Today an F35 used its next generation integrated sensors to

>>31389598

I'm gonna bring this up next time I see somebody say that the Navy needs a new Tomcat replacement. The F-35C can perform fleet defense on a level far beyond the Tomcat if it can actually guide Standard Missiles towards targets that would normally be beyond range.

>>31389636
Whats the intercept time of a Tomcat firing its own missiles versus firing an SM-6 against a target cued by an F-35C 100nmi out?

Because the bomber doesn't actually matter. Its missiles do. If the SM-6 can't get there in time but a Pheonix fired from a Tomcat (or other CAP) already in the vicinity could, then there is a need.

>>31389660
Didn't Phoenix have trash accuracy?

>>31389701
compared to a modern day standard missile? definitely.

>>31389701

Source?

It never saw any real combat other than in Iranian Air Force, and their records are sketchy, so it isn't really possible to evaluate the actual combat effectiveness of the Phoenix system.

>>31389735
I don't recall the actual source, just people discussing it on the DCS game forum after the F-14 was announced to be in development.

>>31389660
Yeah, I think some people have over-hyped the test somewhat. It's more useful to show that OTH intercept of anti-ship missiles will be alot easier now, both to supplement the E-2 in US service, and to provide a longer range option over Merlin in British service. But for intercepting enemy aircraft it's also good to have an actual plane on station.

That said the Pheonix and the Tomcat aren't really needed. The Super Hornet and F-35 can achieve similar ranges with the AIM-120D, with a higher chance of actual intercept.

>>31389701
It wasn't fired much to be fair and the Iranians are kind of tight-lipped about details. We'll never really know since the dance of the vampires never happened in real life and the Iraqis never got the chance to make much use of their Tu-22 force in the Gulf War.

>>31389748

Like I said, pretty much all the actual combat for the AIM-54 comes from the Iran-Iraq war. The Tomcat gave the Iranian Air Force a huge advantage over their inferior Iraqi opponents. So it is reasonable to believe that the Phoenix performed very well. However, some of the specific claims made for the missile are kind of suspicious. There is a story where a Phoenix was allegedly able to take out three separate fighter jets with its airburst.

>>31389660
The F-35C fires an AIM-120D.

>>31389660
An F-14 cannot intercept 40+ AShM.

>>31389660

The F-14 is only going to be able to carry 4 Phoenix missiles at once. Same applies to the F-35 if you're only counting the internal weapons bay.

But with the ability to data-link with AEGIS, suddenly that little fighter plane can fire 90+ Standard Missiles.

>>31389598
It's still no MiG-35

>>31390203
Thank god.

>>31390137
>he F-14 is only going to be able to carry 4 Phoenix missiles at once
I dimly recall they could carry eight. Is that wrong?

>>31390203
>4++

>>31390251

It's actually six maximum but if it takes off with that many it has to actually drop them off before it tries to land otherwise it will be too heavy to land on a carrier. 4 was the standard loadout.

File: AIM-54_Phoenix_full_load.jpg (1MB, 3010x2401px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3010x2401px

>>31390251
Pretty sure 4 was the standard, with 6 being a large load (with barely any way to defend itself when it's like that).

There's enough hardpoints that you could probably load 8 Phoenixs on there, I don't think they ever did and I don't know if they could take off with that load.

>>31390232
>>31390255
>Disrespecting the MiG
>Ever

I'm sorry, I forgot where I am. Hurr Durr Lockhead Martin makes the best dogshi-I mean dogfighters anywhere.

File: rM6hvD6.jpg (679KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2560x1600px

>>31390305
>MiG-29 with a couple extra gigs of ram
>threat

>>31390305
>Comes into the thread insulting the F-35 for not being the Mig-35
>Is then surprised when people mock the Mig-35 back

This is the Vatnik's logic at work. Watch as he rapidly becomes the victim of the situation.

>>31390305
You're comparing a deployed fighter to something that isn't even through development yet, what did you expect?

>>31390305

>Hurr Durr Lockhead Martin makes the best dogshi-I mean dogfighters anywhere.

They actually do.

>>31390317
>Implying the MiG can ever be the victim. It's just better.

>>31390313
It could be a a MiG-29 with dicks drawn on it and it'd still be better than dogshit F-35s

>b-b-b-but it's not even through development despite being hideously over budget and under-preforming in every relevant progress indicator.
Some things are supposed to stay dead. Enjoy your glorified RC plane while the Slavs dominate again.

>>31389888
True, but I think what he's saying is that CAP fighters also need the capability to help intercept as well. If there was a barrage of ASMs heading for a carrier group you'd bet your ass Hornets and F-35s would be firing AMRAAMs.

>>31390391

>If there was a barrage of ASMs heading for a carrier group you'd bet your ass Hornets and F-35s would be firing AMRAAMs.

Yes, but they're going to run out of missiles very quickly in any kind of sustained attack.

>>31390366
I kind of wonder how you function in the real world with your warped sense of reality

>>31390446
Still better than the F-35 does in any practical situation.

>>31390476
>t. Vatnik

This is what, the fifth time we have this topic? Just waiting for the damn Mig25/Link16 shitfest again

>>31390305
But the MiG is dogshit, you could've at least brought up the Flankers.

Yeah, Sukhoi is making better shit than Mikoyan Guerevich at the moment. Maybe some of their product may be able to stand up to the F-35, but the MiG-35 isn't quite up to par. They're close, but not quite.

>>31393376
Did you see the OP link? This is new stuff. Can't help Russbos shitting up threads though it just happens.

>>31393517
Yeah, its the same link posted 3 er 4 times last week. Or at least the same topic

File: 1377369007793.jpg (1010KB, 3008x1584px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 3008x1584px

>>31393376
Here, I'll sum it up so we can just skip it
>Finally americans have capability that Mig-31 has had since 1981
America has had datalinks since the 70s
>yes but they are inferior to the datalink put in service ten years later!
no shit, but Link 16 was put in service around the same time
>Link 16 wasn't used until 2003
el oh el


There

>>31394265
Yeah, that sounds pretty familiar

Anybody remember this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lZrvAFRhQZc

EODAS can detect and track a Merlin engine from 800mi+. Think maybe it can detect and track ICBM/SLBM in boost phase from at least a couple hundred NM? Hypersonic or other high-mach/high-altitude missiles?

That gives a Burke a lot of extra time to set up and engage before the vampires even enter its radar horizon.

>>31395032
>whoops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZrvAFRhQZc

File: link 16 terminals.jpg (210KB, 652x1094px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 652x1094px

>>31394265
The funny part is it's true that Link 16 wasn't widely used in fighters until the early 2000's.

It's a cute feature 'n shit. OP is fag btw, this test happend last week.

I doubt it's operational usefulness.

Just another reason to tie up an offensive/defensive aircraft in a auxillary non-direct combat role. Why not just use the E-2 Hawkeye.


Also
>F-35 stealth
>what is low band VHF metric radar

There is a reason the F-117 was scrapped. Roeskies know how to track small stealth craft

>>31390303

6 was only done for publicity stunts, because the launch rail itself for the AIM-54 costs a bajillion dollars in addition to the missile costing a bajillion dollars.

It had a special cooling system to keep the seeker head and battery of the AIM-54 cooled while it was still sitting on the rails waiting for launch, because the missile's radar generated so much heat it had to be cooled. However the missile radar had to be on before launch for acquisition, and the onboard coolant was reserved for after launch, so they built a cooling system into the launch rails.

File: 21786978160_c6c3ecc782_k.jpg (483KB, 2048x982px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 2048x982px

>>31389598
So can the F-22, and it's sexier.

>>31394265
US had data links since the late 50s and 60s.

>>31395403
So many words to say nothing meaningful.

>>31395658
>dat ass

Yum

>>31389598
>Yesterday an S-300 used its next generation integrated sensors to guide a BuK into a target over the horizon.
>It can shoot down threats without firing a missile of its own.
>S-300 haters BTFO

>>31389765
At least we can find test reports to estimate phoenix capabilities on proving ground.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084869.pdf
>>31390297
Six missiles is one of the operational loadouts, however I don't know was it practically used or how often. Aircraft can land with them without problems when spends enough fuel.

>>31389598
J A M M E D

>>31395731
Exactly the same can be said for this radar targeting data sharing capability exercise, so meaningless.

>>31395977
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html
Seeing the dozen orso types of radar that work with S-300 it's not a suprise a BUK can also use that data.
BUK is designed to work in a single vehicle deployment, if it has the radar equipped TEL (like the one that shot the MH-17 down). Full BUK battery normally also has a standalone radar, and the non-radar equipped TELs obviously need a datalink too

S-300 and the BUK are still a mean piece of kit. But like this F-35 capability it is nothing groundbreaking.

>>31389598
>HAWK work as 'fighter'

>>31389598
did they fix the peeling insulation on the fuel tanks yet?
faggot

>>31395688
so did the Russians, there was practically parrallel development
the fucking MiG-15 could be steered from the ground, radar giving direct commands to autopilot

>>31396130
Source

Not that I don't believe it, but that's pretty cool. Love to learn some more about it

>>31396191
Not him, and not sure about the autopilot thing, but most commie air doctrine was that the pilot shouldn't be making their own decisions and just be doing what he was told to by ground control. Having an autopilot override/remote control system would fit with that, so it seems right.

>>31396191
i'm a fag and my face needs raping
this is a bit about Lazur-SM
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-15/su-15.htm
can't find anything on the MiG-15 command link

>>31389598
The Royal navy did this in the 70's with helicopters. Why is this special?

>>31395403
t.vatnik

>>31390203
> current year
> energy fighter not information fighter

glhf, I guess?

>>31395107
It wasn't widely needed before then.

>>31398196
That's because Vatniks thought "information war" meant shitposting online in large amounts.

>>31395977
>>31396055
Neither BuK nor S-300 have been guided by an aircraft to a target the launcher was completely blind to.

>>31389598
yeah ghost targets hahahahaha boooooooooo

>>31395107
Then again, the system on the MiG-31 was only ever used with the MiG-31.
NATO did informations links earlier and better than russia ever did.

>>31396048
By what exactly?