Lockheed to offer Japan advanced F-22 F-35 hybrid?

[swiss]

Concerning the cover of that German book, SU-27...

Is that not an SU-35?

Yes it is. But the Su-35 is still a (upgraded) Su-27.

BTW Here is a Data sheet from the T10 up to the Su-35. there is at least 1 typo.

Hmm, I still see 667ft^2 as the wing area for both.

Thats indeed strange. So your guess about the Khibiny ECM pods seems to be a good explanation.

[mixelflick]

Being the penultimate rendition of the Flanker, the SU-35 is one interesting bird.

They're apparently enthralled with "super-maneuverability". It's common to all of their designs post Mig-29, 'cept for the Mig-35 Russia herself will be buying. Still, the option is there for export models. It's hard to say if in this age of HOBS missiles why they see it that way, perhaps they're as big a fan of said "super-maneuverability" as their youtube fans?

The Flanker is widely regarded as a decidedly dangerous WVR foe, yet one aspect that's little discussed is its size. If the F-15 is the flying tennis court, what could be said of the SU-35? You're certainly not going to lose sight of it in a furball, that's for sure. It's interesting that the only air to air combat data we have on it (SU-27's) showed abysmal BVR results, and WVR apparently trounced the Mig-29's flown against it.

It also sports some signature reduction effort, bringing the HUGE RCS of earlier Flankers to a smaller level. Not sure how much that'll matter given its enormous starting point. Then again, it's RCS is probably much smaller than an F-15's. Given their proliferation, it's curious the platform hasn't engaged in more combat. The relatively small number of SU-35's that Russia/China possess is another mark against it, I wonder how effective it can be in such small numbers.

Overall I feel the Flanker mystique is just that. In actual combat, we may discover that it just isn't the threat everyone thought it would be. Sort of like the Mig-29. Only a healthy dose of air combat would tell us. I sure would like to know the results of those Flanker/F-16 dogfights over area 51...

[element1loop]

There was also a site from knaapo or UAC that claim the normal fuel load from the su-35 is 5270kg. Sadly it seems gone.

And that would start to make some more sense (11,618 lb normal), thus trading fuel for T:W agility, and acceleration performance. No point carrying extra fuel all the time if you don't need it, and just have to trim it out and use more as a result.

[zero-one]

@mixelflick

Fair points there.
When I go to internet forums like this one, there is a notion that Western fighters are BVR oriented while Russian fighters are WVR oriented. Hence Russian fighters are better for WVR and the western fighters are better for BVR.

I call the whole thing baloney. This is not a video game that needs to be balanced. Both the West and Russia want to be superior in all aspects. Thing is, the West has the money to spend and buy itself a plane that has the best of all worlds while Russia doesn't. It's easy to see why the West has better BVR fighters. Stealth, better Sensors, better weapons, data links etc.

But when it comes to WVR, a lot of people automatically point to the Russians. Why? 3D TVC. thats the holy grail of WVR combat to a lot of people. But in reality it just reflects the difference in WVR philosophies of the 2 sides.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-tes ... verability

The emphasis in “supermaneuverability” runs counter to much Western air combat doctrine, which stresses high speed, the avoidance of the slower “merge” and tactics that do not lose the aircraft's energy. Bogdan, however, says supermaneuverability can be essential.

“The classical air combat starts at high speed, but if you miss on the first shot—and the probability is there because there are maneuvers to avoid missiles—the combat will be more prolonged,” he says. “After maneuvering, the aircraft will be at a lower speed, but both aircraft may be in a position where they cannot shoot. But supermaneuverability allows an aircraft to turn within three seconds and take another shot.”

For The Russians, its all about, what happens when you eventually get slow in WVR.
The Western Approach on the other hand is to give planes a motor big enough to make it more unlikely for you to get slow in the first place or if you do, you can power out of it faster than the other guy. The Russians don't have motors that can provide that kind of juice, so their answer is to focus on Post Stall maneuverability. If you noticed, Russian planes generally have lower T/W ratios than their American counter parts.

There are exceptions, the F/A-18 is a fighter that has even better post stall performance than most Russian fighters and the Mig-29 can be better than most Western fighters when it comes to high energy performance.

The F-22 and Su-35 represents the pinnacle of both sides Fighter design philosophy. Performance wise, they are designed to be good at everything. But Raptor seems to lean more towards the High Energy, E-M oriented philosophy of the West, while the Su-35 takes pride in their Post-Stall, Low speed maneuvering philosophy of the Russians.

[marsavian]

Losing speed in combat can be unavoidable sometimes if you are forced to maneuver hard e g. your opponent has forced you to keep turn rate around 20 degrees/sec rather than say 10 for long enough and then low speed lift/drag/handling and super maneuverability could become crucial in surviving further if combat is persisting. It requires a lot of discipline on the high energy fighter pilot to say disengage turning at the correct point and keep using the vertical/straight ahead in keeping speed up, there is also the added stress of having to constantly use around 9g at your corner velocity at higher speeds.

Super maneuverability is a nice to have when the chips are down but it is a poor third against BVR advantage due to radar / missiles / stealth and transonic acceleration / maneuverability. We already have had the proof of that, how poorly did the excellent low speed handling Mig-21 do against F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 in its final encounters ? However the Flanker also has these good high speed attributes too making a well flown one a tricky opponent to beat. It's obvious now that with respect to 4th generation all countries have placed their bets on what maneuverability to emphasize or not. Now in fifth generation it's all about who is the more stealthier and has the more sensitive sensors and longer reaching missiles.

Any super maneuverability a fifth generation plane has will be coincidental and help the design in other areas e.g. F-22/F-35 have twin tails (and pitch TVC in F-22 as well to help high speed efficiency) to aid stealth but do confer some super maneuverability too. Finally if super maneuverability was really all that crucial to even the Russians they would have insisted on all their new build Mig-35s having 3D TVC nozzles but none are currently planned to do so. Let the fans win the virtual mock dogfights but it's only the real or threat of real encounters that count in global air power and Stealth spooks the Russians more than their TVC Maneuverability spooks the West.

[mixelflick]

You both make interesting points. Thank you, I learned a lot from your posts.

The two that jumped out at me though, were these..

"Super maneuverability is a nice to have when the chips are down but it is a poor third against BVR advantage due to radar / missiles / stealth and transonic acceleration / maneuverability."

Also, the point about Russian motors not having the zing of their western counterparts AND western jets having better thrust to weight ratios...

With respect to point #1, if I were a pilot then yes.. I'd rather have better stealth/BVR weapons and transonic acceleration while giving away a slight edge in super-maneuverability. Any day! Besides, if it still went to a furball you have those HOBS missiles like the 9x, which can out-maneuver even the best "super-maneuverable" jets. That's why I HOPE the F-35 external 9x's are at least "somewhat" stealthy. If memory serves, they are or were at least claimed to be by LM (kicking myself for not saving the quote).

With respect to Russian motors not having the zing of their western counterparts... I wasn't aware that was the case? In fact, I thought the thrust to weight ratios of the engines were as good or better, they just have very short TBO's. I also thought most Russian jets had better thrust to weight ratios, albeit considering how much internal fuel they carry I can see now why that might not be the case.

An air to air combat loaded F-15 or 16 (after punching the tanks) I can see having a better T2W ratio vs. most Russian jets. Certainly, the F-22 (in a league of its own). The Super Hornet and legacy hornets I was always under the impression they were under-powered?

Sorry for more questions, but I love learning new stuff..

[swiss]

And that would start to make some more sense (11,618 lb normal), thus trading fuel for T:W agility, and acceleration performance. No point carrying extra fuel all the time if you don't need it, and just have to trim it out and use more as a result.

Yes. I see this the same way.

With respect to point #1, if I were a pilot then yes.. I'd rather have better stealth/BVR weapons and transonic acceleration while giving away a slight edge in super-maneuverability. Any day! Besides, if it still went to a furball you have those HOBS missiles like the 9x, which can out-maneuver even the best "super-maneuverable" jets. That's why I HOPE the F-35 external 9x's are at least "somewhat" stealthy. If memory serves, they are or were at least claimed to be by LM (kicking myself for not saving the quote).

The days of "super-maneuverability gunfights" seems definitely over with IIR, mach 3 and >50g capable missiles. Was there a "real" dogfight with below 250 knots in the last 30 Years, with a western fighter involved?

From the front with this fancy new pylons it seems Stealth is not the problem for the F-35 and 9x. From 3 or 9 o'clock, could be far more an issue.

With respect to Russian motors not having the zing of their western counterparts... I wasn't aware that was the case? In fact, I thought the thrust to weight ratios of the engines were as good or better, they just have very short TBO's. I also thought most Russian jets had better thrust to weight ratios, albeit considering how much internal fuel they carry I can see now why that might not be the case.

The Su-35 cant supercruise and Rate of climb with roughly 280 m/s should be also below EF, Rafale and Raptor. So only avantage seems indeed low speed, low altitude maneuverability.

[hephaestusaetnaean]

The days of "super-maneuverability gunfights" seems definitely over with IIR, mach 3 and >50g capable missiles. Was there a "real" dogfight with below 250 knots in the last 30 Years, with a western fighter involved?

The last jet v jet guns kill was in 1989, an Iranian F-4E downing an Iraqi Su-22M (http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015 ... periority/ pg37).

The last western-piloted guns kill was ODS, A-10s downing two helos.

The last guns kill period was the 1992 coup attempt in Venezuelan, a gov't F-16 downing an AT-27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D ... .281992.29

There was an old UK concept floating around that had the pilot submerged in the aircraft for this very reason. Will see if I can dig it up later.

[disconnectedradical]

Looks like the F-22 hybrid for Japan won't be happening any time soon if at all.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US

[popcorn]

Looks like the F-22 hybrid for Japan won't be happening any time soon if at all.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US

Looks like the sticker shock of buying a F-22 analogue knocked some sense into them.

[popcorn]

deleted

[Corsair1963]

Looks like the F-22 hybrid for Japan won't be happening any time soon if at all.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US

Honestly, not really a serious option for Japan. As by time it arrived New 6th Generation Fighters would be just around the corner. Plus, it would have been extremely expensive as Japan would have no partners for such a project....

[zero-one]

The days of "super-maneuverability gunfights" seems definitely over with IIR, mach 3 and >50g capable missiles. Was there a "real" dogfight with below 250 knots in the last 30 Years, with a western fighter involved?

Diminished maybe, over? I wouldn't go that far.
I'd hardly call air to air combat within the last 30 years representative of what a peer adversary would bring to the table.

[botsing]

The last jet v jet guns kill was in 1988, an Iranian F-4E downing an Iraqi Su-22M (http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015 ... periority/ pg37).

FTFY

[disconnectedradical]

Looks like this hybrid is not considered anymore.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Aerosp ... -US-not-UK

"Japan looks to create a completely new manned aircraft, opting against a Lockheed Martin proposal for a hybrid of the F-22 and F-35. Tokyo will stick with domestic development for the plane's mission systems, which control such crucial equipment as radar, sensors and electronic warfare gear. It will not limit itself to a single American partner company."