|
|
本帖最后由 晨枫 于 2012-6-24 13:05 编辑
3 ^0 H+ i A, `1 L$ J& Y/ X) \$ [+ h8 h% z9 D0 g/ k
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html
/ _' _ b! m* k' P! U. ]
( `6 \8 z) F; g, d3 N x# g2 CF-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。+ b; ^/ [ [0 N0 s# r4 o9 \2 A3 A
k- `+ Z& ^* y/ o摘录如下：
) u9 V' `: i+ X. m% |5 y5 g; e8 ~$ {6 b/ Z
"Uploaded by ComputerHarpoon on Jan 4, 2010# c- {; R% C/ r' i4 ?; }
A H3 MilSim simulation of air combat between 24 * F-35A JSF and 8 * Su-35S.
/ n" z" T. h/ I% _+ C! FResults:, \+ w0 u) o5 a/ H4 V
Su-35S overmatch the F-35A |0 U: B5 T- f. X) x
Armaments:
8 w7 b8 [( Z2 M" K/ F( Z& I& jF-35A: BVR 4 * AIM-120D; Guns Mauser 25 MM* `# V% l) u7 L% `0 C3 l
) M6 K9 L7 ]7 } k/ GSu-35S: BVR Adder 6 * R-77 Active Seeker, 6 * R-77 IR Seeker; WVR Archer 2 * R-73; Gun GSH301 30 MM" R) O0 l0 ~! m6 V; s; F4 o" }2 ]# }
& x7 o4 ^- W/ h( d( \& O) |0 }
Courtesy REPSIM PTY LTD, Australia( o, ?9 V* \" b8 Y) ^! m, k9 B
# W' u6 W# J0 X8 c g- [4 B
Setting: North-East Australia
0 f$ Y7 _# D3 N" U* D+ I8 b1. 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.
3 n( B D6 H9 b; y2 B$ ^4 S- f8 R; g5 q/ d/ x9 H* y& Z3 u
2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.) L& z! F" T* D$ O0 m1 d3 U1 h- ]
\& ~7 D3 q8 i2 }! B$ U( H% l
3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:
$ A5 r8 ?" c3 y9 X$ \
1 F; ]2 v7 V# p4 GThe simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.0 b+ j& D8 R) I; ^% y, `
& ?. b0 a( r# d% m8 w* TThe 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-22.6 f X; [ |+ T! U$ I
8 [ K+ S9 F- w \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./ v" A+ Z: h0 N; p( t1 {0 c
i% C+ q) Z$ j# g; j( W+ LThat is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.- B0 F& ^' Z# {3 q" A( c
^4 Q' V" d; J( p" \
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.) s# A7 v# T, k7 b
4 b( o& L" F% J+ R: t8 A
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.+ q2 v9 ?# k1 \7 }/ @( s( W
; q, B2 |" U5 k" AThe 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.
" [, n( L" [# d) @8 `+ o$ |; H/ w6 K! @, M u
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.
6 H7 i3 k0 e! l
6 S$ b+ e8 |6 ^3 u3 qThe 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.% @' O3 A8 r0 o1 S. ]6 n
! L) t+ T( e( v2 D( D
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.
9 {1 C$ z2 W7 X5 m j# Z( W
8 U* G' k w! Q! T+ bThe 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.7 g8 ]: X0 G8 I+ M, A& ~, }. p9 B
6 a% m/ \+ A3 a' S3 {" Z5 x
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.+ N# {5 [# S( u# x( {4 n
% M- g6 f$ i4 f# g, ~( J$ ?In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.
: ~) A* V4 m" ^* f+ m# E6 I; F/ j
http://www.harpoon3pro.com
2 P9 d/ t. E% l$ Yhttp://www.agi.com7 W' O# p+ _% H) ?3 l
http://www.computerharpoon.com
$ |# |- @3 V! b" d/ ^/ F% ahttp://www.digitalmilitaryart.com4 [; @) S9 F' n" p6 }# C
4 r3 C3 x0 O8 d0 V- l- W( }
摘译如下：/ s8 h' L. N; x, k" a) s
! r% d. [ R! W8 n24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）
5 v a0 @6 D; o2 q+ b. t仿真平台：H3 MilSim
9 l. Z' M4 A& Q2 H: W设定：澳大利亚东北$ M* E, d) E5 a- \3 I" ?
/ P0 @, w, _% i# y% o P- d5 v- 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。4 L* y; b( C* s& `& g& H# c, q
- 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。& l6 h5 z7 o( y+ W, k
- 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）。- A; T6 g/ T+ r' w, d z( B
- 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。
h% L! b% ^+ D) M. C/ m( y9 U- 但从能量水平来说，苏-35的R77比F-35的AIM120高三倍。
; c( x' B W( Q- F-35不能在40000英尺（约12200米）以M1做6g持续机动
+ }# J. f; j, S. q4 ^- 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。8 ^7 R* [: x- V6 y; V: u
, i; e7 J4 ~# @& e3 _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。
; _. S# @% m/ S+ m# V% N8 E- u7 \' v" j6 N4 s0 ~
===============9 n, F) N: x5 B+ \1 f" B) `
7 e2 R+ o/ S. C s4 T) g s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。 |
|
雷达卡
发表于 2012-6-25 02:47:30
收藏
分享
淘帖
支持
反对
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2012-6-25 07:49:54
楼主
