Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

sewerrat wrote:

A FBW jet built as RSS RC aircraft would be be a fun project.

Actually electric ducted fan RC aircraft have advanced in recent years. Including thrust vectoring with gyro's in pitch, roll and yaw. a poor mans FBW system.

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/sebart_mig_2 ... 3_prd1.htm

see video below

F-16.net Sponsor

sketch22 wrote:

Quote:

Even then Golden Eagles in the US network will slaughter it.

Do you really think the F-15C, even with an AESA and AWACS support, will even have a chance against the SU-35? Assuming the light greys even survive the BVR massacre, the flankers will completely dominate at the merge with their TVC. The only way for the F-15C's to have a chance is by getting into a AIM-9x WEZ with their JHMCS, and getting a shot off before the flankers easily slide into their 6 o'clock.

I'm not saying its impossible, just the flankers have the edge in most respects.

The Flankers only have the edge, if they can get the Eagle pilots to fly slow. The Eagles handle better at higher speeds. As for BVR, I'd put the APG63(V)3/AIM-120D against the Su-35 any day. The Flanker pilot needs the Eagle to get close, to try to get the fight that it wants. It's not going to be a BVR massacre of Eagles in any event.

munny wrote:

The Su-35 has a more powerful radar (though the Irbis-E would be easier to jam) with a 240 degree FOR compared to the 120 degrees of the F-15. In BVR it can seriously deminish the A-pole range of its opponents while maximizing its own by pretty much turning away after taking a shot to track the target for the missile. Its got a significant edge in WVR maneuvering as well.

The deciding factor would be, what are the ranges and details of the 2 fighters' respective weapons and can the F-15 jam the irbis and still track the flanker?

The F-15's AESA radar outranges the Raptor's radar, which outranges the Flanker's radar. The Irbis may have a potential to scan 240 degrees, but it doesn't have a 240 degree field of regard. When it's antenna is rotated, it can't see anything on the other side. The Flanker's maneuvering advantages are at lower airspeeds, weights, weapons load outs. The Eagle keeps the advantage if airspeeds stay up, due to good tactics.

Quote:

Delvo
I love how often they sprinkle their claims with "analysis shows..."

On a quick read you got at least 20 things wrong. Some published and some not even published.
Too many to list.
Take engines. Yes the present 117 Engine has a bit less thrust than the 119 but it is about 350kg lighter than the 119.
Excellent Specific Thrust. Weight does matter.
The Pak Fa will be heavier - who said that - There aim was to be lighter in airframe.
We will have to wait for the final figure there. That will depend on how much weight the strengthening adds.
Nothing unusual about a new airframe to need adjustments. Name one that did not need some.
The first two went well for 2 prototypes - over 100 flights quickly and they took it supersonic very quickly.
Have a look how quickly the initial testing of the F35 went in comparison.
I name just a few of the assertions you made that are not backed up by released Facts.

WW@
Can you produce any comparison charts on what radar out ranges what radar?

Yes the Irbis can teoretical search in 240 deg. You make it sound as this is an weakness..

Irbis have its blank sector allright, but what about F-15 and F-22 radar sector/volume search then?
Its considerable lower.

Also the Irbis can scann the same amount of volume much faster, perhaps 4 times faster.

In some ways the Irbis radar can do much of the same as any JHMCS, it depends on what modes it is operating in.
Remember it comes with a four channel design, which surly means it can operate more than one channel at any given time.
It has increased bandwidt which means it can prossess much more input vs BARS.
If it allready has spottet and target a Bogey, the Su-35S can turn its nose off vektor and let the radar 'hold' those contact while trying to Flank position, bying extra time to get re-enforcement in or even decide to disengage..
For ground mapping and SAR search the Irbis should be second to none.

haavarla wrote:

WW@
Can you produce any comparison charts on what radar out ranges what radar?

There is no open source chart, that's going to give the specifics. I was operating off of Russian and USAF statements.

Quote:

Yes the Irbis can teoretical search in 240 deg. You make it sound as this is an weakness..

I wasn't stating that the ability to pivot 240 degrees was a bad thing. I was merely pointing out that the Flanker couldn't look at 240 degrees simultaneously. It does in fact offer some good capabilities that you alluded to. It also has some down sides though. Increased weight, complexity, and maintenance. Less signature management, etc...

Quote:

Irbis have its blank sector allright, but what about F-15 and F-22 radar sector/volume search then?
Its considerable lower.

The F-15/22 can scan their entire search volume nearly instantaneously, as well as A2A, A2G, comms, ESM, EA, etc... virtually simultaneously, and with much lower probability of intercept/jamming.

Quote:

Also the Irbis can scann the same amount of volume much faster, perhaps 4 times faster.

This is inaccurate.

Are fighters, particularly US fighters fighting for the USAF or USN, really doing volume search much at all? They are going to take their search cues in almost every tactical situation from an E-2 or E-3. Far more important than the search volume of a fighter radar for the US is the ability to quickly resolve and engage a target once given a steer by the AWACS in the area and do so without being seen.

bigjku wrote:

Are fighters, particularly US fighters fighting for the USAF or USN, really doing volume search much at all? They are going to take their search cues in almost every tactical situation from an E-2 or E-3. Far more important than the search volume of a fighter radar for the US is the ability to quickly resolve and engage a target once given a steer by the AWACS in the area and do so without being seen.

Not in APA world.

Not in Russian Fanboy universe.

Those systems and the networking don't exist according to the above.

The types of figures we need to compare radars aren't there.

People can take brochure figures for whatever they want and they do.

Once a fighter is cued, how long does it take to detect, track, gather NCTR data (if needed) and develop a targeting quality track?

How well does this work when other aircraft are emitting and there is jamming and chaff etc.?

I bet they use some fighter radars for volume search and network the volume searchers to the trackers and the trackers to the targeters.

The big 63V3 on the F-15 can emit often and the 77 on the F-22 or the 81 on the F-35 only needs to light up for a short time.

Quote:

Also the Irbis can scann the same amount of volume much faster, perhaps 4 times faster.

How do you come to the conclusion that one main-lobe is faster to search an area than dozens of simultaneously scanning main-lobes?

Quote:

Remember it comes with a four channel design, which surly means it can operate more than one channel at any given time

Just not independently steered channels. Besides, I'm guessing you are looking at a Kopp article citing 20yo public domain information.

You might want to read bit further on use of 4 channel modules, and maybe take a look at some articles about Raytheon and a new TEGaN based TR module development contract and GaN based TR mod production contract.

Quote:

For ground mapping and SAR search the Irbis should be second to none.

How so? Its scanning with smaller number of simultaneous frequencies and polarizations than an AESA set and is scanning a single area at a time (missing brief opportunities to get a return off obscured objects) and has inherently lower directivity. US don't use PESA radars on their newest SAR pods....are they missing something?

Perhaps you're referring to relative angle to the target area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but flying PAST your target to get a better picture to attack it seems a little unwise.

Something else to take into account in a radar comparison is the total number of receivers on an F-22, not just on the AESA. Its perfectly reasonable to assume that the f-22's 30+ receiver panels are integrated to the radar to produce a large aperture size. Aperture is a major factor of the radar equation.

Quote:

Shingen
I find it interesting that they have widely spaced engines and small vertical stabs. Do they not care about safety or is there another way to deal with an engine out at high speed?

Yes the wide engine spacing is there to help thrust vectoring and if they have a catastrophic failure in one engine there is less chance of bits damaging the other engine. Also it allows for the wide enclosed weapons bay on the T50. In keeping with the T10 the wide fuselage gives good body lift according to Russian sources. The two engines are angled in for stability if they lose one engine. The [Fan of Steel] or whatever they call there 3D vectoring nozzle auto adopt a virtually straight back angle if one engine is lost. That automatically balances the thrust to a degree. I think also the T50 engines have a bit more angle inwards than the T10. They have landed T10's and Mig29's on one engine many times over the years.

Quote:

shingen
The thing I would like an answer on is how different the internal structure is from the T-10 and a good RCS estimate.

Missed this bit. The airframe on the T50 is all Titanium and Composite. The SU35s nearly all Titanium with some composite - if I remember correctly it is supposed to have only about 25% as many components also compared to a SU27 airframe. In reality a new airframe compared to the SU27. There stepping stone to the T50 in terms of structure and materials.
Thats how they achieved a stronger lighter airframe than the SU27 giving it more payload, better range, etc. About all that is the same on the SU35s is it looks like a SU27.

hello everyone. Can someone, please, explain me the difference between "PAK FA" and "F-22 Raptor" at large, accurately, without patriotic bulls**t. Telling that, because i didn't find adequate explanations at Russian web sites. Only words like: "We are the best. That's the difference".
It makes me sick. Because i want to know the exactly difference. I do know, that pak fa is better than Raptor in some parameters. And opposite, the Raptor is better than Pak either.
I will be very gratefull for large information.
[Link pending approval]
Sorry for the grammatical mistakes. Don't know english at the high level Smile

There is no good source of performance information for either plane. One is classified, and the other is classified and under development.

My guess is that the F-22 will have the edge in stealth and high speed flight, while the final PAK-FA might have better low speed performance.

Hmm. Thank you for the answer, mate.

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

It's very hard to compare an existing plane (7 years in service) with...well...mirage (yet not this of French origin). Smile

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

PAK FA will "remove the advantage held for decades"