Smallest possible interceptor for small nation with stealth feature.

Status
Not open for further replies.
topspeed3

topspeed3

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
31 January 2011
Messages
299
Reaction score
81
I have been working on concept level on this kinda headache at Key Publishing site.
Paralay ( who also comments here ) says a 28-29 ft long fighter jet with radar cannot be done !
Could we discuss this here ( without me having to bring any drawings around to prove it ) ?
 
I'm sure a weak radar or a pod-mounted radar would be possible.

The pod mounted radar might actually allow BVR engagments - although I doubt your fighter would be able to carry missiles as well...

Why not just go with an infra-red system? 25 kilometer acquisition... and can use missiles at this range. Ground control or other radar equipped platforms can be used for vectoring (and such a small fighter would have a limited range - so it would always be near other assets). You also wouldn't need to worry about emissions from the radar (so the avionics cost would go down).
 
Avimimus said:
Why not just go with an infra-red system? 25 kilometer acquisition... and can use missiles at this range. Ground control or other radar equipped platforms can be used for vectoring
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure latest FLIR/IRST systems can do better than that.
Passive sensors also have the advantage that they don't help everybody else see you, like radar.
 
Avimimus said:
I'm sure a weak radar or a pod-mounted radar would be possible.

The pod mounted radar might actually allow BVR engagments - although I doubt your fighter would be able to carry missiles as well...

Why not just go with an infra-red system? 25 kilometer acquisition... and can use missiles at this range. Ground control or other radar equipped platforms can be used for vectoring (and such a small fighter would have a limited range - so it would always be near other assets). You also wouldn't need to worry about emissions from the radar (so the avionics cost would go down).
Click to expand...

Hello Avimimus !

I realized that new engines like PW545 and PW535 are just 317-400 kilos dry unlike F-86 engine of 1200 + kg.
Also the carbons and composites can take the weight down another 20-30%..remembering that the plane is already lighter by 50% when powerplant is considered ( like HTF7500 E ).
This site sports many 1970s designs from Boeing, Northrop and Lockheed with 29 ft long fuse and delta wing ( never built ).
They have reclined seating of 51 degs or more ( almost like F-16 ).
AN/APG 67 and most of all the new AESAs can be taylored to any size practically...so the radar pod or dome is really small.
Wing form like delta or double cranked delta or some AFTI designs feature interesting wing forms that save space tramendously and house lotsa fuel.
Most space is saved if rocket boosters were in use to obtain supercruise or mach 1 + speeds ( for just small emergency briefly ). Turbofan just for loitering and cruise etc.
Forward moved non after burning turbo fan actually save enermous amount of space ( small/short inlets and no long tube at the rear ).
If you wanna use AAMs concealed go to see MBDA MICA..that is really small in comparison to AIM-120 or R-77 etc even AIM-9 is pretty big.
Small size brings also more stealth to it...if form and materials are stealth enough.

Just my 10 cents to this.

PS: Folland Gnat was pre AFTI but still pretty small jet fighter...also known as the Sabre Slayer.
 
Here is what the relative size means in real life.

LA-15_F-86_GM1_GNAT_45.jpg

Folland Gnat was much smaller than F-86 but became known as the " SABRE SLAYER" since the India AF small Gnats beat Orenda powered F-86s of 29.8 kN of the Pakistan AF.
The relative power to the GM-1 is indicated in ( below) the real power. All planes are displayed in the same scale. Small LA-15 is actually almost even in power with F-86 when relative size is considered.
 
Here are my 2 cents:

If you want to design the smallest possible aircraft, you should first list what it needs to carry to complete its mission:
  • pair of small AAMs internally (about 200kg)
  • small autocannon and ammunition (about 200kg)
  • pilot, pressurized cockpit, ejector seat, instrumentation (at least 500kg)
  • AESA radar (300-400kg for typical unit - you can go with a small radar with performance penalty)
Then there are some things which are proportional to the combat weight:
  • Air-frame for a supersonic fighter (with decent g-limit) will be about 30% of combat weight
  • Low-bypass afterburning turbofan (will all accessories and the fuel system) sized for 0.9 T/W will be about 15% combat weight
  • Flight controls, and bare minimum avionics for all-weather flight will be about 5%
  • Fuel for a decent range will be about 25%
So an optimistic rough estimate is 5,000-kg aircraft. That would be about 10 to 11-m (33-36 feet) long.
 
There are several main problems see with this:

To be an interceptor you must be fast in order to meet the enemy as far away from the target as possible.
  • To get there you need to be fast, which means a relatively large engine.
  • To meet them farther out you need fuel and lots of it (since you will be going as fast as possible to get there).
  • To be effective, you will need at least 4 AAMs
  • To be VLO, you will need everything internal (radar, IRST, fuel, engine, weapons, etc)
  • Items 2-5 mean you will not be small.
 
AdamF said:
Here are my 2 cents:

If you want to design the smallest possible aircraft, you should first list what it needs to carry to complete its mission:
  • pair of small AAMs internally (about 200kg)
  • small autocannon and ammunition (about 200kg)
  • pilot, pressurized cockpit, ejector seat, instrumentation (at least 500kg)
  • AESA radar (300-400kg for typical unit - you can go with a small radar with performance penalty)
Then there are some things which are proportional to the combat weight:
  • Air-frame for a supersonic fighter (with decent g-limit) will be about 30% of combat weight
  • Low-bypass afterburning turbofan (will all accessories and the fuel system) sized for 0.9 T/W will be about 15% combat weight
  • Flight controls, and bare minimum avionics for all-weather flight will be about 5%
  • Fuel for a decent range will be about 25%
So an optimistic rough estimate is 5,000-kg aircraft. That would be about 10 to 11-m (33-36 feet) long.
Click to expand...

This is good reasoning.
LA-15 was 2725 kg empty and Gnat about 2175 kg, but Scaled Composite ARES only 1300 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

Small AN/APG-67 weighs 72 kilos. 2 AAMs like you said 200-240 kg. Soviet designed GSH-300 cannon about 47 kilos ( + ammo ).
I'd claim Mtow 5000 kg and 2200 kg empty. 28.6 ft long.

:eek:
 
SpudmanWP said:
There are several main problems see with this:

To be an interceptor you must be fast in order to meet the enemy as far away from the target as possible.
  • To get there you need to be fast, which means a relatively large engine.
  • To meet them farther out you need fuel and lots of it (since you will be going as fast as possible to get there).
  • To be effective, you will need at least 4 AAMs
  • To be VLO, you will need everything internal (radar, IRST, fuel, engine, weapons, etc)
  • Items 2-5 mean you will not be small.
Click to expand...

Relatively large engine...relative to what...let's say you have to have 1:1 or better power to weight ratio right ?
Engine burns less if it has smaller engine.

J-20 burns 90 000 liters an hour at full AB and a PW535 equipped plane around 650 kilos ( 780-800 liters ) an hour at full thrust. Both can have the same climb rate ( which is important in intercepting an oncoming foe ). If the plane has 170 rounds for 27 mm cannon and 2 AAMs concealed I think it is ok....you can sent more planes if there are more foes right ?
I said specifically small country..where the enemy is always 200-400 km away from the nations AF bases. So 1-2 hours worth fuel is plenty. 2 x small JATOs could boost it to max speed in really small time frame/window.
 
The question I'd ask is "do we even want a point defense interceptor anymore?"

That's what a micro-sized stealthy fighter has to be -- it doesn't have the fuel for long endurance, the missile supply for combat persistence, or the large radar aperture for long range intercepts.

At that point, why not just deploy a battery of Patriot or S-300 SAMs instead?
 
TomS said:
The question I'd ask is "do we even want a point defense interceptor anymore?"

That's what a micro-sized stealthy fighter has to be -- it doesn't have the fuel for long endurance, the missile supply for combat persistence, or the large radar aperture for long range intercepts.

At that point, why not just deploy a battery of Patriot or S-300 SAMs instead?
Click to expand...

I'd claim that a really small stealth fighter is totally invisible ( to any radar ) and thus more effective in intercepting. It could also intercept any UAV or UCAV. Besides no one can afford to protect all hunderds of cities with missile batteries. You can always try to chase the foe with an interceptor.

???
 
Assuming that a small country could afford & had the tech level for all the avionics & vlo airframe involved, then you would have to assume that the enemy would also have the same level of tech.

So all things being equal a heavyweight fighter outclasses a lightweight fighter.

F-15 vs F-16
SU-27 vs Mig-29
SU-35 vs Mig-35
F-22 vs F-35

Btw, a gun on your design is an absolute waste of space. With such a small fuel load and only two missiles, the absolute worst thing you could do is to get into a dogfight with an enemy who has missiles to spare.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Btw, a gun on your design is an absolute waste of space. With such a small fuel load and only two missiles, the absolute worst thing you could do is to get into a dogfight with an enemy who has missiles to spare.
Click to expand...

Unless he doesn't see you at all..plane being so small and stealthy..should I reveal an illustration ?
 
Ever heard of EODAS?

No such thing as too small to see.

If it can pick up a MANPADS from miles away, it can pick you up long before you get into gun range.

No need for an illustration as I’ve seen the thread over at KP.


Then there is the issue of avionics capability.

A bigger airframe means a bigger radar, bigger IRST, bigger ESM, internal jammers, DIRCM, more electrical power, etc. This means that they are likely to see you before you see them and can defend themselves more effectively than you can.

Then there is internal missile load. You having conformal missiles will cause you to lose any RCS advantage you had by being small.

So in the end you have a comparable (or larger RCS), a smaller radar, smaller IRST, less effective ESM & jammers, less airtime, less missiles, etc vs the inbound enemy.

Still think it’s a good idea?
 
SpudmanWP said:
Ever heard of EODAS?

No such thing as too small to see.

If it can pick up a MANPADS from miles away, it can pick you up long before you get into gun range.

No need for an illustration as I’ve seen the thread over at KP.


Then there is the issue of avionics capability.

A bigger airframe means a bigger radar, bigger IRST, bigger ESM, internal jammers, DIRCM, more electrical power, etc. This means that they are likely to see you before you see them and can defend themselves more effectively than you can.

Then there is internal missile load. You having conformal missiles will cause you to lose any RCS advantage you had by being small.

So in the end you have a comparable (or larger RCS), a smaller radar, smaller IRST, less effective ESM & jammers, less airtime, less missiles, etc vs the inbound enemy.

Still think it’s a good idea?
Click to expand...

Okay did you read the fighting tactic with this one ?

To fly tree top level subsonic and once under or sorta away from the radar to go up and strike from behind where the foe has less radars usually ( ignite the RATOs and speed up to 300 m/s climb ). Subsonic with no tail pipe visible where the radar can lock onto.

Other was to climb to 35 000 meters and attack at mach 2.5-3.0 dive to the foe. This almost certainly means to be on a watch out waiting for the foe. With small efficient engine this can/could loiter 3 hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37_electro-optical_Distributed_Aperture_System
 
SpudmanWP said:
Still think it’s a good idea?
Click to expand...
Depends on who do you think will come knocking at your door. USA or - let's say - Nigeria?
 
perttime said:
SpudmanWP said:
Still think it’s a good idea?
Click to expand...
Depends on who do you think will come knocking at your door. USA or - let's say - Nigeria?
Click to expand...
Well there is an other point...if the plane is small and can fly slow so that no EODAS can detect it or IRST ( no heat signature and 1/5th of the F-22 RCS ) it can always come close enuf with superior clim rate to use the cannon...not necessasily GSH 300 but lets say GAU-22 or BK27.
 
You cannot sneak past EODAS. Your nice hot airframe will show up nicely vs the cooler earth beneath you.


You will also show up on radar, especially if you are hugging the ground and not presenting your best RCS view to the attacker.


1/5 the rcs of the F-22?? Not with JATO and external AAMs.


Assuming best case scenario and you manage to sneak past them , as soon as you light the JATOs, EODAS picks you up. JATOs only last for a few seconds so assuming 15 seconds of burn gets you to 4500 meters (14763 ft), which is well below the enemy.

If you think you are getting to 100K feet on those stubby wings and still have a 3 hour loiter time… I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ;D
 
SpudmanWP said:
You cannot sneak past EODAS. Your nice hot airframe will show up nicely vs the cooler earth beneath you.


You will also show up on radar, especially if you are hugging the ground and not presenting your best RCS view to the attacker.


1/5 the rcs of the F-22?? Not with JATO and external AAMs.


Assuming best case scenario and you manage to sneak past them , as soon as you light the JATOs, EODAS picks you up. JATOs only last for a few seconds so assuming 15 seconds of burn gets you to 4500 meters (14763 ft), which is well below the enemy.

If you think you are getting to 100K feet on those stubby wings and still have a 3 hour loiter time… I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ;D
Click to expand...

I am claiming that...there is always a blind spot in any system..why else would SU-27/SU-35 etc have radar both forward and behind ?
I am actually havin AC that is 1/5th in surface of F-22 meaning 1/25th of the RCS if the quality is same and materials etc.
3 hours easily with 160 kg/m2 wing loading and at least in 24 km.

Keep your bridge..I don't need it.

B)
 
You are aware that EODAS has been SHOWN to track objects as small as artillery shells flying through the air?? You are not going to sneak past it.

Seriously?? You are basing RCS comparisons on surface area??? You clearly do not have a clue about RCS especially since you are using external stores, target aspect, and JATO bottles.
 
SpudmanWP said:
You are aware that EODAS has been SHOWN to track objects as small as artillery shells flying through the air?? You are not going to sneak past it.

Seriously?? You are basing RCS comparisons on surface area??? You clearly do not have a clue about RCS especially since you are using external stores, target aspect, and JATO bottles.
Click to expand...
I said this goes past the detection range subsonic that is under 300 m/s..this wont heat up...and yez..missiles are conceald ( 2 outa 6 ).

See my blog; http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

All are concealed even the engine ( most of all ).

I have very good idea of the RCS..it is another thing can I manufacture it..most likely not.

Yes size is one thing..then the form/shape and last but not least the material on the plane.
 
topspeed3 said:
Well there is an other point...if the plane is small and can fly slow so that no EODAS can detect it or IRST ( no heat signature and 1/5th of the F-22 RCS ) it can always come close enuf with superior clim rate to use the cannon...not necessasily GSH 300 but lets say GAU-22 or BK27.
Click to expand...

Everything has a heat signature. For it to be below the detection threshold of a modern IRST, the object would have to be *very* close to the values of the background. IR signature is much more than just the temperature of the airframe.

topspeed3 said:
I am actually havin AC that is 1/5th in surface of F-22 meaning 1/25th of the RCS if the quality is same and materials etc.
Click to expand...

Uh..... how does THAT work, exactly?
 
quellish said:
topspeed3 said:
Well there is an other point...if the plane is small and can fly slow so that no EODAS can detect it or IRST ( no heat signature and 1/5th of the F-22 RCS ) it can always come close enuf with superior clim rate to use the cannon...not necessasily GSH 300 but lets say GAU-22 or BK27.


I am actually havin AC that is 1/5th in surface of F-22 meaning 1/25th of the RCS if the quality is same and materials etc.
Click to expand...

Uh..... how does THAT work, exactly?
Click to expand...


Size is not just the surface..the volume is...volumetric mass is A^2 ! My plane is 2600 kg in lite combat load and J-20 is 38 000 kilos. That is just 15 times smaller in mass....but gives the idea. Concealed bays alone in F-22 are 1/3 bigger than the volume of this entire AC.
 
There is also the “Black Hole” effect to deal with.

When viewing a VLO object (assuming correct orientation) from above, there is no radar return for the ground beneath the object. This creates a spot on the radar where “nothing” appeared. This is odd in and of itself, but is usually ignored if it would act natural.

However, a moving spot of “nothing” that is going in a straight line would attract the attention of any decent radar algorithm. The IRST would then confirm that the spot of “nothing” is indeed your inbound fighter which would then receive some very quick and deadly attention.


Now you’re looking at volume to compare RCS??? You really have no clue do you?

RCS is all about shape and how to control the reflectivity of inbound radar waves. The best angle of any VLO fighter is straight on from an even level. As you move away from a head-on view (from above, below, or from the sides), the RCS goes up.
 
SpudmanWP said:
There is also the “Black Hole” effect to deal with.

When viewing a VLO object (assuming correct orientation) from above, there is no radar return for the ground beneath the object. This creates a spot on the radar where “nothing” appeared. This is odd in and of itself, but is usually ignored if it would act natural.

However, a moving spot of “nothing” that is going in a straight line would attract the attention of any decent radar algorithm. The IRST would then confirm that the spot of “nothing” is indeed your inbound fighter which would then receive some very quick and deadly attention.


Now you’re looking at volume to compare RCS??? You really have no clue do you?

RCS is all about shape and how to control the reflectivity of inbound radar waves. The best angle of any VLO fighter is straight on from an even level. As you move away from a head-on view (from above, below, or from the sides), the RCS goes up.
Click to expand...

No I said if you deflections and angles are accordingly made the the size does matter...a lot ! Head on this is 1/5th of the F-22.
I understand the algorithms, but it will also have to count all trees moving cars and boats and even cows....I don't think the pc in your plane can hack it.
 
topspeed3 said:
Size is not just the surface..the volume is...volumetric mass is A^2 ! My plane is 2600 kg in lite combat load and J-20 is 38 000 kilos. That is just 15 times smaller in mass....but gives the idea. Concealed bays alone in F-22 are 1/3 bigger than the volume of this entire AC.
Click to expand...

That won't directly affect the radar backscatter in the optical or resonant regimes. At least not in a good way!
It is kind of counterintuitive, but a physically large object can have a very small electrical size. A good example is the B-2. Partly because of it's size it can have a very small signature across a wider range of bands than a fighter sized aircraft (for several reasons).

Historically it's been difficult to get small vehicles (such as munitions) to have very good VLO signatures. Think about it. You are trying to stuff a lot of things (engines, radars, antennas, etc.) into a smaller package. Many of those things have their own scaling limits. You can only make your fighter engine so small, carry so little fuel, etc. And that influences what you can effectively do with your outer mold line - because shaping is the primary concern when designing for a low radar cross section (not physical size). When you are that small more threat radars would affect your aircraft in the resonant and Rayleigh regimes, and that is problematic.

The AGM-129 is pretty small and was designed for a small signature. If you look at the outer mold line, you might draw some conclusions about how that was done and why.
 
topspeed3 said:
Engine burns less if it has smaller engine.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but if you are talking interceptor its not about fuel efficiency -- its speed.

I also agree about leaving the gun off. if you are trying to keep this small light and simple a gun is space and additional machinery that could be occupied by something else more valuable.

If an interceptor is dog fighting, it failed in its original mission, just like how a sniper that is fighting hand to hand with a knife has failed in his concealment and long range precision rifle skills. Snipers are long range killers, not ninjas. Your warplane should be the same. ;)

the more speciliazed the role, the more precise you can get with it, if it doesn't need bombs it can have small bays, if it isn't dogfighting it doesn't need a HOBS missile system, or guns etc.

Multi-role means more and more stuff added to do more and more, which is why we don't see a lot of multi role fighters in the light class. Medium at least heavy (F-15E) even better.
 
quellish said:
topspeed3 said:
Size is not just the surface..the volume is...volumetric mass is A^2 ! My plane is 2600 kg in lite combat load and J-20 is 38 000 kilos. That is just 15 times smaller in mass....but gives the idea. Concealed bays alone in F-22 are 1/3 bigger than the volume of this entire AC.
Click to expand...

That won't directly affect the radar backscatter in the optical or resonant regimes. At least not in a good way!
It is kind of counterintuitive, but a physically large object can have a very small electrical size. A good example is the B-2. Partly because of it's size it can have a very small signature across a wider range of bands than a fighter sized aircraft (for several reasons).

Historically it's been difficult to get small vehicles (such as munitions) to have very good VLO signatures. Think about it. You are trying to stuff a lot of things (engines, radars, antennas, etc.) into a smaller package. Many of those things have their own scaling limits. You can only make your fighter engine so small, carry so little fuel, etc. And that influences what you can effectively do with your outer mold line - because shaping is the primary concern when designing for a low radar cross section (not physical size). When you are that small more threat radars would affect your aircraft in the resonant and Rayleigh regimes, and that is problematic.

The AGM-129 is pretty small and was designed for a small signature. If you look at the outer mold line, you might draw some conclusions about how that was done and why.
Click to expand...

AGM-129 looks smallish but has definitely bigger RCS than this GM-1 fighter I have on my blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM
 
topspeed3 said:
I have been working on concept level on this kinda headache at Key Publishing site.
Paralay ( who also comments here ) says a 28-29 ft long fighter jet with radar cannot be done !
Could we discuss this here ( without me having to bring any drawings around to prove it ) ?
Click to expand...

That depends on what kind of radar you want. The radar at tips of active AAMs will fit into a fighter mucm smaller than 28-29 feet.
 
Cars trees and cows do not travel hundreds of kilometers an hour in a straight line. It's called GMTI.

AGM-129 has a bigger RCS??? Based on what, you APA School of Internet RCS Measurement Degree?

 
TaiidanTomcat said:
topspeed3 said:
Engine burns less if it has smaller engine.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but if you are talking interceptor its not about fuel efficiency -- its speed.

I also agree about leaving the gun off. if you are trying to keep this small light and simple a gun is space and additional machinery that could be occupied by something else more valuable.

If an interceptor is dog fighting, it failed in its original mission, just like how a sniper that is fighting hand to hand with a knife has failed in his concealment and long range precision rifle skills. Snipers are long range killers, not ninjas. Your warplane should be the same. ;)

the more speciliazed the role, the more precise you can get with it, if it doesn't need bombs it can have small bays, if it isn't dogfighting it doesn't need a HOBS missile system, or guns etc.

Multi-role means more and more stuff added to do more and more, which is why we don't see a lot of multi role fighters in the light class. Medium at least heavy (F-15E) even better.
Click to expand...

I have a strong haunch that this AC after having intercepted the enemy in the air has to help the buddies at low as well...therefore the gun..it also excels in ground attacks..redundant and quiet and nearly invisible.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Cars trees and cows do not travel hundreds of kilometers an hour in a straight line. It's called GMTI.

AGM-129 has a bigger RCS??? Based on what, you APA School of Internet RCS Measurement Degree?

Click to expand...

I love it. My plane is in the level of F-22 in RCS except the rudders that are much smaller and underside.

Why would my pilot fly straight line ?
 
Can you describe the missile profile of your small interceptor? It is intended to fight escorting fighters? Is it meant to conduct patrols and autonomous interceptions? Or is it a externally directed point defence interceptlor more like a recoverable first stage for a missile?

I am thinking some kind modern version of Me-163 or Ma-349 might be a good starting point if small and cheap is at a premium. I am guessing the being unmanned would be a major plus for small and cheap.
 
chuck4 said:
topspeed3 said:
I have been working on concept level on this kinda headache at Key Publishing site.
Paralay ( who also comments here ) says a 28-29 ft long fighter jet with radar cannot be done !
Could we discuss this here ( without me having to bring any drawings around to prove it ) ?
Click to expand...

That depends on what kind of radar you want. The radar at tips of active AAMs will fit into a fighter mucm smaller than 28-29 feet.
Click to expand...

AN/APG-67 is pretty small too.
 
chuck4 said:
Can you describe the missile profile of your small interceptor? It is intended to fight escorting fighters? Is it meant to conduct patrols and autonomous interceptions? Or is it a externally directed point defence interceptlor more like a recoverable first stage for a missile?

I am thinking some kind modern version of Me-163 or Ma-349 might be a good starting point if small and cheap is at a premium. I am guessing the being unmanned would be a major plus for small and cheap.
Click to expand...

This is actually 25-30% smaller than Me-163..but yes suntin like it.
This would be a sneaky small stealth interceptor with 2 concealed MBDA MICA missiles. In fighter escort this could carry externally 4 more AAMs ( using their radar to guide the missiles AIM-120 AMRAAMs ). I suppose with BB radar this would have to rely on bigger radar elsewhere ( awacs or ground based ).
 
Let me explain how an AESA radar a modern fighter will detect your fighter as it fly’s down low. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say your RCS is real small (even though you are carrying external AAMs and JATO bottles).

It scans across the horizon several times a second. During those scans it detects intermittent “black holes” in each scan. It will then increase the scan activity in the “black hole” zone to determine if a pattern exists. Due to the increased scan rates in your area, the GMTI algorithms mark you as a target of unknown origin. The IRST then swings around and by the time you get within 50nm (75km) has you ID'd. Given that the attacker knows the force he is up against and knows that the only vlo, low flying, fast moving fighter in the area is yours…. So… Fox3.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Let me explain how an AESA radar a modern fighter will detect your fighter as it fly’s down low. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say your RCS is real small (even though you are carrying external AAMs and JATO bottles).

It scans across the horizon several times a second. During those scans it detects intermittent “black holes” in each scan. It will then increase the scan activity in the “black hole” zone to determine if a pattern exists. Due to the increased scan rates in your area, the GMTI algorithms mark you as a target of unknown origin. The IRST then swings around and by the time you get within 50nm (75km) has you ID'd. Given that the attacker knows the force he is up against and knows that the only vlo, low flying, fast moving fighter in the area is yours…. So… Fox3.
Click to expand...

Okay then there is an other side to this too...a FOX 3 costs 1,5 million a piece..this can have proximity BRS that saves the plane or what ever is left of it and the pilot bails out when he sees or is warned about the incoming. So after a days repair the 10 million usd plane is up in the air and the pilot as well. But like i said this doesn't leave a hole behind with rcs of size of a pin head.
 
A very small interceptor is going to be very short-ranged. An engine can only be so fuel-efficient when it runs on petrol. That's physics.
 
Kryptid said:
A very small interceptor is going to be very short-ranged. An engine can only be so fuel-efficient when it runs on petrol. That's physics.
Click to expand...

This is not intercontinental with 1500 km combat range...and ferryrange 3000 km. 4200 km with 2 x 450 l drop tanks ( sans 4 AMRAAMs )
 
If there is a Fox3 then your plane is likely toast. It ain’t coming back. A $1.5 mil AMRAAM-class missile is completely worth it if it means completing the mission and splashing an enemy fighter (of any worth) in one shot.

If the plane in 30ft long then it’s a 30ft “black hole” moving at several hundred miles per hour.

If you are forced to bail, then you failed your mission and your airfield is likely toast. No more missions for you.

Btw, what’s a BRS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom