Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Because I'm not sure the T-50 is complete stealth, looks like they just took an Su-27 than added some VF-23 details to it and called it new.

And doesn't the F-35 match the F-22 in flight performance?

How many ATA missiles does the PAK-FA carry compared to the F-35?

F-16.net Sponsor

Aren't there enough topics in which this question is already discussed or could be asked? Rolling Eyes

Much will depend on two factors:

1. Will the T-50's radar be as good as advertised?
2. Will its frontal RCS be good enough to put it somewhere between the F-18 Super Hornet's 0.1m2 and the F-35's 0.001m2 class?

The radar being developed for the T-50 will be an even better version of the radar developed for the Su-35, which is pretty capable in its own right. This new radar will have a very large dish, bigger even than that of the F-22. The nose of the T-50 is large enough certainly to accommodate a very powerful radar. So it is quite possible the Russians, relying heavily on western components they didn't have access to during the Cold War, will be able to field a radar with similar detection/tracking ranges to that of the APG-77 radar used by the F-22.

As far as RCS, the T-50 design is certainly superior to any other aircraft the Russians have come up with thus far. But it appears its RCS will be best in the frontal area. From a rear aspect, the T-50 looks little better than your average 4th generation fighter. But then again, rear aspect stealth isn't exactly the F-35's strong suit either. But looking closely at the design and its angles, I think it is safe to assume the RCS reduction measures of the design will likely better that of the F-18 Super Hornet. It likely won't be as good as that of the F-35, and will be significantly less so when compared to the F-22.

However, it closes the gap enough that it could pose a serious threat to an aircraft like the F-35. The T-50's radar will be larger and more powerful than that of the APG-81 used in the F-35. Depending on just how good the frontal RCS of the T-50 ends up being, the improved radar performance may be sufficient to make up the difference in the F-35s lower signature. Again, this will ultimately depend on whether the T-50's RCS will be closer to that of the F-18 Super Hornet or closer to that of the F-35. If the former, the F-35 should still possess the advantage in BVR engagements. If the latter, then the advantage in BVR may swing toward the T-50. And if it is somewhere basically in the middle, it might be a toss-up.

As far as actual performance, no the F-35 is no match for the F-22. The F-22 is better in every regard. It is faster, can super cruise, can fly higher, has a much larger wing area and better wing loading, has a much better thrust/weight ratio and has greater agility, which is amplified even further with the use of its 2D TVC, which the F-35 doesn't possess. The F-22 is vastly superior in terms of flight performance. It holds enough advantages that its pilot can basically dictate the terms of the engagement. That doesn't even begin to take into account the larger missile load carried by the F-22 or its more powerful APG-77 radar. In a BVR fight, the F-22 wins hands down.

Sadly, the T-50 will also hold the advantage in regards to most of these same performance characteristics. It will be faster, can fly higher, have better range, have engines in the same power class as the F-22, and with such a large wing area and with 3D TVC, should be more agile as well.

What it all boils down to is whether the F-35's low observables are just far enough ahead of that of the T-50 to offset the difference in the T-50's more powerful radar. In terms of raw performance, the T-50 will be the superior aircraft. So will the F-35 be "way better"? From looking at all of the info, I must say, the capabilities of the fighter the T-50 eventually becomes leaves me in doubt it can be "way better". In fact, if the T-50's systems end up being as good as advertised, it may come close to parity with the F-35 in some regards.

That is why I think we need to build more F-22s. The F-22 offers that "way better" guarantee. It has a far lower RCS than the F-35. And it also possess radar range well beyond that of the F-35. And in terms of kinematic performance, it will meet or exceed the T-50 in all areas. The F-22 is still clearly ahead. But the T-50 significantly closes the gap on the F-35, enough so to make me very uncomfortable in relying on it to fill the type of roles the F-22 was designed to handle.

Is it just me or do some of the wing elements/shaping seem like those in the F-16XL? Didn't that lead to supercruise on ONE Shocked

engine?

077 -

No, the current F-35 model does not match F-22 performance in most aspects (maybe dwightlooi's Super-JSF design could have given a good race). Sure, you might find a slice of the envelope where an A-10 is better than the F-22, but overall, despite the overly brief (arguably over-simplified/generalized), public statements made by a credible test-pilot, the two performances JSF/F-22 are apples and oranges. Remember, the F-35's inherent requirement is to match the F-16's performance, for which it (JSF) is claimed to do. And sure, while even F-16 and Hornets/Supers can again, excel in certain spectrum of the flight envelope, overall, the full envelope is not equal.

As for which will eventually be 'better' overall the PAK-FA or JSF, first of all, such questions are so fundamentally 'dumb' (completely senseless), no offense, but to even begin to compare the two, we'll need to wait until what, 2017 for both examples to be operationally IOC proven, displayed, analyzed, i.e., in the field, etc?

For example, as far as 'how many AAM' each can carry internally(?)... well, in part it will depend on how many launcher rails/points are eventually funded and developed for both (e.g., beyond the two currently on block I/II F-35) and will depend on how compact the next gen AAM's are, etc.

Tinito - good catch.

Well, everybody seems to forget that your super high-tech jet fighter is just an expensive tarmac holder-downer if it's broken...
The F-35 has a huge emphasis on maintenance and a worldwide logistic system that will finally move maintenance beyond the current generation, which is the real F-35 revolution. That means 20 F-35's will be an effectively greater number of aircraft compared to 20 PAK FA's- and superior numbers can offset a whole lot of other disadvantages(which I say would be quite few anyway).

And that's not even accounting for sensor integration, which would be a huge F-35 strength, especially versus any watered-down PAK-FA export version.

Tinito_16 wrote:

Is it just me or do some of the wing elements/shaping seem like those in the F-16XL? Didn't that lead to supercruise on ONE Shocked

engine?

I for one am almost certain the F-35 will infact supercruise, just not to the levels of the F-22 though. M1.2 - M1.3 supercruise speeds are my best guess.

"and superior numbers can offset a whole lot of other disadvantages" tell that to guys that met Wittman's Tiger at Villers-Bocage in 1944...

shep1978 wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

Is it just me or do some of the wing elements/shaping seem like those in the F-16XL? Didn't that lead to supercruise on ONE Shocked

engine?

I for one am almost certain the F-35 will infact supercruise, just not to the levels of the F-22 though. M1.2 - M1.3 supercruise speeds are my best guess.

Then you guess wrong because Lockheed already stated and debriefed potential buyer countries that it hasnt in all flight tests donne.

F-35 wasnt meant to be a world beater in AA although it does pretty well.

Pilotasso wrote:

shep1978 wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

Is it just me or do some of the wing elements/shaping seem like those in the F-16XL? Didn't that lead to supercruise on ONE Shocked

engine?

I for one am almost certain the F-35 will infact supercruise, just not to the levels of the F-22 though. M1.2 - M1.3 supercruise speeds are my best guess.

Then you guess wrong because Lockheed already stated and debriefed potential buyer countries that it hasnt in all flight tests donne.

F-35 wasnt meant to be a world beater in AA although it does pretty well.

LM's definition of supercruise is M1.5 or better, not M1 or better.

Pilotasso wrote:

Then you guess wrong because Lockheed already stated and debriefed potential buyer countries that it hasnt in all flight tests donne.

F-35 wasnt meant to be a world beater in AA although it does pretty well.

Hold on though, hasn't the aircraft only completed about a quater of a percent of its flight tests, well maybe not a qauter of a percent but you get the gist of what i'm saying.
To early to say it won't yet my friend. Wink

http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

So the aircraft will supercruise because you said so? I guess its your word versus lockheeds LMAO

Take the time for some reading before you post such things lightly for millions of people. Wink

Pilotasso wrote:

http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

So the aircraft will supercruise because you said so? I guess its your word versus lockheeds LMAO

Take the time for some reading before you post such things lightly for millions of people. Wink

If their definition is M1.5 or greater, and it doesn't cruise at M1.5 or greater, then it doesn't supercruise by their definition. They don't explicitly say that it can't cruise at speeds higher than M1 though.

So far, the average cruising speed of the F-35 is roughly, give or take 5 knots, about 0 knots. Can't cruise much faster than that if you remain perpetually grounded. Oh, and could those who claim to know that LM defines "supercruise" as in excess of Mach 1.5 please provide a source of where LM explicitly makes that definition? I've never seen it explicitly stated as such, and I've been around more than your average bear. Maybe I just missed it.

jam2009 wrote:

"and superior numbers can offset a whole lot of other disadvantages" tell that to guys that met Wittman's Tiger at Villers-Bocage in 1944...

Gee, and who won that war and why?

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Will the F-35 be way better than the PAK-FA?