obrescia

There seems to be an enormous amount of hyperbole being bantered about?

Let discuss some fundamental basics:

Pilot physiology: the human body can only handle ~ +12G / -6G (blood sent to feet / blood sent to head). Because of this limit the maximum rate a plane can change flight direction and still maintain momentum is the so-called "corner speed" around 300 to 400 knots. An opponents missile that is detected by the pilot (target) can be nearly always be defeated by using a combination of corner speeds and release of expendables (chaff/flares).

Superagility (nose pointing): as the term implies the plane who can get his nose pointed at the other guys first, can employ weapons first and so you get the rest. Raptor has no apparent engine/airfoil advantage over Flanker in this regard. Problem compounded for Raptor as Flanker can use helmet-sighting. Then weapons system/missile seeker heads look where pilot looks. Flanker pilot decides where Raptor is/will be/should be…so real question; can F-22 turn (seems to have ~Typhoon corner speed maneuverability) faster than Flanker can nose point?



WVR vs BVR: bad guys are within visual range; pilots call ‘tallyho’ (or tally-2 for two planes etc) vs beyond visual range, using sensors, radar, vector from AWACS, etc to shoot “first”. Was done effectively in 1991 gulf war (perfect engagement conditions) but needed to facilitate this, in this case with France (French were not allowed to fly their Mirage F1 jets which Iraq also had, can’t have any IFF mishaps).



IFF: identification friend or foe. If no reply is received from the IFF transponder, the target continues to be an unknown. The IFF system is not used to declare a target hostile if they do not reply. Very often the pilot can have the wrong code (encryption key) selected, or the code is expired, and they will have an audible and visual alarm every time they are interrogated by IFF. If they can't clear the alarm they follow the pre-briefed safe passage procedures. USS Vincennes.



Kinematics:



a) The biggest issue facing an air force that fights by flying over hostile airspace is SAM defenses. All missiles have a highest kill probability engagement envelope of roughly ¼ to ¾ it’s published ‘range’. Raptor at high altitudes attempts to put some distance between its pilot and the SAM launchers so it buys time to defeat a possible SAM missile shot. Same issues with plane vs plane, you don’t want to fly into your opponents’ weapons envelope before you can shoot (back). Flanker carries 11-14 missiles (short & medium can be IR seekers), Raptor 8 (2 short IR seekers). Flanker can carry missiles w/rocket burn-times in the short, medium, long and very long ranges. Raptor carries short and medium but could in future carry other types under its wings, but then no stealth. Raptor (future?) helmet sighting will have increased airfoil blockage via internal weapons bays (plus bay door must be opened). Nod to Flanker on better seeker-head fields of view via hardpoint placement(s).

b) The argument could also be referring to how weapon systems number crunch target data. They must predict where the target is GOING TO BE from time = 0 to time = X so the actual weapon is directed to intercept (time = X). so if you can't "see" the target, you cant predict, cant predict, can't shoot (??).

Surprise: The element of surprise is paramount. Stealth and speed attempts to exploit surprise, flying around bubbles and attacking from another direction does also. Flight of Flankers simply turn about periodically and check the airspace around them for sneak up attacks, the Israelis employ this tactic.

Fuel: the first thing all pilots do after they acknowledge targets from AWACS is check their fuel status before any decision(s) on an intercept. And what does Flanker carry in enormous quantities? There is no substitute for being able to loiter on station.

Engines: engine selection determines fighter jet performance. Period.

China: Possesses large numbers of Flanker. Historically the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as worse than 'not good'.