超级军网zt [译文转载] 再谈F-35空战性能
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/26 16:06:32
http://zhouf601117.blog.163.com/ ... 066201252525012892/
再谈F-35空战性能
2012-06-25 02:50:12| 分类： 鹰击长空 |字号 订阅
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html
F-16论坛上看来的，澳大利亚一个智库为澳大利亚国防部举行过一次F-35空战性能演示，一直没有看到详细结果，这里是第一次看到间接描述，报告原本还是没有看到，估计是保密的。
摘录如下：
"Uploaded by ComputerHarpoon on Jan 4, 2010
A H3 MilSim simulation of air combat between 24 * F-35A JSF and 8 * Su-35S.
Results:
Su-35S overmatch the F-35A
Armaments:
F-35A: BVR 4 * AIM-120D; Guns Mauser 25 MM
Su-35S: BVR Adder 6 * R-77 Active Seeker, 6 * R-77 IR Seeker; WVR Archer 2 * R-73; Gun GSH301 30 MM
Courtesy REPSIM PTY LTD, Australia
Setting: North-East Australia
1. Our Simulation is a derivative work of Mr. Bond's Harpoon system. We allow users to input their own sensor, weapon, and platform data. Given that, our Australian partners, with some 35 yrs in the Defense Business, including a former RAAF Wing Commander, created a database and this demonstration scenario. This demonstrates how H3 MilSim can be used to try out different scenarios using your data and your scenarios. This particular scenario doesn't fare well for the JSF.... Your values for Pd, Ph, Pk on the sensors and missiles will yield different results.
2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.
3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:
The simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.
The F-35 CTOL due to its stealth configuration and internal carriage of weapons has altitude, release speed and attitude constraints for missile launch that dramatically reduce the AIM 120 missile performance compared to firing the missile from other aircraft such as F-16 or F-15 that can burn the missile off the rails at higher speeds and with full attitude freedom. Some of these limitations also apply to the F-22.
The Su-35 aircraft enjoys significant advantages over the F-35 in terms of absolute altitude, speed, weapon capacity and weapon release speed. However, maneuverability in the terminal phase of an air to air missile engagement is where the Su-35 enjoys a substantial advantage using integrated thrustered engine control rather than relying solely upon control surfaces in thin air.
That is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.
This kinematic advantage translates into a reduced no-escape zone calculation for the release of the AIM 120 missile against the Su-35. The maximum release range for an AIM 120 against the Su-35 employing its full range of capabilities is less than 20nm based upon its specific impulse, burn duration (boost and sustain), control surface effectiveness above 50,000ft and susceptibility to countermeasures. Beyond that no-escape zone the AIM 120 missile has less than 5 % chance of hitting the target.
The US DoD had a program to improve the AIM 120 missile using a number of aspects such as additional fuel and 2 stage motor as well as better electronic counter counter measures (ECCM) but these have not delivered as yet.
The Su-35 or indeed any of the modern Su and Mig aircraft can bleed sufficient energy off a coasting AIM 120 missile at high altitude to cause it to reach minimum energy level in less than 15 seconds with a combination of maneuvers.
The current generation of AA-12 missiles are able to be launched effectively from more than 3 times the AIM 120 no-escape zone because of the energy advantage provided at launch, greater specific impulse, burn duration both boost and sustain, (due to larger fuel fraction) and good control surface performance at altitude.
The F-35 has limited kinematic evasive capability against advanced air to air missiles for example, it cannot sustain a 6 G turn at Mach 1 at 40,000ft. And this was why an additional energy based defensive system was designed into the aircraft.
However, this solution is not effective beyond the scanning limits of the DAS and the Russian (and Chinese) technique of launching dissimilar sensored missiles in salvos against adversary aircraft, nor is it inherently reliable. This generally leads to defeating aircraft such as F-35 due to the focus in the defensive cycle being ordered first by the active radar seeker turning on and the passive infra red (IR) sensor being able to achieve lock at twice the range of the radar seeker from both the head on or side against the F-35.
The F-35 now has a large head-on IR signature due to the excessive heat generated by the systems inside the nose radome, in excess to 200C. Its rear plume at military power is visible at over 50 kms to advanced IR sensors.
The reality is that the F-35 in air to air combat against most modern fighters has to cross a large killing zone before attempting to engage a target that can at anytime turn and out run the F-35 engagement zone based upon radar or IR sensor detection plotting.
In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.
http://www.harpoon3pro.com
http://www.agi.com
http://www.computerharpoon.com
http://www.digitalmilitaryart.com
摘译如下：
24架F-35A（各4xAIM120，25mm航炮）对8架苏-35（各6xR77雷达加6xR77红外加2xR73，30mm航炮）
仿真平台：H3 MilSim
设定：澳大利亚东北
- F-35A的速度-升限包线和弹舱开门限制了AIM120的性能，F-15、F-16可以更好地发挥AIM120的性能。
- 苏-35比F-35的速度、升限、导弹发射速度限制、导弹挂载量明显优越，更有利于在高空空战。
- F-35和苏-35的速度-高度差极大地限制了AIM120的不可逃逸区，根据AIM120的发动机比冲、燃烧时间、50000英尺（约15240米）高度时控制面效率和苏-35的电子对抗能力，AIM120最大有效发射距离不超过20海里（37公里）。
- 苏-35（或者任何现代苏或米格）可以通过机动在15秒钟内使AIM120下降到最低能量水平。
- 但从能量水平来说，苏-35的R77比F-35的AIM120高三倍。
- F-35不能在40000英尺（约12200米）以M1做6g持续机动
- 如果苏-35同时发射雷达和红外制导导弹，F-35还要惨。F-35的机头由于AESA而达到200C的温度，军推尾流可以用先进红外在50公里外看到。
结论：F-35在空战中，需要穿越很大的对方杀伤区才能发射自己的AIM120导弹。在大部分仿真设定中，F-35在发射导弹前就被击落。
===============
在一个小时的演示中，不到30分钟时，就有至少5个人离席，但反对党的首席国防批评家留下来了。很难说这个演示是否完全公平、精确，是否有太多的党派政治因素，但至少这个仿真有点内容。硬伤在于用Harpoon 3 Pro的仿真核心，这在本质上是一个高级游戏。不过仿真的数学是一样的，游戏或者“专业”软件的差别或许不在于数学，而在于数据库。关键不在于精确到小数点的结论，而在于定性结论。如果他们的定性结论由于关键假定或者数据而出大错，那应该很容易指出。他们声称2008年兰德仿真得出同样的结果，那个仿真也是只流传于传说中，从来没有看到过实际报告。http://zhouf601117.blog.163.com/ ... 066201252525012892/
再谈F-35空战性能
2012-06-25 02:50:12| 分类： 鹰击长空 |字号 订阅
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html
F-16论坛上看来的，澳大利亚一个智库为澳大利亚国防部举行过一次F-35空战性能演示，一直没有看到详细结果，这里是第一次看到间接描述，报告原本还是没有看到，估计是保密的。
摘录如下：
"Uploaded by ComputerHarpoon on Jan 4, 2010
A H3 MilSim simulation of air combat between 24 * F-35A JSF and 8 * Su-35S.
Results:
Su-35S overmatch the F-35A
Armaments:
F-35A: BVR 4 * AIM-120D; Guns Mauser 25 MM
Su-35S: BVR Adder 6 * R-77 Active Seeker, 6 * R-77 IR Seeker; WVR Archer 2 * R-73; Gun GSH301 30 MM
Courtesy REPSIM PTY LTD, Australia
Setting: North-East Australia
1. Our Simulation is a derivative work of Mr. Bond's Harpoon system. We allow users to input their own sensor, weapon, and platform data. Given that, our Australian partners, with some 35 yrs in the Defense Business, including a former RAAF Wing Commander, created a database and this demonstration scenario. This demonstrates how H3 MilSim can be used to try out different scenarios using your data and your scenarios. This particular scenario doesn't fare well for the JSF.... Your values for Pd, Ph, Pk on the sensors and missiles will yield different results.
2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.
3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:
The simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.
The F-35 CTOL due to its stealth configuration and internal carriage of weapons has altitude, release speed and attitude constraints for missile launch that dramatically reduce the AIM 120 missile performance compared to firing the missile from other aircraft such as F-16 or F-15 that can burn the missile off the rails at higher speeds and with full attitude freedom. Some of these limitations also apply to the F-22.
The Su-35 aircraft enjoys significant advantages over the F-35 in terms of absolute altitude, speed, weapon capacity and weapon release speed. However, maneuverability in the terminal phase of an air to air missile engagement is where the Su-35 enjoys a substantial advantage using integrated thrustered engine control rather than relying solely upon control surfaces in thin air.
That is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.
This kinematic advantage translates into a reduced no-escape zone calculation for the release of the AIM 120 missile against the Su-35. The maximum release range for an AIM 120 against the Su-35 employing its full range of capabilities is less than 20nm based upon its specific impulse, burn duration (boost and sustain), control surface effectiveness above 50,000ft and susceptibility to countermeasures. Beyond that no-escape zone the AIM 120 missile has less than 5 % chance of hitting the target.
The US DoD had a program to improve the AIM 120 missile using a number of aspects such as additional fuel and 2 stage motor as well as better electronic counter counter measures (ECCM) but these have not delivered as yet.
The Su-35 or indeed any of the modern Su and Mig aircraft can bleed sufficient energy off a coasting AIM 120 missile at high altitude to cause it to reach minimum energy level in less than 15 seconds with a combination of maneuvers.
The current generation of AA-12 missiles are able to be launched effectively from more than 3 times the AIM 120 no-escape zone because of the energy advantage provided at launch, greater specific impulse, burn duration both boost and sustain, (due to larger fuel fraction) and good control surface performance at altitude.
The F-35 has limited kinematic evasive capability against advanced air to air missiles for example, it cannot sustain a 6 G turn at Mach 1 at 40,000ft. And this was why an additional energy based defensive system was designed into the aircraft.
However, this solution is not effective beyond the scanning limits of the DAS and the Russian (and Chinese) technique of launching dissimilar sensored missiles in salvos against adversary aircraft, nor is it inherently reliable. This generally leads to defeating aircraft such as F-35 due to the focus in the defensive cycle being ordered first by the active radar seeker turning on and the passive infra red (IR) sensor being able to achieve lock at twice the range of the radar seeker from both the head on or side against the F-35.
The F-35 now has a large head-on IR signature due to the excessive heat generated by the systems inside the nose radome, in excess to 200C. Its rear plume at military power is visible at over 50 kms to advanced IR sensors.
The reality is that the F-35 in air to air combat against most modern fighters has to cross a large killing zone before attempting to engage a target that can at anytime turn and out run the F-35 engagement zone based upon radar or IR sensor detection plotting.
In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.
http://www.harpoon3pro.com
http://www.agi.com
http://www.computerharpoon.com
http://www.digitalmilitaryart.com
摘译如下：
24架F-35A（各4xAIM120，25mm航炮）对8架苏-35（各6xR77雷达加6xR77红外加2xR73，30mm航炮）
仿真平台：H3 MilSim
设定：澳大利亚东北
- F-35A的速度-升限包线和弹舱开门限制了AIM120的性能，F-15、F-16可以更好地发挥AIM120的性能。
- 苏-35比F-35的速度、升限、导弹发射速度限制、导弹挂载量明显优越，更有利于在高空空战。
- F-35和苏-35的速度-高度差极大地限制了AIM120的不可逃逸区，根据AIM120的发动机比冲、燃烧时间、50000英尺（约15240米）高度时控制面效率和苏-35的电子对抗能力，AIM120最大有效发射距离不超过20海里（37公里）。
- 苏-35（或者任何现代苏或米格）可以通过机动在15秒钟内使AIM120下降到最低能量水平。
- 但从能量水平来说，苏-35的R77比F-35的AIM120高三倍。
- F-35不能在40000英尺（约12200米）以M1做6g持续机动
- 如果苏-35同时发射雷达和红外制导导弹，F-35还要惨。F-35的机头由于AESA而达到200C的温度，军推尾流可以用先进红外在50公里外看到。
结论：F-35在空战中，需要穿越很大的对方杀伤区才能发射自己的AIM120导弹。在大部分仿真设定中，F-35在发射导弹前就被击落。
===============
在一个小时的演示中，不到30分钟时，就有至少5个人离席，但反对党的首席国防批评家留下来了。很难说这个演示是否完全公平、精确，是否有太多的党派政治因素，但至少这个仿真有点内容。硬伤在于用Harpoon 3 Pro的仿真核心，这在本质上是一个高级游戏。不过仿真的数学是一样的，游戏或者“专业”软件的差别或许不在于数学，而在于数据库。关键不在于精确到小数点的结论，而在于定性结论。如果他们的定性结论由于关键假定或者数据而出大错，那应该很容易指出。他们声称2008年兰德仿真得出同样的结果，那个仿真也是只流传于传说中，从来没有看到过实际报告。
再谈F-35空战性能
2012-06-25 02:50:12| 分类： 鹰击长空 |字号 订阅
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html
F-16论坛上看来的，澳大利亚一个智库为澳大利亚国防部举行过一次F-35空战性能演示，一直没有看到详细结果，这里是第一次看到间接描述，报告原本还是没有看到，估计是保密的。
摘录如下：
"Uploaded by ComputerHarpoon on Jan 4, 2010
A H3 MilSim simulation of air combat between 24 * F-35A JSF and 8 * Su-35S.
Results:
Su-35S overmatch the F-35A
Armaments:
F-35A: BVR 4 * AIM-120D; Guns Mauser 25 MM
Su-35S: BVR Adder 6 * R-77 Active Seeker, 6 * R-77 IR Seeker; WVR Archer 2 * R-73; Gun GSH301 30 MM
Courtesy REPSIM PTY LTD, Australia
Setting: North-East Australia
1. Our Simulation is a derivative work of Mr. Bond's Harpoon system. We allow users to input their own sensor, weapon, and platform data. Given that, our Australian partners, with some 35 yrs in the Defense Business, including a former RAAF Wing Commander, created a database and this demonstration scenario. This demonstrates how H3 MilSim can be used to try out different scenarios using your data and your scenarios. This particular scenario doesn't fare well for the JSF.... Your values for Pd, Ph, Pk on the sensors and missiles will yield different results.
2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.
3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:
The simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.
The F-35 CTOL due to its stealth configuration and internal carriage of weapons has altitude, release speed and attitude constraints for missile launch that dramatically reduce the AIM 120 missile performance compared to firing the missile from other aircraft such as F-16 or F-15 that can burn the missile off the rails at higher speeds and with full attitude freedom. Some of these limitations also apply to the F-22.
The Su-35 aircraft enjoys significant advantages over the F-35 in terms of absolute altitude, speed, weapon capacity and weapon release speed. However, maneuverability in the terminal phase of an air to air missile engagement is where the Su-35 enjoys a substantial advantage using integrated thrustered engine control rather than relying solely upon control surfaces in thin air.
That is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.
This kinematic advantage translates into a reduced no-escape zone calculation for the release of the AIM 120 missile against the Su-35. The maximum release range for an AIM 120 against the Su-35 employing its full range of capabilities is less than 20nm based upon its specific impulse, burn duration (boost and sustain), control surface effectiveness above 50,000ft and susceptibility to countermeasures. Beyond that no-escape zone the AIM 120 missile has less than 5 % chance of hitting the target.
The US DoD had a program to improve the AIM 120 missile using a number of aspects such as additional fuel and 2 stage motor as well as better electronic counter counter measures (ECCM) but these have not delivered as yet.
The Su-35 or indeed any of the modern Su and Mig aircraft can bleed sufficient energy off a coasting AIM 120 missile at high altitude to cause it to reach minimum energy level in less than 15 seconds with a combination of maneuvers.
The current generation of AA-12 missiles are able to be launched effectively from more than 3 times the AIM 120 no-escape zone because of the energy advantage provided at launch, greater specific impulse, burn duration both boost and sustain, (due to larger fuel fraction) and good control surface performance at altitude.
The F-35 has limited kinematic evasive capability against advanced air to air missiles for example, it cannot sustain a 6 G turn at Mach 1 at 40,000ft. And this was why an additional energy based defensive system was designed into the aircraft.
However, this solution is not effective beyond the scanning limits of the DAS and the Russian (and Chinese) technique of launching dissimilar sensored missiles in salvos against adversary aircraft, nor is it inherently reliable. This generally leads to defeating aircraft such as F-35 due to the focus in the defensive cycle being ordered first by the active radar seeker turning on and the passive infra red (IR) sensor being able to achieve lock at twice the range of the radar seeker from both the head on or side against the F-35.
The F-35 now has a large head-on IR signature due to the excessive heat generated by the systems inside the nose radome, in excess to 200C. Its rear plume at military power is visible at over 50 kms to advanced IR sensors.
The reality is that the F-35 in air to air combat against most modern fighters has to cross a large killing zone before attempting to engage a target that can at anytime turn and out run the F-35 engagement zone based upon radar or IR sensor detection plotting.
In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.
http://www.harpoon3pro.com
http://www.agi.com
http://www.computerharpoon.com
http://www.digitalmilitaryart.com
摘译如下：
24架F-35A（各4xAIM120，25mm航炮）对8架苏-35（各6xR77雷达加6xR77红外加2xR73，30mm航炮）
仿真平台：H3 MilSim
设定：澳大利亚东北
- F-35A的速度-升限包线和弹舱开门限制了AIM120的性能，F-15、F-16可以更好地发挥AIM120的性能。
- 苏-35比F-35的速度、升限、导弹发射速度限制、导弹挂载量明显优越，更有利于在高空空战。
- F-35和苏-35的速度-高度差极大地限制了AIM120的不可逃逸区，根据AIM120的发动机比冲、燃烧时间、50000英尺（约15240米）高度时控制面效率和苏-35的电子对抗能力，AIM120最大有效发射距离不超过20海里（37公里）。
- 苏-35（或者任何现代苏或米格）可以通过机动在15秒钟内使AIM120下降到最低能量水平。
- 但从能量水平来说，苏-35的R77比F-35的AIM120高三倍。
- F-35不能在40000英尺（约12200米）以M1做6g持续机动
- 如果苏-35同时发射雷达和红外制导导弹，F-35还要惨。F-35的机头由于AESA而达到200C的温度，军推尾流可以用先进红外在50公里外看到。
结论：F-35在空战中，需要穿越很大的对方杀伤区才能发射自己的AIM120导弹。在大部分仿真设定中，F-35在发射导弹前就被击落。
===============
在一个小时的演示中，不到30分钟时，就有至少5个人离席，但反对党的首席国防批评家留下来了。很难说这个演示是否完全公平、精确，是否有太多的党派政治因素，但至少这个仿真有点内容。硬伤在于用Harpoon 3 Pro的仿真核心，这在本质上是一个高级游戏。不过仿真的数学是一样的，游戏或者“专业”软件的差别或许不在于数学，而在于数据库。关键不在于精确到小数点的结论，而在于定性结论。如果他们的定性结论由于关键假定或者数据而出大错，那应该很容易指出。他们声称2008年兰德仿真得出同样的结果，那个仿真也是只流传于传说中，从来没有看到过实际报告。http://zhouf601117.blog.163.com/ ... 066201252525012892/
再谈F-35空战性能
2012-06-25 02:50:12| 分类： 鹰击长空 |字号 订阅
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html
F-16论坛上看来的，澳大利亚一个智库为澳大利亚国防部举行过一次F-35空战性能演示，一直没有看到详细结果，这里是第一次看到间接描述，报告原本还是没有看到，估计是保密的。
摘录如下：
"Uploaded by ComputerHarpoon on Jan 4, 2010
A H3 MilSim simulation of air combat between 24 * F-35A JSF and 8 * Su-35S.
Results:
Su-35S overmatch the F-35A
Armaments:
F-35A: BVR 4 * AIM-120D; Guns Mauser 25 MM
Su-35S: BVR Adder 6 * R-77 Active Seeker, 6 * R-77 IR Seeker; WVR Archer 2 * R-73; Gun GSH301 30 MM
Courtesy REPSIM PTY LTD, Australia
Setting: North-East Australia
1. Our Simulation is a derivative work of Mr. Bond's Harpoon system. We allow users to input their own sensor, weapon, and platform data. Given that, our Australian partners, with some 35 yrs in the Defense Business, including a former RAAF Wing Commander, created a database and this demonstration scenario. This demonstrates how H3 MilSim can be used to try out different scenarios using your data and your scenarios. This particular scenario doesn't fare well for the JSF.... Your values for Pd, Ph, Pk on the sensors and missiles will yield different results.
2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.
3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:
The simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.
The F-35 CTOL due to its stealth configuration and internal carriage of weapons has altitude, release speed and attitude constraints for missile launch that dramatically reduce the AIM 120 missile performance compared to firing the missile from other aircraft such as F-16 or F-15 that can burn the missile off the rails at higher speeds and with full attitude freedom. Some of these limitations also apply to the F-22.
The Su-35 aircraft enjoys significant advantages over the F-35 in terms of absolute altitude, speed, weapon capacity and weapon release speed. However, maneuverability in the terminal phase of an air to air missile engagement is where the Su-35 enjoys a substantial advantage using integrated thrustered engine control rather than relying solely upon control surfaces in thin air.
That is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.
This kinematic advantage translates into a reduced no-escape zone calculation for the release of the AIM 120 missile against the Su-35. The maximum release range for an AIM 120 against the Su-35 employing its full range of capabilities is less than 20nm based upon its specific impulse, burn duration (boost and sustain), control surface effectiveness above 50,000ft and susceptibility to countermeasures. Beyond that no-escape zone the AIM 120 missile has less than 5 % chance of hitting the target.
The US DoD had a program to improve the AIM 120 missile using a number of aspects such as additional fuel and 2 stage motor as well as better electronic counter counter measures (ECCM) but these have not delivered as yet.
The Su-35 or indeed any of the modern Su and Mig aircraft can bleed sufficient energy off a coasting AIM 120 missile at high altitude to cause it to reach minimum energy level in less than 15 seconds with a combination of maneuvers.
The current generation of AA-12 missiles are able to be launched effectively from more than 3 times the AIM 120 no-escape zone because of the energy advantage provided at launch, greater specific impulse, burn duration both boost and sustain, (due to larger fuel fraction) and good control surface performance at altitude.
The F-35 has limited kinematic evasive capability against advanced air to air missiles for example, it cannot sustain a 6 G turn at Mach 1 at 40,000ft. And this was why an additional energy based defensive system was designed into the aircraft.
However, this solution is not effective beyond the scanning limits of the DAS and the Russian (and Chinese) technique of launching dissimilar sensored missiles in salvos against adversary aircraft, nor is it inherently reliable. This generally leads to defeating aircraft such as F-35 due to the focus in the defensive cycle being ordered first by the active radar seeker turning on and the passive infra red (IR) sensor being able to achieve lock at twice the range of the radar seeker from both the head on or side against the F-35.
The F-35 now has a large head-on IR signature due to the excessive heat generated by the systems inside the nose radome, in excess to 200C. Its rear plume at military power is visible at over 50 kms to advanced IR sensors.
The reality is that the F-35 in air to air combat against most modern fighters has to cross a large killing zone before attempting to engage a target that can at anytime turn and out run the F-35 engagement zone based upon radar or IR sensor detection plotting.
In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.
http://www.harpoon3pro.com
http://www.agi.com
http://www.computerharpoon.com
http://www.digitalmilitaryart.com
摘译如下：
24架F-35A（各4xAIM120，25mm航炮）对8架苏-35（各6xR77雷达加6xR77红外加2xR73，30mm航炮）
仿真平台：H3 MilSim
设定：澳大利亚东北
- F-35A的速度-升限包线和弹舱开门限制了AIM120的性能，F-15、F-16可以更好地发挥AIM120的性能。
- 苏-35比F-35的速度、升限、导弹发射速度限制、导弹挂载量明显优越，更有利于在高空空战。
- F-35和苏-35的速度-高度差极大地限制了AIM120的不可逃逸区，根据AIM120的发动机比冲、燃烧时间、50000英尺（约15240米）高度时控制面效率和苏-35的电子对抗能力，AIM120最大有效发射距离不超过20海里（37公里）。
- 苏-35（或者任何现代苏或米格）可以通过机动在15秒钟内使AIM120下降到最低能量水平。
- 但从能量水平来说，苏-35的R77比F-35的AIM120高三倍。
- F-35不能在40000英尺（约12200米）以M1做6g持续机动
- 如果苏-35同时发射雷达和红外制导导弹，F-35还要惨。F-35的机头由于AESA而达到200C的温度，军推尾流可以用先进红外在50公里外看到。
结论：F-35在空战中，需要穿越很大的对方杀伤区才能发射自己的AIM120导弹。在大部分仿真设定中，F-35在发射导弹前就被击落。
===============
在一个小时的演示中，不到30分钟时，就有至少5个人离席，但反对党的首席国防批评家留下来了。很难说这个演示是否完全公平、精确，是否有太多的党派政治因素，但至少这个仿真有点内容。硬伤在于用Harpoon 3 Pro的仿真核心，这在本质上是一个高级游戏。不过仿真的数学是一样的，游戏或者“专业”软件的差别或许不在于数学，而在于数据库。关键不在于精确到小数点的结论，而在于定性结论。如果他们的定性结论由于关键假定或者数据而出大错，那应该很容易指出。他们声称2008年兰德仿真得出同样的结果，那个仿真也是只流传于传说中，从来没有看到过实际报告。
很著名的澳大利亚F35黑
澳大利亚民间智库，西方世界F35黑的中心
看看人家这水平，5卢布绝逼少了。
再看看国内这水平，差距啊。什么时候才能与国际接轨啊
再看看国内这水平，差距啊。什么时候才能与国际接轨啊
其实做个简单对比就能得到答案：
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞M1.6 。
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞M1.6 。
其实做个简单对比就能得到答案：
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞 ...
气动类似?
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞 ...
气动类似?
ertert 发表于 2012-6-25 11:13 ![]()
气动类似?
都是大边条布局，后掠角也差不多大，都单发。进气道和尾翼有区别。
气动类似?
都是大边条布局，后掠角也差不多大，都单发。进气道和尾翼有区别。
他们就想要F-22
得出这样的结果是不识时务，你不就得罪了一大批F35的崇拜者吗？
四代机上MD盟国和MD的博弈，日韩自己搞了一些样子货来当砝码，澳大利亚连样子货都搞不出来，只能靠嘴炮？
据说澳大利亚非常推崇j20？
澳大利亚人真是不识时务。{:soso_e113:}
美帝搞F35本意主要用于对地攻击的，空战只是兼顾，而澳洲却拿来做空优机用，明显专业不对口啊。历来只有空优机可以改行做对地攻击机的，没有攻击机改行干空优的，F35不知能否破个天荒出来？
沈飞中四要是真能出来的话，倒是建议澳洲对地用F35，空优买TG家的沈四。{:soso_e120:}
美帝搞F35本意主要用于对地攻击的，空战只是兼顾，而澳洲却拿来做空优机用，明显专业不对口啊。历来只有空优机可以改行做对地攻击机的，没有攻击机改行干空优的，F35不知能否破个天荒出来？
沈飞中四要是真能出来的话，倒是建议澳洲对地用F35，空优买TG家的沈四。{:soso_e120:}
斑竹乱扣分 发表于 2012-6-25 11:47 ![]()
据说澳大利亚非常推崇j20？
那咱考不考虑卖呀?
据说澳大利亚非常推崇j20？
那咱考不考虑卖呀?怎么没人@一下韩五纪来辩一辩？理越辩越明嘛，只要不是空对空。。。
没看英文，从中文内容来看，报告好像忽略了F-35隐身性和先进的航电带来的优势，如果F-35更早发现F-15或苏-35战机，率先进行必要的机动，情况又当如何呢？
另外，跑个题，我个人认为和F-35一样，鹘鹰也是偏重对地的中型攻击机，而非空中优势战斗机，
如果国外客户买回去当制空战斗机用，若对手有三代半战机的话，像F-35或鹘鹰这样的战机，应该是抢先发现，抢先进行攻击的，而不是和对手拉近到彼此都能发现的距离再进行空战。
如果不能抢先发现，抢先攻击，那该怎么办？两个办法：一个是打不过就跑，利用超巡（鹘鹰估计暂时做不到）优势撤出战场，寻机再次攻击；另一个是找帮手，如果国外客户资金雄厚，但装备不了像F-22A、T50或歼-20这样标准丝带机，那么还是应该购买一些三代半或者三代大改，这样可以组成三代半+准丝带（F-35或鹘鹰）的组合，F-35或鹘鹰充当远距空空导弹发射平台，狗斗由三代半或三代大改来干。
没看英文，从中文内容来看，报告好像忽略了F-35隐身性和先进的航电带来的优势，如果F-35更早发现F-15或苏-35战机，率先进行必要的机动，情况又当如何呢？
另外，跑个题，我个人认为和F-35一样，鹘鹰也是偏重对地的中型攻击机，而非空中优势战斗机，
如果国外客户买回去当制空战斗机用，若对手有三代半战机的话，像F-35或鹘鹰这样的战机，应该是抢先发现，抢先进行攻击的，而不是和对手拉近到彼此都能发现的距离再进行空战。
如果不能抢先发现，抢先攻击，那该怎么办？两个办法：一个是打不过就跑，利用超巡（鹘鹰估计暂时做不到）优势撤出战场，寻机再次攻击；另一个是找帮手，如果国外客户资金雄厚，但装备不了像F-22A、T50或歼-20这样标准丝带机，那么还是应该购买一些三代半或者三代大改，这样可以组成三代半+准丝带（F-35或鹘鹰）的组合，F-35或鹘鹰充当远距空空导弹发射平台，狗斗由三代半或三代大改来干。
kutoo 发表于 2012-6-25 11:54 ![]()
美帝搞F35本意主要用于对地攻击的，空战只是兼顾，而澳洲却拿来做空优机用，明显专业不对口啊。历来只有空优 ...
但是MD有F22拿来踹门，却不出口，F35拿来做战轰正好
可是别人只能买F35，却发现它的踹门水平渣渣而已，那还买它做什么？炸弹卡车可不会长成这形状。
大家都是这样想的，你MD有F22干掉J20，我们的F35拿来卖萌？
美帝搞F35本意主要用于对地攻击的，空战只是兼顾，而澳洲却拿来做空优机用，明显专业不对口啊。历来只有空优 ...
但是MD有F22拿来踹门，却不出口，F35拿来做战轰正好
可是别人只能买F35，却发现它的踹门水平渣渣而已，那还买它做什么？炸弹卡车可不会长成这形状。
大家都是这样想的，你MD有F22干掉J20，我们的F35拿来卖萌？
fengxiao76 发表于 2012-6-25 12:51
没看英文，从中文内容来看，报告好像忽略了F-35隐身性和先进的航电带来的优势，如果F-35更早发现F-15或苏-3 ...
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗手段使得F-35不能先敌发射，而对手却可以利用速度和高度优势抢先发起攻击。这里面夸大了SU-35的航电和导弹性能……
fengxiao76 发表于 2012-6-25 12:51
没看英文，从中文内容来看，报告好像忽略了F-35隐身性和先进的航电带来的优势，如果F-35更早发现F-15或苏-3 ...
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗手段使得F-35不能先敌发射，而对手却可以利用速度和高度优势抢先发起攻击。这里面夸大了SU-35的航电和导弹性能……
shu0202 发表于 2012-6-25 14:15
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗 ...
F-35的AESA雷达不是一直开机的。
如果你玩过F-16战机这款空战游戏，正版带说明书的，可以看到其中有一关，F-16的雷达不用一直打开，一般是飞一段开一次机，然后做一个360度的转向，用机载雷达搜索一下空情。
如果有预警机，就更不用提前开机了，一直到进入到空空导弹发射范围内，再突然短暂开机锁定敌机，并发射导弹就可以。
雷达如果不需要长时间开机，所谓200多度的温度，在空中很快会随着关机而降低。
至于尾喷口的高温，那就是另一个问题，除非是被人追着屁股打，否则头对头，对手有什么优势？
shu0202 发表于 2012-6-25 14:15
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗 ...
F-35的AESA雷达不是一直开机的。
如果你玩过F-16战机这款空战游戏，正版带说明书的，可以看到其中有一关，F-16的雷达不用一直打开，一般是飞一段开一次机，然后做一个360度的转向，用机载雷达搜索一下空情。
如果有预警机，就更不用提前开机了，一直到进入到空空导弹发射范围内，再突然短暂开机锁定敌机，并发射导弹就可以。
雷达如果不需要长时间开机，所谓200多度的温度，在空中很快会随着关机而降低。
至于尾喷口的高温，那就是另一个问题，除非是被人追着屁股打，否则头对头，对手有什么优势？
F35的隐身木有了？
八岐刺蛇 发表于 2012-6-25 11:10 ![]()
其实做个简单对比就能得到答案：
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞 ...
气动差了老远，居然被你说成类似。。 机身截面就差了一大把。另，发动机的推力曲线也差了老远。
其实做个简单对比就能得到答案：
F16与F35气动类似，F16能用皮托管飞出M2.0，F35更大，用上了DSI，却只能飞 ...
气动差了老远，居然被你说成类似。。 机身截面就差了一大把。另，发动机的推力曲线也差了老远。
气动怎么会差不多?
这是仿真么？ 明明是仿假吧
谁给我找一个SU35带14枚空空导弹的图片来
F35A的弹舱开门有什么限制？ 早先是扯F22的弹舱，现在发射包线已经飞出来，不好再黑了，于是改为黑F35了
R77能量比AIM120高三倍，笑了
苏25可以接近到迎头发射红外导弹时F35都没机会发射导弹？
.......
整个仿假很敬业，基本上每条都很假
谁给我找一个SU35带14枚空空导弹的图片来
F35A的弹舱开门有什么限制？ 早先是扯F22的弹舱，现在发射包线已经飞出来，不好再黑了，于是改为黑F35了
R77能量比AIM120高三倍，笑了
苏25可以接近到迎头发射红外导弹时F35都没机会发射导弹？
.......
整个仿假很敬业，基本上每条都很假
赤果果黑肥电
肥电有那么垃圾么本身不可怕！可怕的是AIM-9X！
用电脑游戏模拟，真搞笑
下次我拿简氏舰队指挥官打一场88舰队灭TG海军，是不是也可以用来指责TG海军体制问题了？
用电脑游戏模拟，真搞笑
下次我拿简氏舰队指挥官打一场88舰队灭TG海军，是不是也可以用来指责TG海军体制问题了？
shu0202 发表于 2012-6-25 14:15 ![]()
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗 ...
说白了就是说，SU35用电子对抗就可以抵消掉F35隐身和先进电子设备的优势，这可能么？ 如果有人说给米格25装上先进的电子设备和红外装置就可以吧J20的隐身性能完全抵消，恐怕爱国小将们又该跳脚骂了吧
没有忽略隐身性，而是指出F-35的红外特征会被灵敏的红外探测系统比较早发现，而这个时候对手的电子对抗 ...
说白了就是说，SU35用电子对抗就可以抵消掉F35隐身和先进电子设备的优势，这可能么？ 如果有人说给米格25装上先进的电子设备和红外装置就可以吧J20的隐身性能完全抵消，恐怕爱国小将们又该跳脚骂了吧
这个，意思是你们别买f35了，买su35
可惜Su-35只有俄罗斯空军这一个客户，目前只有传说中48架订单，三哥都看不上，相当不给力。
这纯粹就是为批判而批判嘛，肥电确实不是空优，不过也不至于这样吧
另外，AIM120就这么弱，R77就这么牛？哪位有实战数据吗？
另外，AIM120就这么弱，R77就这么牛？哪位有实战数据吗？
肥电是肥点，但这个黑的也太匪夷所思了，按他们的说法，简直是把肥电当2代机被SU35轮奸啊。
隐身机的优势应该能够帮助肥电在率先发现对方上占得先机。
而假设不考虑预警机、地面情报等因素，那么超级侧卫飞到空中后，首先要解决的问题是“向哪里飞？”因为它根本不可能先知道对方在哪里。
估计当超级侧卫发现自己已经进入战场时，肥电可能已经射出中距弹了。所以超侧卫反应过来后要做的第一件事，就是玩命规避导弹，然后才谈得上其他。
这就是四代机与三代机的代差，不论你是3点几几代。
隐身机的优势应该能够帮助肥电在率先发现对方上占得先机。
而假设不考虑预警机、地面情报等因素，那么超级侧卫飞到空中后，首先要解决的问题是“向哪里飞？”因为它根本不可能先知道对方在哪里。
估计当超级侧卫发现自己已经进入战场时，肥电可能已经射出中距弹了。所以超侧卫反应过来后要做的第一件事，就是玩命规避导弹，然后才谈得上其他。
这就是四代机与三代机的代差，不论你是3点几几代。
先保证R77的导引头能有效锁定35再说，不过进入近距空战，红外探测器+红外导引导弹，35的确没多大优势，态势感知能力强点，可是电子的东西作用大升级也容易，所以关键还是看对手有没有足够能力躲过中距弹对射。
不过这个角度也看出F22不论中距还是近距，多么强。而且只要它愿意，进入近距格斗的机会都可以不给对方
不过这个角度也看出F22不论中距还是近距，多么强。而且只要它愿意，进入近距格斗的机会都可以不给对方
球电已经被袋鼠黑成F86级别的东西了
tony2010 发表于 2012-6-25 16:27 ![]()
先保证R77的导引头能有效锁定35再说，不过进入近距空战，红外探测器+红外导引导弹，35的确没多大优势，态势 ...
导引头和机载雷达运作方式不同,应该不太受f35的隐身术影响
先保证R77的导引头能有效锁定35再说，不过进入近距空战，红外探测器+红外导引导弹，35的确没多大优势，态势 ...
导引头和机载雷达运作方式不同,应该不太受f35的隐身术影响
香港來的 发表于 2012-6-25 17:04 ![]()
导引头和机载雷达运作方式不同,应该不太受f35的隐身术影响
什么不同？
还有计划把雷达导引头改成相控阵的，可以提升对隐身目标的跟踪、锁定能力呢。你这一句话就把机载相控阵的反隐身优势给灭了。。。。
导引头和机载雷达运作方式不同,应该不太受f35的隐身术影响
什么不同？
还有计划把雷达导引头改成相控阵的，可以提升对隐身目标的跟踪、锁定能力呢。你这一句话就把机载相控阵的反隐身优势给灭了。。。。
tony2010 发表于 2012-6-25 17:07 ![]()
什么不同？
还有计划把雷达导引头改成相控阵的，可以提升对隐身目标的跟踪、锁定能力呢。你这一句话就把 ...
我也不是专业,只是粽子面世这几天有上军网兴致,上网找找一些文章应该有提到.
什么不同？
还有计划把雷达导引头改成相控阵的，可以提升对隐身目标的跟踪、锁定能力呢。你这一句话就把 ...
我也不是专业,只是粽子面世这几天有上军网兴致,上网找找一些文章应该有提到.
我会告诉他们，在简氏的F18E中我开一架超级蜂，能虐8架SU35吗。
fengxiao76 发表于 2012-6-25 14:33 ![]()
F-35的AESA雷达不是一直开机的。
如果你玩过F-16战机这款空战游戏，正版带说明书的，可以看到其中有一关 ...
是啊，这正是澳大利亚这帮人故意忽略的东西……
F-35的AESA雷达不是一直开机的。
如果你玩过F-16战机这款空战游戏，正版带说明书的，可以看到其中有一关 ...
是啊，这正是澳大利亚这帮人故意忽略的东西……
主要是袋鼠真心想要一个打空战的，而不是一个肥电。