pretty crucial. It is unlikely pilots will willingly fly into a situation where shooting down and being shot down becomes a 50-50 proposition. Taking shots from a distance is where modern air warfare is headed. No stealth aircraft will want to go in close and negate it's very advantages against non stealth aircraft.

hmm.. wars are about achieving Strategic & Political objectives, not about kill count of enemy planes. The pilots don't decide where they want to fight or not, they simply follow orders to complete the mission. I don't think any pilot can simply abandon, for instance, the slow bomber he is escorting - or a crucial logistics/railway junction line he is guarding just because a situation arises where he has to face an opponent in WVR. That kind of a guy is a coward not a soldier.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

There are Lots of ambiguity about JF17.
Some sites says Thrust/weight of JF17 is 0.95.
Very few says It is 0.83.
Here i found something Funny on Wikipedia.
JF17 Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (2,205 km/h) {Should be 1.8 Mach for JF17}
LCA Maximum speed: Mach 1.8(2,138 km/h)
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HAL Tejas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How the fuc*k Mach1.6 is (2,205 km/h)
and Mach1.8(2,138 km/h)

Both LCA AND JF17, Speed in Kilometer per hour is calculated wrong.
Let we do Simple Math
As we know that
1 mach = 1 234.80 km/h
Then
1.6 Mach = 1 975.68 kilometers per hour (km/h)
and
1.8 Mach = 2 222.64 kilometers per hour (km/h)

Guys Don't believe every time on Wikipedia.
You can convert Mach into kilometers per hour or miles per hour from simple calculator from the website
Convert mach to kilometers per hour | speed and velocity conversion

And any Expert, please confirm the thrust to weight ratio of JF17. No updates.

 

[MastanKhan]

hmm.. wars are about achieving Strategic & Political objectives, not about kill count of enemy planes. The pilots don't decide where they want to fight or not, they simply follow orders to complete the mission. I don't think any pilot can simply abandon, for instance, the slow bomber he is escorting - or a crucial logistics/railway junction line he is guarding just because a situation arises where he has to face an opponent in WVR. That kind of a guy is a coward not a soldier.

Sir,

You missed the point brought up by the poster---what he is talking about is where the future of air warfare is headed---what you are talking about is something different----but even under your scenario, the war will start BVR--can the survivors get through and do WVR---that is the greatest expectation of the 21st century air warfare.

 

[Chogy]

^^ The future is also bombers that fly at night with no escort anyhow. (B-2) And "bombers" these days are fighters like the F-16 that can defend themselves.

Close escort isn't dead yet, but it's in de-fib and they are grabbing for the paddles.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

What people don't recognize the fact about putting a machine gun on an F22---is simply and purely for the reason of saving their jobs and reputation if something went wrong.

There is absolutely no reason for a 250 million dollar plane to but-t heads with a 75 million dollars plane----. It totally defeats the purpose of creating and installing that kind of technology in such an aircraft by out fitting an obsolete weapon on it.

'One who loves and runs away---will live to love another day'---.

In an air battle scenario---the F22 will be deployed for the systematic destruction of oncoming enemy aircraft from BVR, while other aircrafts and assets would be busy in destroying the ground support and air bases---. The enemy aircraft will be making wild chases in the air trying to confront the illusive F22 ( if there is any enemy aircraft left to chase ), thus exposing themselves and their vulnerabilities to the long reaches of the F22 weapons---.

When fighting an air battle---you cannot just sit and use your personal perspective----you have to look it through the eyes of the american fleet---. Your personal perspective is worthless---it has no basis---there is no epxerience behind it---and last but not the least---you have no clue what the u s air assets mean---unless you have seen them first hand---.

I experienced it first hand---in 1984---at the air show at Hill air base in utah-----a line of F16's stretching as far the eye could see---that base alone had possibly 250 plus F 16's at that time----whole of pak air force assets in one place or 2/3rd of indian air force assets in one base---and that was just one air base.

When we make discussions over here---some of us presume it to be fought in a similiar manner as that of the fight at O.K. corral---and both parties wouyld DUKE it out---aint' gonna happen that way---the opponent will come and play from his position of strength and stay away from its weaker side as much as it can---. In real terms---the opponent has no weaker side---it is strong and stronger side---.

 

[MiG-21]

Jobs? The RFPs are submitted by USAF, not Lockheed Martin. It is the USAF which wanted a Gun in there.

Saying F-22 will run away from its important mission, if a WVR confrontation occurs, does not make sense. In a war, there will be High value Assets and Targets which are more important than the risk of losing a few F-22s. Yes, BVR missiles will remain a primary weapon for a fighter, but that doesn't mean it can take on the job of a Secondary or a Tertiary line of Defence for a fighter, as well. I'm glad the USAF, the European Air forces & the Russian air force are made of realists and understand the need to have a close-in range weapon on their highly advanced fighters, rather than swayed by perfect-world arguments.

Fact of the matter is, these countries develop & mass-produce fighters & weapons keeping in mind of going to a possible war with Russia(a country which has full blown (EW)capabilities at its disposal backed up by its military-industrial complex), they are not designed for countries like Syria or Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan or Panama or any other pathetic third world country for that matter, but eventually end up fighting these poor bastards instead of the enemy it was originally designed for!

You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day, the reality is.. It has a gun for self defence! And that wasn't decided by some fans in some online defence forum, but by senior airmen who actually know how to fight a war and plan to win it. And this isn't an isolated phenomenon, Even the Russian T-50 and the J-20 will have an internal Gun(actually the Russian T-50 will have 2 internal guns!!), and Eurofighter and Rafale already has a gun. You can't beat reality with wishes!

And any Expert, please confirm the thrust to weight ratio of JF17.

They both are right. Thrust to weight is not a constant number. It varies on conditions. This list had different set of conditions compared to wikipedia's entry... hence the different numbers. Actually wikipedia's entry should be slightly lower. 0.93 instead of 0.95. 0.95 was during the prototype stage when the empty weight was slightly lower. And the speed is indeed 1.6M, not 1.8M... confirmed by PAC.

 

[MastanKhan]

Mig21,


I would like to use a quote from Hamilcar from strategy page dot com---"Its not two sides line up and scrimmage. Its my package sees your package and then":.

People need to understand---it is not possible to see the F22 in the air combat--by the time your pilots sees the aircraft for the first time----an average enemy air force would have been slaughtered by then----.

Seeing an F22---then getting a lock on it and then launching your missile at it---is like climbing the three top mountains in the world in the same instance---. You are just not fighting an F22 alone---you are fighting an air battle group---you are taking on the usaf air battle group as well---.

The F22 is the .50 calibre barret---the long range silent killer---you don't even know where the death is coming from---that alone jellos the knees and makes the bowels loose---the F22 is the silent assasin of the airs---it does it job and is long gone before the enemy knows of its presence.

 

[Rafael]

The F22 is the .50 calibre barret---the long range silent killer---you don't even know where the death is coming from---that alone jellos the knees and makes the bowels loose---the F22 is the silent assasin of the airs---it does it job and is long gone before the enemy knows of its presence.

An average airforce like PAF gets cold feet even at the sight of F-18s and F-15s, let alone an F-22!

 

[MiG-21]

For an average Airforce yes, but F-22 was not designed for an average airforce alone. Russia and China are also in the equation while designing it.

The problem is RCS of F-22 is classified. Even the much publicized "marble" is still not reliable enough because it doesn't give the radar bands, nor does it specify what is the size of the marble What size marble do you want although the marble size is irrelevant. lol
As you know, RCS of fighters is very different in different radar bands. F-22 is stealthy, but how stealthy, no one knows except for a few. Don't be surprised if the "0.5 calibre barret" F-22 shows up on an Russian or Chinese AWACS/GCI operating on low bands.

RCS depends on -
#Shape
#Materials
#Radar frequency/wavelength
#Position of the aircraft w.r.t the radar beam(different sides of the aircraft have different RCS)
#Ordinance(if carried on the outside)

It might be difficult to shoot down because for accurate tracking for the deployment of weapons, high frequency radar bands are required(the ones mounted on fighters), but detection is a different area.

I think the marble thing is for X-band or Ku-band, since this is the radar band used by fighter planes and BVR missiles. Who knows. Like I said its classified.
The lower the band gets, the higher the RCS hence greater the chance of detection. You can say why not straight away use the lower bands on fighters, but the problem is the lower the band, tracking accuracy for missile launch becomes a causality and also the antennae/dish size increases. But that doesn't stop a stealth aircraft from detection and nominal tracking by a GCI radar or an Awacs and vectoring fighters in that direction, or alerting them of an Raptor in their midst. Radar Bands -

The lower bands are to the left of X band.
The first designation is from IEEE, and the second is from Nato.

Then add in the whole EW, Decoys, Towed Decoys, Countermeasures, Jammers, this becomes more complicated than it is. It's better to be safe than sorry. It is better to have Maneuverability, HMS, short range missiles, and Guns than be sorry later for not having them. Like I said, 'these countries develop & mass-produce fighters & weapons keeping in mind of going to a possible war with Russia(a country which has full blown (EW)capabilities at its disposal backed up by its military-industrial complex), they are not designed for countries like Syria or Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan or Panama or any other pathetic third world country for that matter, but eventually end up fighting these poor bastards instead of the enemy it was originally designed for!'

There was also a reported kill by Growler on an F-22 was it not? Growler, a non-stealthy F-18 variant, but built for EW.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/47873-growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-22-kill.html

 

[Chogy]

There was also video of a lowly T-38 "gunning" an F-22. It means absolutely nothing. It was probably a gun tracking exercise. The F-22 was like a dojo dummy being pummeled by a student. No fighting back.

Here's the deal... weapons envelopes overlap, and are engineered that way. 20 years ago, the gun was good from 200 to 1000 meters. Of course it's good inside of 200 meters, but you will almost be guaranteed to be severely damaged by debris. The AIM-9 had a minimum range inside the gun range, but was not comfortable close in. It greatly preferred a mid-ranged shot. And the AIM-7 was the long stick.

The Soviets had a good thing in the Aphid missile. It could out-perform the AIM-9 close in. U.S> engineers improved the AIM-9 and reduced its minimum range. It is now a true dogfight missile, and the AIM-9 and gun envelopes overlap hugely. In other words, the AIM-9 can and does replace the gun in 98% of scenarios.

To USE the AIM-9 - two (sometimes one) button click. Uncage, fire. Takes about two seconds, can be done off boresight. To employ the gun requires you to solve an immensely difficult problem. Stabilize in the envelope, align fuselages, obtain lead, stabilize again, fire. It takes massive skill and a LOT of time. And the whole time, you are as predictable as one can be. Any lurking bandits will find you easy meat for an IR missile.

Shoot & scoot is the new paradigm. Point defense? Yes it can happen, but that doesn't mean you have to anchor over a spot on the ground. The long-ranged weapons allow you to defend a chunk of sky from another spot 20, 30 miles away.

I've beat this drum a thousand times here. Only a fool would toss out an anchor and start a big visual turning fight with a large number of bandits. It was a lot of fun to do it in practice, but in reality, it's a good way to die. The way to do it is to lurk on the periphery, peck away, fire and drag out, communicate with other flights.

A big visual fight is like 20 guys with baseball bats beating each other senseless. The real killers will be lurking 100 meters away with scoped rifles.

 

[MastanKhan]

An average airforce like PAF gets cold feet even at the sight of F-18s and F-15s, let alone an F-22!

Hi,

Any air force from a country like pakistan and even china---will be concerned at the sight of the F18s F 15s---because the real problem lies in what is behind them---( what is coming after them )---these aircraft are just the fore bearers of bad news---the real stuff is lurking in the dark.

Mig21,

An F 16 was also reported to have shot down an F22----but guess when----after--I believe 165 F16s were shot down---the in the 166th engagement the F 22 supposedly got it----.

 

[Donatello]

Hi,

Any air force from a country like pakistan and even china---will be concerned at the sight of the F18s F 15s---because the real problem lies in what is behind them---( what is coming after them )---these aircraft are just the fore bearers of bad news---the real stuff is lurking in the dark.

Mig21,

An F 16 was also reported to have shot down an F22----but guess when----after--I believe 165 F16s were shot down---the in the 166th engagement the F 22 supposedly got it----.

Mastan Jee,

This type of stuff and simulations, are hard to believe. For me at least. F-22s can carry, say 8 AIM 120 Amraams in stealth mode, that is carrying them all concealed. So if all 8 are used in air to air and all confirm kills, 8 potential targets are destroyed. Beyond which, F-22 doesn't have ammunition to shoot down the remaining, say 158 F-16s out of the 166.

But none-the less the F-22s have a sharper blade in terms of avionics and can rule the sky.

 

[gambit]

RCS depends on -
#Shape
#Materials
#Radar frequency/wavelength
#Position of the aircraft w.r.t the radar beam(different sides of the aircraft have different RCS)
#Ordinance(if carried on the outside)

True. We can dispense with external stores for now.

I think the marble thing is for X-band or Ku-band, since this is the radar band used by fighter planes and BVR missiles. Who knows. Like I said its classified.
The lower the band gets, the higher the RCS hence greater the chance of detection. You can say why not straight away use the lower bands on fighters, but the problem is the lower the band, tracking accuracy for missile launch becomes a causality and also the antennae/dish size increases.

Am going to clarify on this...Why is the X-band the preferred for the majority of 'high value' targets targeting criteria...

In order to effectively monitor any MOVING objects over time across spatial and coordinated systems, we need 'slices' of time and medium. The medium is EM energy. The 'slices' of time are created by the 'on/off' mode of operation of the medium. In the illustration above, these 'slices' of time and medium are called 'pulses'. Between pulses, or 'inter-pulse' periods, we are effectively blind. The analogy is the blinking of our eyes. When we blink, we cannot see for that brief moment our eyes are closed, and we when opened them again, we see a person in a slightly different position than before. Each blink is analogous to each radar pulse.

In radar detection, detection and tracking of a target is possible by the leading and trailing edges of each pulse over time. The higher this rate of record keeping, the smaller the spatial displacement of the target that we see. The analogy here is the high shutter speed camera. The higher the shutter rate 'blinks' the better the 'slo-mo' visualization of the target, especially for sports actions.

So from the above illustration, the longer the freq, the longer the 'slices' of time and medium or pulses we can create. But if the goal is to monitor very closely the movement of a target over time in space, then the shorter the freq, the shorter the pulses, hence the more accurate tracking of said target. Just like those millions of cycles high shutter speed cameras that captured shot bullets or exploding balloons. The high shutter speed is analogous to short EM freqs.

First problem to keep in mind: Because these pulses are effectively on/off switches, we have a finite amount of energy per pulse.

Now the question is: Why not use as high freq as possible to keep very close monitoring of a moving target over time in space?

Second problem...The ten-lambda rule...

What the 'ten lambda' rule mean is that: For every wavelength (lambda), if the target has a curvature and if said curvature is less than ten wavelength, the signal will travel around the curvature and return to source direction. If said curvature is greater than ten wavelengths, then as the signal travels on said curvature, signal loss (attenuation) will be on the 'shadow' region, away from source direction.

The ten-lambda rule is why the millimetric bands are preferred in meteorology. Each raindrop's diameter is only a few millimeters across, making said raindrop easily detectable. For military purposes, this is not good. It means that hydrometeors (rain or snow related) can interfere while trying to detect a target that may be hostile. Raise the freq up to centimetric (cm) and the problem is greatly alleviated. Raise the detection freq up to metric and raindrops will be ignored but will result in slower target update rate.

This is why the X or centimetric band is so popular for military purposes. It offers the best compromise between target updates and atmospheric losses.