# New fighter aircraft



## Torch (Mar 28, 2006)

There's been a bunch of new fighters coming out ex:Grippen,Rafael,Typhoon,F-22,SU-27,Migs etc. Is there anyplace to look up on how they would match up against each other? Or does anyone know if there's been joint excersises matching these planes up. I know India was bragging that they "defeated" a US "attack" with their Migs against F15's but that was a bit staged..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

Torch said:


> There's been a bunch of new fighters coming out ex:Grippen,Rafael,Typhoon,F-22,SU-27,Migs etc. Is there anyplace to look up on how they would match up against each other? Or does anyone know if there's been joint excersises matching these planes up. I know India was bragging that they "defeated" a US "attack" with their Migs against F15's but that was a bit staged..


 This was in some earlier posts....

The IAF defeated the USAF in Cope India excersizes - the F-15s could take on the 3 and 4 to 1 odds they normally defeat in these excersizes.

2 to 1 is a different story.


----------



## R988 (Mar 29, 2006)

I vaguely remember a study against an Su-35

F-22 would get 10 kills for every loss
Typhoon would get 5 kills for every loss
Rafale/Gripen would get 1 kill for every loss
F-15C/F/A-18E would get 0.75 kills for every loss.

This is from memory though so those figures probably aren't exact, but the order is pretty much the same I think. I can't remember any other determining factors either so it could be way off as it's hard to know what scenarios they are considering and all that.

So for current generation you can probably assume F-22 is best
Typhoon next best
Su-35/Rafale/Gripen roughly equal


----------



## Torch (Mar 29, 2006)

Thanks. I was just curious besides the IAF/USAF shindig if anybody had gone head to head yet. Know f-18's went up against Luftwaffe M-29s but they were a little vague on the results(military channel). Appreciate the feed back.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

Didn't the US purchase something like a dozen or so Mig-29's from Moldova a bunch of years back? No need to paint F-5's and F-16's to look like Russian planes when you've got the real thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Didn't the US purchase something like a dozen or so Mig-29's from Moldova a bunch of years back? No need to paint F-5's and F-16's to look like Russian planes when you've got the real thing.


 They did - one's sitting at Wright Patterson AFB...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 21, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This was in some earlier posts....
> 
> The IAF defeated the USAF in Cope India excersizes - the F-15s could take on the 3 and 4 to 1 odds they normally defeat in these excersizes.
> 
> 2 to 1 is a different story.



I read about them using the vectored thrust to manuever to defeat the F-15 pulse doppler (an old technique red flag has used). This can be made to become trivial. I suspect the AF used this to promote F-22. I think the F-15, with updated avionics and concepts and, maybe new long range missiles, could easily handle any projected threat for 20 years. The F-22 would not need the long range missiles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2006)

well this tread isn't going anywhere and it's remotely related to my question, which i didn't really think was worthy of it's own thread, so here i am, i was just reading about the Eurofighter and it mentioned 'wet' hard points, and i was wondering what the hell they are  it's not a hard point for the plumbing to add a drop tank is it?


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2006)

I don't think I have heard that terminology. I suspect your answer is correct. The station is plumbed for fuel tanks.


----------



## Aggie08 (May 4, 2006)

I read about them using the vectored thrust to manuever to defeat the F-15 pulse doppler (an old technique red flag has used).

How would that work?? How would it mess with radar?


----------



## davparlr (May 4, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> I read about them using the vectored thrust to manuever to defeat the F-15 pulse doppler (an old technique red flag has used).
> 
> How would that work?? How would it mess with radar?



Fighter planes use pulse doppler radar for air-to-air detection. Pulse doppler radar detects radial velocity of a target, i.e. how fast a target is closing or leaving your aircraft along a radial line using doppler shift (frequency shift like a train or car going by). When an aircraft detects a lock-on by such a radar, the pilot can alter course perpendicular to the direction of the emiter. This makes the radial velocity zero and breaks the lock. By complex maneuvering and controlling the radial velocity, an aircraft can sneak up on a searching aircraft. A note here, the emiting aircraft has a beacon (the radar) so the first aircraft only needs to home in on the emitting aircraft with out turning on its radar transmitter. There are ways to defeat this but I don't know enough to discuss.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 5, 2006)

Sounds like there would be too many G's for the human pilot to handle, pulling a perpendicular move like that, to show a radial velocity of zero....


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Sounds like there would be too many G's for the human pilot to handle, pulling a perpendicular move like that, to show a radial velocity of zero....



No. It is not a perpendicular turn, but a turn to the perpendicular. If you were flying south and a detected radar was due south, you would want to turn either east or west in order to reduce the closure speed. Rate of turn would not necessarily be important, depending on range. This is simplistic and the maneuvers are undoubtably difficult to maintain. The object is to keep the closure speed to the detecting aircraft at a minimum. Hope this helps.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 5, 2006)

I'm not sure I believe the radar wouldn't pick up a turn, no matter how sharp. I'll have to agree with lesofprimus on this one. The doppler effect when used on moving objects as it relates to tracking based on radar involves wavelengths that cannot be just "turned in between to show a radial velocity of zero". Once you turned, you would have to turn again, otherwise you would be "caught", so you would be in a vicious cycle of turns...


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> I'm not sure I believe the radar wouldn't pick up a turn, no matter how sharp. I'll have to agree with lesofprimus on this one. The doppler effect when used on moving objects as it relates to tracking based on radar involves wavelengths that cannot be just "turned in between to show a radial velocity of zero". Once you turned, you would have to turn again, otherwise you would be "caught", so you would be in a vicious cycle of turns...



Airbore doppler has a window of radial velocities that it accepts for tracking. Otherwise, there would be too many targets to track. Depending on range, the radar may not pick up the turn and no matter if it did, as soon as the radial velocity falls out of the window, the target is rejected and not tracked and is not reported as a detection until the window of velocity is entered again. A spiraling approach to the emitter may never be seen. I did say this could be defeated, and I also said this would be a difficult maneuver but I understand that the F-5s in red flag used this effectively against F-4s, most likely to break lock since the F-4 uses sparrows which require constant illumination for missile track. New radars are much more powerful with much better processing so I suspect this has been reduced somewhat. Also, the AMRAAM does not need constant illumination in order to fly to the target.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 6, 2006)

Pulse-doppler radar is based on the fact that targets moving with a nonzero radial velocity will introduce a phase-shift between successive pulses for the sample volume containing the target. Target velocity can therefore be estimated by determining the average phase-shift between successive pulses within a pulse packet. Real characteristics of a returned signal from a target may vary due to: wind shear, turbulence, differential fall velocity (particularly at high angles of attack), antenna rotation, and variation in refraction of microwave fronts. The generation of radar used in F-4s could be tricked into not seeing an approaching aircraft due to this differential fall velocity. All this being said, considering our thread, the radar in the current-generation of US fighter aircraft is more than capable of tracking an incoming adversary, regardless of thrust-vectoring, jinking, etc.


----------



## davparlr (May 7, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Pulse-doppler radar is based on the fact that targets moving with a nonzero radial velocity will introduce a phase-shift between successive pulses for the sample volume containing the target. Target velocity can therefore be estimated by determining the average phase-shift between successive pulses within a pulse packet. Real characteristics of a returned signal from a target may vary due to: wind shear, turbulence, differential fall velocity (particularly at high angles of attack), antenna rotation, and variation in refraction of microwave fronts. The generation of radar used in F-4s could be tricked into not seeing an approaching aircraft due to this differential fall velocity. All this being said, considering our thread, the radar in the current-generation of US fighter aircraft is more than capable of tracking an incoming adversary, regardless of thrust-vectoring, jinking, etc.



I think we are saying the same thing. If we go back to my original comment which was based on the Indian claim of defeating the F-15 in simulated combat. I did some internet research that indicated that the Indians had use thrust vectoring to defeat the F-15 radar. I said, roughly, that that was strange because breaking doppler lock techniques are not new and can be defeated easily. I said that I suspect the AF may have been playing a "we have to have the F-22" game.


----------

