5Th generation: Is it a real or false term?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: 5Th generation: Is it a real or false term?
jessmo_24 4/1/2011 5:51:15 PM

*ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_jet_fighter There is a debate raging on key publishing ATM discussing the true meaning of aircraft generations. some people are of the opinion that these generations dont even exist. Most people like me believe that these are the generations. 1st: Jet powered airframes, Guns, subsonic 2nd: Swept wings deltas alumminum alloys, semi-active missiles, radar. 3rd: Analog controls, better radars, better engines, blown flaps, canards,ECM and a host of other aerodynamic advances. 4th: Lifting bodies, BVR, doppler radar, relaxed stability vortex lift surfaces. 4.5: Advanced avionics, Post stall manuvering, high AOA. reduced RCS super cruising 5th: VLO, sensor fusion, super cruise, all in the same package. Please discuss and note my mistakes. Or is the entire generations concepts only somthing made up by silly Americans.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

MK 4/14/2011 8:02:03 PM

The difference between the two families of systems is that the American air force doesn't think that the effective warning interval was worth the waste of weight, drag, and power to detect a missile so close that the plane's pilot has no time to jerk out of the way.

So if it is just bad, why is it actually fitted to any aircraft at all? And the drag issue is only true for aircraft with bolted on pods etc. Hardly an argument you could bring up against aircraft with fully integrated systems such as the Typhoon or the F-22 for example.

I fear you are wrong here, otherwise the US wouldn't have developed MLDs/MAWS like the AN/AAR-47/56/57 which are fitted to F-16CGs and F-22As. Boeing additionally offers MAWS for the road-map Super Hornet upgrade and others do so as well. If there would be no utility/advantage for such systems one may ask why anyone has fitted such systems and why an increasing number of manufacturers equips its products with such systems and why more and more air forces require such systems these days.

AN/AAR 56 (IR and other spectrums) comes as one TERMA pod option for the F-16C-F. The pod is a drag penalty, that the USAF reluctantly deploys in OLD Falcons for the ground attack low-level mission.

AN/AAR-56 on anything but the F-22? Just out of interest are there any sources for this?

EADS AN/AAR 60 is also TERMA pod capable. It is a UV based system that works exceptionally well against most IR seeker missiles, but note the SHORT interval that this actually covers (WVR).

It's actually integrated into the pylon and not a separate pod... And who says it's for WVR missiles only? Do you have any data to support that assertion, rather than mere speculation?

See above my own comments again about the radar. AESA makes a lot of difference.

Until now we were talking about M-scan radars not the AESA derivatives...

At the end of the day much of the arguments put forward have one flaw, they aren't necessarily applicable on the Typhoon. The aircraft has been from the outset designed with a built in MAWS capability and the dedicated MAWS is also aided by PIRATE which provides a missile approach warning capability as well in the dedicated IRST search & track modes MTT and SACQ. While limited to the front sector it's the most important one for BVR fighting and the Typhoon is ultimately fitted with two systems working in different spectra of frequency ranges which are able to complement each other.

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/14/2011 9:18:52 PM

For the reason I said. It is mostly effective against MANPADS and SAMs.

AN/AAR 56 (IR and other spectrums) comes as one TERMA pod option for the F-16C-F. The pod is a drag penalty, that the USAF reluctantly deploys in OLD Falcons for the ground attack low-level mission.

AN/AAR-56 on anything but the F-22? Just out of interest are there any sources for this?

The capability has been tested. The capability exists.

EADS AN/AAR 60 is also TERMA pod capable. It is a UV based system that works exceptionally well against most IR seeker missiles, but note the SHORT interval that this actually covers (WVR).

It's actually integrated into the pylon and not a separate pod... And who says it's for WVR missiles only? Do you have any data to support that assertion, rather than mere speculation?

It is detachable.

Quote Reply

earlm To H 4/14/2011 10:18:56 PM

The latest of the "Typhoon can compete with US 5th gen." arguments is 100% based on MAWS. Typhoon bores in, shoots, then uses MAWS to avoid the countershot using its superior to F-35 kinematics. My question is this: Doesn't a competent pilot supported by non-MAWS systems already have the SA or at least a strong hunch that a countershot is coming? Where is the massive increase in SA that justifies emitting a second set of emissions? Am I wrong in thinking this whole MAWS thing is like putting a CIWS on a ship, it looks good to the uninitiated but it's not what really matters? Is it even that big a deal or is it an afterthought that matters in a few situations?

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 4/15/2011 12:16:10 AM

Lastly, your contention that any forth gen plane is that much more agile/maneuverable than any other 4G plane is in error, unless it is the F-15C with T/W in EXCESS of 1.2/1 at real combat weights!

Bollocks to stay polite. TWR is a minor factor determining an aircrafts manoeuvrability. It is relevant for sustained turns, but certainly not the sole factor. Wing loading, lift/drag ratio and also thust drag ratio are equally important and the F-15Cs static TWR is in excess of 1.2:1 that doesn't take thrust variations dependent on altitude and speed into account and doesn't take into account the thrust lose of installed engines. Furthermore it's only achieves this with full internal fuel, but not with any weapons at all. Fuel will be used up and the TWR at combat weight might in fact be 1.2:1 in combat conditions but only at very low altitude, virtually at sea level.

T/W is the single most important factor in an aircraft's maneuver power. Secondly T/D, both places were the Canard deltas fall flat on their face when compaired to planes like the American teen serries with their higher ARs! The F-15 will have less drag, from the higher AR and more thrust due to the variable inlets than the EF or Rafale. Any advantage they possess only gets worse as the conditions change. Planes WO variable inlets get much worse under high angles of attack, which puts rafale and EF about half way into the John. At 40Klbs, the F-15C has full internal fuel, eight missiles and 940 rounds of 20 MM up. ( That is four Aim-7Ms and four 'winders, or eight AMRAAMs!) To equal that persistance either of the ECDs will require at least two drop tanks and one or two pylons. What is the T/W and Quote Reply

45-Shooter 4/15/2011 12:30:19 AM

MK and I argued about passive and active MLD and MAW detectors of the Typhoon a bit, as opposed to acquisition warning systems of the standard Eagle. (Note that the Typhoon has hwer MLD and MAWS in addition to a standard warning receiver suite, just in case that was not clear.) The difference between the two families of systems is that the American air force doesn't think that the effective warning interval was worth the waste of weight, drag, and power to detect a missile so close that the plane's pilot has no time to jerk out of the way. Signal management against the weapon sensor at that short an interval, to the Americans, a signal managed approach seems a better approach to prevent a WEAPON MERGE. So, let me talk about the kill chain AGAIN (GRRRRRR!) and how it works and how you defeat it.

I fear you are wrong here, otherwise the US wouldn't have developed MLDs/MAWS like the AN/AAR-47/56/57 which are fitted to F-16CGs and F-22As. Boeing additionally offers MAWS for the roadmap Super Hornet upgrade and others do so as well. If there would be no utility/advantage for such systems one may ask why anyone has fitted such systems and why an increasing number of manufacturers equips its products with such systems and why more and more air forces require such systems these days.

As you point out, we are in the forefront of Avionics innovation! It is exactly because of that, that we know how well the do and do not work and thus have little current faith in the ability of those systems to save the plane. The other side of the coin is that were are also the worlds best salesmen and give the customer what they want.

Albeit it's possibly just paper data, the Russians suggest that their IR based SOAR MLD offers detection ranges up to 30 km against a BVR missile and up to 50 km against SAMs.

I love the "upto" part in that line!

That's certainly more than just "last second detection" and the Russians aren't known for being overly good at EO/IR systems in comparison to the west. You are right about that!

I already said that within WVR the odds favored the Typhoon.You not are right about that!
Its the BVR zone (which the Eagle was designed to exploit from its very beginning) that I think the Eagle holds the decisive edge.You are right about that!

Just like the Typhoon was being designed for BVR fighting since its inception.You are not right about that! If it was, it would have spec'd a much larger radar and antenna!
The mission required it as did the circumstances. That's one of the reasons why its nose is quite large for an aircraft of that size.

You are joking about that, aren't you?

Quote Reply

MK @herald 4/15/2011 4:34:55 AM

The capability has been tested. The capability exists.

Is the AN/AAR-56 operationally used on other aircraft than the F-22? Yes or no?

Physics says so. Area squared, volume cubed, remember? 2, 4 , 16 / 2, 8, 516 etc.

Ok the picture shows a somewhat bulky device, so you are right that THIS system actually affects aerodynamics.

Many of the USAF F-15Cs carry AESA radar refits. THAT is an existent current factor and the USAF norm.

The waste majority doesn't right now, albeit I agree it's a current capability. But the discussion was centred around the MSA radars, which still equip most F-15s currently in service.

The PIRATE is a FLIR in a turret that passive scans sectors. The MAW is a sector zoner stare array that looks for its signal across its foxed focal array. The two don't work alike or even search for the same signal

And what? These are complementary capabilities, it's interesting how everything is turned down...

Quote Reply

MK @shooter 4/15/2011 5:05:06 AM

That's the reason why the F-15s STR is way below 20 deg/sec, whereas even the Gripen with its relative weak TWR achieves a 20 deg/sec STR, the Rafale and Typhoon with their significantly better TWR in comparison to the Gripen do even better than the latter, especially the Rafale. The F-15 is NO MATCH for the European fighters wrt close combat agility and manoeuvrability and this has been REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED during a number of DACTs. That's a FACT.

This is not true, the F/A-22 has an even higher T/W!

This is not true, the Su-27-30 has a higher T/W!

Numbers tell you a different story! The F-22A weights some 19700 kg empty and holds 9386 kg of internal fuel. Engine thrust is stated with 15880 kg per engine. Do the math static TWR is just 1.09:1 and a 1.1:1 TWR with actually confirmed by Paul Metz a former F-22 test pilot.

The Su-27 has an internal fuel load of 9400 kg and weights 16000 kg empty, probably a bit more. Engine thrust is 12500 kg with full afterburner (static). Subsequent TWR is 0.98:1!Even if we assume the typical 60% fuel load of 5270 kg the TWR is just 1.17:1 with not much more fuel than the MUCH smaller and lighter Typhoon.

Typhoon's empty weight is 11000 kg, internal fuel load about 5000 kg and engine thrust is 2 x 9180 kg. Once again do the math the TWR here is close to 1.15:1.

This is not true, It was THE defining charicteristic of 4G planes! It's no problem to upgrade a MiG-21 or F-4 with much more powerful engines and achieve a TWR in excess of 1:1.This is not true, It is very hard, if not impossable to install much more thrust into a plane with fixed inlet geomitry! The F-4 is a different tune.

It is NOT. It is one characteristic introduced with that generation and a TYPICAL feature, but that's it. It's true that the intake must offer the necessary airflow to feed stronger engines.

I never said that retro-fit and new equipment do not count! I think all of those things are important to do as much as possible with! BUT, it is almost impossible to upgrade the basic aerodynamics and install huge increases in power!

According you TWR is everything...

You are not right about that! If it was, it would have spec'd a much larger radar and antenna!

You are joking about that, aren't you?

Dude you have NO IDEA about this aircraft and its requirements and design goals! The size is dictated by range and weight requirements as well as cost considerations. You don't built huge aircraft if you don't need them.

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/15/2011 6:03:29 AM

The capability has been tested. The capability exists.

Is the AN/AAR-56 operationally used on other aircraft than the F-22? Yes or no?

You want an answer?

HERE

The Army has the lead among the joint U.S. services for rotary-wing survivability equipment and now fields nine different survivability-gear A-kits on helicopters in combat theaters. (A-kits are the functional countermeasures mated with B-kit wiring and racks already in the aircraft.) Until recently, Apaches, Black Hawks and Kiowa Warriors in harm's way typically carried the aging AN/ALQ-144A infrared jammer, AN/APR-39A(V)1 radar warning receiver and AN/AAR-47 missile warning receiver. Though bigger Chinooks usually had no infrared jammers, CH-47Ds were equipped with the AN/AAR-56 missile warning receiver as well as the radar warning receiver. Apaches, Black Hawks and Chinooks alike were outfitted with M130 flare/chaff dispensers.

Physics says so. Area squared, volume cubed, remember? 2, 4 , 16 / 2, 8, 516 etc.

Ok the picture shows a somewhat bulky device, so you are right that THIS system actually affects aerodynamics.

Many of the USAF F-15Cs carry AESA radar refits. THAT is an existent current factor and the USAF norm.

You um noticed this?

The waste majority doesn't right now, albeit I agree it's a current capability. But the discussion was centred around the MSA radars, which still equip most F-15s currently in service.

AESA radar equipped F-15Cs since year 2000.

It is the NORM for our front-line squadrons The 2011 and 2012 contracts are for reserve and ANG squadrons

And what? These are complementary capabilities, it's interesting how everything is turned down...

The PIRATE is as described. It is not a countermeasures driver. As a missile warning device it is also a rather poor one being more concerned with fighter-sized threats. .

Quote Reply

heraldabc 4/15/2011 6:27:08 AM

Yes, its in the radar. That can see launch separation of missile from platform and track the air to air missile inbounds. The better the radar, the greater the interval cushion for the detection. That is what is infuriating about the delay for AESA for Typhoon, (and Rafale) here. The detection of the separations and new tracks that appears for a typical Raytheon set is far well in excess of 50,000 meters. Its a major part of the threat defense frontal hemisphere aspect for AESA radar-equipped American fighters. Note that this is like the radar LPI feature, not often discussed. When you radiate anyway to cue your missiles onto enemy fighters at long ranges, why not also use all the other signal returns from their own launch separations and process those, to stay out of their MER return launch interval if/ when you see them first?

Herald

Quote Reply

earlm 4/15/2011 10:53:28 AM

Would the false alarm rate be lower if the aircraft had a UV sensor to detect the plume of the booster? Which planes hav UV detectors?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT