F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 20:59
by bossovich
Apparently the F-35 is no where near the latest Sukhoi jets including the Su-30 and Su-35 when it comes to A2G capabilities. As far as I see this makes the JSF already somewhat incapable to be the country's replacement for air superiority fighters and make it's main use A2G. Does this mean America will now be behind Russia and have to start struggling to catch up to them in air to air combat? Monetarily will this even be possible?

RE: f-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 21:19
by lamoey
think you got your facts mixed up my friend

Re: f-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 21:21
by hb_pencil
bossovich wrote:Apparently the F35 is no where near the latest Sukhoi jets including the Su-30 and Su-35 when it comes to A2G capabilities. As far as I see this makes the JSF already somewhat incapable to be the country's replacement for air superiority fighters and make it's main use A2G. Does this mean America will now be behind russia and have to start struggling to catch up to them in air to air combat? Monetarily will this even be possible?


Well, before you get piled upon... its really the other way around. The Su-30 and 35 don't hold much chance against an F-35. It has inferior sensors, stealth, comms, ECM and likely transonic performance (the flight regime most A2A actually occurs.) The Sukhoi has significantly poorer air to ground... the weapons it could carry are markedly inferior to western systems like the JDAM, JSOW, AGM-130 ect.

The Russians are actually significantly behind the United States in fighter technology... simply by virtue of an economic collapse and the paucity of funding given to aircraft development. By comparison the US has developed and in the process of fielding not one, but two 5th Gen fighters, as well as a series of new generation stealthy UCAVs (X-47B).

Re: f-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 21:25
by flighthawk
bossovich wrote:Apparently the F35 is no where near the latest Sukhoi jets including the Su-30 and Su-35 when it comes to A2G capabilities. As far as I see this makes the JSF already somewhat incapable to be the country's replacement for air superiority fighters and make it's main use A2G. Does this mean America will now be behind russia and have to start struggling to catch up to them in air to air combat? Monetarily will this even be possible?



:doh:

RE: Re: f-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 21:38
by weez
Dude. April 1st is April Fools Day. Good one, though.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 22:02
by alloycowboy
bossovich wrote:Apparently the F-35 is no where near the latest Sukhoi jets including the Su-30 and Su-35 when it comes to A2G capabilities. As far as I see this makes the JSF already somewhat incapable to be the country's replacement for air superiority fighters and make it's main use A2G. Does this mean America will now be behind Russia and have to start struggling to catch up to them in air to air combat? Monetarily will this even be possible?



Just so you know:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2011, 22:33
by SpudmanWP
The F-35 carries just as much, or even more (18,000 lbs) than either, has 2x5000lb hardpoints (hello bunker busters), has a better RwR, stealthier radar, 360 EOTS, spherical EODAS, etc, etc.....

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 00:32
by popcorn
bossovich wrote:Apparently the F-35 is no where near the latest Sukhoi jets including the Su-30 and Su-35 when it comes to A2G capabilities. As far as I see this makes the JSF already somewhat incapable to be the country's replacement for air superiority fighters and make it's main use A2G. Does this mean America will now be behind Russia and have to start struggling to catch up to them in air to air combat? Monetarily will this even be possible?


Read APA much?

Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 00:44
by Prinz_Eugn
SpudmanWP wrote:The F-35 carries just as much, or even more (18,000 lbs) than either, has 2x5000lb hardpoints (hello bunker busters), has a better RwR, stealthier radar, 360 EOTS, spherical EODAS, etc, etc.....


But Bomber Doors!

RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 00:45
by bossovich
i also thought that the f-35 was completely superior until i read what was on this page: http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html and now im a bit confused

Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 00:54
by Prinz_Eugn
bossovich wrote:i also thought that the f-35 was completely superior until i read what was on this page: http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html and now im a bit confused


The Author, Eric Palmer, is a long-time critic of the F-35 program and associates with Air Power Australia, a wild-eyed think tank which goes to absurd lengths to try and discredit the program. However, he's doesn't go as far as them- usually.

The fact that the source is anonymous does not speak well to the credibility of the article.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 00:59
by bossovich
thanks that explains a lot, when i was reading what he wrote i was quite baffled

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 01:09
by spazsinbad
bossovich, your mind is easily changeable then if this is all it took: "... An unnamed source stated that earlier this year a presentation was given by an industry air combat threat assessment expert [unnamed] to defense officials of a NATO country [also unnamed]..." AND "...Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation..."

With my computer here I'm simulating a lot of things. No?

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 01:51
by svenphantom
My Me109 defeated the F-35 in Microsoft Combat Simulator, that means the F-35 is obviously inferior in every aspect and must be replaced by a more capable fleet of P-51s to counter-act this new threat. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 03:44
by hb_pencil
svenphantom wrote:My Me109 defeated the F-35 in Microsoft Combat Simulator, that means the F-35 is obviously inferior in every aspect and must be replaced by a more capable fleet of P-51s to counter-act this new threat. :roll:


Can we really afford that?


Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2011, 03:46
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:bossovich, your mind is easily changeable then if this is all it took: "... An unnamed source stated that earlier this year a presentation was given by an industry air combat threat assessment expert [unnamed] to defense officials of a NATO country [also unnamed]..." AND "...Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation..."

With my computer here I'm simulating a lot of things. No?


An unnamed industry source told me the F-35 can do the kessell run in 12 parsecs and make point 2 past light speed...

Shouldn't have any problem playing the "kinematic games" with SU-30/35's that Mr Palmer (or is that Mrs?) has been told by APA is so important in air combat...

And Eric doesn't just "associate" with them. He damn near quotes them verbatim on a daily basis. Oh and of course he's not beset by groupthink, despite swallowing their nonsense without question. We are...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2011, 16:04
by wrightwing
Another thing to consider, when folks talk about supposed kinematic advantages- it's no advantage if you don't know when to fly fast, or where to shoot. It's not as if any threat aircraft will always be flying around supersonically. Even the F-22 stays subsonic until it needs the speed, and it has much more supersonic endurance than any Flanker.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2011, 02:25
by thestealthfighterguy
Better than the F-35.... AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that's a good one. Must be one of the RAND boys that didn't know the F-22's real specs so they made them up. SOme of the people working on the F-35 don't know what she'll really do but this guy know it all. Thanks for the laugh! :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 07:41
by haavarla
Word is KnAAPO delivered some unspesified # of Su-35S to Lipetsk Training facility..
Still waiting for any official news.

I would like to throw in that four new build Su-27SM3 has also been delivered from KnAAPO to Krymsk Airbase this week.

And by next week, six new Su-34 will be delivered from NAPO to Voronezh Airbase.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 04:41
by sufaviper
If F-35 has Viper like kinematics (when both are carrying similar load outs), which I think has become accepted as reasonable. Then you have to think about the 2008 Red Flag when USAF F-15's and F-16's took out IAF SU-30MKI's, . . . with guns. I'm not terribly worried. The SU's are probably better kinematically is some areas of the envelope (thrust vector helps, and the large effective wing area), but with everything else included (avionics, EW, Situational Awareness, Stealth, ect.) I think the F-35 will be fine. And don't foget, F-35 isn't meant to be the king of the skys, that is why F-22's will be flying top cover.

Sufa Viper

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 05:17
by tacf-x
The F-35 test pilots actually stated that its maneuverability is between that of an F-16 and F/A-18 so the answer is yes the F-35 is decent from a kinematic point of view. It lacks external stores so a drag reduction allows for it to perform hard maneuvers without bleeding off too much energy due to drag from external weapons and pylons. As such it should perform quite well against a generation 4.5 Sukhoi and the advantage in SA allows for first look, first shot, and first kill.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 05:39
by popcorn
All the latest frontline fighters either deployed today or in development today are all capable of achieving kinematic performance that meet or exceed the capabilities of their human pilots to exploit. They are all fairly evenly matched in this regard, with the exception of the F-22's exceptional super cruise capability.
Superiority in avionics, sensors, signature management are some of the key enablers and differentiators that matter more given the general parity in kinematics performance. Then, of course, there's the larger picture of how a platform achieves synergy with other assets in the force structure.

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 07:53
by haavarla
Second Su-35S, fresh out of KnAAPO:

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircra ... _su-35.wbp

It looks like it has more complete sonsor suite, OLS etc.

Right under the cockpit and right behind the cockpit glass.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2011, 23:31
by flighthawk128
Uhhh... Is it just me, or is everyone ignoring the fact that the F-35 has better stealth than any fighter jet ever built on this planet??? The point is to see as far as possible using radar, and shoot it down. Okay, probably not as efficient as the F-22 or F-14, but that is because it is new. After some tweaking, maybe with the new scramjet AMRAAMs, it'll do, I think. This factor will beat pretty much any Sukhoi, as long as it doesn't get too close, or run out of missiles.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2011, 23:51
by falcon17
The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.

EO-DAS situational awareness system for F-35:

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... targeting/

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2011, 07:51
by wrightwing
falcon17 wrote:The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.



That's 90km for a .01m^2 target. The Irbis would likely not spot an F-35, till it was 30-40km, on a good day.

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2011, 16:37
by southernphantom
wrightwing wrote:
falcon17 wrote:The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.



That's 90km for a .01m^2 target. The Irbis would likely not spot an F-35, till it was 30-40km, on a good day.


At which point it's probably already been splashed by a Slammer. Have a nice day!! :wink:

flighthawk128 wrote:Uhhh... Is it just me, or is everyone ignoring the fact that the F-35 has better stealth than any fighter jet ever built on this planet??? The point is to see as far as possible using radar, and shoot it down. Okay, probably not as efficient as the F-22 or F-14, but that is because it is new. After some tweaking, maybe with the new scramjet AMRAAMs, it'll do, I think. This factor will beat pretty much any Sukhoi, as long as it doesn't get too close, or run out of missiles.


Excuse me? The F-35 is not an RCS slacker, but its RCS is, from what I've read, approximately ten times that of the F-22. This means that a bandit's detection range of an F-35 will be around twice that of an F-22. The Raptor is by far the best air dominance fighter in the world based on combat performance (OBOGS hiccups aside :evil: ) and I sincerely doubt that the F-35 will be able to match it in this role. By the time the JSF gets to Raptor level, the Raptor will be approaching 6th-generation technology and the NGAD should be entering service.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2011, 08:38
by munny
Excuse me? The F-35 is not an RCS slacker, but its RCS is, from what I've read, approximately ten times that of the F-22


Well, overall, the F-35 has a larger average RCS due to some of its aspects (side and rear due to certain lumps, bumps, and nozzles).... but from the front, I would say that if the F-35 is using similar leading edge material its frontal RCS would be less than the F-22. The F-35 has a lot less total leading edge length due to its smaller size and DSI intakes. I would not be surprised if that cat comes out of the bag sooner or later.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2011, 19:36
by flighthawk128
Actually, the F-35 is 5th generation stealth technology. The F-22 is 4.5/4.75ish gen. The composite materials on the F-35 is actually better than F-22's, though the RCS is slightly larger because of the added bulk from being a multi-purpose aircraft. But the whole point of the F-35 is not to engage in ACM (Air Combat Maneuovres) or dogfighting. It's to be able to see the target (Flanker) from as far away as possible and shoot it down without ever being in the range of or seen by the opposition. The F-22 was designed for pure performance and to be an air superiority fighter, rather than a multi purpose aircraft. The stealth helps in shooting them down from far away, but it was really designed for dogfighting, and stealth inhibits that. That's why the designers at Lockheed made the stealth of the F-35 even better than the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2011, 21:49
by river_otter
flighthawk128 wrote:Actually, the F-35 is 5th generation stealth technology. The F-22 is 4.5/4.75ish gen. The composite materials on the F-35 is actually better than F-22's, though the RCS is slightly larger because of the added bulk from being a multi-purpose aircraft. But the whole point of the F-35 is not to engage in ACM (Air Combat Maneuovres) or dogfighting. It's to be able to see the target (Flanker) from as far away as possible and shoot it down without ever being in the range of or seen by the opposition. The F-22 was designed for pure performance and to be an air superiority fighter, rather than a multi purpose aircraft. The stealth helps in shooting them down from far away, but it was really designed for dogfighting, and stealth inhibits that. That's why the designers at Lockheed made the stealth of the F-35 even better than the F-22.


There's very little doubt the F-22 has better stealth performance than the F-35, though you are correct the F-35 has better materials and technology overall. But its reduced stealth performance has nothing whatsoever to do with it being multi-role or bulky. If anything, the reduced kinematic performance allowed by its multi-role mission has allowed the F-35 to incorporate some tricks that wouldn't work in some parts of the F-22's higher-stress flight regime. F-35 was designed for export, and I bet there are still some tricks in the F-22 that will not be exported even to our closest allies. Just from what's obvious though, the greater wing sweep and tail cant angles of the F-22 gives a return lobe even farther from the transmitter than the F-35. The F-22 has flat exhaust ports, while the F-35's exhaust is highly faceted, but nevertheless round. The F-22's gear and missile doors are machined to micrometer tolerances to seal against electromagnetic penetration, while the F-35 doors fit looser and allegedly have some sort of energized wires around the edges to absorb radar by other means. The F-35 almost certainly has the better engine air intakes though. But overall while I believe the F-35 exceeds the RCS reduction that was required for it, I doubt it's anywhere near the signature reduction of the F-22. And while I've never seen it stated anywhere, I think experience with the F-22 has made it clear the F-22 was overdesigned for stealth; a high price was paid for those last few dB signature reduction, with little to no payoff in combat effectiveness. So the F-35 specifications were relaxed to an RCS reduction that gives the most bang for the buck. The F-35's stealth design and materials however are cheaper to manufacture, much cheaper and easier to maintain, and more than good enough for actual combat use. They're probably also harder to reverse engineer, or at least include elements based more on older technologies already compromised. Look at the RQ-170 that went down in Iran recently. It is subsonic, has a grid over its engine air intake, no evident stealthing of the exhaust except that it's a very likely high-bypass engine with an inherently low heat signature. And while it's curvy, the curves are just smoothed facets; it owes nearly all its stealth technology to the F-117. The same F-117 of which one went down over Kosovo in 1999 and which the Russians and Chinese almost certainly got a great look at and some material samples from, but have nevertheless been unable (or at least unwilling) to copy. The loss of an RQ-170 gives nothing new away in terms of stealth technology. The issue of potential loss over enemy territory has certainly been likewise addressed in the F-35, though exactly how much or how it was done in the F-35 I don't know. One element is inherent, though: knowing how stealth is done is easy compared to knowing how to manufacture what you need to do it, which is itself easy compared to knowing how to pay for that kind of precision manufacturing on that scale.

And despite the fancy airshow tricks it's capable of, the F-22 was not designed primarily to dogfight. It was designed to have a speed and altitude advantage (stealth helps there too; no need to ever stay low and slow and make use of ground cover) over anything else in the air except the MiG-25, which it can out-range and easily out-fight. The F-22's most important advantage after stealth is that its missiles will be coming downwards onto nearly any target and thus not losing a lot of kinetic energy on approach, with a Mach 1.5+ head start on top of that, and from an optimal range and angle for maximum probability of kill, a launch location which the F-22 has the luxury of chosing almost at will. The thrust vectoring nozzles are there to help the plane maintain proper pitch when the air is too thin for the elevators to work effectively, not to make it more maneuverable in a dogfight. Novice F-22 pilots are most often "killed" in training when they mess up and pitch the plane high enough to actually use the thrust vectoring nozzles in a simulated dogfight. (The YF-23, which was an even better air superiority design, just used gigantic ruddervators that remained effective in thin air, and had no thrust vectoring capabilities.) The X-31 proved that thrust vectoring was of marginal use in a dogfight; it enabled very few maneuvers with any dogfighting utility at all, robbed the plane of kinetic energy, and for even the good maneuvers to be useful they had to be done suddenly and violently as a complete surprise to the enemy pilot. Conventional aerodynamic maneuvering was far more powerful and could compensate for the suddenness of thrust-vectored maneuvering if it wasn't a complete surprise. (Notice how planes conventionally pull 9+g; but even if 100% of the engine thrust went to maneuvering, no fighter ever built has a thrust to weight ratio enabling more than about a 1.2g vectoring-based maneuver. And you can't simply add 1.2g to a 9+g conventional maneuver because the pilot would black out.) While F-22 pilots certainly train for dogfighting (and the F-22 is certainly good at it), air superiority fighters fight primarily in the medium range and are designed primarily for combat in the medium range; dogfighting is just what they do in an emergency when something goes wrong and an enemy gets too close.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2011, 18:10
by flighthawk128
Thrust vectoring is important though. Go on youtube and watch a raptor take off and perform maneuovres. If you look carefully, you can see the exhaust moving and the 'nozzles' (Sorry, not sure what to call them, engine flaps???) are vectoring. This helps in STOL for the raptor, which also was a component requested by the air force. And for the F-35, it meets and exceeds almost all of the design requirements. That makes it pretty successful. Don't forget, the F-35 replaces about 5 planes with different functions, for 4 branches of the military (air force, army, navy, marines), and across multiple countries. That means it has to be a good, versatile, reliable design, and I think Lockheed did that with the F-35. The stealth may not be as good as the raptor's, nor the performance, but it also costs much less.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 06:32
by archeman
I believe that I have seen this bunch (Erik Palmer) posting similar claims in videos on YouTube. In those videos (which seem more like Sukhoi puff pieces) there is some additional information about the supposed ‘computer simulation’. They state in the vids that the simulation included the stipulation that the A2A combat all takes place within visual range. It seems to me that if you add enough chains to the F-35 strike aircraft vs. a high maneuverable aircraft like the SU-30 you probably would start losing F-35s pretty fast. But, war isn’t about fair and there is no reason to try and make it fair at the cost of your life. The F-35s would engage BVR and with parameters that allowed them to use their stealth advantages, tactics would dictate NOT closing to visual range.

I agree with the article that defense of supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft are a problem that the Air Force hasn’t solved, other than curt statements that they will control the sky.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 23:13
by flighthawk128
I agree with the article that defense of supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft are a problem that the Air Force hasn’t solved, other than curt statements that they will control the sky.

Agreed. And welcome. However, if there are enough F-35's, that's a pretty good mobile defense, especially considering that they have VTOL capability. They'd just idle in the hills or forest and when radar detects inbound hostiles, they'll just pop up and shoot them down before they even get close enough to launch a missile against anything in the area.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:22
by keletho
I have 2 questions, and as u can see I'm a newb so maybe u won't go to hard on me and can keep the the big words to a minimuim. 1st is it to early to tell if the T-50 is superior to a F-35. And why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:55
by SpudmanWP
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 04:00
by delvo
T-50 is more of an attempt to copy F-22 than to copy F-35; it's more similar in shape and size, and has two engines with thrust vectoring. That probably makes faster than F-35 and able to fly higher and turn a sharper corner, since those are true of F-22. By its size, it probably also carries enough fuel for longer range, and more missiles. But Russian planes have long lagged behind American in sensors, networking, pilot interfaces, and reliability/maintainability (which affects how much time they can spend flying). And the Russians' own statements about how stealthy it is make it less stealthy than F-35, which is the biggest issue.

The USA's reason for making the newer plane less stealthy than the one before it might have something to do with keeping costs down, but it's also been deemed safer to export. It is, however, still stealthier than the previous stealth planes (F-117 and B-2), which still haven't been tracked in flight.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 07:21
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

F-22 = Sports Car
F-35 = SUV :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 07:34
by SpudmanWP
F-22 = Corvette (REALLY fast 2-seater)
F-35 = Mustang (fast 4-seater with a trunk)

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 22:01
by thestealthfighterguy
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

F-22 = Sports Car
F-35 = SUV :D


I was thinking...

F-22=Sports Car
F-35=Ford SVT Raptor "pickup" Still fast, but tuffer and can fit more that a golf bag in it.


TSFG

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 03:22
by deadseal
Just relate it to the legacy comparison of f-15 vs f-16. F-15 was built ot have a giant radar and crush dudes from high altitude BVR. The f-16 (though not designed for this purpose) has filled in the role of self escort gbu-31/24/10 carriers. Think of the ratio in a package. You have OCA sweep(Raptors) and the bomb trucks(F-35's). As a mission commander you wouldn't want 50% of your forces to be OCA, what you really need is as many bombs as you can get to the targets safely. what are the five rings thing? The point of an airforce is not primarily Air superiority, but to attack the center of gravity. Now if your bomb truck just happens to be partially syealth and have an AESA, The force multiplier way outweighs the cost.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:28
by flighthawk128
It is, however, still stealthier than the previous stealth planes (F-117 and B-2),

Are you for real???
B-2 Spirit bomber is the stealthiest plane in the world.
If you fine tune it properly, it will have pretty much NO radar-cross section, not to mention that there is no infrared or heat emission, due to the materials, and the design.
It costs over a billion dollars for goodness's sake!
The only comparable aircraft in the world is the raptor, maybe...

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:43
by hcobb
Picture of B-2 "non existent" IR emissions: http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... _IR_lg.gif

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:45
by destroid
F-22 would cost a billion dollars too if they only made 20 of them.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 04:47
by wrightwing
keletho wrote: And why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)


Because they have far less experience designing, and building stealthy aircraft. Not only do they have a lot of catching up to do in shaping/materials, but in manufacturing to the precise tolerances required.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 04:51
by wrightwing
keletho wrote:wait so that means the US could bomb a country and nobody would know?
I'm pretty sure what ever country being bombed would know.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 11:42
by river_otter
hcobb wrote:Picture of B-2 "non existent" IR emissions: http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... _IR_lg.gif


Even the website posting that pic describes it as, "Speaking of which, see the graphic below of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber at relatively close range, lifted from EADS Eurofighter’s presentation to the Norwegian government as they touted their own aircraft’s advanced IRST cueing sensor with 70 km range." What's a "relatively close range"? According to http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-276700.html it's a B-2 flying a known course straight down the Farnborough runway, at a range of half a mile and 500 ft. altitude from the IRST. And the tracking was actually optical, not by the IRST itself. For all that, this the kind of difference you see between the airplane and the background in the IRST image of a normal aircraft:

Image

Absolutely zero IR signature? Of course not. But so little that you'll see it with your eyes before your IRST will be able to distinguish it from empty sky? Looks like that's a real possibility.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 12:32
by munny
unrelated, but while the discussion is about IR signatures, this is pretty neat....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pftna34TbJU

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 21:30
by flighthawk128
Yeah, but that's only when it takes off. If an enemy aircraft gets close enough to see that, it should be a smoking wreck on the ground. :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2013, 12:38
by munny
Confirmation that the RAAF hi fidelity simulations where it defeated "advanced" red air included the Su-35. Low band radar was also used to support the Sukhoi in the simulations and the F-35 still achieved an exchange ratio with a minimum of 6-1.

http://bit.ly/122PuXE

"Have you done differential simulations of, once again, Su-35 - 2V2, 4V4, 8V8, 4V2 and 2V4, for instance?
(a) Have you done that using widely different engagement geometrics and sensor weapon mixes – in other words, not head-to-head co-altitude?
(b) If so, what sort of runs have you conducted in that regard?
(c) Have you done simulations of F-35s versus any six aircraft that have HF over-the-horizon radar, working with your threat group in terms of their integrated air defence system?
(d) Have you done any simulations, using adversary HF over-the-horizon radar equipped naval surface vessels as a component of IADS?
(e) Have you done any simulations using current generation passive detection systems, incorporated as additional constructive elements of an adversary IADS against the F-35 scenarios?"

"Response:
(a) – (e)
Yes."

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2013, 13:46
by bigjku
munny wrote:Confirmation that the RAAF hi fidelity simulations where it defeated "advanced" red air included the Su-35. Low band radar was also used to support the Sukhoi in the simulations and the F-35 still achieved an exchange ratio with a minimum of 6-1.

http://bit.ly/122PuXE

"Have you done differential simulations of, once again, Su-35 - 2V2, 4V4, 8V8, 4V2 and 2V4, for instance?
(a) Have you done that using widely different engagement geometrics and sensor weapon mixes – in other words, not head-to-head co-altitude?
(b) If so, what sort of runs have you conducted in that regard?
(c) Have you done simulations of F-35s versus any six aircraft that have HF over-the-horizon radar, working with your threat group in terms of their integrated air defence system?
(d) Have you done any simulations, using adversary HF over-the-horizon radar equipped naval surface vessels as a component of IADS?
(e) Have you done any simulations using current generation passive detection systems, incorporated as additional constructive elements of an adversary IADS against the F-35 scenarios?"

"Response:
(a) – (e)
Yes."


I can't imagine having to sit around and answer this kind of nonsense as a professional. What do they think they are testing the F-35 against in simulated environments? The Sopwith Camel? An ME-109?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2013, 20:47
by neurotech
bigjku wrote:I can't imagine having to sit around and answer this kind of nonsense as a professional. What do they think they are testing the F-35 against in simulated environments? The Sopwith Camel? An ME-109?

When the F/A-18E/F was being readied for operational use, we flew a significant number of simulator missions to verify certain weapons modes worked as expected. This continued after the first F/A-18E dropped JDAMs on targets over Iraq in 2001. Too bad I couldn't use my simulator time to get the paperwork and fly as a rated pilot.

The simulator had AESA based on a early APG-79 prototype, we flew against a variety of threats, including so called Su-30s. We briefed on the scenario that the AESA/AMRAAM could engage a Su-30 in BVR, and that the longer range missiles produced enough smoke to be detected visually and electronically and then avoided, if fired at long range. What that means is that both jets would have to close within about 20nm for a successful engagement and the AMRAAM could handle the engagement.

The scenario was that both sides had roughly equal numbers of jets.

With OLS and L-band radar on a Su-30, against a F-35, the results would be similar, in that the missiles carried by the Su-30 wouldn't be effective outside 20nm and the F-35 could see them with EODAS and avoid them. This assumes both aircraft know where each other is.

The F-35 with an HMD and AIM-9X II HOBS missiles, would be difficult for a Su-30 to achieve a kill, even with the F-35 located.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 12:25
by haavarla
Just wanted to post some News on New Flankers:

12 Su-30SM will go to the airbase at Domna

And later this year the first line squadron of Su-35S will be deployed this year, to Dzemga AB

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:43
by bayernfan
Sorry if my questions are too rookie (I'm new to this forum):
I heard somewhere else that even F-35 has superior stealth capability comparing to Su-30/35, but when it open its radar trying to track the enemy fighter, F-35 will allow the enemy radar to discover it more easily hence lose the stealth advantage during A2A combat.
Also, if in a close dogfight, will the stealth of F-35 make it harder for enemy fighter to lock?
Thanks guys.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:54
by hb_pencil
bayernfan wrote:Sorry if my questions are too rookie (I'm new to this forum):
I heard somewhere else that even F-35 has superior stealth capability comparing to Su-30/35, but when it open its radar trying to track the enemy fighter, F-35 will allow the enemy radar to discover it more easily hence lose the stealth advantage during A2A combat.



Tough to say, but probably not. The new generation of AESA radar may allow the F-35 to operate its radar undetected or untraceably. Second, the fighter has an advanced communication datalink that allows it to operate with other fighter's data to track and lock with its missiles. Also it has a bevy of passive sensors that it can rely on. So while the first one might be true, the fighter by no means needs to rely on that system alone.

bayernfan wrote:Also, if in a close dogfight, will the stealth of F-35 make it harder for enemy fighter to lock?
Thanks guys.


From the looks of it, probably. There was a video posted of a rafale/F-22 dogfight where it was pretty obvious the french sensor system was having difficulty tracking the F-22. It looks like this was a specific problem when facing the raptor... but it could just be normal operation of the aircraft's detection systems.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 22:16
by Prinz_Eugn
bayernfan wrote:Sorry if my questions are too rookie (I'm new to this forum):
I heard somewhere else that even F-35 has superior stealth capability comparing to Su-30/35, but when it open its radar trying to track the enemy fighter, F-35 will allow the enemy radar to discover it more easily hence lose the stealth advantage during A2A combat.


Partially true, shooting radio waves into the great beyond always raises the chances of detection, but there are a few big caveats as hb_pencil pointed out. The only thing I would add is that the F-35 has a great chance of being able to jam (or out-jam) the Sukhoi's radar, considering that it can apparently already track and jam the F-22's APG-77, which is more generally more advanced than any Russian radar.

Also, if in a close dogfight, will the stealth of F-35 make it harder for enemy fighter to lock?


Probably, but the basic idea is to avoid dogfights since it's more of an even playing field, and why would you want that? I think a more important question is how big of a difference RCS changes the probability of kill for radar-guided missiles BVR, since it could mean that even if a fighter radar could get a lock, the smaller radars in its missile would still be ineffective.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 01:43
by count_to_10
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
bayernfan wrote:Sorry if my questions are too rookie (I'm new to this forum):
I heard somewhere else that even F-35 has superior stealth capability comparing to Su-30/35, but when it open its radar trying to track the enemy fighter, F-35 will allow the enemy radar to discover it more easily hence lose the stealth advantage during A2A combat.


Partially true, shooting radio waves into the great beyond always raises the chances of detection, but there are a few big caveats as hb_pencil pointed out. The only thing I would add is that the F-35 has a great chance of being able to jam (or out-jam) the Sukhoi's radar, considering that it can apparently already track and jam the F-22's APG-77, which is more generally more advanced than any Russian radar.

Also, if in a close dogfight, will the stealth of F-35 make it harder for enemy fighter to lock?


Probably, but the basic idea is to avoid dogfights since it's more of an even playing field, and why would you want that? I think a more important question is how big of a difference RCS changes the probability of kill for radar-guided missiles BVR, since it could mean that even if a fighter radar could get a lock, the smaller radars in its missile would still be ineffective.
If the missile-radar-in-a-dogfight issue has been worked out, it doesn't seem to be in the public domain. The only way I can think of to give it a practical test is to do some test shots at stealthy drones.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 10:07
by haavarla
Some Nice vids Vids on the New Su-30SM is coming out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgwa5HU ... ktg5u-GF3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_pglUeaKzI

The Su-30SM is improved over the cousin MKI.
The VVS version has more thrust, New FBW(FCS) and newer systems in general.
New Datalink, communication MAW, EW system and instrumentations

Note that it is not in a clean configuration, but has Three missile(dummies) and several pylons mounted.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 05:38
by zero-one
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Probably, but the basic idea is to avoid dogfights since it's more of an even playing field, and why would you want that? I think a more important question is how big of a difference RCS changes the probability of kill for radar-guided missiles BVR, since it could mean that even if a fighter radar could get a lock, the smaller radars in its missile would still be ineffective.


True, but there are still plenty of ways where an A/A engagement can still end up in the more dangerous relm of WVR.

1. Russian pilots emphasize WVR combat over BVR, so they will do everything they can to get there where the playing feild is more equal. According to them they have the advantage in that arena against the F-35, time will tell

Bassed on what I read here and see on interviews, American pilots are more of 50/50 when it comes to WVR/BVR

2. The current Pk of an AMRAAM in combat is around 50%,
sure they have improved vastly since then but so has countermeasures and aircraft performance. Used in conjunction, they make the bandit very very hard to hit.

3. The F-35 dose'nt really have too many missiles to spare, in an A/A config, it might be carrying 4 Aim-120s and probably 2 Aim 9Xs on the wing tips plus a gun pod if your a B/C varriant.

Once that 1st missile misses, Pilots have often sped towards the merge as we saw on Over Iraq and Bossnia

We have atleast 4 F-35s dedicated to flight sciences testing, expanding the envelope and making sure that the F-35 will maintain an advantage over any type of fight.

Be it a BVR fight or a knife fight guns only

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 09:45
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:True, but there are still plenty of ways where an A/A engagement can still end up in the more dangerous relm of WVR.


1. Yes they might emphasize WVR combat more than western airforces, simply because most aircraft in Russian inventory are rather poorly equipped for BVR combat and would be at severe disadvantage in it. Only rather small number of advanced Su-27 and MiG-29 derivatives have decent BVR equipment. In the future this will change and for example PAK-FA will probably have pretty good BVR equipment. Also it's interesting that Russian aircraft usually carry mostly BVR weapons (R-27 or R-77) and and only couple WVR weapons (R-73), just like most western aircraft.

Problem with getting to WVR combat with F-35 (or F-22) is detecting and tracking them in order to close to them. Another problem for Russian (or almost any other) aircraft is that even if they had maneuvering advantage, they will be at serious disadvantage at situational awareness. 1-on-1 in daylight conditions it might not be that serious, but that's rather rare wartime occurrence.

2. and 3. AMRAAM Pk might be 50%, but that also happens if you fire two weapons at each target even if Pk is actually 100%. Of course Pk is never 100%, but even 50% for single shot Pk would mean it's extremely deadly. With 6 weapons each F-35 could shoot down 3 enemy aircraft in each sortie. As F-35 would likely be used in groups rather than individuals, it'd mean that for example 4 F-35 flight could shoot down 12 enemy aircraft. Enemy would require enormous numerical advantage even to stay in fight for more than couple of days. The idea is not to kill entire enemy airforce in single sortie. Even if enemy countermeasures drop the Pk to 20 percent, a flight of 4 F-35s could shoot down 5 enemy aircraft. The enemy would run out of aircraft very quickly with such attrition. Of course Pk of enemy missiles should be even much lower with F-35 RF and IR stealth, extremely advanced countermeasures and DAS (much better than your average MAWS).

Most fighter jets don't carry much more operationally than what F-35 is carrying internally, especially if/when 6 internal missile capability is introduced. Of course large air superiority fighters like F-22 carry couple more missile, but on the other hand they are much larger aircraft and available in much lower numbers due to their high cost. Of course nothing stops using some F-35s in full VLO mode with all-internal weapons (mainly as sensors) and some in LO configuration with external missiles as shooters. Especially IR missiles with small fins/wings like AIM-9X or ASRAAM should not increase the RCS of F-35 too much even when carried externally. I agree that smaller internal carriage of missiles is somewhat of a drawback for F-35, but you can not get everything in a single jet.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 11:02
by zero-one
I agree with all your points,

mainly we both believe that future Air battles will comprise of both WVR and BVR tactics, as to how equally that cake will be sliced is a debate for another day entierly.

Just to add, to your points about Russian fighters slowly emphasizing BVR as well, the new models of the R-77 missile actually outrange the AMRAAM.

However I dont think this is very useful since firing a missile at long ranges greatly reduces its Pk against fighters. I believe the optimum kill range for BVR shots lay somewhere around the 20KM range,

The AMRAAM is such a stunning peice of engineering in that it can actually be used and is very effective even in WVR combat.
As I recall, a good number of the kills AMRAAMS acheived in combat were within vissual ranges

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 11:44
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:I agree with all your points,

mainly we both believe that future Air battles will comprise of both WVR and BVR tactics, as to how equally that cake will be sliced is a debate for another day entierly.

Just to add, to your points about Russian fighters slowly emphasizing BVR as well, the new models of the R-77 missile actually outrange the AMRAAM.


How do you know that? RVV-SD has max. 110 km range (RVV-AE 80 km max launch range in frontal hemisphere) according to Russians. No official AMRAAM range values have been published, but usually seem to vary between 50-180 km depending on variant and source. Also which version of AMRAAM are you talking about, as there are huge difference in range between AIM-120A and AIM-120D for example. While R-77 and derivatives are larger missiles, they seem (from published info) to have more basic guidance system than corresponding AMRAAM version resulting in less range as trajectory is not as optimized. Of course RVV-SD probably has more advanced guidance system than original AIM-120A.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 15:50
by haavarla
The RVV-SD figures are at Max range, incoming target and probably at a spesific high altitude and speed which we do not know.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/510/

But then again that goes for AIM-120 as well, and 180km!? where does that come from?

On a side note, there can never be enough Vapors ;)

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 19:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 21:34
by haavarla
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:180KM seems to come from this site

http://www.rusarm.com/arhiv/n2_2008/zar ... uh-vozduh/


Ok, i used Google translator and it seems its about the RVV-SD missile.

I havent seen any other figures on this missile, and we do not know in which shape, size and weight it will come(if it come out at all as an 180km A2A missile..)

Anyway, i have a very high BS smell on this one.

The missile would most likely be too large for Pak-Fa main W-bay..
If it actual has a range at 180km at all...

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 21:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
that section of the article was about the AIM-120C-8 (D) outranging the C-7, I also google translated the entire section. Of course these numbers are all head on transsonic idealized numbers, that is one consistant value with AAMs. the only variable in missile range numbers are launch altitude and target altitude. It is always good to keep in mind however that at launch conditions of 60kft and 1.6+M missile range will be vastly improved as will top speed.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 22:21
by haavarla
I also want to point out that the Russian AWACS killer missile that was unveiled at MAKS 2007 or was it 05.. could even be older
I am talking about the KS-172, uber AWACS killer missile.

It was an full scale dummie missile.
It was shown for a few years, but has the last couple of years disepared, probably died a silent Death.

I think the "no funding" Axe killed it off.
The A2A Version did originate from some BUK G2A missile design.
The physical size of that thing was not far from a smaller "Club" size.. one cant help Wonder if such a missile would ever be effective from an Jet platform..
Well it might on a Tu-22M3 or larger jet. But then it would take up an entire Weapon station, which i think would be a sin. The Carrier Club killers are most likely much more prioritized here.

The R-27 missiles has also had an terrible funding over all these years..

So i'm not holding my breath over this RVV-SD missile..

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 22:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
might as well be using the ASAT missile for A2A at that size.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 08:13
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:Just to add, to your points about Russian fighters slowly emphasizing BVR as well, the new models of the R-77 missile actually outrange the AMRAAM.


They outrange the C5 model. They don't outrange the C7/D variants.

However I dont think this is very useful since firing a missile at long ranges greatly reduces its Pk against fighters. I believe the optimum kill range for BVR shots lay somewhere around the 20KM range,


This would depend greatly on a number of variables. Head on/tail, altitude/speed of launch aircraft vs. altitude/speed of target, target's awareness of the launch aircraft, target's awareness of the AMRAAM launch, countermeasures employed, etc... The Pk of stealth aircraft/LPI FCRs will be higher than previous generation aircraft, even if all other factors are the same, due to the added element of surprise. This is where launching outside the detection range of MLD/MAWs systems, could actually be of benefit (and stealthy aircraft will have the advantage against conventional aircraft, in being able to launch from the most advantageous position.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 11:03
by haavarla
Something that has gone under the Radar for some time now. At least for me..
The russian MoD seems to have signed a New deal With KNAAZ(KnAAPO sukhoi) for a Whole Sq of Su-30M2(two seater) as well as the continuation of the Su-35S Production.

http://foto.rg.ru/photos/6c39137d/10.html#3


KnAAZ did rolled out four Su-30M2, With ten New Su-27SM3 at the end of 2012.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 22:10
by jetnerd
Look at the cockpit in image #15 and put it side by side with the F-35's to really see the generational difference between the 2 jets.

http://foto.rg.ru/photos/6c39137d/15.html#15


Not to underestimate the SU-30M2's prowess. But the photo really shows how the F-35 is really the new game.

Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 04:49
by Corsair1963
bossovich wrote:i also thought that the f-35 was completely superior until i read what was on this page: http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html and now im a bit confused



ELP and with several other F-35 Critics like Bill Sweetman have lost all credibility. Honestly, I can't wait to see how they explain themselves after the F-35 enters full squadron service and becomes highly successful........


I for one will give them no quarter to hide..... :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 06:00
by blindpilot
" unnamed source stated ... a presentation was given by an[other unnamed] industry air combat threat assessment expert to [some more unnamed] defense officials of a NATO country "

from the F-35 critic primer vocabulary guide.
"Unnamed" = I have been so embarrassed by the discredting of this individual that I can't tell you who he is or you will laugh at me.
"Industry expert" = Boeing/other competing company salesman
"defense official" = government employee who types up (or once typed up) reports for a legislative aid of the opposition party..... or did until he was fired ten years ago ...

Hope that helps with the confusion.( I used to work in those places, long ago in a galaxy far away.)

BP.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 09:20
by hornetfinn
jetnerd wrote:Look at the cockpit in image #15 and put it side by side with the F-35's to really see the generational difference between the 2 jets.

http://foto.rg.ru/photos/6c39137d/15.html#15


Not to underestimate the SU-30M2's prowess. But the photo really shows how the F-35 is really the new game.


It definitely looks rather dated, more like something from the 80's. On the other hand Su-35 has much more modern (and pilot-friendly) looking cockpit. I'd say it looks to be somewhere between F-22 and F-35 cockpits.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 11:28
by hornetfinn
I find it very interesting that Russia is producing so many different variants of Su-27 derivatives. They have very recently bought at least Su-35S, Su-30M, Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-27SM, Su-27SM3 as new built aircraft and then upgraded older aircraft to various standards. It would seem more efficient to have fewer different versions, like just Su-35S and Su-34 and one or two upgrade versions. Of course they are the most expensive versions, but also the most potent ones. I think having fewer versions would result in lower total costs (especially operational costs) for the same combat capability.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 12:31
by zero-one
Well its not hard to see why, In my oppinion the Flanker family is Russia's most potent design, In the hands of good pilots it can be a very serious threat to NATO planes.

Instead of developing new designes, why not just rebuild it, higly modified, add thrust vectoring, PESA or AESA, Canarads and new EW suits. Like what Boeing did to the Hornet when they transformed it to the Super Hornet
Its probably the closest thing they have to a Raptor right now

it can certainly replicate most of the Raptor's Airshow maneuvers, and certainly has some maneuvers that I havnt seen the Raptor do.
Last night an article posted on a facebook fan page declared that the Su-35 was a 5th generation fighter, that lacked a bit of stealth.

Its a laughable claim in my oppinion, but Boeing does the same with the Superhornet, back in the early 2000s they really pushed that the Superhornet was a 5th gen fighter

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 20:54
by haavarla
hornetfinn wrote:
jetnerd wrote:Look at the cockpit in image #15 and put it side by side with the F-35's to really see the generational difference between the 2 jets.

http://foto.rg.ru/photos/6c39137d/15.html#15


Not to underestimate the SU-30M2's prowess. But the photo really shows how the F-35 is really the new game.


It definitely looks rather dated, more like something from the 80's. On the other hand Su-35 has much more modern (and pilot-friendly) looking cockpit. I'd say it looks to be somewhere between F-22 and F-35 cockpits.


Yes that particular cockpit Picture is quite outdated With good reason.
I don't wanna be a party poper here, but that is the cockpit of the Su-27K(Su-33), which 1st flight was in 1987. It still has most of the Legacy instrumentation.
It most likely going through some TBO routine..

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 21:30
by Scorpion82
jetnerd wrote:Look at the cockpit in image #15 and put it side by side with the F-35's to really see the generational difference between the 2 jets.

http://foto.rg.ru/photos/6c39137d/15.html#15


Not to underestimate the SU-30M2's prowess. But the photo really shows how the F-35 is really the new game.


That's actually the cockpit of the Su-33 which received only modest upgrades. KnAAPO is now upgrading 12 of the RuN's 18 or so remaining AC to the Su-33SM standard which should besimilar in scope to the Su-27SM.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 21:52
by jetnerd
That makes more sense. Even older block Viper cockpiits look more advanced than that photo, and I've seen some glass cockpits on Russian jets before. I shouldn't have assumed it was the Su30Mk2's.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 02:37
by popcorn
The Russians don't seem to be going the same route and prefer using multiple cockpit displays vs. a single large panoramic display in the F-35 or those proposed for Boeing's SE and ASH. The PAK-FA and Su-35 share very similar cockpit displays.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 07:01
by hornetfinn
It's probably easier and cheaper to use multiple smaller cockpit displays vs. one very large one. It should be easier to handle the fairly harsh physical environment of the fighter jet with smaller displays. There is also some redundancy in using multiple displays in the case one display fails. Of course similar redundancy can be achieved with single display depending how it's designed and installed.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 12:50
by cantaz
Wait, isn't it technically 2 displays side-by-side in the F-35?

The redundancy from multiple traditional DDI comes at a lot of cost in terms of waste surface area and weight.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 12:57
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:Wait, isn't it technically 2 displays side-by-side in the F-35?

The redundancy from multiple traditional DDI comes at a lot of cost in terms of waste surface area and weight.

Yes, 2 displays which provide redundancy as half of the screen remains operational should the other become inoperable for some reason. The new Boeing display is a single unit.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 06:00
by ozzyblizzard
I know this is an old quote but hey I thought I’d reply anyway.

zero-one wrote:
True, but there are still plenty of ways where an A/A engagement can still end up in the more dangerous relm of WVR.

1. Russian pilots emphasize WVR combat over BVR, so they will do everything they can to get there where the playing feild is more equal. According to them they have the advantage in that arena against the F-35, time will tell


Well, of course we can only deal with public domain information, which is anything but perfect. But considering what has been demonstrated in the F-35 program and the capabilities of the AIM-9X, it is very unlikely that any Flanker is going to be competitive in the WVR regime. WVR is dominated by HOBS missile capabilities and situational awareness, much more so than sustained turn or climb rates. The Falklands is an excellent example of this.

Lets remember that the R-73 is a full generation behind in seeker technology and only has 120 degree engagement envelope without LOAL. R-74 doesn’t exist as yet AFAIK and I’m not sure they are even looking at FPA seekers. AIM-9X combined with EODAS provides 360 degree detection, track, cuing and engagement envelope. That makes JHMCS look old school.

Bassed on what I read here and see on interviews, American pilots are more of 50/50 when it comes to WVR/BVR


BVR is a core element in USAF doctrine, and probably is to a lesser extent in RuAF.

2. The current Pk of an AMRAAM in combat is around 50%,
sure they have improved vastly since then but so has countermeasures and aircraft performance. Used in conjunction, they make the bandit very very hard to hit.


You can’t make PK claims like that, they aren’t just generalised numbers. The PK of each missile shot is different because a number of different and disparate factors go into calculating it. For example, a missile shot against a high energy, manoeuvring target with advanced ECM which is at near max range (outside the NEZ) and is aware of your actions is probably going to have a PK % in single digits. However, if you have a shot at a non manoeuvring target with no ECM driven by a monkey 3000 yards off the nose the PK % is likely to be in the 90’s as the only potential problem is reliability.

And you can’t just take the total number of kills and divide that by the total number of AMRAAM shots either; that tells you nothing valuable about the performance of the missile. There are plenty of occasions where a pilot may take a low PK shot which has little chance of achieving a kill but will have some kind of tactical effect, whether the shot is taken defensively to disrupt the enemies firing solution or simply to get the target to manoeuvre in a manner which is desirable.

3. The F-35 dose'nt really have too many missiles to spare, in an A/A config, it might be carrying 4 Aim-120s and probably 2 Aim 9Xs on the wing tips plus a gun pod if your a B/C varriant.


LM is designing a dual rail for internal carriage of 6 AIM-120’s (3 per bay), or 4 AIM-120’s and 2 AIM-9X’s, comparable to a typical F-16 load.

Even with external carriage of AIM-9X, hell even some AIM-120’s, Which may give you 10 missiles, the F-35’s frontal RCS is going to be way, way, way smaller than any Flanker.

hernetfinn wrote:AMRAAM Pk might be 50%, but that also happens if you fire two weapons at each target even if Pk is actually 100%.


Actually I think it would be 75%. Let’s say your PK is 50% in the given scenario, and you fire two missiles. Each missile has a 50/50 chance of hitting the target, so there is still a chance that neither will hit. It breaks down like this; you fire Missile A and Missile B. There is a 1 in four chance that neither missile will hit. There is a 1 in 4 chance that Missile A hits and Missile B misses. There is a 1 in 4 chance that Missile A misses and Missile B hits. There is a 1 in 4 chance that both missiles hit. That gives you a PK of 75%.

haavarla wrote:But then again that goes for AIM-120 as well, and 180km!? where does that come from?


It was generally stated that the AIM-120D was designed with a max engagement range of 100nmi. I’m pretty sure its on the AIM-120 wiki page. 1.8km to 1nmi so 180km. For whatever max range is actually worth.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 08:50
by haavarla
Stupid observation like:

1. Russian pilots emphasize WVR combat over BVR, so they will do everything they can to get there where the playing feild is more equal. According to them they have the advantage in that arena against the F-35, time will tell


Is exactly what Russias Aircraft Developer and fighter pilot would like them to think.

But its far from reality:



And for historical purpose, just Google up on the SU strive for creating dedicated Interceptors, right up the Mig-31/Pak-Fa. Which very much speaks of BVR.

This goes for any Flanker as well, sinse its has the capability to carry large and multiple A2A missile. Long legged and has large and powerfull radar Array to go With.

Try not to think in one dimential enviroments.. what ever you guys see at an airshow.. well its just a small tiny part of the bigger Picture.

@Ozzyblizz
You do not have any usefull intel about the latest Russian missile seekers. IMO Your specs are outdated.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 09:15
by Corsair1963
haavarla wrote:Stupid observation like:

1. Russian pilots emphasize WVR combat over BVR, so they will do everything they can to get there where the playing feild is more equal. According to them they have the advantage in that arena against the F-35, time will tell


Is exactly what Russias Aircraft Developer and fighter pilot would like them to think.

But its far from reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG7KeUrcbm0

And for historical purpose, just Google up on the SU strive for creating dedicated Interceptors, right up the Mig-31/Pak-Fa. Which very much speaks of BVR.

This goes for any Flanker as well, sinse its has the capability to carry large and multiple A2A missile. Long legged and has large and powerfull radar Array to go With.

Try not to think in one dimential enviroments.. what ever you guys see at an airshow.. well its just a small tiny part of the bigger Picture.

@Ozzyblizz
You do not have any usefull intel about the latest Russian missile seekers. IMO Your specs are outdated.


I agree I think it's just a smoke screen. As a counter to the BVR Capabilities of US 5th Generation Fighters.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 10:34
by hornetfinn
ozzyblizzard wrote:I know this is an old quote but hey I thought I’d reply anyway.
zero-one wrote:True, but there are still plenty of ways where an A/A engagement can still end up in the more dangerous relm of WVR.

1. Russian pilots emphasize WVR combat over BVR, so they will do everything they can to get there where the playing feild is more equal. According to them they have the advantage in that arena against the F-35, time will tell


Well, of course we can only deal with public domain information, which is anything but perfect. But considering what has been demonstrated in the F-35 program and the capabilities of the AIM-9X, it is very unlikely that any Flanker is going to be competitive in the WVR regime. WVR is dominated by HOBS missile capabilities and situational awareness, much more so than sustained turn or climb rates. The Falklands is an excellent example of this.

Lets remember that the R-73 is a full generation behind in seeker technology and only has 120 degree engagement envelope without LOAL. R-74 doesn’t exist as yet AFAIK and I’m not sure they are even looking at FPA seekers. AIM-9X combined with EODAS provides 360 degree detection, track, cuing and engagement envelope. That makes JHMCS look old school.


It definitely is. R-73 was a seriously great missile when it was fielded 30 years ago, but has now been surpassed by more modern missiles. According to the R-73 missile manufacturer the designation envelope for R-73 is +/- 45 degrees and for RVV-MD (probably what is also known as R-74) the designation envelope is +/- 60 degrees. While decent, modern missiles with FPA seekers have much wider designation/engagement envelopes (+/- 90 degrees or so).

R-73/R-74/RVV-MD all have conventional IR-seeker, which is not nearly as sensitive as imaging seekers are, reducing the range where it can be locked on to target. It also makes them more susceptible to jamming and flares, reducing the probability of hit and kill. To my knowledge none of them incorporate LOAL capability, which certainly gives additional options for the missile use. Of course they are still dangerous weapons, but are at serious disadvantage against new breed of IIR missiles.

ozzyblizzard wrote:
hernetfinn wrote:AMRAAM Pk might be 50%, but that also happens if you fire two weapons at each target even if Pk is actually 100%.


Actually I think it would be 75%. Let’s say your PK is 50% in the given scenario, and you fire two missiles. Each missile has a 50/50 chance of hitting the target, so there is still a chance that neither will hit. It breaks down like this; you fire Missile A and Missile B. There is a 1 in four chance that neither missile will hit. There is a 1 in 4 chance that Missile A hits and Missile B misses. There is a 1 in 4 chance that Missile A misses and Missile B hits. There is a 1 in 4 chance that both missiles hit. That gives you a PK of 75%.
.


Actually what I meant was that even if missiles had 100% Pk, firing two missiles against one target would result in 50% Pk. This is simply because two missiles were used against one target killed. In that particular case the first missile would always kill the target and the second one would not as there would be nothing to kill. What I wanted to say was that one would get wrong Pk for the missile by dividing the number of targets killed with number of missiles fired as more than one missile are often fired at one target.

You are correct that if missile had 50% Pk, firing two missiles at one target would result in 75% probability in killing the target.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 10:38
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:S
@Ozzyblizz
You do not have any usefull intel about the latest Russian missile seekers. IMO Your specs are outdated.


Oh, so please provide us with the latest specs.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 12:29
by haavarla
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

Hold on while i E-mail Vympel, i'm sure they will accomondate us shortly :D

Seriously, they are testing newer Missile as we speak.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 13:05
by ozzyblizzard
haavarla wrote:http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

Hold on while i E-mail Vympel, i'm sure they will accomondate us shortly :D

Seriously, they are testing newer Missile as we speak.


Mate, I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I've said. Target designation angle is stated to be +/- 60 degrees, which is 120 degrees. It doesn't mention LOAL, it doesn't mention an IIR seeker.

They may very well be testing a newer missile, in fact i'm sure there are. However the AIM-9X is in squadron service and the Block I was already a generation ahead of RVV-MD. Block II is even further ahead and is fully funded with export orders.

We cant bank on missiles in early development ever actually being delivered; look at the R-172, hell even JDRADM. R-73 is what they have now (maybe some R-74's in elite units), and its up against an AIM-9X BII.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 13:19
by ozzyblizzard
hornetfinn wrote:It definitely is. R-73 was a seriously great missile when it was fielded 30 years ago, but has now been surpassed by more modern missiles. According to the R-73 missile manufacturer the designation envelope for R-73 is +/- 45 degrees and for RVV-MD (probably what is also known as R-74) the designation envelope is +/- 60 degrees. While decent, modern missiles with FPA seekers have much wider designation/engagement envelopes (+/- 90 degrees or so).

R-73/R-74/RVV-MD all have conventional IR-seeker, which is not nearly as sensitive as imaging seekers are, reducing the range where it can be locked on to target. It also makes them more susceptible to jamming and flares, reducing the probability of hit and kill. To my knowledge none of them incorporate LOAL capability, which certainly gives additional options for the missile use. Of course they are still dangerous weapons, but are at serious disadvantage against new breed of IIR missiles.


FPA seekers are far more resilient to IRCM, which is a huge issue with analogue seekers. I remember reading about a couple of engagements in Desert Storm where several AIM-9L/M's fired by a single F-15C were decoyed by flares. And the AIM-9 L/M was renowned for its seeker performance. IRCM is a real factor in WVR combat.

I agree LOAL is a 'nice to have' feature when you are relying on JHMCS or the FCR to cue the missile shot; the RAF & RAAF mainly utilize the AIM-132's LOAL capability to use it as a quasi AMRAAM AFAIK. But it becomes a game changer when you combine it with next gen cuing technology like EODAS, because now you can really exploit the capability efficiently. The ability to detect, track, ID and target any threat at any bearing combined with a LOAL, TVC equipped, FPA seeking heater? That = death to anything within its engagement envilope.


Actually what I meant was that even if missiles had 100% Pk, firing two missiles against one target would result in 50% Pk. This is simply because two missiles were used against one target killed. In that particular case the first missile would always kill the target and the second one would not as there would be nothing to kill. What I wanted to say was that one would get wrong Pk for the missile by dividing the number of targets killed with number of missiles fired as more than one missile are often fired at one target.

You are correct that if missile had 50% Pk, firing two missiles at one target would result in 75% probability in killing the target.


Ah, sorry I should have read that more thoroughly. I think we agree! People throw around PK statistics WAY to rashly for my liking.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 15:58
by haavarla
I came across this though..

From russiadefence.net

"For the PAK FA, Vympel is developing two new missiles based on R-73/R-74 technology. The first of these is izdeliye 760. Based on the K-74M, this is intended to match the performance of the MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder. It will have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, a datalink receiver for target updates and an advanced rocket motor with a longer burn time. To make the missile suitable for internal carriage, its cross-section will be reduced to 320x320 mm.
To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on.
It will be able to engage targets up to 160?deg from the aircraft's heading."

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 15:59
by haavarla
deleted

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 16:00
by haavarla
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 16:01
by haavarla
Double post

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 16:05
by haavarla
Double post

Bugs

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 16:06
by haavarla
Double post

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 16:45
by zero-one
Forgive my ignorance, but exactly which missiles are equiped with Focal plane arrey sensors?
and
I'm getting the impression that FPA equiped missiles are almost impossible if not virtually impossible to fool with IRCM,
is this correct

or are there techniques and tactics used to get around these?

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2013, 17:58
by Scorpion82
zero-one wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but exactly which missiles are equiped with Focal plane arrey sensors?
and
I'm getting the impression that FPA equiped missiles are almost impossible if not virtually impossible to fool with IRCM,
is this correct

or are there techniques and tactics used to get around these?


The best bet is a laser based DIRCM which effectively blinds or even physically damages the IR seekers of such missiles. Flares are not very effective anymore, albeit some might mimic the target aircraft'S IR signature to a certain extend. With image processing it's pretty difficult however and the aforementioned system is the most promising response to the current threat of IIR guided missiles.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 04:05
by spazsinbad
Beijing purchases Su-35 for rearward-firing missile 20 Oct 2013 Staff Reporter
"China has decided to purchase Su-35 fighter from Russia because it is able to launch rearward-firing missiles, according to senior colonel Wu Guohui, an associate professor at Beijing's National Defense University.

The Russia-designed R-73M2, R-74ME missiles, US-designed by AIM-9X and the China-designed PL-10 all have the capability of being launched against enemy aircraft from the back of the aircraft, according to the Party-run People's Daily. The missile has a "nose cone" over the rocket engine and modified fins to prevent instability problems while briefly flying backwards after launch.

The birth of rearward-firing missiles has changed the concept of aerial warfare, according to Wu. In regular air-to-air combat, a fighter must shoot down its enemy from behind. With rearward-firing missiles and a a rearview display mounted on the helmet of the pilot, fighter pilots in the future can attack their target from the front.

China has no proper fighter yet capable of launching such a missile during actual combat. The Su-35 will be incorporated into the PLA Air Force to help pilots and the aviation industry get a feel for the new mode of combat. In the future, China will be able to make its own modifications from the Su-35 model."

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 04:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
rear firing is not the same as rear attacking, now you have to chose which way you want to load the missile and are more limited in your engagement envelope than a LOAL missile that can engage a rearward target like ASRAAM or -9X BlkII

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 04:40
by Corsair1963
You can see why China wants the Su-35. It's not for the airframe but its many components.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 06:07
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:You can see why China wants the Su-35. It's not for the airframe but its many components.
Odd. I tend to view the airframe as more impressive than the components.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 06:16
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:You can see why China wants the Su-35. It's not for the airframe but its many components.
Odd. I tend to view the airframe as more impressive than the components.



You may have a point......... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 13:38
by haavarla
For information purpose, let me post an exellent documentary on the Flanker Development history.
I consider this a very unbiased and honest coverage of the early Su-27 difficult roadmap up the the latest Su-35S.



Very interesting, At the end of the vid, what chief test pilot for Sukhoi tell us about the TVC systems developed for later Flanker and Pak-Fa.

There was some debate here if the Flanker can take-off or even fly on one engine.
Since the engine on the Flanker is wildy spaced, the unvarren tourqe force may be problematic.
Seems we have a Clear answer on this issue now.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 16:22
by zero-one
Thanks Haavarla

Saw it and it was good,


I just hate how the F-22 and F-35 gets so much hate on the comments section on Youtube

while the Flanker is so adored and widely viewed as a low cost, within schedule and more capable approach (basically the F-35s alter ego) to substandard over hyped and over priced American designes, Pzshhhhhh

anyway I think the Flanker is a masterpeice, a worthy adversary to the Lightning II, especially up close

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 18:57
by haavarla
You are welcome Z-O

I never read the crap on youtube comment.. it is just sad to be withness to such ignorance, Nationalistic and utter nonsens going on there..

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 07:30
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:Thanks Haavarla

Saw it and it was good,


I just hate how the F-22 and F-35 gets so much hate on the comments section on Youtube

while the Flanker is so adored and widely viewed as a low cost, within schedule and more capable approach (basically the F-35s alter ego) to substandard over hyped and over priced American designes, Pzshhhhhh

anyway I think the Flanker is a masterpeice, a worthy adversary to the Lightning II, especially up close


The Flanker was something in it's day just as the Eagle was. Yet, to be totally honest neither would last 30 seconds vs the F-22 or even F-35. Which, is not surprising as the same could be said of the Flanker and Eagle vs the F-4 Phantom II. (in there day)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 22:49
by haavarla
A second batch of Su-30SM is ready for Domna AB. There are Three or four units over at Lipetsk AB training center at the moment. Getting the Instructures up to speed on all the New systems and capability.

Edit:
And at the very same time, MIG RAC has delivered the first four Mig-29K to the RuN.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131125 ... hters.html

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 01:04
by spazsinbad
Could have put this info on the PAK-FA thread but here it is all about the Su-30 - no? Hope India gets it sorted.
The Rusting Sukhoi Dips India’s Fighting Fleet
14 Dec 2014 PRADIP R Sagar

"...But an official of the Sukhoi engine division, Odisha, said on condition of anonymity, “Yes, there were some inherent design deficiencies in the technology provided by the Russian manufacturers, which are being raised constant with them. Translation errors in the manual were also noticed. But, the IAF is taking some of the corrective measures as advised by the Russians.”"

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesund ... 570089.ece

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 01:43
by popcorn
A gigantic can of worms... no doubt contributed to Rafael selection. Also explains glacial progress to finalize the contract with both parties concerned with ToT obligations and repercussions. French reportedly resisting Indian demand that they be responsible for work done by Indian subcontractors.
OTOH the Indians seem to be gluttons for punishment by pursuing PAK-FA, and aircraft that is certainly going to be even more challenging to support. Go figure...

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 05:24
by spazsinbad
Do Indians mind this at all?
Sukhoi-30 MKI, Air Force's Most Modern Fighter Jet, Plagued by Engine Trouble
17 Mar 2015 Sudhi Ranjan Sen

"New Delhi: Sukhoi-30 MKI, the most powerful and modern fighter jets in Indian Air Force's stable, has been hit by mid-air engine failures. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in Parliament today that as many as 35 instances of engine failures were reported in 2013-14 - that's nearly three a month.

In all, there are 69 instances of engine failure in the last four years, the minister said. Inquiries by the Air Force have revealed that in as many as 33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel, in another 11 cases, the problem was caused by excessive vibration and in eight others, engine failures were reported because of low pressure in the lubricant tanks, the Defence Minister said. About five SU-30 MKI have crashed since 2009.

Like all twin-engine jets, the Russian made Su-30s are capable of landing on a single engine. But to reach its maximum potential of carrying a total eight tones of payload including bombs, missiles and spare fuel tanks, the jet needs both its AL-31FP engines to function.

Engine failures is fast becoming a major concern for Air Force and also puts a question mark on India's ability to defend its skies. Another problem area that senior Air Force officers point out is serviceability. "Serviceability of the aircraft is about 50 per cent only," an officer said. It means at any given time, roughly half out of a fleet of 200 jets are available for operational purposes. This becomes crucial in times of emergencies like war.

Mr Parrikar said that the engines were scheduled to be overhauled after every 1000 hours of flying, but the defects started showing-up after only 500 hours of flying. The minister said that Russia-based NPO Saturn, manufacturers of Su-30 Al-31FP engines, offered to make "nine technological improvements" during overhauls, and added that after the modifications the engines were flying for up to 900 hours...."

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi-3 ... ble-747483

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 06:13
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:Do Indians mind this at all?
Sukhoi-30 MKI, Air Force's Most Modern Fighter Jet, Plagued by Engine Trouble
17 Mar 2015 Sudhi Ranjan Sen

"New Delhi: Sukhoi-30 MKI, the most powerful and modern fighter jets in Indian Air Force's stable, has been hit by mid-air engine failures. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in Parliament today that as many as 35 instances of engine failures were reported in 2013-14 - that's nearly three a month.

In all, there are 69 instances of engine failure in the last four years, the minister said. Inquiries by the Air Force have revealed that in as many as 33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel, in another 11 cases, the problem was caused by excessive vibration and in eight others, engine failures were reported because of low pressure in the lubricant tanks, the Defence Minister said. About five SU-30 MKI have crashed since 2009.

Like all twin-engine jets, the Russian made Su-30s are capable of landing on a single engine. But to reach its maximum potential of carrying a total eight tones of payload including bombs, missiles and spare fuel tanks, the jet needs both its AL-31FP engines to function.

Engine failures is fast becoming a major concern for Air Force and also puts a question mark on India's ability to defend its skies. Another problem area that senior Air Force officers point out is serviceability. "Serviceability of the aircraft is about 50 per cent only," an officer said. It means at any given time, roughly half out of a fleet of 200 jets are available for operational purposes. This becomes crucial in times of emergencies like war.

Mr Parrikar said that the engines were scheduled to be overhauled after every 1000 hours of flying, but the defects started showing-up after only 500 hours of flying. The minister said that Russia-based NPO Saturn, manufacturers of Su-30 Al-31FP engines, offered to make "nine technological improvements" during overhauls, and added that after the modifications the engines were flying for up to 900 hours...."

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi-3 ... ble-747483


So the suggested 1000 flight hours between overhauls is like a promised wishlist feature?

Sorry India, you are our Engine Beta Testers till we get it right.

You don't mind, do ya?

LOL

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 07:00
by sergei
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi-3 ... ble-747483

"69 instances of engine failure in the last four years"
"33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel"
33 for bad fuel !! :doh: If dilute fuel donkey urine problems are inevitable.
We can assume low quality consumables and unskilled service as well responsibility for the other episodes.
The same Rafale refused to give a guarantee on an instance assembled in India,
that was one of the reasons for delaying the signing of the contract.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 12:48
by madrat
Bad fuel is a bulls*** excuse for bad design. Chrysler used to use it...

The truth is India wanted to buy full production and upkeep. The Russians sold them the early craptastic version. Even the Russians got away from it due to the same superior performance in sergei's bizarro world.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 15:03
by icemaverick
It's funny how these maintenance issues don't seem to occur as frequently with India's fleet of Mirages. In fact India has been quite pleased with reliability of the Mirage. Old Iraqi Air Force posted an interview some time ago with an Iraqi pilot talking about how much more reliable their Mirage F1s were compared to their MiGs.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 17:48
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi-30-mki-air-forces-most-modern-fighter-jet-plagued-by-engine-trouble-747483

"69 instances of engine failure in the last four years"
"33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel"
33 for bad fuel !! :doh: If dilute fuel donkey urine problems are inevitable.
We can assume low quality consumables and unskilled service as well responsibility for the other episodes.
The same Rafale refused to give a guarantee on an instance assembled in India,
that was one of the reasons for delaying the signing of the contract.


Saturn flat out said that they were trying to increase the hours to a whole 900 Time between overhaul:

. The minister said that Russia-based NPO Saturn, manufacturers of Su-30 Al-31FP engines, offered to make "nine technological improvements" during overhauls, and added that after the modifications the engines were flying for upto 900 hours.


So they are modding the engines for no reason, Komrade?

To put this in perspective Sergei, An F414 needs overhaul every 6,000 hours, and you can bet its not failing nearly as often.

To a western air force this Flanker issue is nearly incomprehensible Sergei. I do enjoy the excuse making though. Russia isn't poor, they are they just temporarily embarrassed millionaires of course. :roll:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 19:35
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:To put this in perspective Sergei, An F414 needs overhaul every 6,000 hours, and you can bet its not failing nearly as often.


F414 after 6000h need new turbine, AL-31 after 900h doesnt. So you misunderstand something.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 19:38
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:To put this in perspective Sergei, An F414 needs overhaul every 6,000 hours, and you can bet its not failing nearly as often.


F414 after 6000h need new turbine, AL-31 after 900h doesnt. So you misunderstand something.


Tell me more.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 19:39
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:To put this in perspective Sergei, An F414 needs overhaul every 6,000 hours, and you can bet its not failing nearly as often.


F414 after 6000h need new turbine, AL-31 after 900h doesnt. So you misunderstand something.


Tell me more.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... de-398210/

If you apply your standards to AL-31F, you will will get 2000h or maybe 2500-3000h (last versions which Indians dont have).

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 19:46
by sergei
"Saturn flat out said that they were trying to increase the hours to a whole 900 Time between overhaul:"
Without changes of fuel quality.
Good fuel =1000h,Bad fuel=500h,Bad fuel+mod=900h,Good Fuel+mod=1000h+400h

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 19:55
by milosh
spazsinbad wrote:Another problem area that senior Air Force officers point out is serviceability. "Serviceability of the aircraft is about 50 per cent only," an officer said. It means at any given time, roughly half out of a fleet of 200 jets are available for operational purposes. This becomes crucial in times of emergencies like war.


50%, OMG. Russian can. Western fighters will never fall that low, look mighty Typhoon its readiness is light years away from that russian can:

As reported last week, the readiness rate of Typhoons in Spain’s Ejército del Aire is very low: only 6 of 39 aircraft (15%) are flyable. In Germany’s Luftwaffe, the figures are better, but still only 42 of 109 Eurofighters (39%) "are currently available for missions, training, and exercises.”


:mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 20:20
by sergei
"Running the F414-EPE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h,"
F414-EPE =26,400lb-thrust =1\3 F414-GE-400 turbine life with 22,000 lb thrust

20% increase the power=3time reduction lifetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31

AL-31F The basic engine developed to power the Su-27 fighter =27,700 lb
AL-31FN Series 3 mproved variant for the Chengdu J-10B = 30,800 lb
AL-41(s)Advanced derivative for the PAK FA( Su-35) =33,000 lb(31,900 lb)

F414-GE-400+20%=26400lb-2000h
F414-EPE+20%=31680lb-600h ?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 21:02
by XanderCrews
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 22:04
by mrigdon
If Russian internet trolls are anything like Russian engines, they'll only be around for another 800 hours or so :P

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 00:44
by sergei
XanderCrews wrote:Image

Sorry no help for bad

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 01:29
by XanderCrews
For those of you just joining us:

+Spaz posted recent report about poor reliability in India with Flanker Engines. Report generously gives 50 percent combat capability (miraculous considering)

+Westerners amazed, Easterners unhappy.

+Russia Stronk Crew blames fuel, Indians. only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue. Manufacturer admits to fixes needed

+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)

+Russia Stronk Crew immediately begins trying to find similar reliability issues with F414 (good luck!), fails miserably and begins posting stats for the not even applicable EPE variant overhaul stats.

+Russia Stronk Crew Posts thrust stats when the issue is reliability (0 thrust when they don't bloody work), posts EF Typhoon stats that have nothing to do with engine reliability, and more to do with funding and supply.

+Xander Crews doesn't care about EF Typhoons anyway.

+RSC posts that the MKI engines are "older" (fielded in 2000) insists newer engines are not as bad. (Thats what India gets for buying those newly designed, not even 15 year old engines)

+Su-30MKI once proudly advertised as a world beater by RSC Suddenly no longer popular, cries in the corner while lamenting the days it ruled the sky on the internet.

+Obvious solution is re-engining of entire Indian fleet with newer not so bad engines at the cost of billions (Indians deserve it for buying AL-31PNs in the first place) solving the problem

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 02:42
by sergei
XanderCrews wrote:For those of you just joining us:

+Spaz posted recent report about poor reliability in India with Flanker Engines. Report generously gives 50 percent combat capability (miraculous considering)

+Westerners amazed, Easterners unhappy.

+Russia Stronk Crew blames fuel, Indians. only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue. Manufacturer admits to fixes needed

+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)

+Russia Stronk Crew immediately begins trying to find similar reliability issues with F414 (good luck!), fails miserably and begins posting stats for the not even applicable EPE variant overhaul stats.

+Russia Stronk Crew Posts thrust stats when the issue is reliability (0 thrust when they don't bloody work), posts EF Typhoon stats that have nothing to do with engine reliability, and more to do with funding and supply.

+Xander Crews doesn't care about EF Typhoons anyway.

+RSC posts that the MKI engines are "older" (fielded in 2000) insists newer engines are not as bad. (Thats what India gets for buying those newly designed, not even 15 year old engines)

+Su-30MKI once proudly advertised as a world beater by RSC Suddenly no longer popular, cries in the corner while lamenting the days it ruled the sky on the internet.

+Obvious solution is re-engining of entire Indian fleet with newer not so bad engines at the cost of billions (Indians deserve it for buying AL-31PNs in the first place) solving the problem

" only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue."
Check your math
"69 instances of engine failure "
"33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel"
33/69 not the 1/3

"Billionaire playboy Xander Crews"free to show us the right numbers for all hi want but with right math.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 05:15
by mk82
sergei wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:For those of you just joining us:

+Spaz posted recent report about poor reliability in India with Flanker Engines. Report generously gives 50 percent combat capability (miraculous considering)

+Westerners amazed, Easterners unhappy.

+Russia Stronk Crew blames fuel, Indians. only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue. Manufacturer admits to fixes needed

+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)

+Russia Stronk Crew immediately begins trying to find similar reliability issues with F414 (good luck!), fails miserably and begins posting stats for the not even applicable EPE variant overhaul stats.

+Russia Stronk Crew Posts thrust stats when the issue is reliability (0 thrust when they don't bloody work), posts EF Typhoon stats that have nothing to do with engine reliability, and more to do with funding and supply.

+Xander Crews doesn't care about EF Typhoons anyway.

+RSC posts that the MKI engines are "older" (fielded in 2000) insists newer engines are not as bad. (Thats what India gets for buying those newly designed, not even 15 year old engines)

+Su-30MKI once proudly advertised as a world beater by RSC Suddenly no longer popular, cries in the corner while lamenting the days it ruled the sky on the internet.

+Obvious solution is re-engining of entire Indian fleet with newer not so bad engines at the cost of billions (Indians deserve it for buying AL-31PNs in the first place) solving the problem

" only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue."
Check your math
"69 instances of engine failure "
"33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel"
33/69 not the 1/3

"Billionaire playboy Xander Crews"free to show us the right numbers for all hi want but with right math.


Hmm...one does wonder about the quality of Indian Air Force jet fuel. Nevertheless Sergei, you cannot deny that the early batches of engines for the MKI were problematic notwithstanding possible subpar maintenance of the engines.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 05:58
by madrat
If its not a drop in replacement then it should be pitted against better engines from P&W, GE, Snecma, etc. Don't get suckered into the next fix, and then the next fix, and then...

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 07:40
by Corsair1963
Any equivalent Western Turbofan that could at as a replacement in the Su-30MKI's????

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 08:01
by disconnectedradical
sergei wrote:"Running the F414-EPE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h,"
F414-EPE =26,400lb-thrust =1\3 F414-GE-400 turbine life with 22,000 lb thrust

20% increase the power=3time reduction lifetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31

AL-31F The basic engine developed to power the Su-27 fighter =27,700 lb
AL-31FN Series 3 mproved variant for the Chengdu J-10B = 30,800 lb
AL-41(s)Advanced derivative for the PAK FA( Su-35) =33,000 lb(31,900 lb)

F414-GE-400+20%=26400lb-2000h
F414-EPE+20%=31680lb-600h ?


That is such a worthless extrapolation. Really? Comparing the F414 with the AL-31F? :doh:

You should compare the F414 to the RD-33. In fact, compare the AL-31F with the F110 and see how they compare in service life.

sergei, you repeatedly show that you are pretty ignorant of Russian equipment. Do you are frankly doing more harm than good when it comes to showing the virtues of Russian hardware.

It's no secret that the AL-31F doesn't match western engines in reliability and service life. Early AL-31F batches are particularly short-lived. The F110 and F100 have design lives of 8,000 hours which is higher than the 4,000 hours rated for the 117S used by the Su-35. Of course, let's not forget how much of a pile of crap our original F100-PW-100 was.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 08:01
by beepa
+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)


Now that's the most entertaining part of this thread.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 09:20
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:Any equivalent Western Turbofan that could at as a replacement in the Su-30MKI's????


How much it would cost to redesign MKI for that and how much cost western engine with similar thrust and weight?

China paid two million per engine (AL-31).

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 10:01
by mrigdon
The article doesn't list WHAT parts are being bought, but here's a short blurb about India ordering spares directly from France and India because Russia can't keep up.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12447/India_Sources_Su_30MKI_Spares_Directly_From_Israel_And_France#.VQqPalyNh9A

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 12:57
by sferrin
beepa wrote:
+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)


Now that's the most entertaining part of this thread.


That's nice sweetie, but the grown-ups are trying to talk.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 13:13
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:The article doesn't list WHAT parts are being bought, but here's a short blurb about India ordering spares directly from France and India because Russia can't keep up.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12447/India_Sources_Su_30MKI_Spares_Directly_From_Israel_And_France#.VQqPalyNh9A

Installation western equipment and of a number of nodes on the plane was the decision of India as a customer.
All questions about the durability and reliability for selected devices India need to refer to the manufacturers of these units.

Same story was with the installation of the western firms equipment on the aircraft carrier :"September 17- 2012 during sea trials in the aircraft carrier has failed powerplant"
"Cause of the accident was the destruction of the layer insulation of boilers."

"At the design stage Indian customer has asked to replace hazardous to health of the crew asbestos insulation"

"Test aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" in the White and Barents Seas revealed new problems, particularly in the equipment, which was supplied by NATO countries, reported on 21 September, the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Andrew Diachkov. "There are a number of mechanisms that are out of order, including NATO countries put ... It's three chillers, nitrogen generators and a number of equipment. Those suppliers invited Indian side "

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 14:24
by mrigdon
sergei wrote:
mrigdon wrote:The article doesn't list WHAT parts are being bought, but here's a short blurb about India ordering spares directly from France and India because Russia can't keep up.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12447/India_Sources_Su_30MKI_Spares_Directly_From_Israel_And_France#.VQqPalyNh9A

Installation western equipment and of a number of nodes on the plane was the decision of India as a customer.
All questions about the durability and reliability for selected devices India need to refer to the manufacturers of these units.


It's not about a choice. India has to get spares from elsewhere because the Russian OEM can't do their job.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 15:07
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:For those of you just joining us:

+Spaz posted recent report about poor reliability in India with Flanker Engines. Report generously gives 50 percent combat capability (miraculous considering)

+Westerners amazed, Easterners unhappy.

+Russia Stronk Crew blames fuel, Indians. only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue. Manufacturer admits to fixes needed

+Billionaire playboy Xander Crews states that F414 TBO is 6000 hours (its actually 4000--oops--, EDE is 6000)

+Russia Stronk Crew immediately begins trying to find similar reliability issues with F414 (good luck!), fails miserably and begins posting stats for the not even applicable EPE variant overhaul stats.

+Russia Stronk Crew Posts thrust stats when the issue is reliability (0 thrust when they don't bloody work), posts EF Typhoon stats that have nothing to do with engine reliability, and more to do with funding and supply.

+Xander Crews doesn't care about EF Typhoons anyway.

+RSC posts that the MKI engines are "older" (fielded in 2000) insists newer engines are not as bad. (Thats what India gets for buying those newly designed, not even 15 year old engines)

+Su-30MKI once proudly advertised as a world beater by RSC Suddenly no longer popular, cries in the corner while lamenting the days it ruled the sky on the internet.

+Obvious solution is re-engining of entire Indian fleet with newer not so bad engines at the cost of billions (Indians deserve it for buying AL-31PNs in the first place) solving the problem

" only 1/3 of failures cite fuel as the issue."
Check your math
"69 instances of engine failure "
"33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel"
33/69 not the 1/3

"Billionaire playboy Xander Crews"free to show us the right numbers for all hi want but with right math.



Other than the typo though, you agree? (silly me, hit 3 instead of 2 and didn't proof read close enough)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 15:55
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Any equivalent Western Turbofan that could at as a replacement in the Su-30MKI's????


How much it would cost to redesign MKI for that and how much cost western engine with similar thrust and weight?

China paid two million per engine (AL-31).


How much does it cost NOT to?

Safety issues, availability issues, additional cost of overhauls, additional cost of spare engines? additional downtime, maintenance times,fleet wide groundings. MKIs have been a problem from the start.

Throw some F110s-132 or F-100-229s and watch the problems disappear overnight. It looks like they can convert half the fleet and keep the same readiness as well

From what I have seen of the MKI the Indians smartest move would be to beg forgiveness from the french, increase their Rafale order and light an oily rag connected to the gas tank of their Flankers While shoving them down the Tarmac toward Valhalla.

I'm also told (from wayyyyy back) that Russian aircraft are tough, reliable, and simple, and optimized for harsh field conditions and owners that are hard on equipment. So what happened? If you want to blame the Indians be my guest, but there has to be a limit there right? Indians can and do operate other types of airplanes and aren't having these problems correct?

Maybe its time to just take a step back and say "I think the MKI has fallen short" If that is too hard we can try this "Its not a reflection of all Russian equipment, but the MKIs have fallen short"

I'm amazed at how fast Russian Fan Krew can excuse away performance. Its always the operators faults, its the maintainers, we sold them the "monkey model" so it was never that good--- we never sell the good stuff anyway, it was in disrepair, the enemy got lucky etc etc.

Russian equipment has performed so poorly that there are still people in the west who are convinced that the threat was inflated by western weapons manufacturers in order to sell more hardware around the globe. I'm not going to go that far myself, but its a widely held belief.

We have seen Russian arms really struggle post cold war on a open market, when people have a choice, they choose something else.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 16:39
by spazsinbad
India has a sad Mötley Crüe of old aircraft at this time. I'm wondering how the bad 'donkey' fuel affected the other NonSuk aircraft?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 16:42
by sprstdlyscottsmn
XanderCrews wrote:I'm also told (from wayyyyy back) that Russian aircraft are tough, reliable, and simple, and optimized for harsh field conditions and owners that are hard on equipment. So what happened?


I also remember hearing that the above was supposed to apply very well to the MiG-29, but the re-unification of Germany sorted that out. They sold their MiGs for a dollar and kept F-4 Phantoms. The only Russo-Soviet piece of equipment that I can think of that the above applies to isn't even an aircraft; the Kalashnikov model 47. You can hit it with a shovel, bury it in mud, drop it off the back of a truck and it will still work exactly the same.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 17:31
by milosh
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: I also remember hearing that the above was supposed to apply very well to the MiG-29, but the re-unification of Germany sorted that out. They sold their MiGs for a dollar and kept F-4 Phantoms.


I think part of Luftwafe wanted to keep MiG-29 and upgraded it, but government didnt want that because of their pet Typhoon. Goverment effectively kill any chance to maintain MiG-29.

And today they have super dump fighter with 39% readiness, and folks here are pissing on Su-30MKI 57% readiness.

@XanderCrews

To replace Su-30 with french jet? Well only if Dasso manufacturing Mirage 4000 but it doesnt. Rafale is too small to carry BrahMos 1 and 2, weapons which are backbone of new Indian strategy.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 18:09
by XanderCrews
I think part of Luftwafe wanted to keep MiG-29 and upgraded it, but government didnt want that because of their pet Typhoon. Goverment effectively kill any chance to maintain MiG-29.


They wanted the Typhoon over the Mig-29?! What a shock. That is shocking. Were they not underwhelmed enough by the Typhoon to give the MiG-29 a chance?

And today they have super dump fighter with 39% readiness, and folks here are pissing on Su-30MKI 57% readiness.


Crazy though it may seem, there are very large differences. Especially when we start talking readiness numbers. Readiness (part mission/full mission) is tracked and counted differently all over the world for one, I would also take a good look at what is keeping the Typhoons readiness low compared to the MKI, and the severity of the issues, and the cost it takes to fix the issues of the MKI. I honestly think with all the issues the indians are having with the MKI that they are exaggerating for up not down. In other words I would be blown away if the MKI was actually at 50 percent. With this many engine and supply issues, Its a miracle if they are at 50.

Good luck on your quest, and your drive to blame the indians for russian supply and quality control problems.

Deny,Deny, counter accuse

classic

@XanderCrews

To replace Su-30 with french jet? Well only if Dasso manufacturing Mirage 4000 but it doesnt. Rafale is too small to carry BrahMos 1 and 2, weapons which are backbone of new Indian strategy.


I would say replace it with something that works especially if its the "backbone" and they are having to rely on others for spares.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 21:08
by milosh
Well Xander, we need to have some numbers to compare planes, and we have official numbers. You can like them or not but that is what we have.

So until you find evidence Indians are lying, I will stick to those numbers.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 22:24
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:Well Xander, we need to have some numbers to compare planes, and we have official numbers. You can like them or not but that is what we have.

So until you find evidence Indians are lying, I will stick to those numbers.


I agree, lets take the Indians fully at their word. And they aren't saying nice things

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 05:38
by madrat
Corsair1963 wrote:Any equivalent Western Turbofan that could at as a replacement in the Su-30MKI's????


These are the weaker Al-31's, so even F100-PW-100's look good in comparison. Your engines will outlive the beast if you went -229's or something from GE. Cost-wise the P&W are a better overall value.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 07:32
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:
sergei wrote:
mrigdon wrote:The article doesn't list WHAT parts are being bought, but here's a short blurb about India ordering spares directly from France and India because Russia can't keep up.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12447/India_Sources_Su_30MKI_Spares_Directly_From_Israel_And_France#.VQqPalyNh9A

Installation western equipment and of a number of nodes on the plane was the decision of India as a customer.
All questions about the durability and reliability for selected devices India need to refer to the manufacturers of these units.


It's not about a choice. India has to get spares from elsewhere because the Russian OEM can't do their job.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

Initially, at the signing of the contract was the choice of India-Fully Russian aircraft equipment or replacement of some nodes the western analogues which they believed would be better (they are often mistakenly thought).
India chose option 2
Russia is much more profitable to put the plane completely out of their components.
Russia purchased a piece of equipment from Western firms for completing aircraft-And the fact that the equipment needs to be changed more frequently than expected (and this problem to a greater extent India), that its reserves in Russia a little bit is not surprising.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 08:37
by sergei
Certainly excuse about poor fuel has its limitations.
But let's compare some characteristics of the aircraft Indian Air Force have

Mirage 2000
Max. takeoff weight: 17,000 kg
Dry thrust: 64.3 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 95.1 kN
Hardpoints: 9 total with a capacity of 6,300 kg

MiG-21
Max. takeoff weight: 10,100 kg
Dry thrust 40.21 kN
Thrust with afterburner 69.62 kN
Hardpoints: 5 total with a capacity of 1,300kg

MiG-27
Max. takeoff weight: 20,670 kg
Dry thrust: 78.5 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 112.8 kN
Hardpoints: 7 total with a capacity of 4,000 kg

MiG-29
Max. takeoff weight: 20,000 kg
Dry thrust : 100.0 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 162 kN
Hardpoints: 9 total with a capacity of 3,500 kg

Jaguar
Max. takeoff weight: 15,700 kg
Dry thrust : 45 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 63 kN
Hardpoints: 5 total with a capacity of 4,500 kg

HAL Tejas
Max. takeoff weight: 13,200 kg
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 89.8 kN
Hardpoints: 8 total with a capacity of 3,500 kg

Su-30MKI
Max. takeoff weight: 38,800 kg
Dry thrust: 150 kN
Thrust with afterburner: 246 kN
Hardpoints: 12 (It can be increased to 14 using multiple ejector racks) with a capacity of 8,000 kg

When you fill in low-quality fuel in the tractor nothing special happens.
But poor fuel tucked into a racing car.... for engine car it will end badly.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 08:48
by mrigdon
sergei wrote:Initially, at the signing of the contract was the choice of India-Fully Russian aircraft equipment or replacement of some nodes the western analogues which they believed would be better (they are often mistakenly thought).
India chose option 2
Russia is much more profitable to put the plane completely out of their components.
Russia purchased a piece of equipment from Western firms for completing aircraft-And the fact that the equipment needs to be changed more frequently than expected (and this problem to a greater extent India), that its reserves in Russia a little bit is not surprising.


I'd ask what your evidence is for this, but it's a waste of breath because I know you don't have any. :wtf:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 16:02
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:Certainly excuse about poor fuel has its limitations.
But let's compare some characteristics of the aircraft Indian Air Force have
When you fill in low-quality fuel in the tractor nothing special happens.
But poor fuel tucked into a racing car.... for engine car it will end badly.


Ridiculous.

Initially, at the signing of the contract was the choice of India-Fully Russian aircraft equipment or replacement of some nodes the western analogues which they believed would be better (they are often mistakenly thought).
India chose option 2
Russia is much more profitable to put the plane completely out of their components.
Russia purchased a piece of equipment from Western firms for completing aircraft-And the fact that the equipment needs to be changed more frequently than expected (and this problem to a greater extent India), that its reserves in Russia a little bit is not surprising.


Even more ridiculous.

So Russian engines are just more sensitive? and Russian avionics are superior and more robust? Can you connect how the western parts are somehow making the engines less reliable?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 19:25
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:
sergei wrote:Initially, at the signing of the contract was the choice of India-Fully Russian aircraft equipment or replacement of some nodes the western analogues which they believed would be better (they are often mistakenly thought).
India chose option 2
Russia is much more profitable to put the plane completely out of their components.
Russia purchased a piece of equipment from Western firms for completing aircraft-And the fact that the equipment needs to be changed more frequently than expected (and this problem to a greater extent India), that its reserves in Russia a little bit is not surprising.


I'd ask what your evidence is for this, but it's a waste of breath because I know you don't have any. :wtf:


"Equipped with a multinational avionics complex sourced from Israel, India, Russia and France"

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 20:29
by mrigdon
sergei wrote:
"Equipped with a multinational avionics complex sourced from Israel, India, Russia and France"



Putting quotation marks around a sentence doesn't make it evidence. :|

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 20:31
by sergei
"So Russian engines are just more sensitive? "
Nope.
Poor fuel can cause a decrease in engine power, vibration, and other delights.
If you fill the tanks of good and bad fuel the engine can be turned off in air

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 20:37
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:
sergei wrote:
"Equipped with a multinational avionics complex sourced from Israel, India, Russia and France"



Putting quotation marks around a sentence doesn't make it evidence. :|


google on these words
"Equipped with a multinational avionics complex sourced from Israel, India, Russia and France"

В работе над самолетом корпорация «Иркут» приняла на себя функции головного исполнителя, инвестора и организатора [b]широкой интернациональной кооперации[/b] . = broad international cooperation

http://www.irkut.com/products/18/236/

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 21:00
by sergei
2013 Aero India.
«Sukhoi 30 MKI: 1000HOURS+»
"- No, not the only one. I think more 10-15 of my countrymen have raid on this type of aircraft exceeding one thousand flight hours."

Su-30MKI: 200
Part of the aircraft could approach the milestone of 1,000 engine hours.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 21:08
by mrigdon
You obviously didn't read the post quoting the Indian Defense Minister, so I'll post it again. Second times the charm?

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

“We have taken up the issue with the Russian government. In fact, I had a discussion with the Minister. In certain cases, with approval, we are also developing replacement of parts from Western sources,” he said.


NOT "we developed [past tense] replacement of parts from Western sources." What he said was,"We are also developing [present continuous use] replacement of parts." They are having to find Western sources for parts that Sukhoi was responsible for.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 21:50
by sergei
mrigdon wrote:You obviously didn't read the post quoting the Indian Defense Minister, so I'll post it again. Second times the charm?

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

“We have taken up the issue with the Russian government. In fact, I had a discussion with the Minister. In certain cases, with approval, we are also developing replacement of parts from Western sources,” he said.


NOT "we developed [past tense] replacement of parts from Western sources." What he said was,"We are also developing [present continuous use] replacement of parts." They are having to find Western sources for parts that Sukhoi was responsible for.


"With the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in Russia facing problems in sourcing spare parts for fighter aircraft Sukhoi, India has started sourcing spares directly from western sources like Israel and France, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Rajya Sabha on Tuesday."
India wants Western equipment -Sukhoi purchased western equipment and installed on the aircraft-western equipment broken more often than expected - Sukhoi out of stock western equipment - India buys western equipment directly from manufacturer.

"Some of the sources of Russians themselves are Western. A lot of them are from Israel, France, etc"

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 23:28
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:"So Russian engines are just more sensitive? "
Nope.
Poor fuel can cause a decrease in engine power, vibration, and other delights.
If you fill the tanks of good and bad fuel the engine can be turned off in air


I have no idea why you posted the list of other aircraft if your point was some kind of comparison... :|

How are the foreign Avionics affecting the engine reliability again?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 02:03
by sergei
XanderCrews wrote:
sergei wrote:"So Russian engines are just more sensitive? "
Nope.
Poor fuel can cause a decrease in engine power, vibration, and other delights.
If you fill the tanks of good and bad fuel the engine can be turned off in air


I have no idea why you posted the list of other aircraft if your point was some kind of comparison... :|

How are the foreign Avionics affecting the engine reliability again?


You quote wrong post.
But I understand.
Tell me how to do compare something with something that would be more understandable to you?
------
What is the most important difference between all these data ? = Thrust and weight - Su-30MKI greatest weight and thrust of all in India AF.
Only Mig27-Mig29 have 2/3 weight and thrust compared to Su-30mki.
All the others are inferior in 2 - 3 times.
Su-30mki engine very powerful it need high quality fuel for maximum power.
Take an interest in what is filled in F-35 and what problem it have.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 14:34
by mrigdon
Another link that demonstrates that sergei doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2015/03/33-cases-of-mid-engine-failure-of-sukhoi-due-to-chips-in-oil-def-min/

Altogether 33 cases of mid-air engine failure in Sukhoi 30 MK-I fleet of the Indian Air Force over the past two years occurred due to presence of chips in oil, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told the Rajya Sabha today.


The 33 cases had to do with chips in OIL, not bad fuel. Sergei obviously made up this claim about bad fuel. He's off arguing something non-existent problems so as to deflect from the original issue.

regarding difficulties in sourcing spare parts of Sukhoi due to these now being produced in Byelorussia or Ukraine, the Minister said the solution to this lay in ‘Make in India’ to increase serviceability of the parts by seven per cent to 57 per cent


India's problem with getting parts has nothing to do with the parts they originally sourced from Western countries. Their issue is clearly with the parts that Sukhoi is responsible for, parts that are intrinsic to all Su-30s, whether the plane is intended for Indian or Russian air force use. Sukhoi can't keep up with spares, so India is having to further reduce their reliance on Russian parts.

I look forward to whatever sergei makes up next.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 16:14
by spazsinbad
To be fair (yes I am) the original quote was 'indian imprecise' leaving some room for interpretation (see page ate of this thread): viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16457&p=287363&hilit=impure#p287363
"...33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel,..."

The journalist who wrote that oughtta be 're-educated' but probably won't - be.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 17:12
by XanderCrews
mrigdon wrote:
The 33 cases had to do with chips in OIL


Holy hell.

I'm still not seeing the connection between western electronics and engine mechanical issues... but whatever.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 17:12
by sergei
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi-3 ... ble-747483
" 69 instances of engine failure "

http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2015/03/ ... l-def-min/

"chips in oil" and " impure fuel"
Somewhere clearly had a different translation.

"He said Russia had already delivered 200 Sukhois — the first 50 were manufactured in Russia but the subsequent 150 were manufactured in India"

How many aircraft built in Russia go to the number of those with breakages and what is the level of readiness of the aircraft Russian made and Indian made respectively.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 02:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sergei wrote:
"He said Russia had already delivered 200 Sukhois — the first 50 were manufactured in Russia but the subsequent 150 were manufactured in India"

How many aircraft built in Russia go to the number of those with breakages and what is the level of readiness of the aircraft Russian made and Indian made respectively.


And THAT would be a good and fair question! However, are the engines also made under licence in India??

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 10:36
by sergei
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sergei wrote:
"He said Russia had already delivered 200 Sukhois — the first 50 were manufactured in Russia but the subsequent 150 were manufactured in India"

How many aircraft built in Russia go to the number of those with breakages and what is the level of readiness of the aircraft Russian made and Indian made respectively.


And THAT would be a good and fair question! However, are the engines also made under licence in India??


"В 2012 году ОАО «УМПО» оказывало техни-
ческое содействие корпорации HAL (Индия) в
освоении лицензионного производства двига-
теля АЛ-31ФП (в отделении г. Корапута) и его
агрегатов (в отделении г. Лакнау)"
In 2012 JSC "Ufa Engine Industrial Association" to provide technical assistance to the corporation HAL (India)
development of licensed production of engines
of Tell AL-31FP (in the department of Koraput) and its
units (in the department of Lucknow)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 11:11
by sergei
A lot of information about the problems of the Su-30MKI and almost nothing about other versions
2013 year
"RMAF chief Gen.Rodzali bin Daud about Su-30MKM"

"We are very pleased with the technical
performance and tactical capabilities of the
Sukhoi fighter we have received."

"One of the reasons, for which the
Su-30MKM was selected, was our rather long
knowledge of Russian aircraft, because RMAF
had operated the Mi-29N fighters for a decade
and a half by then and had been satisfied
with the cooperation with your country on the
whole. Again, we have got no problem with
the Su-30MKM aircraft itself
and we are very
satisfied with this bargain”"

Malaysia seems to be happy with their purchase.
I think the problems Su-30mki associated more with a lack of qualified personnel both during assembly and during aircraft maintenance repair .
Malaysia has fewer aircraft and it is easier to pick up skilled personnel for their service.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 19:17
by mrigdon
mistranslation aside, there’s something about “bad fuel” that should have set off alarm bells. Unless the Indian air force operates differently than others, you don’t buy different fuel for every type of airplane. Different engines will require different oil, though, so that’s more likely to affect one plane over another. Even with the mistranslation, that doesn’t explain the propensity of some to spin tales of “magical” jet engines that need “magical” fuel to keep flying. If it were bad fuel, all of the Indian fighters would be having problems.

As for the engines and who manufactured them, multiple articles referenced in this thread mention that Sukhoi made a number of technical changes to the engines, so it would seem that there were design issues with the AL-31 engines, regardless of who was putting the engines together.

As to which particular airframes and engines are breaking down, the Indians aren’t going to release that information for public consumption. The engines in service represent a mix of engines manufactured in Russia, engines assembled in India, and a smaller number of engines manufactured in India entirely.

http://www.oneindia.com/feature/hal-propels-fortunes-koraput-engine-division-with-gen-next-projects-1590744.html

“Speaking to OneIndia, Rajaram Mohanty, Officiating General Manager (Sukhoi Engine Divison), said that a total of 23 engines have been made from the raw material phase now. The division has so far manufactured close to 280 engines (AL-31FP) for the Sukhois, while around 158 have been overhauled. The first engine from the raw material phase was rolled out during 2011-12.”


The article’s dated from January, so there can’t be much more than 30 or 40 engines manufactured by the Indians with no Russian parts. I’m sure sergei will tell us, though, that every engine that had problems was solely of Indian manufacture and that no engine with Russian parts has ever failed.

As far as spare parts go, India looks to be the canary in the coal mine. The invasion of Ukraine keeps biting Russia in the a**. Right after it started, it was reported that Russian rocket manufacturers were cut off from parts that they needed for engines because a lot of those were manufactured in Ukraine. Apparently Sukhoi was relying on factories in Ukraine to build parts for the Su-30. Now they don’t have those parts. The Russian air force surely told Sukhoi to hoard parts for the time being, but at some point you have to believe that the Russian air force is going to run out of spare parts and Su-30s will start being converted into parts planes to keep the remaining fleet in the air. It takes time to build factories that can manufacture these aerospace parts.

Sukhoi is doubly-screwed, too. If they can’t provide parts for export customers than it starts to affect future contracts. Who is going to buy Su-30s if Sukhoi can’t guarantee that they can provide parts over the course of the airframe’s lifetime? Then again, India may end up stepping in and providing what Sukhoi can’t any longer. It keeps Sukhoi planes flying, but if India is doing more and more of the support, that’s less money in Sukhoi’s pockets.

At some point, Sukhoi should sort these issues out, but it looks as if short term, the Su-30 fleet is going to be constrained by parts shortages which obviously affect operations. And it remains to be seen whether Sukhoi is able to deftly replace the industrial and engineering expertise of their [former?] Ukrainian partners. An article on Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/ ... 50319.aspx) also indicates that Russia may be suffering from acute “brain drain” which will further complicate matters.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 01:09
by KamenRiderBlade
If there was one great brain drain from back in the day (Early days of aviation)

It was Igor Sikorsky. Now he was a great Russian that emigrated to the US and became a legend.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 01:15
by KamenRiderBlade

The rapidly aging Russian population is not only shrinking but is not fit for any major economic or military efforts. During the last decade it was discovered that some 60 percent of Russians are elderly, children, or disabled. Out of 20 million males of working age, one million are in prison, a million in the armed forces (including paramilitaries), five million are unemployed (or unemployable due to poor education, health, or attitude), four million are chronic alcoholics, and a million are drug addicts.

5/20 million males of working age are either chronic alcoholics or a drug addict.

Good to know.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 02:56
by madrat
That's the type you put out front in a charge.

/cue "Redneck, Blue Collar" song

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 09:37
by sergei
"Первый двигатель по фазе “raw material” был изготовлен в 2011-12 годах"
The first engine phase "raw material" was made in 2011-12

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 19:17
by mixelflick
Very insightful.

Lucky they didn't have SU-35 factories there! :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 16:19
by ata
Hi all, like this conversation :D , so few more words..
I'm really far from discussing engines, sensors, avionics of Russian jets. All I know is it's good enough to make what is it made for. Of course there are plenty of articles describing how bad the opposite jets are, but I would prefer not to mind it. Instead I'd like to ask your opinion about the real life comparison. In real life it's almost impossible lonely F-35 to meet single Su-35 somewhere in outer space.
For example, in real world F-35 advantage is to fly high in the sky to be able to scan the airspace to be able to use it's stealth abilities and launch rockets first. But pilots of Su fighters are not that stupid to do the same (really, believe me) if they know stealth is somewhere around. They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors. The same works even for F-22, actually. What I mean is if F-35 to be used to control airfield it will meet rather Mig-31/S-400/S-500 but not Su-27/30/35. If it needs to survive after bomb attack against Su, then I've described tactics to overcome it.
So, in real world what could be a scenario for F-35 to overcome Su-30/35?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 17:25
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 17:35
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


I know the Flanker carries a lot of gas, but flying a few meters above the ground has to eat up tons of fuel, yes? Regardless, playing defense isn't a good way to go into a fight IMO... :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 18:34
by ata
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


Well, I'm based on conversations with the guys working for real radar tech. It doesn't mean it's impossible to detect any jet under these circumstances in general, but I was talking about real life. It's of course a question of distance, weather, surface itself, however if you've detected Su at distance of 10-20 km away, you're probably already dead.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 18:46
by ata
mixelflick wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


I know the Flanker carries a lot of gas, but flying a few meters above the ground has to eat up tons of fuel, yes? Regardless, playing defense isn't a good way to go into a fight IMO... :mrgreen:


I would say it depends of speed. In real life it's not necessary to keep the "highest possible speed" all the time if you've planned what you're doing. You're right, in any mode it would be much less range than at high altitude, but still acceptable for real usage.
And I believe the best way to go into a flight is that to accomplish your mission. Defense or attack is always a question of tactics and situation.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:00
by newmanfrigan
I would say it depends of speed. In real life it's not necessary to keep the "highest possible speed" all the time if you've planned what you're doing. You're right, in any mode it would be much less range than at high altitude, but still acceptable for real usage.
And I believe the best way to go into a flight is that to accomplish your mission. Defense or attack is always a question of tactics and situation.[/quote][/quote]

...and your "tactic" is ridiculous. In other words, nobody is contemplating employing your meters off the ground death charge. Flankers will have 2 choices against F-35s; run away, or die.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:13
by blindpilot
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


"Quite naive" ? ROFL You are pretty generous spurtz ! :D

@ata,

"impossible? !! "

Low level flight can help against ground radars some, but it has been decades since airborne doppler radar systems were fine tuned with look down capability, and today the detail of target info at decent range is such that we are getting into the old adage of "If I tell you the satellite can read your license plate, it's classified" we had back in the sixties. Let's just say airborne radars today can pretty well tell you what model truck or tank at zero meters, is moving through trees at X kph on the road many miles away.

A fighter on the deck dumping fuel at massive rates and starting the engagement with a zero altitude energy state looking through an IRST soda straw is not where I would want to be. I'd want to have a bit better energy state, conserving fuel, and scanning the horizon in 360 degrees. But that's just me. An F 22 at 60,000 plus feet and Mach 1.8 would eat such an SU 35 on the deck before he knew the dinner bell had rung.

I hope real world Russian pilots are taught this way... ? I suspect not, however. Now again more to the real world question, it is not one vs one any more. It's a strike package with many F 35's and they might even use target data from an AWACS and a missile from a ship to execute the kill. Hugging trees in today's battles will work about as well as it will protect you from the forest fire.

BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:24
by ata
newmanfrigan wrote:I would say it depends of speed. In real life it's not necessary to keep the "highest possible speed" all the time if you've planned what you're doing. You're right, in any mode it would be much less range than at high altitude, but still acceptable for real usage.
And I believe the best way to go into a flight is that to accomplish your mission. Defense or attack is always a question of tactics and situation.
[/quote]

...and your "tactic" is ridiculous. In other words, nobody is contemplating employing your meters off the ground death charge. Flankers will have 2 choices against F-35s; run away, or die.[/quote]

I really hope we'll have no chance to check. Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:37
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


"Quite naive" ? ROFL You are pretty generous spurtz ! :D

@ata,

"impossible? !! "

Low level flight can help against ground radars some, but it has been decades since airborne doppler radar systems were fine tuned with look down capability, and today the detail of target info at decent range is such that we are getting into the old adage of "If I tell you the satellite can read your license plate, it's classified" we had back in the sixties. Let's just say airborne radars today can pretty well tell you what model truck or tank at zero meters, is moving through trees at X kph on the road many miles away.

A fighter on the deck dumping fuel at massive rates and starting the engagement with a zero altitude energy state looking through an IRST soda straw is not where I would want to be. I'd want to have a bit better energy state, conserving fuel, and scanning the horizon in 360 degrees. But that's just me. An F 22 at 60,000 plus feet and Mach 1.8 would eat such an SU 35 on the deck before he knew the dinner bell had rung.

I hope real world Russian pilots are taught this way... ? I suspect not, however. Now again more to the real world question, it is not one vs one any more. It's a strike package with many F 35's and they might even use target data from an AWACS and a missile from a ship to execute the kill. Hugging trees in today's battles will work about as well as it will protect you from the forest fire.

BP


Wow, wow... wait, it sounds so scary... Do you realise that as soon as F-35 is going to turn on it's perfect doppler radar it will be fired immediately? And your radar is exactly best target could be imagined? And all money spent for stealth are wasted as soon as trigger is on? Do you think guys working on F-22 were that stupid to implement "stealth mode" even for radar? Really? In real life your enemy acts not like it is shown in movies.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:41
by sergei
ata wrote: would say it depends of speed. In real life it's not necessary to keep the "highest possible speed" all the time if you've planned what you're doing. You're right, in any mode it would be much less range than at high altitude, but still acceptable for real usage.
And I believe the best way to go into a flight is that to accomplish your mission. Defense or attack is always a question of tactics and situation.

...and your "tactic" is ridiculous. In other words, nobody is contemplating employing your meters off the ground death charge. Flankers will have 2 choices against F-35s; run away, or die.

I really hope we'll have no chance to check. Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?

The best way to defeat the Su-35 to destroy the airfield from which he will start.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:47
by blindpilot
ata wrote:...

Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?


ata,

We aren't talking Flankers and F-35s here. We are just speaking of capabilities and tactics. First, it will never be two on two "show down at the OK corral."

What assets are also there? Ground radars? AWACS? Navy off shore? Surface to air missile systems? 16 more 4th Gen fighters in the area?

The F-35 is designed to operate in the midst of all these questions, becoming many times more deadly every time a new mix is stirred into the pot. The SU-35 pretty much just does the same thing with two fighters as with one times 2. However

...., If I was in the situation you propose,
I'd shoot first, kill first before the two SU 35s knew I was there, and go home.

The second SU-35 wouldn't know there was a dogfight until he saw his buddy blow up. He'd have brief seconds to process that reality before he followed in the same way.

Too bad the scenario isn't likely to be the way you see it. That would be nice. Sadly the F-35s will also have to map the enemy radar, SAM sites, other aircraft in the area, plot a course of action for the mission given, and execute a dynamicly changing plan in a messy battle space.

Now on the plus side. No one does that better than the F-35 will.

BP

PS - as to the other question, who said the attacking F-35 turned on an easily detected radar. It may not even be his own LPI on board system. It could be from any sensor in the "networked system." As I said, I hope Russian pilots are taught this stuff, but probably not.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 22:52
by ata
sergei wrote:
ata wrote: would say it depends of speed. In real life it's not necessary to keep the "highest possible speed" all the time if you've planned what you're doing. You're right, in any mode it would be much less range than at high altitude, but still acceptable for real usage.
And I believe the best way to go into a flight is that to accomplish your mission. Defense or attack is always a question of tactics and situation.

...and your "tactic" is ridiculous. In other words, nobody is contemplating employing your meters off the ground death charge. Flankers will have 2 choices against F-35s; run away, or die.

I really hope we'll have no chance to check. Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?

The best way to defeat the Su-35 to destroy the airfield from which he will start.


In real world it means you're attacking it's territory, then it means you have already destroyed all the Voronezh, S-300/400, Buk, Tor, Strela systems. Which means you have already won. Then most probably there are no planes on the airfield you'd plan to destroy. So, please, you're welcome to bomb here!

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 23:17
by XanderCrews
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ata wrote: They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors.


That is quite naive to think that the F-35 will not detect Su-35s first even under these circumstances.


"Quite naive" ? ROFL You are pretty generous spurtz ! :D

@ata,

"impossible? !! "

Low level flight can help against ground radars some, but it has been decades since airborne doppler radar systems were fine tuned with look down capability, and today the detail of target info at decent range is such that we are getting into the old adage of "If I tell you the satellite can read your license plate, it's classified" we had back in the sixties. Let's just say airborne radars today can pretty well tell you what model truck or tank at zero meters, is moving through trees at X kph on the road many miles away.

A fighter on the deck dumping fuel at massive rates and starting the engagement with a zero altitude energy state looking through an IRST soda straw is not where I would want to be. I'd want to have a bit better energy state, conserving fuel, and scanning the horizon in 360 degrees. But that's just me. An F 22 at 60,000 plus feet and Mach 1.8 would eat such an SU 35 on the deck before he knew the dinner bell had rung.

I hope real world Russian pilots are taught this way... ? I suspect not, however. Now again more to the real world question, it is not one vs one any more. It's a strike package with many F 35's and they might even use target data from an AWACS and a missile from a ship to execute the kill. Hugging trees in today's battles will work about as well as it will protect you from the forest fire.

BP


Yep! All that look down/shoot down anti cruise missile tech.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 23:28
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:...

Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?


ata,

We aren't talking Flankers and F-35s here. We are just speaking of capabilities and tactics. First, it will never be two on two "show down at the OK corral."

What assets are also there? Ground radars? AWACS? Navy off shore? Surface to air missile systems? 16 more 4th Gen fighters in the area?

The F-35 is designed to operate in the midst of all these questions, becoming many times more deadly every time a new mix is stirred into the pot. The SU-35 pretty much just does the same thing with two fighters as with one times 2. However

...., If I was in the situation you propose,
I'd shoot first, kill first before the two SU 35s knew I was there, and go home.

The second SU-35 wouldn't know there was a dogfight until he saw his buddy blow up. He'd have brief seconds to process that reality before he followed in the same way.

Too bad the scenario isn't likely to be the way you see it. That would be nice. Sadly the F-35s will also have to map the enemy radar, SAM sites, other aircraft in the area, plot a course of action for the mission given, and execute a dynamicly changing plan in a messy battle space.

Now on the plus side. No one does that better than the F-35 will.

BP

PS - as to the other question, who said the attacking F-35 turned on an easily detected radar. It may not even be his own LPI on board system. It could be from any sensor in the "networked system." As I said, I hope Russian pilots are taught this stuff, but probably not.


Well, sorry if it's not the way you're used to imaging this, but simple comparison of tech means nothing. My point (and it's why I've entered the discussion) is I really have no idea why you're going to move to F-35. Even if not be compared with Russian fighters it looks for me even worse than F-15/16 pair + A10. So, maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here. So, please, give me an idea, it's not that hard, isn't it? And I've entered THIS thread because as well as Flankers, F-35 is to be main air battle unit for next many years.
You of course know that Flankers are talk to each other, and detecting F-35 from one of them would mean another Su would start it's hunting (while first one has a good chance to hide using it's speed abilities). And you maybe understand that all those amazing stealth specs are only available in front projection? So, if you show me your back, you're dead. If I'm far from you above, I see you, and you're dead. If you're far from me above, I see you, and you're dead. F-35 is much slower, impossible to run away. And most probably no chances in dog fight. Ok, you'll notify commander about Flankers, but how it would help you? They'll just finish the job and get away at 2+ Mach. Who will intercept them? Another F-35?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 01:28
by BELA
Well, sorry if it's not the way you're used to imaging this, but simple comparison of tech means nothing. My point (and it's why I've entered the discussion) is I really have no idea why you're going to move to F-35. Even if not be compared with Russian fighters it looks for me even worse than F-15/16 pair + A10. So, maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here. So, please, give me an idea, it's not that hard, isn't it? And I've entered THIS thread because as well as Flankers, F-35 is to be main air battle unit for next many years.
You of course know that Flankers are talk to each other, and detecting F-35 from one of them would mean another Su would start it's hunting (while first one has a good chance to hide using it's speed abilities). And you maybe understand that all those amazing stealth specs are only available in front projection? So, if you show me your back, you're dead. If I'm far from you above, I see you, and you're dead. If you're far from me above, I see you, and you're dead. F-35 is much slower, impossible to run away. And most probably no chances in dog fight. Ok, you'll notify commander about Flankers, but how it would help you? They'll just finish the job and get away at 2+ Mach. Who will intercept them? Another F-35?



Oh Gosh! :roll:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 02:38
by blindpilot
ata wrote:
... So, maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here. So, please, give me an idea, it's not that hard, isn't it? And I've entered THIS thread because as well as Flankers, F-35 is to be main air battle unit for next many years. ....


I am only responding because I appreciate that you came here asking questions.

Please do not be upset if we roll our eyes and answer with snarky replies. It will take a while to figure out where you are coming from.

Let's start with, are you an air force pilot, or have you been, or do you have access to one with combat experience?

A lot of our "Oh Gosh!" replies come from the apparent cluelessness of some of your statements. Many here are current or former military pilots. Some are/were combat fighter pilots. Many of us have or know personally others who have "engaged" in actual combat scenarios.

So let's start with where you sit. Are you a pilot? Are you or have you been in the military? Have you ever piloted a fighter type aircraft? Have you flown in combat? Or perhaps you are an aeronautical engineer. Have you designed an aircraft before? Have you managed a project that develops and builds operational systems?

Where do you get your information on which to base your opinions?

Once we know where you are coming from we can answer without being snotty. Most of us are pretty nice guys... :D

BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 02:41
by thebigfish
Well great - ATA comes around, and guess what, we have another round of explaining the impact of the F35 PACKAGE in the modern combat environment. Can we just tell him to go back to a specific forum to read (and understand hopefully). I hate to see another round of cringe worthy and ultimately one sided debate. Sigh. kids.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 02:51
by blindpilot
thebigfish wrote:Well great - ATA comes around, and guess what, we have another round of explaining the impact of the F35 PACKAGE in the modern combat environment. Can we just tell him to go back to a specific forum to read (and understand hopefully). I hate to see another round of cringe worthy and ultimately one sided debate. Sigh. kids.



:) Maybe if he tells us where he's coming from we can point him to the threads to catch up.

:D
BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 07:06
by mk82
ata wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:...

Anyway, saying "your tactic is ridiculous" means you have another option? I've asked initially could you describe "real world" example how F-35 could overcome Flanker? Let's play a game. Imagine two Flankers. Against of two F-35. What would you do, if you know Su is around?


ata,

We aren't talking Flankers and F-35s here. We are just speaking of capabilities and tactics. First, it will never be two on two "show down at the OK corral."

What assets are also there? Ground radars? AWACS? Navy off shore? Surface to air missile systems? 16 more 4th Gen fighters in the area?

The F-35 is designed to operate in the midst of all these questions, becoming many times more deadly every time a new mix is stirred into the pot. The SU-35 pretty much just does the same thing with two fighters as with one times 2. However

...., If I was in the situation you propose,
I'd shoot first, kill first before the two SU 35s knew I was there, and go home.

The second SU-35 wouldn't know there was a dogfight until he saw his buddy blow up. He'd have brief seconds to process that reality before he followed in the same way.

Too bad the scenario isn't likely to be the way you see it. That would be nice. Sadly the F-35s will also have to map the enemy radar, SAM sites, other aircraft in the area, plot a course of action for the mission given, and execute a dynamicly changing plan in a messy battle space.

Now on the plus side. No one does that better than the F-35 will.

BP

PS - as to the other question, who said the attacking F-35 turned on an easily detected radar. It may not even be his own LPI on board system. It could be from any sensor in the "networked system." As I said, I hope Russian pilots are taught this stuff, but probably not.


Well, sorry if it's not the way you're used to imaging this, but simple comparison of tech means nothing. My point (and it's why I've entered the discussion) is I really have no idea why you're going to move to F-35. Even if not be compared with Russian fighters it looks for me even worse than F-15/16 pair + A10. So, maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here. So, please, give me an idea, it's not that hard, isn't it? And I've entered THIS thread because as well as Flankers, F-35 is to be main air battle unit for next many years.
You of course know that Flankers are talk to each other, and detecting F-35 from one of them would mean another Su would start it's hunting (while first one has a good chance to hide using it's speed abilities). And you maybe understand that all those amazing stealth specs are only available in front projection? So, if you show me your back, you're dead. If I'm far from you above, I see you, and you're dead. If you're far from me above, I see you, and you're dead. F-35 is much slower, impossible to run away. And most probably no chances in dog fight. Ok, you'll notify commander about Flankers, but how it would help you? They'll just finish the job and get away at 2+ Mach. Who will intercept them? Another F-35?


Bwahahaha...man do I need a shot of Vodka to calm my laughter!!! Have you heard of stealth technology? That means that the "mighty" SU 35s can fly high, low, upside down, inside out and have no idea where a stealth/VLO aircraft is using its "mighty" radar, soda straw/vodka straw IRST, Mark 1 eyeball.....meanwhile the SU 35 has a relative RCS of a clown shoe and can be seen relatively easily (use your brains...why is everybody now aiming to build low RCS fighters...even Sukhoi). Sure it can fly Mach 2+ everywhere....wasting fuel...until it eats an AMRAAM in the face at Mach 2+. And LPI radars make it hard for SU 35's RWR to detect enemy radar emissions...sure it may eventually detect an inkling of something before eating an AMRAAM in the face. Hell, a F35 can throw a dancing bear at the SU 35....the SU 35 pilot will have no idea that a dancing bear will land on his/her head Tovarisch. You seem to forget that the F35 is going to be very networked fighter as well.

Use your brains ATA, why Sukhoi designing and testing the PAK FA when the SU 35 is supposedly so "mighty". Let me give you a clue...the SU 35 "mightiness" = big fat target!

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 07:17
by thomonkey
send him to r/hoggit. They have a major hard on for the a10 and su 27. seem's right up his alley.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 08:33
by nathan77
ata, I'm new to this forum as well, and I'll throw in my 2c worth.

First, the F-35 is a strike aircraft first, and not an air-superiority fighter. Never-the-less, due to its sensors and stealth, it can put up a good fight.

The F-35 full sphere (omni-directional) IRST system, and has been known to be able to track ballistic missiles at ranges of 800 miles. Even if the Flanker has a sniper-pod IRST (which is uni-directional), the F-35 is likely to see the Flanker first.

The F-35 can use it's library of signatures and aircraft characteristics can automatically determine what it's facing. So the F-35 launches long range missiles towards the Flanker. The Flanker will detect the missile lock, has two choices; break off the engagement to burn off the missiles, or fly towards the oncoming F-35 missiles in order to get a lock with its IRST (which is almost suicidal). The F-35 has one trick the Flanker doesn't. After it has fired its missiles off, it can disengage from the fight, since it's IRST can guide the missiles no matter which direction it is facing. This mean if the Flanker does get a lock and fires, the missiles must catch up to the fleeing F-35. The further a missile has to fly, the greater its changes of failure (more time for countermeasures / evasion).

So the F-35 has a greater kill probability, and the Flanker is not likely to be able to use its kinetic advantages.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 10:09
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:For example, in real world F-35 advantage is to fly high in the sky to be able to scan the airspace to be able to use it's stealth abilities and launch rockets first. But pilots of Su fighters are not that stupid to do the same (really, believe me) if they know stealth is somewhere around. They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors. The same works even for F-22, actually. What I mean is if F-35 to be used to control airfield it will meet rather Mig-31/S-400/S-500 but not Su-27/30/35. If it needs to survive after bomb attack against Su, then I've described tactics to overcome it.
So, in real world what could be a scenario for F-35 to overcome Su-30/35?


Your proposed tactics is not going to work for multiple reasons, some of which have already been mentioned here:

1. Flying at extremely low altitude is going to burn fuel very fast and is going to cut range to about half and significantly reduce your speed and thus energy state. Not good in air-to-air combat.

2. Flying very low is going to reduce your own ability to detect things that are flying low, so enemy can attack your ground assets with ease

3. Flying low is going to cut the range of your missiles a lot, to less than 1/3 of the range when launched at high altitude. What is worse is that launching against high flying target is going to cut it further as the missile has to climb. If you are launching it at 100 m height and target is at 10,000m height, the missile would climb to maybe 5,000 to 7,000 m and then the rocket motor would stop working as the rocket fuel is spent at less than 10 seconds in modern A-A missiles. After that the missile would be decelerating rapidly as it would have to climb without power. I doubt the ability of most current A-A missiles to hit fighter targets in such a scenario as they would not have much energy left when they reached 10,000 m altitude. The Sukhoi would have to climb several thousand meters to enable weapons employment, which would take a lot of precious time and be vulnerable to attack themselves. You've just given your enemy weapons huge range and kill probability advantage.

4. Flying low will severely impact with the fighter ability to communicate with each other and especially ground based systems. Radio horizon is not your friend in this case.

5. Flying very low will also cut down the maneuvering options when trying to evade missiles. Hitting ground is not a good way to avoid being shot down.

6. Credible Russian sources do not claim that Su-35 or Su-30 to have terrain following or even terrain avoidance radar capability. They claim all kinds of other capabilities but these they do not claim to have. This means flying very low would be extremely dangerous in other than flat terrain, daylight and good weather. They'd have to fly at fairly high altitude to avoid hitting hard obstacles.

7. Modern fighter radars (AESA especially so) can pretty easily detect and track very small and stealthy cruise missiles flying at much lower altitude than any fighter aircraft could ever hope for. Detecting a huge Sukhoi fighter would be extremely easy in comparison. Your friend does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern radars and ground clutter. It does have an effect but far less so than with old radars from 60's or 70's.

There is good reason why high ground has always been preferred in combat. All in all your proposed tactic is one of the worst one could imagine. It limits your own options a lot and gives enemy a lot of advantages. I'm sure no fighter pilot in the world would even give it a serious thought. I think the only way for 4th gen fighter to survive against true 5th gen fighters is by playing very defensively and trying to lure them deeply above enemy territory defeneded with SAMs and a lot of sensors.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 10:11
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:
... So, maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here. So, please, give me an idea, it's not that hard, isn't it? And I've entered THIS thread because as well as Flankers, F-35 is to be main air battle unit for next many years. ....


I am only responding because I appreciate that you came here asking questions.

Please do not be upset if we roll our eyes and answer with snarky replies. It will take a while to figure out where you are coming from.

Let's start with, are you an air force pilot, or have you been, or do you have access to one with combat experience?

A lot of our "Oh Gosh!" replies come from the apparent cluelessness of some of your statements. Many here are current or former military pilots. Some are/were combat fighter pilots. Many of us have or know personally others who have "engaged" in actual combat scenarios.

So let's start with where you sit. Are you a pilot? Are you or have you been in the military? Have you ever piloted a fighter type aircraft? Have you flown in combat? Or perhaps you are an aeronautical engineer. Have you designed an aircraft before? Have you managed a project that develops and builds operational systems?

Where do you get your information on which to base your opinions?

Once we know where you are coming from we can answer without being snotty. Most of us are pretty nice guys... :D

BP


No, as you guessed it's obvious I had no air combat experience at all (almost have private pilot license, but it doesn't help here, I believe). But I'm scientist working with radio emission tech for long time, and I'm aviation fan for even longer time.
All I've read here looks 100% like F-35 commercial. I don't know why is that. But as you could see I've asked about theoretical or practical "real world examples". How far Flanker could detect F-35 for example (again, in real world)? And saying "Flanker" I mean modern version of it. From commercial we know that F-22 has "radar size" like golf ball. We also know F-35 is bigger even officially. I was thinking it's kind of secret this spec of F-35, because if it makes F-35 like 0,01 sq.m-0,1 sq.m equivalence it means Su-35 will detect it at more than 100 km (due of non-linear characteristic). And this makes sense of course because it's already on-the-edge. Also, all that data is official, it maybe even better in real life (and maybe worse, of course).
I don't want to say, stealth is not good. But for example old-school L-band radars can detect X-band stealth easily. Stealth even doesn't work at all in this case. Of course Flanker has no "on-board" L-band, but if you insist F-35's strong advantage is networking capabilities, then Flanker may use L-band ground radar's targeting as well.
Another guys said about AMRAAM. But my understanding is that in real life only F-35 used for air control will be equipped with those missiles, and in that case they'll rather meet Mig-31 with even more powerful radar. All of that are about real life usage, which is (most of the time) is different from commercials.
If you're as experienced as you say, then I'm in right place, and I'll able to get all the answers :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 10:58
by sergei
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf

Дальность обнаружения бесфорсажной воздушной цели (ППС/ЗПС) 50/90 km

Detection range non afterburner aerial target (Front/Rear HemiSphere) 50/90 km

" it can disengage from the fight" Sorry F35 cant do it -dynamic performance a mediocre+RHS Detection range for none afterburner 2 time bigger than FHS and afterburner F35- detection range will be significantly higher.

Safer for the F-35 to continue the rapprochement with the Su-35.The second F35 it time should go to a better position to strike.

One of the most important characteristics for missiles is No-Escape Zone.
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 11:30
by ata
Bwahahaha...man do I need a shot of Vodka to calm my laughter!!! Have you heard of stealth technology? That means that the "mighty" SU 35s can fly high, low, upside down, inside out and have no idea where a stealth/VLO aircraft is using its "mighty" radar, soda straw/vodka straw IRST, Mark 1 eyeball.....meanwhile the SU 35 has a relative RCS of a clown shoe and can be seen relatively easily (use your brains...why is everybody now aiming to build low RCS fighters...even Sukhoi). Sure it can fly Mach 2+ everywhere....wasting fuel...until it eats an AMRAAM in the face at Mach 2+. And LPI radars make it hard for SU 35's RWR to detect enemy radar emissions...sure it may eventually detect an inkling of something before eating an AMRAAM in the face. Hell, a F35 can throw a dancing bear at the SU 35....the SU 35 pilot will have no idea that a dancing bear will land on his/her head Tovarisch. You seem to forget that the F35 is going to be very networked fighter as well.

Use your brains ATA, why Sukhoi designing and testing the PAK FA when the SU 35 is supposedly so "mighty". Let me give you a clue...the SU 35 "mightiness" = big fat target!


Seems you believe in stealth so much, it's even useless to discuss. But think about following. Stealth is not magic. It's not miracle that changes everything. It's a great feature sometimes, that's why PAKFA is stealth as well. But PAKFA is a great plane itself, and it's stealth abilities is a part of concept, while for F-35 stealth is everything.
Again, do you have numbers? How big is F-35's RCS? It would answer many questions.
BTW, PAKFA has onboard L-band capabilities, which would decrease the importance of whole stealth concept if not ruin it.
And always remember about vodka-powered engines and puppy bear just behind the shoulder of the pilot, it was always working perfectly.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 11:38
by ata
nathan77 wrote:ata, I'm new to this forum as well, and I'll throw in my 2c worth.

First, the F-35 is a strike aircraft first, and not an air-superiority fighter. Never-the-less, due to its sensors and stealth, it can put up a good fight.

The F-35 full sphere (omni-directional) IRST system, and has been known to be able to track ballistic missiles at ranges of 800 miles. Even if the Flanker has a sniper-pod IRST (which is uni-directional), the F-35 is likely to see the Flanker first.

The F-35 can use it's library of signatures and aircraft characteristics can automatically determine what it's facing. So the F-35 launches long range missiles towards the Flanker. The Flanker will detect the missile lock, has two choices; break off the engagement to burn off the missiles, or fly towards the oncoming F-35 missiles in order to get a lock with its IRST (which is almost suicidal). The F-35 has one trick the Flanker doesn't. After it has fired its missiles off, it can disengage from the fight, since it's IRST can guide the missiles no matter which direction it is facing. This mean if the Flanker does get a lock and fires, the missiles must catch up to the fleeing F-35. The further a missile has to fly, the greater its changes of failure (more time for countermeasures / evasion).

So the F-35 has a greater kill probability, and the Flanker is not likely to be able to use its kinetic advantages.


Could you please tell me why do you think Flanker is not able to do the same? All the modern Russian air-to-air missiles are send-and-forget.
And I've read all that "F-35 concept" - it's a theory based on idea that enemy will just simply attack in front. But I've asked about "real world" situations.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 11:41
by popcorn
@ATA,
I urge you to expand your knowledge of the F-35. Your posts to-date reflect fundamental misunderstanding about the jet and how it is intended to function in the modern battlespace. The scenarios you depict have been hashed and rehashed in various threads so they're nothing new.

But don't limit it to what you read on this site. There are numerous credible sources of information from those directly involved in the F-35 program and the various air arms who are figuring out how to best employ the new jet. Keep an open mind and so as to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Good luck.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 12:01
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:For example, in real world F-35 advantage is to fly high in the sky to be able to scan the airspace to be able to use it's stealth abilities and launch rockets first. But pilots of Su fighters are not that stupid to do the same (really, believe me) if they know stealth is somewhere around. They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors. The same works even for F-22, actually. What I mean is if F-35 to be used to control airfield it will meet rather Mig-31/S-400/S-500 but not Su-27/30/35. If it needs to survive after bomb attack against Su, then I've described tactics to overcome it.
So, in real world what could be a scenario for F-35 to overcome Su-30/35?


Your proposed tactics is not going to work for multiple reasons, some of which have already been mentioned here:

1. Flying at extremely low altitude is going to burn fuel very fast and is going to cut range to about half and significantly reduce your speed and thus energy state. Not good in air-to-air combat.

2. Flying very low is going to reduce your own ability to detect things that are flying low, so enemy can attack your ground assets with ease

3. Flying low is going to cut the range of your missiles a lot, to less than 1/3 of the range when launched at high altitude. What is worse is that launching against high flying target is going to cut it further as the missile has to climb. If you are launching it at 100 m height and target is at 10,000m height, the missile would climb to maybe 5,000 to 7,000 m and then the rocket motor would stop working as the rocket fuel is spent at less than 10 seconds in modern A-A missiles. After that the missile would be decelerating rapidly as it would have to climb without power. I doubt the ability of most current A-A missiles to hit fighter targets in such a scenario as they would not have much energy left when they reached 10,000 m altitude. The Sukhoi would have to climb several thousand meters to enable weapons employment, which would take a lot of precious time and be vulnerable to attack themselves. You've just given your enemy weapons huge range and kill probability advantage.

4. Flying low will severely impact with the fighter ability to communicate with each other and especially ground based systems. Radio horizon is not your friend in this case.

5. Flying very low will also cut down the maneuvering options when trying to evade missiles. Hitting ground is not a good way to avoid being shot down.

6. Credible Russian sources do not claim that Su-35 or Su-30 to have terrain following or even terrain avoidance radar capability. They claim all kinds of other capabilities but these they do not claim to have. This means flying very low would be extremely dangerous in other than flat terrain, daylight and good weather. They'd have to fly at fairly high altitude to avoid hitting hard obstacles.

7. Modern fighter radars (AESA especially so) can pretty easily detect and track very small and stealthy cruise missiles flying at much lower altitude than any fighter aircraft could ever hope for. Detecting a huge Sukhoi fighter would be extremely easy in comparison. Your friend does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern radars and ground clutter. It does have an effect but far less so than with old radars from 60's or 70's.

There is good reason why high ground has always been preferred in combat. All in all your proposed tactic is one of the worst one could imagine. It limits your own options a lot and gives enemy a lot of advantages. I'm sure no fighter pilot in the world would even give it a serious thought. I think the only way for 4th gen fighter to survive against true 5th gen fighters is by playing very defensively and trying to lure them deeply above enemy territory defeneded with SAMs and a lot of sensors.



1. Even if Flanker range would reduce twice it will be about 2000 km, which is comparable with F-35 best result.

2. It's always mirror, My detection range is low, but you can detect me also at low range. And for Flanker it's best possible option to meet F-35 at short range.

3. Reasonable. Anyway, I can imagine several ways to resolve this tactically. Maybe I'm wrong.
4. Reasonable. But again, I'm considering situation when pilots always trying to find best way. It could be resolved by AWACS flying backward at high altitude, or secondary Flanker doing the same.
5. I see no reason to continue front attack, if you detect incoming missile.
6. Su-35 has it. Another modifications will probably have too.
7. Again, it's always a question of range. If you can detect cruise missiles at 10, 20, 30... km you can destroy it. It will never answer back. And it's different with jet fighter.

Finally, I see only one really good reason to avoid that tactic in that exact example. But I've offered it only to start the discussion, it's just an example of one of many ways to decrease stealth impact, and use Flankers advantages.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 12:09
by ata
popcorn wrote:@ATA,
I urge you to expand your knowledge of the F-35. Your posts to-date reflect fundamental misunderstanding about the jet and how it is intended to function in the modern battlespace. The scenarios you depict have been hashed and rehashed in various threads so they're nothing new.

But don't limit it to what you read on this site. There are numerous credible sources of information from those directly involved in the F-35 program and the various air arms who are figuring out how to best employ the new jet. Keep an open mind and so as to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Good luck.


Thanks for advice, but it's pretty obvious. I've read a lot about F-35, and I was never able to find it's real RCS, which is a key knowledge to answer all my questions. As result I consider it as "good enough". But this leaves a lot of room for "guessing". And this is what I"m doing now and was doing for a long time. If you've answered this question (like "F-35 can be detected at less than 20 km within any modern radar, which leaves no chances to that radar placed in any direction") then could you please send me to that thread. If it's not yet answered, then it's useless to read tons of commercials. I've did that already.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 12:29
by popcorn
ata wrote:
popcorn wrote:@ATA,
I urge you to expand your knowledge of the F-35. Your posts to-date reflect fundamental misunderstanding about the jet and how it is intended to function in the modern battlespace. The scenarios you depict have been hashed and rehashed in various threads so they're nothing new.

But don't limit it to what you read on this site. There are numerous credible sources of information from those directly involved in the F-35 program and the various air arms who are figuring out how to best employ the new jet. Keep an open mind and so as to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Good luck.


Thanks for advice, but it's pretty obvious. I've read a lot about F-35, and I was never able to find it's real RCS, which is a key knowledge to answer all my questions. As result I consider it as "good enough". But this leaves a lot of room for "guessing". And this is what I"m doing now and was doing for a long time. If you've answered this question (like "F-35 can be detected at less than 20 km within any modern radar, which leaves no chances to that radar placed in any direction") then could you please send me to that thread. If it's not yet answered, then it's useless to read tons of commercials. I've did that already.

Again your slip is showing with your tunnel vision on RCS. That's just one of the enablers to the total package. Expand your thinking.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 12:44
by ata
popcorn wrote:
ata wrote:
popcorn wrote:@ATA,
I urge you to expand your knowledge of the F-35. Your posts to-date reflect fundamental misunderstanding about the jet and how it is intended to function in the modern battlespace. The scenarios you depict have been hashed and rehashed in various threads so they're nothing new.

But don't limit it to what you read on this site. There are numerous credible sources of information from those directly involved in the F-35 program and the various air arms who are figuring out how to best employ the new jet. Keep an open mind and so as to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Good luck.


Thanks for advice, but it's pretty obvious. I've read a lot about F-35, and I was never able to find it's real RCS, which is a key knowledge to answer all my questions. As result I consider it as "good enough". But this leaves a lot of room for "guessing". And this is what I"m doing now and was doing for a long time. If you've answered this question (like "F-35 can be detected at less than 20 km within any modern radar, which leaves no chances to that radar placed in any direction") then could you please send me to that thread. If it's not yet answered, then it's useless to read tons of commercials. I've did that already.

Again your slip is showing with your tunnel vision on RCS. That's just one of the enablers to the total package. Expand your thinking.


Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?
Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 14:11
by mk82
ata wrote:
Bwahahaha...man do I need a shot of Vodka to calm my laughter!!! Have you heard of stealth technology? That means that the "mighty" SU 35s can fly high, low, upside down, inside out and have no idea where a stealth/VLO aircraft is using its "mighty" radar, soda straw/vodka straw IRST, Mark 1 eyeball.....meanwhile the SU 35 has a relative RCS of a clown shoe and can be seen relatively easily (use your brains...why is everybody now aiming to build low RCS fighters...even Sukhoi). Sure it can fly Mach 2+ everywhere....wasting fuel...until it eats an AMRAAM in the face at Mach 2+. And LPI radars make it hard for SU 35's RWR to detect enemy radar emissions...sure it may eventually detect an inkling of something before eating an AMRAAM in the face. Hell, a F35 can throw a dancing bear at the SU 35....the SU 35 pilot will have no idea that a dancing bear will land on his/her head Tovarisch. You seem to forget that the F35 is going to be very networked fighter as well.

Use your brains ATA, why Sukhoi designing and testing the PAK FA when the SU 35 is supposedly so "mighty". Let me give you a clue...the SU 35 "mightiness" = big fat target!


Seems you believe in stealth so much, it's even useless to discuss. But think about following. Stealth is not magic. It's not miracle that changes everything. It's a great feature sometimes, that's why PAKFA is stealth as well. But PAKFA is a great plane itself, and it's stealth abilities is a part of concept, while for F-35 stealth is everything.
Again, do you have numbers? How big is F-35's RCS? It would answer many questions.
BTW, PAKFA has onboard L-band capabilities, which would decrease the importance of whole stealth concept if not ruin it.
And always remember about vodka-powered engines and puppy bear just behind the shoulder of the pilot, it was always working perfectly.


You are right....stealth is no magic but it's almost magical :mrgreen: . It's a great feature all the time! Now imagine trying to fight a stealth/VLO aircraft in a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...you are already on a backfoot significantly!! The F35 is just not stealth.....its stealth + high level sensor fusion + great sensors + great networking abilities + very reasonable performance ...obviously the most important factor is the pilot. Now if you have a pilot who can employ the F35 in the most tactically favourable manner..... offt.... I hate to be the enemy pilot in a radar "bright" aircraft....the odds are stacked hard against you.

In regards to the F35's RCS, I believe the number being bandied around is around 0.001 square metres in X band, obviously from the best aspect and that is a documented best educated guess. Lockmart is not going to tell you the actual RCS figures. A good F35 pilot will always try to present the best aspect of the aircraft (RCS wise) to the enemy. And trying to get onto the "six" of a group of the F35s when you have no idea where they are in the first place is like playing the lottery....you probably have better chance with the lottery. Mind you...while you buzzing around in your SU 35/relatively radar shiny aircraft....down low/up high etc....there will be F35s/F22s/F15s/F16s/allied aircraft actively hunting for you. You are not the only hunter in the "forest".

I believe the PAK FA's fire control radar operates solely in X Band...including it's speculated cheek arrays. Any L Band array will be used for IFF just like the SU 35 (definitely sure about the SU 35).

Not a fan of vodka powered engines...vodka should be drunk!

I will make it simple...if I had to engage SU 35s in combat, I will more than gladly do it in an F35 (better still a group of F35s) 24/7/365 (366 in a leap year :mrgreen: )

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 14:27
by popcorn
@ATA,

You can assume F-35 RCS that is most advantageous for your scenario but you can have no factual basis. You are relying on 50km IR soda straw vision as primary sensor? Building a house of cards?

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away. It thinks it is the hunter but it is prey being stalked by a pack of networked wolves. No F-35 fights alone, not because it can't but because it‘s the smart way. This is why the Combat Cloud is being put in place. How does a Flanker deal with foes that enjoy contempt of engagement and enjoy first-look/first-shot/first-kill advantage?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 14:28
by mk82
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:For example, in real world F-35 advantage is to fly high in the sky to be able to scan the airspace to be able to use it's stealth abilities and launch rockets first. But pilots of Su fighters are not that stupid to do the same (really, believe me) if they know stealth is somewhere around. They can fly few meters from surface and it's absolutely impossible to detect them in such a case, while sooner or later it will be able to detect F-35 using just optical/IR sensors. The same works even for F-22, actually. What I mean is if F-35 to be used to control airfield it will meet rather Mig-31/S-400/S-500 but not Su-27/30/35. If it needs to survive after bomb attack against Su, then I've described tactics to overcome it.
So, in real world what could be a scenario for F-35 to overcome Su-30/35?


Your proposed tactics is not going to work for multiple reasons, some of which have already been mentioned here:

1. Flying at extremely low altitude is going to burn fuel very fast and is going to cut range to about half and significantly reduce your speed and thus energy state. Not good in air-to-air combat.

2. Flying very low is going to reduce your own ability to detect things that are flying low, so enemy can attack your ground assets with ease

3. Flying low is going to cut the range of your missiles a lot, to less than 1/3 of the range when launched at high altitude. What is worse is that launching against high flying target is going to cut it further as the missile has to climb. If you are launching it at 100 m height and target is at 10,000m height, the missile would climb to maybe 5,000 to 7,000 m and then the rocket motor would stop working as the rocket fuel is spent at less than 10 seconds in modern A-A missiles. After that the missile would be decelerating rapidly as it would have to climb without power. I doubt the ability of most current A-A missiles to hit fighter targets in such a scenario as they would not have much energy left when they reached 10,000 m altitude. The Sukhoi would have to climb several thousand meters to enable weapons employment, which would take a lot of precious time and be vulnerable to attack themselves. You've just given your enemy weapons huge range and kill probability advantage.

4. Flying low will severely impact with the fighter ability to communicate with each other and especially ground based systems. Radio horizon is not your friend in this case.

5. Flying very low will also cut down the maneuvering options when trying to evade missiles. Hitting ground is not a good way to avoid being shot down.

6. Credible Russian sources do not claim that Su-35 or Su-30 to have terrain following or even terrain avoidance radar capability. They claim all kinds of other capabilities but these they do not claim to have. This means flying very low would be extremely dangerous in other than flat terrain, daylight and good weather. They'd have to fly at fairly high altitude to avoid hitting hard obstacles.

7. Modern fighter radars (AESA especially so) can pretty easily detect and track very small and stealthy cruise missiles flying at much lower altitude than any fighter aircraft could ever hope for. Detecting a huge Sukhoi fighter would be extremely easy in comparison. Your friend does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern radars and ground clutter. It does have an effect but far less so than with old radars from 60's or 70's.

There is good reason why high ground has always been preferred in combat. All in all your proposed tactic is one of the worst one could imagine. It limits your own options a lot and gives enemy a lot of advantages. I'm sure no fighter pilot in the world would even give it a serious thought. I think the only way for 4th gen fighter to survive against true 5th gen fighters is by playing very defensively and trying to lure them deeply above enemy territory defeneded with SAMs and a lot of sensors.



1. Even if Flanker range would reduce twice it will be about 2000 km, which is comparable with F-35 best result.

2. It's always mirror, My detection range is low, but you can detect me also at low range. And for Flanker it's best possible option to meet F-35 at short range.

3. Reasonable. Anyway, I can imagine several ways to resolve this tactically. Maybe I'm wrong.
4. Reasonable. But again, I'm considering situation when pilots always trying to find best way. It could be resolved by AWACS flying backward at high altitude, or secondary Flanker doing the same.
5. I see no reason to continue front attack, if you detect incoming missile.
6. Su-35 has it. Another modifications will probably have too.
7. Again, it's always a question of range. If you can detect cruise missiles at 10, 20, 30... km you can destroy it. It will never answer back. And it's different with jet fighter.

Finally, I see only one really good reason to avoid that tactic in that exact example. But I've offered it only to start the discussion, it's just an example of one of many ways to decrease stealth impact, and use Flankers advantages.


Pretty desperate tactic! Starting down on the deck and having to waste energy climbing up to your enemy's altitude to increase the pK of your missiles is not good way to go....Flanker or no Flanker. Any pilot would hate having to dodge an air to air missile literally raining down on you whilst you are in a relatively low energy state to be bled further by the evasive manoeuvres. A floundering fish comes to mind.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 14:29
by shrimpman
I have just got through the entire topic. One thing I have discovered is a fantastic level of sophistry in between the genuine arguments in this kind of discussions especially from the “eastern bloc fan club”. I really like playing with words, I’m a (wannabe) writer, it’s my job, I quite enjoy reading those comments.
I have compiled a shot list of the techniques I see regularly, maybe they will help you detect and defeat them next time you see them:
1-Scarecrow tactic – secretly swap the opponent’s idea with a ridiculous one, then smash that scarecrow to pieces with a strong statement and claim victory
2 - Invisible men tactic – “It is said that…” , “Experts claim that…”
3 - Cherry picking (by far the most common) – sifting through the facts to pick only the ones that support your view and blatantly ignoring everything that contradicts you
4 - Confirmation effect – seeing only the tiny bits of information that support what you wanted to hear in the first place, regardless of the context, overall scope or even the credibility of your source
5 - Golden sample – presenting a perfect specimen for an assessment and claim that the standard product is going to be just as good. (That’s a far comparison, but a lot of the “real life scenarios” people present are something like that: ok, a lone F-35 guy is flying right above 6 enemy SAM sites and 20 AAA batteries, he is texting his wife with one hand and his mistress with the other, meanwhile Su-35 dude is at his six, 2km behind, with a solid lock and weapons in the air. I believe F-35 is a toast and this proves Yankee air force is no match for the Russian bear!)
6 - I even see one more I did not know (thank you, Sergei, I am always willing to learn) – let’s call it a Big brother – you place your idea and throw in a completely random, undeniable fact that is supposed to protect your statement from a counterstrike. Example: “I believe F-35 is a piece of junk. The Earth is round. “. Obviously, the opponent cannot deny without looking ridiculous.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 14:37
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.


Wrong. Su-35 OLS-35 can definitely not detect F-35 from 90/50 km away unless F-35 is going with full AB. Actually here is what the manufacturer says about the OLS-35:
http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/166-ols-35.html
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/ols-35-irst/

It's clearly said that Su-35 can detect Su-30 target at 90 km away when receding and 35 km away when approaching. AFAIK, the 50 km figure is for afterburning MiG-25 target flying above Mach 2. Now Su-30 does not have any IR signature reduction measures, while F-35 is full of them (deeply buried engine, exhaust cooling, ceramic nozzles, using heat sinks for example).

Also the IRST comparison is not good for Su-35. F-35 has latest generation imaging system (EOTS) with performance far superior to the non-imaging heat-seeking system used in Su-35 (OLS-35). OLS-35 does not provide imaging capability (can no identify the target) and has very poor multi-target performance in comparison. It can only detect 4 heat sources in comparison to EOTS which can track hundreds of targets simultaneously.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 15:12
by SpudmanWP
Also note that "detection" range is not "target" range, which is 20km due to laser rangefinder limitations.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 15:15
by mk82
Hang on...hang on ata...I am puzzled about a few things......

Number 1 - Do your research on weapons carriage capabilities of the F35. In internal carriage only mode, it's primary air to air weapon is the AMRAAM, not the Sidewinder at this point of time (definite fact). With external carriage, the F35 can carry Sidewinders on its outer most hardpoints (on the wing) and a mixture of AMRAAMs and air to ground ordnance on the remaining hardpoints.

Number 2 - How can you talk about "real" world scenarios when the F35 has not met the SU 35 in real or even simulated combat? The potential tactics you dream up for the SU 35 are just theories and concepts as well frankly. Especially when the SU 35 has yet to engage VLO opponents in real life. At least we know the SU 35 is a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...not a good starting base. Having to use contrived and potentially disadvantageous tactics due to relatively crippling limitations of your aircraft....not a good starting base as well

Number 3 - By your logic, the capabilities of the SU 35 are also just commercials by Sukhoi. Have you personally flown the SU 35 and verified all of it's capabilities personally? I think not. Sukhoi is in the business of selling aircraft too....why would they be more honest than Lockmart? Are the SU 35's capabilities tested in real world/combat conditions rather than best case scenarios? Do you know the answer for that? It seems like you would believe Sukhoi uncritically if they said that the SU 35 would spray fairy dust out of its exhaust or believe that absurd Sukhoi commercial showing the SU 35 downing gaggles of Eurofighters (actually the Eurofighter, especially armed with Meteor BVRAAMs, would more than adequately match the "mighty" SU 35)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 15:24
by mk82
shrimpman wrote:I have just got through the entire topic. One thing I have discovered is a fantastic level of sophistry in between the genuine arguments in this kind of discussions especially from the “eastern bloc fan club”. I really like playing with words, I’m a (wannabe) writer, it’s my job, I quite enjoy reading those comments.
I have compiled a shot list of the techniques I see regularly, maybe they will help you detect and defeat them next time you see them:
1-Scarecrow tactic – secretly swap the opponent’s idea with a ridiculous one, then smash that scarecrow to pieces with a strong statement and claim victory
2 - Invisible men tactic – “It is said that…” , “Experts claim that…”
3 - Cherry picking (by far the most common) – sifting through the facts to pick only the ones that support your view and blatantly ignoring everything that contradicts you
4 - Confirmation effect – seeing only the tiny bits of information that support what you wanted to hear in the first place, regardless of the context, overall scope or even the credibility of your source
5 - Golden sample – presenting a perfect specimen for an assessment and claim that the standard product is going to be just as good. (That’s a far comparison, but a lot of the “real life scenarios” people present are something like that: ok, a lone F-35 guy is flying right above 6 enemy SAM sites and 20 AAA batteries, he is texting his wife with one hand and his mistress with the other, meanwhile Su-35 dude is at his six, 2km behind, with a solid lock and weapons in the air. I believe F-35 is a toast and this proves Yankee air force is no match for the Russian bear!)
6 - I even see one more I did not know (thank you, Sergei, I am always willing to learn) – let’s call it a Big brother – you place your idea and throw in a completely random, undeniable fact that is supposed to protect your statement from a counterstrike. Example: “I believe F-35 is a piece of junk. The Earth is round. “. Obviously, the opponent cannot deny without looking ridiculous.


You forgot to add that in the golden sample the F35 will still kick seven shades of s**t out of the SU 35 and be at the mistress' house in time bwahahahaha :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 16:14
by zero-one
@ATA

You seem to believe that the F-35's strength relies solely on Stealth, when in reality, stealth or "low observability is only one of the advantages the F-35 brings to a fight, there are many more.

1. Aerodynamic Agility and speed: This is where most critics fail to understand the F-35, they take one look at the aircraft and see small wings, no Thrust vectoring, one engine, bulky fuselage, no canards, and think,oh look it can't turn.

However the F-35 was designed to meet specific maneuvering requirements that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World.

The F-35 was designed to combine the high acceleration and high G performance of the F-16C with the high AOA and slow speed maneuverability of the F/A-18.

How? well for one thing the F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids.
The F-35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty with a 460 foot wing area,
'The F-16C block 50 weighs 18,900 lbs empty with a 300 foot wing area,

this means that when both aircraft are empty their wing loading sits at approximately 63 lbs/sq feet, however since the
F-35A is heavier, it will be less sensitive to loads than the F-16C.

Lets load up a block 50 Viper against an F-35A and see what we have

F-16C Block 50
Empty Weight: 18,900 lbs
Fuel: 6,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 26,900 lbs
Thrust: 29,000 lbs

Wing loading: 89.67 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.08

(Note that in actual combat the F-16 is often equipped with sniper pods and additional ECM equipment, but was deducted to improve agility on this test, the F-35 carries all this internally)

F-35A
Empty Weight: 29,300 lbs
Fuel: 9,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: 43,000 lbs

Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.07

even when loaded with 50% more fuel the block 50 only has a 0.01 pound advantage in thrust-to-weight but the F-35A has a 2 pound/sq feet advantage in wing loading.
plus all the weapons and pods on the F-16 will add significant drag to the air frame while the F-35A only has 2 missiles adding additional drag.

now most Viper drivers dread a slow speed dogfight with Rhinos and Hornets due to that high AOA capability enjoyed by the F/A-18, imagine an F-16 which has the high AOA of the Hoenet, thats what the F-35 brings to the fight.

Why is it a big deal to be more maneuverable than the F-16?
Because according to Lt. Col. Dymtro Fisher "“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable" when asked to compare his Flanker against the F-16D (less maneuverable than the F-16C)
Read here:
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/saf ... RQQqCsaZv8

with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet.

2. Sensors: the F-35 sensor suit is unparalleled, with 2 types of optical sensors with 360 degree coverage, a large AESA arrey and a host of passive emission sensors. the Flanker on the other hand is still stuck with a PESA system and a single IRST sensor that can only scan the frontal arc of the aircraft.

3. Low observability: a lot of critics love to downplay the advantages given by Stealth and say that this can be overcome by other systems, be it LF radars or optical sensors or both, however the fact remains that it will still be more difficult for all these systems to detect, track and target Stealth aircraft.

If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35, then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, if the F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems to maintain lock then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, even if the F-35 isn't completely invisible, it will still cause problems for the Su-35 and in a dogfight, those problems can still dictate the terms of the fight

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 16:28
by XanderCrews
ata wrote:
Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?
Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.



Like your Magical Flanker concepts?

I'm sorry to say it but the burden of proof is on the Flanker. An upgraded airplane from the 1970s must detect the 21st century stealth aircraft to even have a chance. Keeping that real simple for you, not going to get into any numbers or anything. The Flanker pilot is betting his life he will be able to detect the multiple stealth aircraft in a pretty big sky. In the mean time we know what 1970's airplanes can do. IRST is not some new magical technology invented yesterday either.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Its the one you don't see that gets you?" even if you detect 50 percent of the F-35s, that's still 50 percent that are going to wreck you. In the mean time Russia has how many upgraded Flankers with the latest sensors? how many Su-35S?

What Percentage of Russian aircraft date from the Soviet Era? (Not exactly known for their avionics capability)

how many aircraft are built post USSR?

and how many have been upgraded?

The last issue, and I hope this isn't too philosophical-- So stay with me. Detection does not equal destruction. F-15s have been detected plenty and never lost in the air, so why does everyone assume an F-35 detected is the same as a kill? The Flanker still has to close in and kill. Detection is but one aspect. and detecting even a few F-35s isn't detecting all of them. Moreover F-35s do not rely solely on stealth. Even then, fully detected Western aircraft have been smashing soviet/Russian aircraft in the air for how many decades now? So why should we be terrified that even if an F-35 or two was detected that they are now dead and the war plan is finished? Even if 2 or 3 F-35s are lost, the amount of Flankers attrition simply isn't feasible. You can't trade half your air force to kill 2 F-35s and expect long term success.

I hope some F-35s are deliberately made "Bait planes" and made to stand out and be detected So that some jagoff who believes the hype get smoked by a the dozen he doesn't see. This also creates the effect that even if F-35s are detected in the future, it will be assumed its a trap, and thus they won't be pursued or attacked out of fear. This is also before we get into "spoofing" in other words using avionics to give fake targets.

Honestly this stuff has become comical. The US has its Flanker type airplane in the F-15 It is known, (Only its always been better) and the F-35 is going to get plenty of practice against them. Flankers are "band aid" tech at this point. "What band aid can we throw on this thing to limp it along 5 more years? sell it to a few more suckers? Canards? Thrust Vectoring? SU-3X Flanker ABCDEFG+?"

Its a joke. Right down to all the "internet tactics" like "flying low to escape detection" That have Flankers doing all kinds of absurd things because the F-35 is dictating the fight from the start. The Second a Flanker takes off its on the defensive, Its flying low, its having to rely on secondary sensors, etc. It can be seen, meanwhile Flanker is desperately trying to find even a single enemy aircraft. How many targets can an IRST track at once by the way? Even your own scenarios bear this out. Flankers have to change tactics, fly perfectly and rely on F-35 pilots making big mistakes along with good weather and good luck. F-35s have all the advantages. Its pilots don't have to be perfect, they don't have to hide, or drastically alter their preferred tactics. F-35s are content to have Flankers burning all their fuel at low altitude trying to survive rather than fight. That works for F-35s just fine. Turning a bear into an earth worm is always a happy end for a man with a fishing hook. Flankers play in the F-35s world not the other way around. Even Bill Sweetman is saying the Russians are conceding first look first shot.

Besides I've seen this movie before. Every time a western aircraft crushes a Russian/Soviet aircraft in the air the excuse train starts. It won't be any different when an F-22 or F-35 knocks out whatever Fulcrum (which the US already did all the way back in 1991 and again in 1999,its already old news) or a Flanker. Its not the cold war anymore. Russian equipment is no longer some unknown boogey man. We have up close and personal looks at them now. we have sparred against them in exercises and practices, Westerners have flown Russian planes and they are not impressed. I'm amazed people keep falling for it over and over again. Not that I mind. The Russian Boogeyman sells western fighter airplanes, and we are content to let him keep doing so.

Again its funny. Tell me how your disco era super fighter will beat us this time? I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. Surely this time will be different? especially as they become even more outdated by the day? tell me how a hand full of Flankers exported to some country for the purpose of airshows somewhere is going to destroy the USAF? Now tell me what excuse we will use when they get smoked. Will we blame the pilots? blame the avionics? the tactics? Help me out.

We can see the strings on this puppet and people keep trying to tell us its a real boy.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:24
by ata
mk82 wrote:Hang on...hang on ata...I am puzzled about a few things......

Number 1 - Do your research on weapons carriage capabilities of the F35. In internal carriage only mode, it's primary air to air weapon is the AMRAAM, not the Sidewinder at this point of time (definite fact). With external carriage, the F35 can carry Sidewinders on its outer most hardpoints (on the wing) and a mixture of AMRAAMs and air to ground ordnance on the remaining hardpoints.

Number 2 - How can you talk about "real" world scenarios when the F35 has not met the SU 35 in real or even simulated combat? The potential tactics you dream up for the SU 35 are just theories and concepts as well frankly. Especially when the SU 35 has yet to engage VLO opponents in real life. At least we know the SU 35 is a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...not a good starting base. Having to use contrived and potentially disadvantageous tactics due to relatively crippling limitations of your aircraft....not a good starting base as well

Number 3 - By your logic, the capabilities of the SU 35 are also just commercials by Sukhoi. Have you personally flown the SU 35 and verified all of it's capabilities personally? I think not. Sukhoi is in the business of selling aircraft too....why would they be more honest than Lockmart? Are the SU 35's capabilities tested in real world/combat conditions rather than best case scenarios? Do you know the answer for that? It seems like you would believe Sukhoi uncritically if they said that the SU 35 would spray fairy dust out of its exhaust or believe that absurd Sukhoi commercial showing the SU 35 downing gaggles of Eurofighters (actually the Eurofighter, especially armed with Meteor BVRAAMs, would more than adequately match the "mighty" SU 35)


Exactly, when I came here I was expecting to generate those scenarios. It would be, of course far from reality, but much closer than commercial from both sides anyway. "blindpilot" said there are a lot of real pilot here, so I'd like if possible them to tell me how it could be in real life without all those "amazing super technology overcome everything in the world". As I said, stealth great feature, but it works not always, not in every situation in the same great way. And my point (don't want to offend the fans) is that in case of F-35 designers put all the money to stealth capabilities. I remember the great sensors, networking, etc, but from outside it seems like invisibility is playing main tactic's role. That's why I'm so focused on RCS. Numbers tell more story than any word, so, let's play numbers at least those we know more or less.
1. "In real life" F-35 would leave the base for some practical reason. For spying, bombing, getting air dominance, etc. I was considering bombing situation. In that case it's very probably it will haven't AMRAAMs on board.
2. Answered before, but one thing more: "radar bright" means F-35 is hunting with radar turned on - so, no stealth at all. With radar turned off it's different and it leaves us with a lot of scenarios would be interesting to discuss. But if you insist on sentences from commercial brochures, useless.
3. Well, there are no huge secrets around Su. It proved it's power and I saw it with my eyes. At Moscow's air show it was staying on it's tale for 20 seconds and then started accelerate up to the sky. It impressed me, of course. Also, description of Su avionics give me an idea it's not the best in the world, but it's "good enough" to do it's job. It's also not a big secret. In opposite F-35's plane numbers are not very impressive while F-35's "computer" numbers are absolutely amazing. But how that "computers" help in real battle situation? Have you tested F-35 in real battle agains well prepared modern Flankers with good pilots? Answer is no. So, how you could be sure all those amazing numbers will be working (I'd rather skip magic explanation from Lockheed)? So, answering your question, I don't need to be critic about Su, because it's like barbarian - you see all the muscles, and even if he's not that smart you can't be sure if his brain power would be enough to support muscles or not. While you have a kung-fu master agains of him, almost without muscles, and his skills must be proven.
So, if you're interesting in this kind of discussion, I would be very appreciated. If not, in fact I'm not very focused on this problem, and I can easily ignore your vodka-bear comments.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:25
by ata
shrimpman wrote:I have just got through the entire topic. One thing I have discovered is a fantastic level of sophistry in between the genuine arguments in this kind of discussions especially from the “eastern bloc fan club”. I really like playing with words, I’m a (wannabe) writer, it’s my job, I quite enjoy reading those comments.
I have compiled a shot list of the techniques I see regularly, maybe they will help you detect and defeat them next time you see them:
1-Scarecrow tactic – secretly swap the opponent’s idea with a ridiculous one, then smash that scarecrow to pieces with a strong statement and claim victory
2 - Invisible men tactic – “It is said that…” , “Experts claim that…”
3 - Cherry picking (by far the most common) – sifting through the facts to pick only the ones that support your view and blatantly ignoring everything that contradicts you
4 - Confirmation effect – seeing only the tiny bits of information that support what you wanted to hear in the first place, regardless of the context, overall scope or even the credibility of your source
5 - Golden sample – presenting a perfect specimen for an assessment and claim that the standard product is going to be just as good. (That’s a far comparison, but a lot of the “real life scenarios” people present are something like that: ok, a lone F-35 guy is flying right above 6 enemy SAM sites and 20 AAA batteries, he is texting his wife with one hand and his mistress with the other, meanwhile Su-35 dude is at his six, 2km behind, with a solid lock and weapons in the air. I believe F-35 is a toast and this proves Yankee air force is no match for the Russian bear!)
6 - I even see one more I did not know (thank you, Sergei, I am always willing to learn) – let’s call it a Big brother – you place your idea and throw in a completely random, undeniable fact that is supposed to protect your statement from a counterstrike. Example: “I believe F-35 is a piece of junk. The Earth is round. “. Obviously, the opponent cannot deny without looking ridiculous.


You're wrong. Thanks for attention.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:42
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.


Wrong. Su-35 OLS-35 can definitely not detect F-35 from 90/50 km away unless F-35 is going with full AB. Actually here is what the manufacturer says about the OLS-35:
http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/166-ols-35.html
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/ols-35-irst/

It's clearly said that Su-35 can detect Su-30 target at 90 km away when receding and 35 km away when approaching. AFAIK, the 50 km figure is for afterburning MiG-25 target flying above Mach 2. Now Su-30 does not have any IR signature reduction measures, while F-35 is full of them (deeply buried engine, exhaust cooling, ceramic nozzles, using heat sinks for example).

Also the IRST comparison is not good for Su-35. F-35 has latest generation imaging system (EOTS) with performance far superior to the non-imaging heat-seeking system used in Su-35 (OLS-35). OLS-35 does not provide imaging capability (can no identify the target) and has very poor multi-target performance in comparison. It can only detect 4 heat sources in comparison to EOTS which can track hundreds of targets simultaneously.


What do you mean "while F-35 is full of them"? Do you engine specialist? "deeply buried engine" - is ridiculous, sorry. Both engines F135 and AL-31 have very similar ourside gas temperature. "exhaust cooling" - no idea what you mean. I know how exhaust cooling works in F-22 and B-2 and F-117. What do you mean about this technology in case of F-35? "ceramic nozzles" - very funny, sorry. "using heat sinks" - in which part of the engine?
The only fact works for you, is that Su-30 produce much more exhaust from two engines. But for sensors it's not that important in comparison with exhaust temp.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:45
by disconnectedradical
Once again, the L-band arrays on the PAK FA's leading edge slats are for IFF, NOT radar. Their role is similar to the arrays used by the F-22's AN/ALR-94.

As a heads up for everyone, for future reference, if you see someone claiming the stealth detection merits of the T-50's L-band arrays, then you can almost be certain that that person doesn't know much about the T-50. :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:51
by ata
popcorn wrote:@ATA,

You can assume F-35 RCS that is most advantageous for your scenario but you can have no factual basis. You are relying on 50km IR soda straw vision as primary sensor? Building a house of cards?

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away. It thinks it is the hunter but it is prey being stalked by a pack of networked wolves. No F-35 fights alone, not because it can't but because it‘s the smart way. This is why the Combat Cloud is being put in place. How does a Flanker deal with foes that enjoy contempt of engagement and enjoy first-look/first-shot/first-kill advantage?


"stalked by a pack of networked wolves" - very impressive. Sure, no F-35 fights alone. The same for Flankers. So let's imagine my Flankers are trying to intercept your F-35. They way F-35 were detected initially depends of what they were doing here. Were they just checking the frontline? Were bombing? Supported cargo plane and going back to the base? In all those cases Flankers will be doing different things, which one do you mean?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 19:59
by ata
zero-one wrote:@ATA

You seem to believe that the F-35's strength relies solely on Stealth, when in reality, stealth or "low observability is only one of the advantages the F-35 brings to a fight, there are many more.

1. Aerodynamic Agility and speed: This is where most critics fail to understand the F-35, they take one look at the aircraft and see small wings, no Thrust vectoring, one engine, bulky fuselage, no canards, and think,oh look it can't turn.

However the F-35 was designed to meet specific maneuvering requirements that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World.

The F-35 was designed to combine the high acceleration and high G performance of the F-16C with the high AOA and slow speed maneuverability of the F/A-18.

How? well for one thing the F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids.
The F-35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty with a 460 foot wing area,
'The F-16C block 50 weighs 18,900 lbs empty with a 300 foot wing area,

this means that when both aircraft are empty their wing loading sits at approximately 63 lbs/sq feet, however since the
F-35A is heavier, it will be less sensitive to loads than the F-16C.

Lets load up a block 50 Viper against an F-35A and see what we have

F-16C Block 50
Empty Weight: 18,900 lbs
Fuel: 6,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 26,900 lbs
Thrust: 29,000 lbs

Wing loading: 89.67 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.08

(Note that in actual combat the F-16 is often equipped with sniper pods and additional ECM equipment, but was deducted to improve agility on this test, the F-35 carries all this internally)

F-35A
Empty Weight: 29,300 lbs
Fuel: 9,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: 43,000 lbs

Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.07

even when loaded with 50% more fuel the block 50 only has a 0.01 pound advantage in thrust-to-weight but the F-35A has a 2 pound/sq feet advantage in wing loading.
plus all the weapons and pods on the F-16 will add significant drag to the air frame while the F-35A only has 2 missiles adding additional drag.

now most Viper drivers dread a slow speed dogfight with Rhinos and Hornets due to that high AOA capability enjoyed by the F/A-18, imagine an F-16 which has the high AOA of the Hoenet, thats what the F-35 brings to the fight.

Why is it a big deal to be more maneuverable than the F-16?
Because according to Lt. Col. Dymtro Fisher "“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable" when asked to compare his Flanker against the F-16D (less maneuverable than the F-16C)
Read here:
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/saf ... RQQqCsaZv8

with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet.

2. Sensors: the F-35 sensor suit is unparalleled, with 2 types of optical sensors with 360 degree coverage, a large AESA arrey and a host of passive emission sensors. the Flanker on the other hand is still stuck with a PESA system and a single IRST sensor that can only scan the frontal arc of the aircraft.

3. Low observability: a lot of critics love to downplay the advantages given by Stealth and say that this can be overcome by other systems, be it LF radars or optical sensors or both, however the fact remains that it will still be more difficult for all these systems to detect, track and target Stealth aircraft.

If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35, then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, if the F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems to maintain lock then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, even if the F-35 isn't completely invisible, it will still cause problems for the Su-35 and in a dogfight, those problems can still dictate the terms of the fight


Well, nothing to say. Really, it seems another fresh portion of commercial here.
with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet

Very funny, thanks. Maybe the best promo speech I've seen here.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:08
by shrimpman
ata wrote:
You're wrong. Thanks for attention.


:) I was not actually referring to your posts, Ata, but the earlier discusion, as well as other topics in this forum. Check them out, you will easily discover real gems. Don't want to pick on anyone and point out their nicknames, but you will notice them straight away. As for your arguments, I do not agree with you, but am not qualified to argue. I would just say that western planes have been mopping the floor with Russian constructions for decades now. I can't see why that would change anytime soon, considering how far ahead is the western aviation technology. Russians and Chinese are taking their first baby steps into stealth technology while the Americans have had decades to master it. For some reason F-35 is portrayed as a cow and a sitting duck while all credible data I can find,including pilot opinions, point out it is more nimble than the Viper and far more deadly. One fallacy I can attribut to you is off-handedly dismissing all opinions that do not sit well with your opinions as commercials or propaganda. That is not a good way to argue, as your claims can just as well be dismissed as defeatism or something similar in return.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:33
by ata
XanderCrews wrote:
ata wrote:
Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?
Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.



Like your Magical Flanker concepts?

I'm sorry to say it but the burden of proof is on the Flanker. An upgraded airplane from the 1970s must detect the 21st century stealth aircraft to even have a chance. Keeping that real simple for you, not going to get into any numbers or anything. The Flanker pilot is betting his life he will be able to detect the multiple stealth aircraft in a pretty big sky. In the mean time we know what 1970's airplanes can do. IRST is not some new magical technology invented yesterday either.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Its the one you don't see that gets you?" even if you detect 50 percent of the F-35s, that's still 50 percent that are going to wreck you. In the mean time Russia has how many upgraded Flankers with the latest sensors? how many Su-35S?

What Percentage of Russian aircraft date from the Soviet Era? (Not exactly known for their avionics capability)

how many aircraft are built post USSR?

and how many have been upgraded?

The last issue, and I hope this isn't too philosophical-- So stay with me. Detection does not equal destruction. F-15s have been detected plenty and never lost in the air, so why does everyone assume an F-35 detected is the same as a kill? The Flanker still has to close in and kill. Detection is but one aspect. and detecting even a few F-35s isn't detecting all of them. Moreover F-35s do not rely solely on stealth. Even then, fully detected Western aircraft have been smashing soviet/Russian aircraft in the air for how many decades now? So why should we be terrified that even if an F-35 or two was detected that they are now dead and the war plan is finished? Even if 2 or 3 F-35s are lost, the amount of Flankers attrition simply isn't feasible. You can't trade half your air force to kill 2 F-35s and expect long term success.

I hope some F-35s are deliberately made "Bait planes" and made to stand out and be detected So that some jagoff who believes the hype get smoked by a the dozen he doesn't see. This also creates the effect that even if F-35s are detected in the future, it will be assumed its a trap, and thus they won't be pursued or attacked out of fear. This is also before we get into "spoofing" in other words using avionics to give fake targets.

Honestly this stuff has become comical. The US has its Flanker type airplane in the F-15 It is known, (Only its always been better) and the F-35 is going to get plenty of practice against them. Flankers are "band aid" tech at this point. "What band aid can we throw on this thing to limp it along 5 more years? sell it to a few more suckers? Canards? Thrust Vectoring? SU-3X Flanker ABCDEFG+?"

Its a joke. Right down to all the "internet tactics" like "flying low to escape detection" That have Flankers doing all kinds of absurd things because the F-35 is dictating the fight from the start. The Second a Flanker takes off its on the defensive, Its flying low, its having to rely on secondary sensors, etc. It can be seen, meanwhile Flanker is desperately trying to find even a single enemy aircraft. How many targets can an IRST track at once by the way? Even your own scenarios bear this out. Flankers have to change tactics, fly perfectly and rely on F-35 pilots making big mistakes along with good weather and good luck. F-35s have all the advantages. Its pilots don't have to be perfect, they don't have to hide, or drastically alter their preferred tactics. F-35s are content to have Flankers burning all their fuel at low altitude trying to survive rather than fight. That works for F-35s just fine. Turning a bear into an earth worm is always a happy end for a man with a fishing hook. Flankers play in the F-35s world not the other way around. Even Bill Sweetman is saying the Russians are conceding first look first shot.

Besides I've seen this movie before. Every time a western aircraft crushes a Russian/Soviet aircraft in the air the excuse train starts. It won't be any different when an F-22 or F-35 knocks out whatever Fulcrum (which the US already did all the way back in 1991 and again in 1999,its already old news) or a Flanker. Its not the cold war anymore. Russian equipment is no longer some unknown boogey man. We have up close and personal looks at them now. we have sparred against them in exercises and practices, Westerners have flown Russian planes and they are not impressed. I'm amazed people keep falling for it over and over again. Not that I mind. The Russian Boogeyman sells western fighter airplanes, and we are content to let him keep doing so.

Again its funny. Tell me how your disco era super fighter will beat us this time? I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. Surely this time will be different? especially as they become even more outdated by the day? tell me how a hand full of Flankers exported to some country for the purpose of airshows somewhere is going to destroy the USAF? Now tell me what excuse we will use when they get smoked. Will we blame the pilots? blame the avionics? the tactics? Help me out.

We can see the strings on this puppet and people keep trying to tell us its a real boy.


Seems very painful for you... Take it easy :D
It's quite hard to tell you such a long story to answer because so many questions require a lot to say. And because I'm speaking now foreign language I'm not going to do that. Also because you're talking about WW3, while I'm talking about simple comparison. Do you want to compare Air Forces? I have no idea how to do that. F-117 was downed by ground missile made just after WW2. Does it make sense? I think yes. Do I'm going to make any conclusion on that? No. Because we have no hundreds of new and proven S-300/400. We have Mig-31 which is in fact mini-AWACS with speed of 3 Mach. Really, I don't know how to compare it to avoid fantasy. Do you know?
Flankers (Su-27) are old? Yes. Can any other plane in the world do the same maneuvers? No. So what is old in modern Flankers (30/35)? All the rest except body is new. Do you think new Toyota Prius is better than 50 years old Mercedes SLS? Well, it consume less fuel. Ok.
Anyway, I'd be happy to answer all what you said, and I personally invite you August this year to Moscow's air show. At least, you'll see a lot of bad Flankers :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:36
by ata
disconnectedradical wrote:Once again, the L-band arrays on the PAK FA's leading edge slats are for IFF, NOT radar. Their role is similar to the arrays used by the F-22's AN/ALR-94.

As a heads up for everyone, for future reference, if you see someone claiming the stealth detection merits of the T-50's L-band arrays, then you can almost be certain that that person doesn't know much about the T-50. :D


Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ata

First of all, even on bombing missions EVERY F-35 will have AT LEAST 2 AMRAAMs. There are dedicated AAM stations inside the bays independent from the bombing, or secondary of you will, stations.

Second, you can't pose a scenario and they say "Don't talk to me about stealth, it won't work, and don't talk to me about sensors, they give away your position or are only in commercials" while simultaneously saying "Su will detect, track, and engage with OLS-35 only based on this brochure".

You want to talk proven?

The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar. AFAIK no other RWR on earth has so much as detected the F-22 transmissions. This goes to show two things: 1) The LPI technology works 2) The sensor technology on the F-35 is far more advanced than the F-22. There is no evidence that any Russian system has OR can detect LPI capabilities.

The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2. This target is an "end of life" target, meaning after 8,000 hours of use it still has this ability. The target was exceeded in ACTUAL RCS testing. There have been statements made by AF Brass that the F-35 surpasses the F-22 in RF stealth. "I can't put a weapon system on it even when I can see it through the glass" was stated about the RF capabilities of the F-22 from the perspective of either an Eagle pilot or a Typhoon pilot. So, stealth works at more angles than head on only.

The OLS-35 states it can detect a head on Su-30 at 25km. The EOTS HAS "detected" a hotel window at ~70km. That is the difference IIR makes. Panning over to the MGM Grand from over 40nm, individual windows were visible. At close range the panel seams of an F-16 are visible. Oh, and two engines (especially so widely spaced apart) will make a larger IR signature than one engine of the same temperature.

The OLS-35 has a 10X7.5degree view that it slews around like a MSA radar. The EODAS has detected, classified, and tracked ballistic missiles at around 1,000km, and tank fire, artillery, and rockets (of the ground combat variety) from a range of about 20km. OLS-35 states it can track up to four targets, EODAS can track over a thousand.

Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability, Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22, Cruise at 1.25M and hitting M1.6 with a 2.5ton payload. What loaded top speed has the Su-35 proven? What are the stores limitations when it comes to speed?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:47
by blindpilot
@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. There is a joke about two friends walking in the African grasses when they see a Cheetah running towards them. The first friend sits down and changes from his hiking boots, into running shoes. His friend laughs and says, "You cannot outrun a cheetah!" His friend replied, "I don't have to. I just have to outrun you. :)"

Stealth and situational awareness is like this. It has been that way since the first WW I bi plane came out of the sun and flamed the unsuspecting adversary.

The US has had and trained with stealth for many years now. In 2007 The F-22 was in its first "Red Flag" training. First. It shot down every other aircraft who never knew they were there. So they changed the rules of engagement and let the adversaries close to visusal. The 4th Gen aircraft couldn't get a lock with targeting systems even when they could "see" the F-22. Fast forward five or so years and the rules of engagement have been fine tuned for effective training. German Typhoons will even claim F-22 kills, and F-15 pilots will say they know how to fight "vectored thrust" now.
BUT remove all those rules of engagement, and just let the F-22 go back to 2007 and every one of the adversaries would die. Even in 2015. Nothing has changed but the rules of training.

The F-35 may not be able to "outrun an F-22." But it doesn't have to. It just needs to manage the battlespace. F-105's could outrun MIG 17s and in fact did sometimes escape that way. But it didn't change the reality of a piss poor kill ratio for the Thuds.

Here is what will happen in real world engagements.

First - In all likelihood all the SU-35s will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles/B-2s/EW systems. The networked enemy comm will go dark from that and other"attacks." If S400/500 radars come on line they will die quickly from SEAD sorites undetected, and some of those attackers will be F-35s over head undetected.
Second if those with Russian weapons try a similar approach to attack first with 4th Gen aircraft, they will fail because they don't have stealth/ECM to execute against modern Integrated Defense Systems. It will be the same result as if F-16s/18s tried to attack S400 systems. All aircraft in the air report to the bottom of the ocean. That is the nature of modern IDS.

But let's assume some SU-35s get airborne. There will be F-22s in the air. The Flankers will have to deal with those before they can try your test flight against the F-35s. See unlimited rules Red Flag 2007.

But let's assume the F-22s were heading home for fuel, and only Aussie F-35s were up for Mig Cap. The Aussies will see the SU-35s first and manuever to manage the battle space. The SU 35s can't stop/preempt this because they haven't seen the Aussie F-35s yet. While they are looking, the Aussies are positioning away from any type of ground radar, IRST searches. The Aussies will shoot first and kill first and the SU-35s will probably not even know they were in the battle space at all.

As to your two fictional F-35s who were being targeted?? some how by the airborne SU-35s, by a means we have no evidence even exists, they will fly home with all weapons unused.

That's the closest thing to real world examples. No Stealth and poor SA + Modern IDS equals dead.

BP

PS I didn't go there because we start to enter classified areas where no one knows, but if the SU-35s get radar / sensors on the Aussies and fire a missile. The F-35 has some significant EW abilities for even that instance. The Aussies will win even then.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 20:47
by SpudmanWP
ata wrote:Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?


Simple physics.

In order to steer an esa antenna you must have multiple (many sources say at least 10) transmit modules in both the X and Y axis. Having multiple modules only in one axis (as is on the T-50 and proposed SU series) will only allow a side-to-side sweep and severely limit the range as the energy cannot be focused. Without an up-n-down (Y axis) sweep means that you will only get a compass heading to the contact and no elevation bearing to use as a further guide to follow on sensors.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 21:37
by ata
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:ata

Thanks. First adequate answer.

The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar. AFAIK no other RWR on earth has so much as detected the F-22 transmissions. This goes to show two things: 1) The LPI technology works 2) The sensor technology on the F-35 is far more advanced than the F-22. There is no evidence that any Russian system has OR can detect LPI capabilities.


No evidence, sure. But this look like possible to solve at least from two radars talking to each other. Ok, got it.

The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2. This target is an "end of life" target, meaning after 8,000 hours of use it still has this ability. The target was exceeded in ACTUAL RCS testing. There have been statements made by AF Brass that the F-35 surpasses the F-22 in RF stealth. "I can't put a weapon system on it even when I can see it through the glass" was stated about the RF capabilities of the F-22 from the perspective of either an Eagle pilot or a Typhoon pilot. So, stealth works at more angles than head on only.


I was always thinking it's a secret information. Is it official?

The OLS-35 states it can detect a head on Su-30 at 25km. The EOTS HAS "detected" a hotel window at ~70km. That is the difference IIR makes. Panning over to the MGM Grand from over 40nm, individual windows were visible. At close range the panel seams of an F-16 are visible. Oh, and two engines (especially so widely spaced apart) will make a larger IR signature than one engine of the same temperature.


35 km, not 25. And two engines make not that big difference to one, but ok.

The OLS-35 has a 10X7.5degree view that it slews around like a MSA radar. The EODAS has detected, classified, and tracked ballistic missiles at around 1,000km, and tank fire, artillery, and rockets (of the ground combat variety) from a range of about 20km. OLS-35 states it can track up to four targets, EODAS can track over a thousand.


Ok, I'd like to see how it works in real life.

Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability, Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22, Cruise at 1.25M and hitting M1.6 with a 2.5ton payload. What loaded top speed has the Su-35 proven? What are the stores limitations when it comes to speed?


With 8 tones of maximum payload or the same 2.5?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 22:10
by ata
SpudmanWP wrote:
ata wrote:Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?


Simple physics.

In order to steer an esa antenna you must have multiple (many sources say at least 10) transmit modules in both the X and Y axis. Having multiple modules only in one axis (as is on the T-50 and proposed SU series) will only allow a side-to-side sweep and severely limit the range as the energy cannot be focused. Without an up-n-down (Y axis) sweep means that you will only get a compass heading to the contact and no elevation bearing to use as a further guide to follow on sensors.


The fact you can't get precise target direction doesn't mean you can't use this radar at all. Those two L-band AESA units can be used for many things, and targeting is one of them. It makes able to detect stealth rough direction, speed and react on it.
So, do you still plan to make conclusion about guys who are talking about PAK-FA L-band arrays?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 22:20
by ata
blindpilot wrote:@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. There is a joke about two friends walking in the African grasses when they see a Cheetah running towards them. The first friend sits down and changes from his hiking boots, into running shoes. His friend laughs and says, "You cannot outrun a cheetah!" His friend replied, "I don't have to. I just have to outrun you. :)"

Stealth and situational awareness is like this. It has been that way since the first WW I bi plane came out of the sun and flamed the unsuspecting adversary.

The US has had and trained with stealth for many years now. In 2007 The F-22 was in its first "Red Flag" training. First. It shot down every other aircraft who never knew they were there. So they changed the rules of engagement and let the adversaries close to visusal. The 4th Gen aircraft couldn't get a lock with targeting systems even when they could "see" the F-22. Fast forward five or so years and the rules of engagement have been fine tuned for effective training. German Typhoons will even claim F-22 kills, and F-15 pilots will say they know how to fight "vectored thrust" now.
BUT remove all those rules of engagement, and just let the F-22 go back to 2007 and every one of the adversaries would die. Even in 2015. Nothing has changed but the rules of training.

The F-35 may not be able to "outrun an F-22." But it doesn't have to. It just needs to manage the battlespace. F-105's could outrun MIG 17s and in fact did sometimes escape that way. But it didn't change the reality of a piss poor kill ratio for the Thuds.

Here is what will happen in real world engagements.

First - In all likelihood all the SU-35s will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles/B-2s/EW systems. The networked enemy comm will go dark from that and other"attacks." If S400/500 radars come on line they will die quickly from SEAD sorites undetected, and some of those attackers will be F-35s over head undetected.
Second if those with Russian weapons try a similar approach to attack first with 4th Gen aircraft, they will fail because they don't have stealth/ECM to execute against modern Integrated Defense Systems. It will be the same result as if F-16s/18s tried to attack S400 systems. All aircraft in the air report to the bottom of the ocean. That is the nature of modern IDS.

But let's assume some SU-35s get airborne. There will be F-22s in the air. The Flankers will have to deal with those before they can try your test flight against the F-35s. See unlimited rules Red Flag 2007.

But let's assume the F-22s were heading home for fuel, and only Aussie F-35s were up for Mig Cap. The Aussies will see the SU-35s first and manuever to manage the battle space. The SU 35s can't stop/preempt this because they haven't seen the Aussie F-35s yet. While they are looking, the Aussies are positioning away from any type of ground radar, IRST searches. The Aussies will shoot first and kill first and the SU-35s will probably not even know they were in the battle space at all.

As to your two fictional F-35s who were being targeted?? some how by the airborne SU-35s, by a means we have no evidence even exists, they will fly home with all weapons unused.

That's the closest thing to real world examples. No Stealth and poor SA + Modern IDS equals dead.

BP

PS I didn't go there because we start to enter classified areas where no one knows, but if the SU-35s get radar / sensors on the Aussies and fire a missile. The F-35 has some significant EW abilities for even that instance. The Aussies will win even then.


Really? I mean how do you think anti aircraft forces are made in Russia? All you said means you absolutely have no idea how it designed. First of all, if you really believe it can be "unexpected attack" I have bad news for you. If you think S-300/400 has no protection from anti-radar missiles (which is basics), then again, it would be surprise. And it's not last surprise could be.
But I don't want to discuss WW3, I've asked about Flanker against F-35 in more or less neutral situation.
Anyway, thanks for your answers.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 22:24
by zero-one
We've ran F-35 vs Su-35 simulations before and the end result remains the same, but alas lets try it again for pete's sake.

We have 8 F-35A's against 24 Su-35s

4 F-35's are on full stealth configuration armed with only 4 internal AMRAAMs and 4 are on heavy configuration armed with 8 AMRAAMs and 2 Aim 9Xs.

No support aircraft for the F-35's but we will give initial GCI support for the Su-35s. How does this pan out? heres what I think.

DETECTION
-GCI detects the non-stealthy formation of F-35's and sporadic signals from stealthy F-35's,
-F-35's start to jam ground based radars and mask their numbers
-Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4.
-Stealthy F-35's flying in front of the non stealthy F-35 formation move to flank the 1st wave of Su-35s and avoid the frontal arc where the OLS-35 is.
-Stealthy F-35's continue to track Su-35 formation and relay targeting info to the whole fleet while jamming the Su-35's targeting at the same time

engagement
-the formation of Su-35s and heavy F-35's reach within weapons range at roughly the same time
-GCI orders the use of deadly force and 2 R-77 are fired on each heavy F-35
-Heavy F-35s also fire on the 1st wave of Su-35s,
now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely on a constant data link while their on-board systems are still too far from the target,
-however since shots have been fired from both sides, the heavy F-35s and 1st wave of Su-35s immediately evade after firing their 1st salvo,
-however the Stealthy F-35s, still undetected continue to provide target info to the Aim-120s before reaching terminal phase,
-the R-77s on the other hand are flying blind and all miss their targets,
-out of the 8 aim 120s fired, 3 reach their target, and the lone surviving Su-35 dives to the deck hoping to get into ground clutter.

-This scenario repeats its self for the succeeding 3 waves with similar results,

This shows us that in a BVR fight the Su-35s are fighting an uphill battle against a team of F-35s

But like all air engagements, you can force a merge, and the Russians are very good at this, so we come to the point where a merge is forced,

and right now the Heavy F-35s are just left with their 2 9xs and cannon,

upon reaching the merge the Su-35s think they have leveled the playing field, however their Flankers, some still hauling 10 A-A missiles are much heavier and draggier than the non stealthy F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs

remember Thrust vectoring is pretty useless in a high speed fight,

Now the F-35s using DAS and HMDs can lock on to targets from a 360 degree feild and can minimize their maneuvers in order to maintain energy better,

to the horror of the Su-35's AMRAAMs seem to be coming from above out of thin air, its the stealthy F-35s now joining the fight and lobbing their own missiles,

In the end its pretty much a massacre.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 22:57
by disconnectedradical
ata wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
ata wrote:Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?


Simple physics.

In order to steer an esa antenna you must have multiple (many sources say at least 10) transmit modules in both the X and Y axis. Having multiple modules only in one axis (as is on the T-50 and proposed SU series) will only allow a side-to-side sweep and severely limit the range as the energy cannot be focused. Without an up-n-down (Y axis) sweep means that you will only get a compass heading to the contact and no elevation bearing to use as a further guide to follow on sensors.


The fact you can't get precise target direction doesn't mean you can't use this radar at all. Those two L-band AESA units can be used for many things, and targeting is one of them. It makes able to detect stealth rough direction, speed and react on it.
So, do you still plan to make conclusion about guys who are talking about PAK-FA L-band arrays?


Give me a source that says the L-band arrays are radars. Beyond the fact that you have no elevation control, L-band arrays will have poor precision, and even then, to get to frequencies low enough to detect the F-35/F-22, you'll need to move to the UHF band. These types of L-band arrays are nothing new. Both the F-22 and F-35 have them.

Here's an article in Russian that give clues as to what the real role of the L-band arrays are.

http://vpk.name/news/92403_boevyie_laze ... _voin.html

Roughly, multi-spectral electronic warfare suite. Similar to the F-22 with its AN/ALR-94, the L-band arrays on the T-50 are part of the EW suite, probably for both the N036 and the L402 (the whole system is called Sh121).

The company brochure for the Su-35's L-band array FYI.
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 23:19
by archeman
SpudmanWP wrote:
ata wrote:Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?


Simple physics.

In order to steer an esa antenna you must have multiple (many sources say at least 10) transmit modules in both the X and Y axis. Having multiple modules only in one axis (as is on the T-50 and proposed SU series) will only allow a side-to-side sweep and severely limit the range as the energy cannot be focused. Without an up-n-down (Y axis) sweep means that you will only get a compass heading to the contact and no elevation bearing to use as a further guide to follow on sensors.


Not an expert here so...
Given the single axis nature of the leading edge type doesn't yield Elevation information on a contact, how good is the Range information of an array that wide?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 23:23
by SpudmanWP
Range is moot since it's not a radar, period.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 23:39
by ata
zero-one wrote:We've ran F-35 vs Su-35 simulations before and the end result remains the same, but alas lets try it again for pete's sake.

We have 8 F-35A's against 24 Su-35s

4 F-35's are on full stealth configuration armed with only 4 internal AMRAAMs and 4 are on heavy configuration armed with 8 AMRAAMs and 2 Aim 9Xs.

No support aircraft for the F-35's but we will give initial GCI support for the Su-35s. How does this pan out? heres what I think.

DETECTION
-GCI detects the non-stealthy formation of F-35's and sporadic signals from stealthy F-35's,
-F-35's start to jam ground based radars and mask their numbers
-Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4.
-Stealthy F-35's flying in front of the non stealthy F-35 formation move to flank the 1st wave of Su-35s and avoid the frontal arc where the OLS-35 is.
-Stealthy F-35's continue to track Su-35 formation and relay targeting info to the whole fleet while jamming the Su-35's targeting at the same time

engagement
-the formation of Su-35s and heavy F-35's reach within weapons range at roughly the same time
-GCI orders the use of deadly force and 2 R-77 are fired on each heavy F-35
-Heavy F-35s also fire on the 1st wave of Su-35s,
now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely on a constant data link while their on-board systems are still too far from the target,
-however since shots have been fired from both sides, the heavy F-35s and 1st wave of Su-35s immediately evade after firing their 1st salvo,
-however the Stealthy F-35s, still undetected continue to provide target info to the Aim-120s before reaching terminal phase,
-the R-77s on the other hand are flying blind and all miss their targets,
-out of the 8 aim 120s fired, 3 reach their target, and the lone surviving Su-35 dives to the deck hoping to get into ground clutter.

-This scenario repeats its self for the succeeding 3 waves with similar results,

This shows us that in a BVR fight the Su-35s are fighting an uphill battle against a team of F-35s

But like all air engagements, you can force a merge, and the Russians are very good at this, so we come to the point where a merge is forced,

and right now the Heavy F-35s are just left with their 2 9xs and cannon,

upon reaching the merge the Su-35s think they have leveled the playing field, however their Flankers, some still hauling 10 A-A missiles are much heavier and draggier than the non stealthy F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs

remember Thrust vectoring is pretty useless in a high speed fight,

Now the F-35s using DAS and HMDs can lock on to targets from a 360 degree feild and can minimize their maneuvers in order to maintain energy better,

to the horror of the Su-35's AMRAAMs seem to be coming from above out of thin air, its the stealthy F-35s now joining the fight and lobbing their own missiles,

In the end its pretty much a massacre.


Perfect, thanks a lot.
I have questions.
1. When 1st wave is close to reach fire distance, why they are still going all in the same line and at the same altitude (I guess)? If they know to be fired, it's quite a stupid tactic, I believe. Especially is they know there are 3 more waves and it's possible to manage them to organise better group than what you described.
2. When stealth F-35s to guide the AMRAAMs, will the keep stealth mode? How do they communicate with missiles?
3. Non-stealthy F-35 would be visible for Su-35 from much more than 100+ km. It means second wave still able to guide the missiles. I have no idea why they all must misfire?

Also, in real life stealthy F-35 will be detected by ground system as well (and it will be known that 4 from 8 are stealth), so Flankers could make different tactic from the beginning.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 23:45
by newmanfrigan
Rather than try to convince a bombastic Russian nationalistic fanboy, might it be more useful to simply ignore? It's not going to be possible to engage in a standard, 2-way debate with these types. They're uninformed and angry, which is the worst combo around. Throw in a wounded national pride (no USSR anymore, pariah state status) and you've got an unsolvable obstacle to debate... Reasoned, well thought out posts are just going to be placeholders till the next embarrassingly stupid statement is made.

As in, "my tactic is we will fly meters above the earth undetected and then we KEEEEEL YOU", level stupid. Or the, "L-band arrays beat stealth haha". That can only come from someone who is technically illiterate vis a vis the concepts involved. These are highly ignorant things to say! Anyone saying that kind of stuff is by definition a troll. They won't be convinced by logic or reason. If they had those capabilities, they wouldn't come to a board populated by pilots, engineers, soldiers and airmen, to engage in a battle of wits unarmed.

I've pointed out since it first appeared on the tarmac that PAKFA is likely not intended for anything other than service as a national prestige project, with the nukes being the real line of defense against the laughably miscast Western villain. "Potemkin Airplane" basically sums it up, as somebody said ^^^. It's not really important if it performs like an F-22A, as long as it rallies the masses to blindly increase their trust in the criminals in the Kremlin.

..and so we will see the Indians eventually forced to give up their participation in this project. It's virtually impossible for the Russians to match US avionics, material sciences, engines, and information technology. The expert braintrust, experience, budget, de-risking investments and infrastructure just aren't there. They don't fab good computer chips...the backbone of the information fighter. They also lack experience and a vital braintrust of experts in the field of low observable aircraft, having never made a single one. Ever. The first AESA going operational in Russia was.....none yet. This would be another pretty strong bellweather indicator for a difficult road ahead..PAKFA's AESA is still being handbuilt in the lab. Scaling that up to mass-production is a huge hurdle all on it's own. Throw in a new airframe with radically reduced signature requirements compared to predecessor types, an engine that isn't even out of bench testing yet, and an armaments plan that requires oil to be AT LEAST $80 per barrel to proceed, and you've got insurmountable hurdles. I would have wagered good money they would fail 5 years ago. Now, it's almost a certainty that this project will fail.

US has: Have Blue, F-117A, RQ-170/80, B2A, YF-22/23, F-22A, Darkstar, Tacit Blue, Tacit Rainbow, X-32/35, F-35A/B/C, Bird of Prey, JASSM, ALCM, Commanche, Whatever "ghosthawk" crashed in Abbotabad, X-45, X-47A/B, A-12 (the Navy prototypes), A-12 (the Blackbird predecessor), SR-71 (if ya wanna really go back to roots)....we've even built LO ships (LCS, Sea Shadow, DDG-1000). There's actually quite a bit more too. This is off the top of my head and of course doesn't include deep black projects, or underway grey projects like LRS-B.

The above projects represent millions upon millions of man hours and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars investment. These investments make it possible to mass produce the F-35 relatively economically in numbers. The kinks have been painstakingly worked out of the system. ...and that's just on the "stealth" side. Networking and informational systems are an area where we're even that much further ahead of the Russians. Silicon Valley is not a place outside Moscow or St. Petersburg.

...but if you want to believe that a handful of prototypes have changed that equation, you can be my guest. You have my sympathy.

I do like the S-300/400 though. Good AD systems. Flankers are good too, but totally outclassed by 35s and 22s.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 23:59
by ata
Roughly, multi-spectral electronic warfare suite. Similar to the F-22 with its AN/ALR-94, the L-band arrays on the T-50 are part of the EW suite, probably for both the N036 and the L402 (the whole system is called Sh121).



What I got from AN/ALR-94 description, it's not a dedicated L-band radar, but multiband (well, probably L-band as well) RECIEVER system. So, it's not the same.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 00:06
by ata
newmanfrigan wrote:Rather than try to convince a bombastic Russian nationalistic fanboy, might it be more useful to simply ignore? It's not going to be possible to engage in a standard, 2-way debate with these types. They're uninformed and angry, which is the worst combo around. Throw in a wounded national pride (no USSR anymore, pariah state status) and you've got an unsolvable obstacle to debate... Reasoned, well thought out posts are just going to be placeholders till the next embarrassingly stupid statement is made.

As in, "my tactic is we will fly meters above the earth undetected and then we KEEEEEL YOU", level stupid. Or the, "L-band arrays beat stealth haha". That can only come from someone who is technically illiterate vis a vis the concepts involved. These are highly ignorant things to say! Anyone saying that kind of stuff is by definition a troll. They won't be convinced by logic or reason. If they had those capabilities, they wouldn't come to a board populated by pilots, engineers, soldiers and airmen, to engage in a battle of wits unarmed.

I've pointed out since it first appeared on the tarmac that PAKFA is likely not intended for anything other than service as a national prestige project, with the nukes being the real line of defense against the laughably miscast Western villain. "Potemkin Airplane" basically sums it up, as somebody said ^^^. It's not really important if it performs like an F-22A, as long as it rallies the masses to blindly increase their trust in the criminals in the Kremlin.

..and so we will see the Indians eventually forced to give up their participation in this project. It's virtually impossible for the Russians to match US avionics, material sciences, engines, and information technology. The expert braintrust, experience, budget, de-risking investments and infrastructure just aren't there. They don't fab good computer chips...the backbone of the information fighter. They also lack experience and a vital braintrust of experts in the field of low observable aircraft, having never made a single one. Ever. The first AESA going operational in Russia was.....none yet. This would be another pretty strong bellweather indicator for a difficult road ahead..PAKFA's AESA is still being handbuilt in the lab. Scaling that up to mass-production is a huge hurdle all on it's own. Throw in a new airframe with radically reduced signature requirements compared to predecessor types, an engine that isn't even out of bench testing yet, and an armaments plan that requires oil to be AT LEAST $80 per barrel to proceed, and you've got insurmountable hurdles. I would have wagered good money they would fail 5 years ago. Now, it's almost a certainty that this project will fail.

US has: Have Blue, F-117A, RQ-170/80, B2A, YF-22/23, F-22A, Darkstar, Tacit Blue, Tacit Rainbow, X-32/35, F-35A/B/C, Bird of Prey, JASSM, ALCM, Commanche, Whatever "ghosthawk" crashed in Abbotabad, X-45, X-47A/B, A-12 (the Navy prototypes), A-12 (the Blackbird predecessor), SR-71 (if ya wanna really go back to roots)....we've even built LO ships (LCS, Sea Shadow, DDG-1000). There's actually quite a bit more too. This is off the top of my head and of course doesn't include deep black projects, or underway grey projects like LRS-B.

The above projects represent millions upon millions of man hours and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars investment. These investments make it possible to mass produce the F-35 relatively economically in numbers. The kinks have been painstakingly worked out of the system. ...and that's just on the "stealth" side. Networking and informational systems are an area where we're even that much further ahead of the Russians. Silicon Valley is not a place outside Moscow or St. Petersburg.

...but if you want to believe that a handful of prototypes have changed that equation, you can be my guest. You have my sympathy.

I do like the S-300/400 though. Good AD systems. Flankers are good too, but totally outclassed by 35s and 22s.



Yes, my lord. But you're in wrong topic. Here is nothing about economy or poitics, but just about planes. For sure you can ignore this comment as well as you had already ignored the whole topic itself.
:D
bombastic Russian nationalistic fanboy - mmm... excelent :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 00:12
by KamenRiderBlade
Why do the Russian fanboys keep coming here of all places?

Are there no Russian websites for them to go bother?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 04:17
by popcorn
If Russia wants to keep investing dwindling financial resources on disco-era tech, I say more power to them. :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 05:50
by sferrin
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Why do the Russian fanboys keep coming here of all places?

Are there no Russian websites for them to go bother?


Many of them got booted from mp.net in the great purge. :P

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 06:54
by blindpilot
ata wrote:
blindpilot wrote:@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. ...
BP



Really? .... I've asked about Flanker against F-35 in more or less neutral situation.
Anyway, thanks for your answers.


The point you miss, and the parameter against which the F-35 "system" is designed, is that such engagements are no longer "neutral situations" nor one on one, or four on four, or anything like that. So the premise is wrong.

Let's try something that won't get your fanboy hackles up too much.

The new South Korean F-15Ks are pretty good planes. Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such. There are private US companies who bought SU-27 Flankers to make a profit training pilots enaging these. We play with Indians and Malaysian (30MKM w/tv)Flankers and have a pretty good idea how the Flanker family flies. One reason the F-22 and F 35 were developed is Flankers can give the older 4th gen aircraft a real challenge. The F-15 "Next New" isn't going to cut it reasonably soon.

But that isn't the biggest chalenge these days. The F-15s without some serious EW magic is not going to make it in a S-400 type environment. Nor will SU-35s in comparable western battlespaces. Air Defenses have to be surpressed, before anyone can try and establish any air superiority and close air support. That's one thing the F35 was designed to deal with. It is not an F4 Phantom with HARM missiles. It is a system that deals with electronic environments and associated resources of the Integrated Air Defense System. As an aside, because that requires stealth and serious situational awareness, it is a decent fighter but that shouldn't be needed except as a last resort.

The SU-35 is still a decades old design fighting the last war. Its a pretty good design, but it will not fair any better against IADS and 5th gen systems than the F-15s and Typhoons would.

Your questions are like asking, "OK I know tanks can't float, but if we fought on land how would they do ..?" Well the problem is that if the combat has moved to water, it kind of matters if the thing floats... It doesn't help to keep asking, "Yeah but what if they still fought on land?" Combat has changed.

Now if you asked, "How has combat changed?" you might get some answers to your questions.

BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 08:58
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:
blindpilot wrote:@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. ...
BP



Really? .... I've asked about Flanker against F-35 in more or less neutral situation.
Anyway, thanks for your answers.


The point you miss, and the parameter against which the F-35 "system" is designed, is that such engagements are no longer "neutral situations" nor one on one, or four on four, or anything like that. So the premise is wrong.

Let's try something that won't get your fanboy hackles up too much.

The new South Korean F-15Ks are pretty good planes. Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such. There are private US companies who bought SU-27 Flankers to make a profit training pilots enaging these. We play with Indians and Malaysian (30MKM w/tv)Flankers and have a pretty good idea how the Flanker family flies. One reason the F-22 and F 35 were developed is Flankers can give the older 4th gen aircraft a real challenge. The F-15 "Next New" isn't going to cut it reasonably soon.

But that isn't the biggest chalenge these days. The F-15s without some serious EW magic is not going to make it in a S-400 type environment. Nor will SU-35s in comparable western battlespaces. Air Defenses have to be surpressed, before anyone can try and establish any air superiority and close air support. That's one thing the F35 was designed to deal with. It is not an F4 Phantom with HARM missiles. It is a system that deals with electronic environments and associated resources of the Integrated Air Defense System. As an aside, because that requires stealth and serious situational awareness, it is a decent fighter but that shouldn't be needed except as a last resort.

The SU-35 is still a decades old design fighting the last war. Its a pretty good design, but it will not fair any better against IADS and 5th gen systems than the F-15s and Typhoons would.

Your questions are like asking, "OK I know tanks can't float, but if we fought on land how would they do ..?" Well the problem is that if the combat has moved to water, it kind of matters if the thing floats... It doesn't help to keep asking, "Yeah but what if they still fought on land?" Combat has changed.

Now if you asked, "How has combat changed?" you might get some answers to your questions.

BP


Ok, I'm surprised why all of the guys here know what I'm thinking better than me. If I'm insisting on neutral comparison because in real combat it's only because yes, you're right F-35 would require to fight with S-300/400 first not Flankers (while we are in "F-35 vs Flanker" place). And ok, if you want to talk about WW3, then could you give me an idea why do you think F-35 is effective against S-300/400? Those stations equipped with multiple bands locators. And as I said before there is one F-117 downed (confirmed) with system 50 years older than modern examples. You're limited by physics anyway. You just can't build aircraft invisible at every wavelength.
And as I answered earlier keeping AD from anti-radar missiles is basics. Again, why do you think it's not solved?
I've found article in English: http://csis.org/blog/russia-announces-sale-s-400-china

That's why I'm trying to get answers. All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.
2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.
3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

You mentioned there are experienced pilots here. Plenty of them. And from tons of shitty commercial I've found those three gems. It doesn't seem great result for such a "proven concept" as everyone told me here. If you have something so perfect you need few words to "sell" it. Normally.
You, of course, you're in your right to say "who the f**k* are you to question us" like another guys did. I don't care. I'm here to get the answers for my old questions. I'm still expect those guys who started good conversation to continue it. Again, I don't care about all the rest.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 09:00
by sergei
You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .

Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!! :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 10:26
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:
popcorn wrote:Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?


How about:

1. Lower RCS makes it more difficult to track, target and engage F-35 successfully

2. Lower RCS makes the EW much more effective significantly reducing the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles

3. Lower IR signature makes it more difficult to detect, track, target and engage using IR seeking missiles

4. Much more powerful EW system (AN/APG-81 radar and AN/ASQ-236) than in almost any fighter aircraft will further reduce the Sukhoi weapons system effectiveness

5. Fully spherical situational awareness system (DAS) will warn about any missile launched by the Sukhois and will track them continuously giving F-35 pilot much better chance of evading any missile launched by Sukhoi . It will also constantly keep an eye for every friendly, enemy and neutral aircraft, helicopter, missile, rocket and ground/sea target within tens, hundreds or even thousand kilometers away (depending on target).

6. Very advanced sensor and data fusion giving far better situational awareness compared to any existing fighter aircraft. This means F-35 pilot and weapons systems will have much more information but presented to them in a way that is very easy to work with. This gives F-35 much better understanding what is going on around them and give a lot more time to make decisions and act to those decisions.

7. Far better and comprehensive datalinking system than in any existing fighter aircraft by having MADL, Link 16, SATCOM and AESA datalinks. This is really underestimated area where people think that a datalink is a datalink. The truth is very different as datalinks can get extremely complex and difficult to implement as requirements grow. This means F-35 will have much more information about what's going on around them and the information is updated much more frequently giving added time for them to observe world around them, think and react to changing situations.

8. All fuel, EW, targeting systems and most likely weapons are internal. This means that in combat configuration F-35 will fly circles around almost all other fighter aircraft in existence and is extremely maneuverable even in air to ground configurations.

9. Standard very high resolution and long ranged imaging infra-red system (EOTS) gives F-35 force totally passive sensor with huge range and ability to track hundreds of targets and identify them at very long ranges.

10. Far better helmet mounted sighting system compared to any existing fighter aircraft due to combination of helmet mounted display, helmet mounted night vision, 360 degree DAS system and sensor fusion. So F-35 pilot will see his enemy (and everyone else) with his own eyes whether it's day or night, clear sky or it's raining or snowing or the aircraft is flying inside a cloud. Most current aircraft (including Sukhois) can only use the helmet mounted sight effectively when the pilot can actually see the enemy aircraft or at least have very limited field of view.

I'm sure you try to downplay these ten huge advantages as you seem hell bent on proving that Sukhois somehow are superior to any other aircraft. These are just advantages that F-35 has all 4th gen fighters and some advantages that it has against any other fighter aircraft in existence. I love how you demand proof from everyone else and never provide any credible proof or source for your own claims. When others provide good sources for their claims, you just ignore them. This is very old troll tactic is getting very boring.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 10:48
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
popcorn wrote:Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?


How about:

1. Lower RCS makes it more difficult to track, target and engage F-35 successfully

2. Lower RCS makes the EW much more effective significantly reducing the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles

3. Lower IR signature makes it more difficult to detect, track, target and engage using IR seeking missiles

4. Much more powerful EW system (AN/APG-81 radar and AN/ASQ-236) than in almost any fighter aircraft will further reduce the Sukhoi weapons system effectiveness

5. Fully spherical situational awareness system (DAS) will warn about any missile launched by the Sukhois and will track them continuously giving F-35 pilot much better chance of evading any missile launched by Sukhoi . It will also constantly keep an eye for every friendly, enemy and neutral aircraft, helicopter, missile, rocket and ground/sea target within tens, hundreds or even thousand kilometers away (depending on target).

6. Very advanced sensor and data fusion giving far better situational awareness compared to any existing fighter aircraft. This means F-35 pilot and weapons systems will have much more information but presented to them in a way that is very easy to work with. This gives F-35 much better understanding what is going on around them and give a lot more time to make decisions and act to those decisions.

7. Far better and comprehensive datalinking system than in any existing fighter aircraft by having MADL, Link 16, SATCOM and AESA datalinks. This is really underestimated area where people think that a datalink is a datalink. The truth is very different as datalinks can get extremely complex and difficult to implement as requirements grow. This means F-35 will have much more information about what's going on around them and the information is updated much more frequently giving added time for them to observe world around them, think and react to changing situations.

8. All fuel, EW, targeting systems and most likely weapons are internal. This means that in combat configuration F-35 will fly circles around almost all other fighter aircraft in existence and is extremely maneuverable even in air to ground configurations.

9. Standard very high resolution and long ranged imaging infra-red system (EOTS) gives F-35 force totally passive sensor with huge range and ability to track hundreds of targets and identify them at very long ranges.

10. Far better helmet mounted sighting system compared to any existing fighter aircraft due to combination of helmet mounted display, helmet mounted night vision, 360 degree DAS system and sensor fusion. So F-35 pilot will see his enemy (and everyone else) with his own eyes whether it's day or night, clear sky or it's raining or snowing or the aircraft is flying inside a cloud. Most current aircraft (including Sukhois) can only use the helmet mounted sight effectively when the pilot can actually see the enemy aircraft or at least have very limited field of view.

I'm sure you try to downplay these ten huge advantages as you seem hell bent on proving that Sukhois somehow are superior to any other aircraft. These are just advantages that F-35 has all 4th gen fighters and some advantages that it has against any other fighter aircraft in existence. I love how you demand proof from everyone else and never provide any credible proof or source for your own claims. When others provide good sources for their claims, you just ignore them. This is very old troll tactic is getting very boring.


"Lower RCS", "Far better" - did you read the thread before? There a tones of such commercial here. Anyway, another guy before you already told us F-35's RCS is just ten times higher than F-22's which is still very good, and ruin my statements you quoted. Now I'm waiting for comments where this info came from.
So, no ten huge advanatages from your side nor even one - just commercial. If you don't understand what I mean, then may I ask you for how many kilometers would you reduce "the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles" (from point 2). Exactly, how many km? You statement could be read as "2% reduced". It's still reducing. Does it make sense? No.
Your another points are also absolutely commercial. Could you describe how they would work in real life? This is what I'm asking from the beginning.
Imagine situation: You need to fight with the guy in absolutely dark room. You have baseball bat, he hasn't. You have IR googles he hasn't. Will you win? But what if the guy has a dog? Nothing but dog. Dog doesn't care for dark room, and would survive for a long time against your bat. Will you win? Probably, but you need to explain how are you going to survive in this case.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 10:55
by shrimpman
ata wrote:
All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.

But those guys have provided you with very clear explanation why flying low is an extremely bad idea. Ever since the very first ait to air combat engagement in WWI one of the main objectives for the pilots was to gain attitude advantage. It’s just like having the wind advantage for the XVIII century warships – they can decided whether to fight or not, choose the moment to attack, strike fast and deadly. You propose a suicidal tactic and simply refuse to listen to reasonable explanation.
2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.

Bear in mind you do exactly the same thing, man. You propose a scenario, where a brainless monkeys lying F-35’s fly right into a Flanker trap. Somehow your Flankers know exactly where the enemies are, are able to track them and approach undetected. Pure magic. And you claim it’s a neutral situation.
3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

Those guys are professionals. You won’t see them spill classified information out of anger. Those guys want to see F-35 succeed just as you want your Sukhoi’s. except for you it’s just pride, for them it’s the essence of their live’s work. Of course they react emotional especially when confronted with rather ignorant individuals who just want to work them up. When a new person with genuine questions appears, sometimes they roll their eyes and assume it’s just another troll. You can’t reason with a 3-year old. The same thing applies when a clueless guy, who read a newspaper article on radio frequencies and has seen an airshow comes over and throws his expert ideas in the face of aerospace engineers. It is pointless to reason with a guy who has no clue. I have once left a discussion, when the other man tried to convince me that speed is irrelevant in air combat, because right now the objective is to fly as slow as possible, because the faster plane ends up right in front of the slower one. It is logical after all, but doesn’t make it any less stupid. Guys see your proposed tactics in the same way. When you point out the gaping holes in your logic, you say "skip the commercials please". What' is the point of asking a question when you don't want to hear an answer?

sergei wrote:You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .
Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!! :D

Oh boy…

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 11:45
by sergei
popcorn wrote:@ATA,

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away.


You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35 (the area of antenna, the maximum power)
---------

"Wrong. Su-35 OLS-35 can definitely not detect F-35 from 90/50 km away unless F-35 is going with full AB. Actually here is what the manufacturer says about the OLS-35:"
----------
hornetfinn - none of your links does not confirm your assertion. Not a word about the afterburner.
35km/90km-this data is from 2013 , in 2010-2011 it was 25km/50km, in 2007 it was 15km/45km(for mig 29 as target)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd7YWrGMNU
0.00-0.27
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf
PAGE 12
50km/90km
---------
zero-one
" fail to understand "
Tell us what kind of specific ways to achieve agility not included in the list : small wings,no thrust vectoring(one engine=no thrust vectoring),bulky fuselage,no canards, one engine(I want to see for reference that the one engine is not the cause of low manoeuvrability / slow acceleration by it self ).

"that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World."
Such as T-95 and B- 52? In general examples to the studio!!
"high acceleration and high G performance "
Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?

F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids- False claim

F35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty Loaded weight: 49,540 lb Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb
F-16C Empty weight: 18,900 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb
F35A wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 108 lbs/sq feet 152 lbs/sq feet
F-16C wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 88 lbs/sq feet 141 lbs/sq feet

F35A is basically grown fat F-16C- True

"Viper against an F-35A"= False
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs=50% Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs=86% Fuel let's proceed honestly F-16C Fuel:3500lb=50%
F-16C
Combat weight: 23,400 lbs
Aft thrust: 29,000 lbs, dry thrust 17,155 lb
Wing loading: 78 lbs/sq feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.73 aft 1.24
F-35A
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.7 , aft 1.067
See the difference?

"If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35 ........in a dogfight"
Yes, especially in the helmet-mounted sight and infrared missile :D
"F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems..........in a dogfight" :doh:
R-77 is not for dogfight it for medium-range shooting!!!!
If you don't have lock on target via stealth in a dogfight use gun and infra-red.
-----
sprstdlyscottsmn
"The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar" - Very interesting but source please.

"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

"I can't put a weapon system on it" - Use infrared or gun not radar.

"Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability"
- All abrupt maneuvers are prohibited as it causes increase in the internal temperature of the engine and out design parameters.

"Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22"- Sorry but no ,just not even f16, let alone F22.
"Cruise at 1.20M " Sorry but it is not cruise speed it max speed without afterburner for a small distance (with a unknown load and how much fuel)
--------
SpudmanWP
"only get a compass heading"
That's enough
----------
zero-one
"Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4."
Why do they make it so? The answer= because they are blockheads.
"now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely......immediately evade " Sorry They don't both - F and F .
"flying blind " Why would suddenly.
"3 reach their target" why 3? not 2 or 4 ?
"This scenario repeats "
First wave Su-35 Die in silence as heroes=because they are blockheads cut off all communication systems between the other aircraft and the base .
"F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs" Only if they are installed on the wings =Debuffs - 100% stealth
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such" :shock:
-------------
shrimpman
"Those guys are professionals."
A rule 10% - Say 10% truth and 90% turbid water.

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 14:20
by zero-one
ata wrote:Perfect, thanks a lot.
I have questions.
1. When 1st wave is close to reach fire distance, why they are still going all in the same line and at the same altitude (I guess)? If they know to be fired, it's quite a stupid tactic, I believe. Especially is they know there are 3 more waves and it's possible to manage them to organise better group than what you described.


The 1st wave of Su-35s can't see the Stealth F-35s, for all they know the only things they can see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock', they need to get close enough to fire their R-77s at optimum range which is why they stay in formation as long as possible.

Attacking in separate waves is a common Soviet tactic used, it was used in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars by Soviet advised enemy forces. now if you have a better tactic, please elaborate.

ata wrote:2. When stealth F-35s to guide the AMRAAMs, will the keep stealth mode? How do they communicate with missiles?

Oh yes they can, the F-35s are equipped with advanced LPI capable data links like MADL that are very difficult to track.

ata wrote:
3. Non-stealthy F-35 would be visible for Su-35 from much more than 100+ km. It means second wave still able to guide the missiles. I have no idea why they all must misfire?

Possible, but remember the F-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the Su-35s to track and target anything precisely.

ata wrote:
Also, in real life stealthy F-35 will be detected by ground system as well (and it will be known that 4 from 8 are stealth), so Flankers could make different tactic from the beginning.


Again as I said, we will have minimal support from 3rd party units, its unfair already that I gave the Su-35s initial support from GCI at the beginning, and no Growler or E-3 support for the F-35s at all.

Again if you have a better tactic for the Flankers please elaborate so that we may continue this chess match

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 14:55
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Your proposed tactics is not going to work for multiple reasons, some of which have already been mentioned here:

1. Flying at extremely low altitude is going to burn fuel very fast and is going to cut range to about half and significantly reduce your speed and thus energy state. Not good in air-to-air combat.

2. Flying very low is going to reduce your own ability to detect things that are flying low, so enemy can attack your ground assets with ease

3. Flying low is going to cut the range of your missiles a lot, to less than 1/3 of the range when launched at high altitude. What is worse is that launching against high flying target is going to cut it further as the missile has to climb. If you are launching it at 100 m height and target is at 10,000m height, the missile would climb to maybe 5,000 to 7,000 m and then the rocket motor would stop working as the rocket fuel is spent at less than 10 seconds in modern A-A missiles. After that the missile would be decelerating rapidly as it would have to climb without power. I doubt the ability of most current A-A missiles to hit fighter targets in such a scenario as they would not have much energy left when they reached 10,000 m altitude. The Sukhoi would have to climb several thousand meters to enable weapons employment, which would take a lot of precious time and be vulnerable to attack themselves. You've just given your enemy weapons huge range and kill probability advantage.

4. Flying low will severely impact with the fighter ability to communicate with each other and especially ground based systems. Radio horizon is not your friend in this case.

5. Flying very low will also cut down the maneuvering options when trying to evade missiles. Hitting ground is not a good way to avoid being shot down.

6. Credible Russian sources do not claim that Su-35 or Su-30 to have terrain following or even terrain avoidance radar capability. They claim all kinds of other capabilities but these they do not claim to have. This means flying very low would be extremely dangerous in other than flat terrain, daylight and good weather. They'd have to fly at fairly high altitude to avoid hitting hard obstacles.

7. Modern fighter radars (AESA especially so) can pretty easily detect and track very small and stealthy cruise missiles flying at much lower altitude than any fighter aircraft could ever hope for. Detecting a huge Sukhoi fighter would be extremely easy in comparison. Your friend does not know what he is talking about when it comes to modern radars and ground clutter. It does have an effect but far less so than with old radars from 60's or 70's.

There is good reason why high ground has always been preferred in combat. All in all your proposed tactic is one of the worst one could imagine. It limits your own options a lot and gives enemy a lot of advantages. I'm sure no fighter pilot in the world would even give it a serious thought. I think the only way for 4th gen fighter to survive against true 5th gen fighters is by playing very defensively and trying to lure them deeply above enemy territory defeneded with SAMs and a lot of sensors.



1. Even if Flanker range would reduce twice it will be about 2000 km, which is comparable with F-35 best result.

2. It's always mirror, My detection range is low, but you can detect me also at low range. And for Flanker it's best possible option to meet F-35 at short range.

3. Reasonable. Anyway, I can imagine several ways to resolve this tactically. Maybe I'm wrong.
4. Reasonable. But again, I'm considering situation when pilots always trying to find best way. It could be resolved by AWACS flying backward at high altitude, or secondary Flanker doing the same.
5. I see no reason to continue front attack, if you detect incoming missile.
6. Su-35 has it. Another modifications will probably have too.
7. Again, it's always a question of range. If you can detect cruise missiles at 10, 20, 30... km you can destroy it. It will never answer back. And it's different with jet fighter.

Finally, I see only one really good reason to avoid that tactic in that exact example. But I've offered it only to start the discussion, it's just an example of one of many ways to decrease stealth impact, and use Flankers advantages.




1. Nope. No Su-27 variant has 4,000 km range. Su-35 has 3,600 km max range at high altitude when clean and 1,580 km at sea level according to Sukhoi. Su-30 has max range of 3,000 km at altitude and 1,270 km at sea level. F-35A has over 2,220 km range in real life representative A-G mission with 2 2,000 lbs bombs and 2 AMRAAMs. Without weapons and range optimized flight profile, the F-35 range would be significantly longer, at least equal to Su-30 and very possibly equal to Su-35.

2. You are thinking about only two aircraft facing each other. Real life is much more complicated and what would those Sukhois do to enemy low level cruise missiles or strike fighters/bombers? Are you sure close range would favor Flanker at all? F-35 has very good performance as it is and has far more advanced targeting system with spherical day/night/all weather vision and automatic target detection/tracking/identification and better HOBS missile (AIM-9X and ASRAAM).

3. Care to share your great vision about this (missile launch at low altitude vs. missile launch at high altitude)? It's a fact that low level launch will cut missile launch range to one third of the launch range at high altitude. It gets even worse if it's a low altitude launch against high altitude target.

4. Why only Sukhoi pilots would try to find the best way and F-35 equipped force would be bunch of idiots? Why only Sukhoi has supproting assets and F-35 has none? If F-35 is flying A-G mission, why are there no aircraft protecting them like A-A only equipped F-35s?

5. Sukhois have awefully poor equipment to detect incoming missiles compared to F-35. If you detect incoming missile, then you are just trying to survive and you don't have much time to do so. What's worse is that you are flying at low level at low energy state and trying to avoid being hit is hard if you don't have energy for it. Good luck trying to outaccelerate and outrun F-35 flying at high altitude in that scenario and even better luck trying to avoid follow-on shots

6. Show me proof (credible Russian source) about Su-35 or Su-30 having terrain avoidance or terrain following abilities.

7. If you can detect a cruise missile at very low level 10 km away, you can detect Sukhoi Su-27 derivatives at least 50 km away (due to their far larger radar signature and higher flight altitude) and they won't be shooting back at that range from very low altitude. Likely both would be detected further away with.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 15:02
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:"Lower RCS", "Far better" - did you read the thread before? There a tones of such commercial here. Anyway, another guy before you already told us F-35's RCS is just ten times higher than F-22's which is still very good, and ruin my statements you quoted. Now I'm waiting for comments where this info came from.
So, no ten huge advanatages from your side nor even one - just commercial. If you don't understand what I mean, then may I ask you for how many kilometers would you reduce "the effectiveness of Sukhoi radar guided missiles" (from point 2). Exactly, how many km? You statement could be read as "2% reduced". It's still reducing. Does it make sense? No.
Your another points are also absolutely commercial. Could you describe how they would work in real life? This is what I'm asking from the beginning.


Prove that Su-35 can fly 3,600km. Prove it can fire a single missile. Prove that more than 1 Su-35 exists (they may paint new number every time). Prove that Sukhoi can detect F-35 even from 1km away....

All your claims are pure Sukhoi commercial and you can not prove any of them to be true, can you?

ata wrote:Imagine situation: You need to fight with the guy in absolutely dark room. You have baseball bat, he hasn't. You have IR googles he hasn't. Will you win? But what if the guy has a dog? Nothing but dog. Dog doesn't care for dark room, and would survive for a long time against your bat. Will you win? Probably, but you need to explain how are you going to survive in this case.


Imagine situation where I have IR goggles, 10 friendly Gurkhas with machine guns and kukris and IR goggles....

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 15:28
by zero-one
sergei wrote:
Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?


yup for a specific set of parameters
Weight, speed, altitude,

the F-35 can sustain a 4.6-4.5 and 5 G turn for a specific set of parameters, what was the weight of the planes when they performed that, what was the speed, was it at corner speed? what was the altitude? many planes can sustain 9Gs at 10,000 feet, but very few can do it a 30,000 feet.

sergei wrote:F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids- False claim

F35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty Loaded weight: 49,540 lb Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb
F-16C Empty weight: 18,900 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb
F35A wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 108 lbs/sq feet 152 lbs/sq feet
F-16C wing loading 63 lbs/sq feet 88 lbs/sq feet 141 lbs/sq feet

F35A is basically grown fat F-16C- True

"Viper against an F-35A"= False
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs=50% Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs=86% Fuel let's proceed honestly F-16C Fuel:3500lb=50%
F-16C
Combat weight: 23,400 lbs
Aft thrust: 29,000 lbs, dry thrust 17,155 lb
Wing loading: 78 lbs/sq feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.73 aft 1.24
F-35A
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: dry 0.7 , aft 1.067
See the difference?


The F-16 at 100% internal fuel has a combat radius of around 360 miles using hi-lo-hi flight config with 3,000 lbs of ordnance,
see here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

the F-35A has combat radius of more than 600 nautical miles with 5,000 lbs of internal ordnance,

so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel
[/quote]

sergei wrote:"If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35 ........in a dogfight"
Yes, especially in the helmet-mounted sight and infrared missile :D
"F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems..........in a dogfight" :doh:
R-77 is not for dogfight it for medium-range shooting!!!!


oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, I didn't know that the R-77 can't do the same

sergei wrote:If you don't have lock on target via stealth in a dogfight use gun and infra-red.
-----


So the F-35 managed to limit the Su-35s weapons to just IR missiles and cannons in a dogfight, while enemies of all Sukhoi planes can use AMRAAMs, Sidewinders and guns in a dogfight, isn't stealth wonderful.

sergei wrote:sprstdlyscottsmn
"The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar" - Very interesting but source please.

"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

"I can't put a weapon system on it" - Use infrared or gun not radar.

"Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability"
- All abrupt maneuvers are prohibited as it causes increase in the internal temperature of the engine and out design parameters.

Making stuff up are we? Violent maneuvering was reported as one of the causes for the engine fire on the F-35A last year, that engine problem was FIXED as reported, so no, the F-35 is not prohibited from conducting abrupt maneuvers.


"Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22"- Sorry but no ,just not even f16, let alone F22.
"Cruise at 1.20M " Sorry but it is not cruise speed it max speed without afterburner for a small distance (with a unknown load and how much fuel)
--------
SpudmanWP
"only get a compass heading"
That's enough
----------

sergei wrote:zero-one
"Russian GCI sends 24 Su-35s to the area in waves of 4."
Why do they make it so? The answer= because they are blockheads.

No, because they have been using that wave tactic for years, from WWII, Vietnam, and Arab Israeli wars, all advised by Soviet AF advisers

sergei wrote:"now the R-77 and Aim-120 must rely......immediately evade " Sorry They don't both - F and F .
"flying blind " Why would suddenly.

because the Su-35s have to evade, they cannot guide their R-77s to the terminal phase, the Aim-120s on the other hand are being guided via data link by the stealth F-35s that are undetected.


sergei wrote:"3 reach their target" why 3? not 2 or 4 ?

because they blow up, 2 Aim-120s for each target, I'd say having 1 of the Sukois survive is pretty amazing already if you ask anyone.

"This scenario repeats "
First wave Su-35 Die in silence as heroes=because they are blockheads cut off all communication systems between the other aircraft and the base .
sergei wrote:"F-35's now only hauling 2 Aim-9Xs" Only if they are installed on the wings =Debuffs - 100% stealth


What part of, ""4 F-35s on heavy configuration with 8 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders (internal 4 AMRAAMs, external 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders) and 4 F-35s on Stealth Configuration.
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such" :shock:
-------------
shrimpman
"Those guys are professionals."
A rule 10% - Say 10% truth and 90% turbid water.

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.[/quote]

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 17:03
by blindpilot
sergei wrote:....
---------------
blindpilot
" Historically the F-15 is a hundred to none in combat. That includes Mig 31, 29, and such" :shock:
-------------
....

P/S Open to any new information and willing to admit my wrong if a mistake somewhere.


Quick revew of several sources. shows a minimum kill ratio of 102 to 0 kills for the F-15. It could be a couple more. Of these confirmed are 5 Mig 29s.
You are correct - I do stand corrected on the aside refrence for Mig 31, as I was referring to the 4 Mig 25 kills (2 Israeli, 2 Iraq Wars - <note plus 2 that fled battle>) This was an aside to the kill ratio for the F-15, and I will admit I can blur Mig 25/31 and SU 27/35 and F-15A/E in general statements on platforms.

At any rate the F-15 is probably 103/104-0 against fighters including Mig 23/25/29s. That is a simple confirmed fact.

In fairness we should mention the SU-27 is 6-0 with the east Africa combat, but then the Harrier is 21 - 0 as well. I count those as single theatre/conflict results.

BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 17:42
by eloise
sergei wrote:
You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35 (the area of antenna, the maximum power)

Irbis-e can detect target with RCS = 0.01 m2 from 90km , so according to radar equation (reduce RCS by factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent ) it can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 50.4 km , tracking range is around 80% of detection range ,since F-35 have RCS = 0.0015 m2 , irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km ( in perfect condition , no jamming , no clutter ...etc)
Apg-81 can track target with RCS =1 m2 from 150 km ,Su-35 have RCS = 10 m2 so according to radar equation , Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )
However both side will likely use jamming : F-35 gonna use ALE-70 , APG-81 , MALD-J , Su-35 gonna use KNIRTI SAP 518 ..etc so the number above will be reduced significantly ,may be only to half as big ( Su-35 many only able to trackF-35 at 20 km )

since F-35 have lower radar cross section it will have this advantage as well :
Image
not only that lower RCS reduce burn through distance , jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction ,50% reduction in RCS = 50% less power required to overwhelm real radar reflection with noise ( you can work it out for yourself , 99.9% reduction in RCS= 99.9% less power required to achieve same level of effectiveness , and so on )
now let take example of 4 aircraft :
1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
2) Su-35 : RCS = 10 m2
3) F-16 : RCS = 1 m2
4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
now compared them :
from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
from Su-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
from F-16 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require
so despite the fact that su-35 is much bigger , and can carry jammer that is more powerful than the F-35's one , Su-35 jamming is still gonna be less effective ( assume both side have equal technology level )




sergei wrote:35km/90km-this data is from 2013 , in 2010-2011 it was 25km/50km, in 2007 it was 15km/45km(for mig 29 as target)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd7YWrGMNU
0.00-0.27
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf
PAGE 12
50km/90km

so the maximum range that OLS-35 can detect a fighter head on is 50 km
however there are 2 things you should remember
1- that is detection range , to generate firing solution for missiles , IRST rely on LRF , and the LRF on OLS-35 is limited to only 20 km
2- while IRST is not affected by jamming , infrared radiation is absorbed by moisture very significantly so your IRST will be quite useless if the weather is bad or if enemy fighter decide to fly in or near the cloud





sergei wrote:"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

.

0.001 m2 may sound pretty low , however it have been achieved very long time ago since HAVE BLUE program (aka F-117 program ) , iam pretty sure the F-35 that was designed 20 years later can at least match that
The main emphasis is laid on the radar reflection from the front sector, which has been defined as a region of 45 degrees to each side of the longitudinal axis of the machine. Aircraft had to face the primary Gun Dish radar, which used light armored Soviet radar anti-aircraft gun ZSU-23-4 and worked in the J band at a frequency of 16 GHz. Hopeless Diamond and its derivative Lockheed Have Blue were optimized almost exclusively on the radar and range of frequencies. As the possibility of calculating RCS improve, increased the range of the target frequency, but the main focus was still on the radar gun measures Dish. In contrast, the plane of Northrop were of low radar cross at lower frequencies in the zones A and B which used the long-range radar. However, since a similar design is always compromises, the price for a wider range of frequencies were slightly worse in the principal target zone A.

Image
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
btw it is interesting to note that they achieve low RCS not only again X-band but also again frequency from 2.3 Ghz to 16 Ghz

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:10
by mk82
ata wrote:
mk82 wrote:Hang on...hang on ata...I am puzzled about a few things......

Number 1 - Do your research on weapons carriage capabilities of the F35. In internal carriage only mode, it's primary air to air weapon is the AMRAAM, not the Sidewinder at this point of time (definite fact). With external carriage, the F35 can carry Sidewinders on its outer most hardpoints (on the wing) and a mixture of AMRAAMs and air to ground ordnance on the remaining hardpoints.

Number 2 - How can you talk about "real" world scenarios when the F35 has not met the SU 35 in real or even simulated combat? The potential tactics you dream up for the SU 35 are just theories and concepts as well frankly. Especially when the SU 35 has yet to engage VLO opponents in real life. At least we know the SU 35 is a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...not a good starting base. Having to use contrived and potentially disadvantageous tactics due to relatively crippling limitations of your aircraft....not a good starting base as well

Number 3 - By your logic, the capabilities of the SU 35 are also just commercials by Sukhoi. Have you personally flown the SU 35 and verified all of it's capabilities personally? I think not. Sukhoi is in the business of selling aircraft too....why would they be more honest than Lockmart? Are the SU 35's capabilities tested in real world/combat conditions rather than best case scenarios? Do you know the answer for that? It seems like you would believe Sukhoi uncritically if they said that the SU 35 would spray fairy dust out of its exhaust or believe that absurd Sukhoi commercial showing the SU 35 downing gaggles of Eurofighters (actually the Eurofighter, especially armed with Meteor BVRAAMs, would more than adequately match the "mighty" SU 35)


Exactly, when I came here I was expecting to generate those scenarios. It would be, of course far from reality, but much closer than commercial from both sides anyway. "blindpilot" said there are a lot of real pilot here, so I'd like if possible them to tell me how it could be in real life without all those "amazing super technology overcome everything in the world". As I said, stealth great feature, but it works not always, not in every situation in the same great way. And my point (don't want to offend the fans) is that in case of F-35 designers put all the money to stealth capabilities. I remember the great sensors, networking, etc, but from outside it seems like invisibility is playing main tactic's role. That's why I'm so focused on RCS. Numbers tell more story than any word, so, let's play numbers at least those we know more or less.
1. "In real life" F-35 would leave the base for some practical reason. For spying, bombing, getting air dominance, etc. I was considering bombing situation. In that case it's very probably it will haven't AMRAAMs on board.
2. Answered before, but one thing more: "radar bright" means F-35 is hunting with radar turned on - so, no stealth at all. With radar turned off it's different and it leaves us with a lot of scenarios would be interesting to discuss. But if you insist on sentences from commercial brochures, useless.
3. Well, there are no huge secrets around Su. It proved it's power and I saw it with my eyes. At Moscow's air show it was staying on it's tale for 20 seconds and then started accelerate up to the sky. It impressed me, of course. Also, description of Su avionics give me an idea it's not the best in the world, but it's "good enough" to do it's job. It's also not a big secret. In opposite F-35's plane numbers are not very impressive while F-35's "computer" numbers are absolutely amazing. But how that "computers" help in real battle situation? Have you tested F-35 in real battle agains well prepared modern Flankers with good pilots? Answer is no. So, how you could be sure all those amazing numbers will be working (I'd rather skip magic explanation from Lockheed)? So, answering your question, I don't need to be critic about Su, because it's like barbarian - you see all the muscles, and even if he's not that smart you can't be sure if his brain power would be enough to support muscles or not. While you have a kung-fu master agains of him, almost without muscles, and his skills must be proven.
So, if you're interesting in this kind of discussion, I would be very appreciated. If not, in fact I'm not very focused on this problem, and I can easily ignore your vodka-bear comments.


Back to number 1: Like I said....do your research and don't be a lazy kapusta....Popcorn has answered your question quite well about the F35s weapon carriage capabilities. Basically if the F35 carries mainly air to ground munitions, it will still carry a minimum of two AMRAAMS....figure that one out. Google will help....

Back to number 2: My mistake...should have explain what radar bright means....I meant high RCS/radar reflectivity. Now with that out of the way.....the F35's APG 81 radar do have LPI capabilities....sure it does not mean no probability of intercept but let's look at the F22's APG 77 (which the APG 81 base its technology on)....it's LPI capabilities work very well in exercises (eg Red Flag etc) against 4+ gen adversaries.....they had no idea they were painted and tracked by the F22s from BVR. It's no commercial trust me. Look it up.

Back to number 3: Nobody is disputing the SU 35's kinematic performance.....by your admission the SU 35's avionics are "good enough"...is "good enough" going to cut the mustard when dealing with VLO targets? You want the "best" not "good enough". Oh, that gets me to another point...how does "computers/avionics" help with real world battles...how about helping the fighter pilots out detect, out think, out communicate and out maneuver (on a more stragedic level) the enemy especially as a group. Good EW helps a lot as well. What do you call a fighter punching around the sky blindly burning excessive amount of fuel with its afterburners...a fighter punching around the sky not achieving the mission. It's actually having the best systems of systems....look at GW1....the Iraqi Air Force was literally hammered by the Allied Air Forces...the Allied Air Forces had superior situational awareness and out acted the Iraqi Air Force which was effectively blinded.....that is not a commercial, it's real life.

More to the point, so you think it is alright not to be critical about SU 35 and Sukhoi's claims about it, especially its avionics and sensors. Nyet Tovarisch, that doesn't "fly" in my book. The Sukhoi SU 35 does not get a free pass. So excuse me while I take Sukhoi's claims with a grain or two of salt. You lay the burden of proof on us but you make the SU 35 sound like a commercial ironically. I lay the burden of proof on you in regards to the SU 35. Ironic, as you can't even get the right facts or specifications on the SU 35 or its components.

One wonders why people are eventually getting annoyed with you on this thread. Don't be a kapusta and do some basic research and get some basic facts right (see number one). Many posters on the F16.net forum do not have the patience to spoon feed someone who has not done any basic research.

Oh yeah, it also helps your credibility if you don't come up with bloopers such as your idea that firing air to air missiles from the deck is no big deal in the "real world". When your air to air missiles start missing high altitude targets all the time because you have pretty screwed up the pK of your missiles, it does matter in the "real world".....you are not achieving your mission. It's not the Airshow Force.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:11
by eloise
ata wrote:. But I'm a scientist working with radio emission tech for long time,

no offense but iam pretty sure you are not a scientist , even if you are some how, there is no way you working with radio emission tech ,your comments show that you have quite limited knowledge about that field
ata wrote:I don't want to say, stealth is not good. But for example old-school L-band radars can detect X-band stealth easily. Stealth even doesn't work at all in this case.

L band are not affected by RAM ,but still affected by shaping
ata wrote:Wow, wow... wait, it sounds so scary... Do you realise that as soon as F-35 is going to turn on it's perfect doppler radar it will be fired immediately? And your radar is exactly best target could be imagined? And all money spent for stealth are wasted as soon as trigger is on? Do you think guys working on F-22 were that stupid to implement "stealth mode" even for radar? Really? In real life your enemy acts not like it is shown in movies.

APG-81 is an AESA radar with very good LPI characteristic , so just because it turn the radar on doesnt mean you can detect it
here are something about LPI technology
Image
http://www.mar.mil.br/caaml/Revista/2007/Ingles/10-Pag40.pdf
Image
http://www.emrsdtc.com/conferences/2004/downloads/pdf/tech_conf_papers/A14.pdf

Another problem is that even if your RWR can detect enemy's fighter AESA radar ,you still cant launch a missiles at them , because the way that RWR , ELINT system geolocate ground radar doesnt work again air target , so you wont know the distance to enemy , no information about distance or speed mean you cant attack
( here is how RWR geolocate a ground radar )
Image
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:25
by mk82
sergei wrote:You have no idea how I was waiting for the opportunity to join the discussion .

Now I came home from work beware and tremble forums analysts!! :D


Chill out with some Vodka.....the trembling will stop Tovarisch. Oh yeah, you are not doing a very good job at supporting ata :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:26
by blindpilot
ata wrote:....

.... And as I said before there is one F-117 downed (confirmed) with system 50 years older than modern examples. You're limited by physics anyway. You just can't build aircraft invisible at every wavelength.
And as I answered earlier keeping AD from anti-radar missiles is basics. Again, why do you think it's not solved?
I've found article in English: http://csis.org/blog/russia-announces-sale-s-400-china


You need to search the threads here for discussions on the F-117 kill. Some of us actually suffered under severe rules of engagement lunacy such as tight windows on ingress/egress and time of day predictability. Frankly as time has gone on, I am begoinning to think the F-117 kill could have been a stroke of luck that has caused adversaries to chase down the long wave rabbit hole. Physics dictate what each band can accomplish. Detect is not track, and track is not identifying and characterizing. Systems are develped against and for each band's strength and weakness. In the end much of this discussion is classified and those that know details won't say,and those that say don't know.

ata wrote:That's why I'm trying to get answers. All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.

Here's an example of where those who reply get frustrated. This strategy which has some validity for interdiction bombing is a suicide strategy for air to air. No Western or Russian fighter pilot would ever do this. The energy hole you get into is reason enough to avoid it like the plague. People have tried to explain to you why this is so.

ata wrote:2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.

You (and repliers) are modeling false scenarios. That is the fundamental problem your line of questioning has. It's the wrong question.

ata wrote:3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

As to RCS, and EW. Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know. However, there are general statements of public record and respected sources, that you can place some credence to. Keep in mind some of these sources have been dealing with Stealth and ECM for decades in real world situations.

ata wrote:You mentioned there are experienced pilots here. Plenty of them. And from tons of shitty commercial I've found those three gems. It doesn't seem great result for such a "proven concept" as everyone told me here. If you have something so perfect you need few words to "sell" it. Normally.
You, of course, you're in your right to say "who the f**k* are you to question us" like another guys did. I don't care. I'm here to get the answers for my old questions. I'm still expect those guys who started good conversation to continue it. Again, I don't care about all the rest.

The best answer remains that the F-35 is a System and not a platform. It's stealth is potentially better than even the F-22 in some aspects. But that's not the point. The sensor system is technically unmatched (360 degrees, long range etc.) but that and a $1 will not buy you a cup coffee. The EW systems including radar modes etc. is the best in the world, but that is not the point. The helmet mounted display of the situation with fused and networked data is transformational, but alone that's just a video game with lots of software to be buggy. The dynamic performance, especially compared with fully combat loaded mission loads is top of the line, but that's just neat airshow dancing.

What all these things do together, and integrated with other systems like AWACS, UAVs. Navy ships, broadband jamming and spoofing, even other 4th Gen aircraft ... is transformational.

That transformation cannot be duplicated by add on attachments to 4th gen platforms.
1.More power in a PESA radar is not the same thing as western state of the art Low Probability of Intercept, frequency agile AESA. Russian technolgy lags here, and that is a simple fact. We see it every time the US engineers get their hands on a Mig 25 in Japan, or a SU-27 bought from the Ukraine, or sharing data with Malaysians on SU-30s.
2. Post stall thrust vectoring in an airshow (whether a SU-30 or F-22) is not the same as off boresite in visual range air to air combat. It can be nice to have, but it will not outturn a close in modern air to air missile.
3. Mach 2-3 straight line speed is not as useful as the designers of the Mig 21 and F-104 thought it was. Virtually all rea world combat takes place in transonic ramges. Performance, whether cruise or turning in the Mach .9 to 1.5 zone is the only place speed matters. If you can maneuver there you can design the battlespace. If you can cruise without afterburners at M 1.5 then you missiles become more deadly as well.
4. Having a bunch of systems, IR, L Band, Warning, coffee making, video playing ... whatever... is useless if the net effect is trying to watch 6 screens at the same time. Even if they are on the same state of the art one screen display, if you are scanning/switching back and forth.
5. This need for fusion is true when it comes to the other players on your team, whether other F-35s from other countries in the same airspace, or ships of different navies or old 4th gen tag alongs.

The F-35 is a system node that makes all this into one answer. The turn rate, and acceleration, and radar range and RCS and ... and .. and ... are of no value unless the transformation is created.

This is why the F-22 cleaned house against the "undefeated F-15s" in exercises in 2005-7. Until they changed the rules of engagement it was as boring as clubbing baby seals. That's a fact those 4th Gen pilots will tell you. And that is an important fact that needs to be made and kept front and center.

Lockheed Martin and others have been doing this for decades. USAF pilots have been -in combat- with stealth for decades. Sukhoi has yet to produce its first operational stealth aircraft decades later. Western electronics developers have been building radar/electronics/computers generations ahead of Russians for decades. We see that as recently as when the USAF F-22 pilots and Malaysian SU-30 pilots got together for training.. Sukhoi is trapped by that reality as it hustles to catch up.

A specification on a pdf file or brochure or a news article that some day they are "going to" is not the same thing at all.

BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:33
by mk82
Don't worry Eloise, ata is a scientist.....a really bad one who can't even do basic research bwahahaha :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:49
by eloise
sergei wrote: Tell us what kind of specific ways to achieve agility not included in the list : small wings,no thrust vectoring(one engine=no thrust vectoring)

have you heard about F-16 VISTA ?
sergei wrote:(I want to see for reference that the one engine is not the cause of low manoeuvrability / slow acceleration by it self ).

:wink: Aim-9x have 1 engine and iam pretty sure it accelerate and turn better than any figher :wink:
sergei wrote:
Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g

sustain turn performer depending alot on on altitude ,and load out
for example :
. At near the speed of sound and at an altitude of 25,000 feet, the HiMAT vehicle could substain an 8-G turn (that is, one producing acceleration equal to 8 times that of gravity). By comparison, at the same altitude, an F-16's maximum sustained turning capability is about 4.5 Gs

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news ... RC_prt.htm
:wink: i dont think anyone would say F-16 is not agile
sergei wrote:
and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?

How long does it take for Su-27 to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.2M with 4 missiles load out ?
btw this is a very detail analysis may be you should have a look
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... s-Analysis

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 18:57
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:
popcorn wrote:@ATA,

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away.


You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35


are you actually trying to tell us you think the 1970s era flanker with no low observability designed into it at all will somehow evade f-35 radar when it couldnt avoid radars from decades ago in the first place?

It's very simple. Stealthy airplanes can't be detected as easily on radar. (Stop me if I am moving to fast) This is why IRST is even being brought up at all in the conversation. Now we are suddenly trying to say the stealth plane will stand out before the non stealth plane??. And you want "proof" of this claim? My proof is that Flanker are easily detected on radar and have been for decades, just like thEY will be for decades more Because they were designed without that requirement.

I can't believe sergei even attempt3D this. on what planet would a flanker not stand out on radar?

I will no longer feed these things guys, quality responses from a lot of posters but as has been pointed out they are wasted on these people.

I'm glad they are happy with flankers, but that's all there will be for the next few decades more. Equivalent to what a mig-17 is now. Great turner. Airshow favorite, but a flying relic maintained by people who can't get anything else

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 22:55
by sergei
zero-one

"because they have been using "

" Combat aircraft order groups of aircraft depending on the distance intervals and elevations belittling between them can be closed, open or dispersed. Forms of combat formations of fighters can be a column, wedge, bearing, front, snake and others. The type and form of combat formations can be changed in flight commander, depending on the situation. The construction order of battle units of the regiment made en-route or terminal area the manner provided by the plan of combat flying. In different conditions of air situation and at all stages of combat flight commander IAP must be defined order of battle of fighters, providing the most efficient combat mission."

http://5ballov.qip.ru/referats/preview/ ... vvs-metoda

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 23:34
by sergei
zero-one

"so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel"
Viper against an F-35A
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs Fuel
Because we want to test the proposition comparability manoeuvring and acceleration characteristics 2 aircraft.

F16 Combat radius: 550km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
F35A Combat radius: 570km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
Has some advantage only at high bomb load but not in "Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)" air-air configure.
Of course we can take a fully fueled F-35A he will seriously surpass the F-16 in range but in terms of maneuverability and acceleration? No chance.
And if you fill the same amount of fuel in the aircraft 6000lb ? Guess who wins in the range.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 00:12
by sergei
zero-one
"see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock" at 400km range .....Guess who will shoot first
No fighter in the world capable of detecting something at such a distance apart Mig-31BM and Su-35
F-35 will be aware of the presence of the Su-35 but do not see it.

"Possible, but remember the F-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the Su-35s to track and target anything precisely. "
R-27EP long range passive anti-radiation missile
R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model.
RVV-PE - Passive homing model or
Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM :D
You can not suppress something which is beyond your radar and to paraphrase your words " but remember the Su-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the F-35s to track and target anything precisely. "


"support from 3rd party units. "
F-35 on bomb raid and Su-35 on patrol air space No information from AWACS or ground-based radars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQMuvbNbz18

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 00:38
by sergei
"oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, " :doh:
The main purpose of these missiles fight at medium ranges.
AIM-120 AMRAAM Medium-range, active radar homing air-to-air missile
Launch range min. 2.0 km

R-77 Medium-Range Active-Radar Homing Air-to-Air Missile
Launch range min 0.3 km Overloading the targeted objects 12G

"the Aim-120s on the other hand are being guided via data link by the stealth F-35s that are undetected."
Even Su-30 can carry out target designation for the MiG-21

"because they blow up, 2 Aim-120s for each target,"

"Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM."

"The other main engagement scenario is against other aircraft with fire-and-forget missiles like the R-77
In this case engagement is very much down to teamwork and could be described as "a game of chicken." Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-course updates for the missile's flight, they are also flying into their opponents' missiles."

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 01:17
by sergei
eloise
"irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km "
Only if the F-35 is close from the most advantageous side.

Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )
Something I gnaw doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.30 80nm+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.00 85nm+ su27

"have you heard about F-16 VISTA ?"

"The VISTA program was considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into production fighter versions."
Guess why?
The benefit of thrust vector control 1 engine is minimal ,greatly increases the system cost and can be solved by other methods.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... s-Analysis
It is not surprising that the F-35 at a higher elevation feels better than F16.
F16 Service ceiling: 15km
F35 Service ceiling: 18km
1st March 2014, 22:12 1st post
"The real question is why anyone would be satisfied with performance comparable to an aircraft fielded 40+ years earlier"

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 01:43
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:I will no longer feed these things guys, quality responses from a lot of posters but as has been pointed out they are wasted on these people.

I'm glad they are happy with flankers, but that's all there will be for the next few decades more. Equivalent to what a mig-17 is now. Great turner. Airshow favorite, but a flying relic maintained by people who can't get anything else


The more they invest in old stuff, the more they cement themselves in the old paradigm. Which simplifies the job of the US war planners since they have a pretty good handle on the CONOPS and tactics that the old stuff is capable of. Any upgrades provide only incremental benefit which can be factored into their threat assessment.

At some point, the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in and it‘s a losing proposition to keep pouring resources into building new versions of "old stuff".

The US realized this a long time ago when it eschewed uber-Teen jet concepts and boldly decided to transition to 5Gen. And why it‘s sowing seed corn for 6Gen.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 01:44
by sferrin
Judas.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 02:14
by eloise
sergei wrote:
No fighter in the world capable of detecting something at such a distance apart Mig-31BM and Su-35

Wrong , F-14D , F-15 , F-22 can all do that , they all have very powerful radar
also Mig-31 use Zaslon-M radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400 km , according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 336 km , tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Zaslon-M can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 268 km . Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km
so even though Zaslon-M is much bigger , it only have comparable range to APG-81 due to bad signal processing




sergei wrote: R-27EP long range passive anti-radiation missile
Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM
RVV-PE - Passive homing model or
:D

you cant employ passive anti-radiation missile again fighter because of 2 reasons , firstly modern fighter have AESA radar that very hard to detect , secondly since passive anti-radiation missile must home on the radiated source , they will be useless if enemy turn off their radar , or simply turn aways
again ground radar , anti radar missiles like AGM-88 , KH-31 can remember and hit the last known location , thus they are able to hit radar that turned off , however that tactic willnot work again fighter because they are constantly moving

another problem is that F-35 is equip with ALE-70 ( fiber optic towed decoy ) as well , thus your HoJ missiles will simplely home at the decoy 100 meter behind the F-35 , not to mention when they come close to the decoy , F-35 can just turn off the jamming on decoy and your missiles will go to waste

sergei wrote: R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model.

there is no R-77T in service , and F-35 have DIRCM as well

sergei wrote: but remember the Su-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the F-35s to track and target anything precisely. "

both side will try to jam enemy radar , however Su-35 much worse RCS will put it in significant disadvantage
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 04:33
by eloise
sergei if you want a serious discussion , you have to stop cherry pick the information , you seem to only able to read what you want to read , and intentionally left out anything that dont support your idea :?
sergei wrote:"irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km "
Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )

irbs-e can track the F-35 head on from 40 km and Apg-81 can track Su-35 head on from around 275 km, both case in perfect condition ( meaning no jamming , clutter )
when there are jamming the tracking range of both radar will decrease significantly
irbs-e can probably track F-35 from 15-20 km in jamming condition
Apg-81 can probably track Su-35 from 165-200 km in jamming condition
and that have not take into account the fact that F-35 jammer will be more effective ( the reason have been explained before )
sergei wrote: Only if the F-35 is close from the most advantageous side.

this is what they achieved about 30 years ago in Have Blue program
The main emphasis is laid on the radar reflection from the front sector, which has been defined as a region of 45 degrees to each side of the longitudinal axis of the machine. .

Image

it not so hard to remain head on within 45 degree angle and while it true that F-35 RCS gonna get bigger when you dont view it from the front , the same is true for Su-35 , in fact alot worse because Su-35 is not optimize for LO
sergei wrote: Something I gnaw doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.30 80nm+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.00 85nm+ su27

it shown how APG-81 deal with Su-27 at that distance , but it doesnt say APG-81 only able to start tracking Su-27 at that distance , and you dont know the jamming condition in that simulation either


sergei wrote: "The VISTA program was considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into production fighter versions."
Guess why?
The benefit of thrust vector control 1 engine is minimal ,greatly increases the system cost and can be solved by other methods.

why does short range missiles have TVC then ? they only have 1 engine too, Rafale and typhoon have 2 engine but dont use TVC
Guess why?
TVC can improve instantaneous turn rate but not sustain turn rate , missiles doesnt need to have high sustain turn rate but aircraft does

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 04:41
by eloise
sergei wrote:zero-one


F-35 Has some advantage only at high bomb load but not in "Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)" air-air configure.
Of course we can take a fully fueled F-35A he will seriously surpass the F-16 in range but in terms of maneuverability and acceleration? No chance.
And if you fill the same amount of fuel in the aircraft 6000lb ? Guess who wins in the range.

Lets assume both aircraft expanded their BVR missiles and moving into merge with 4x AIM-9s. For F-16
-2x LAU-129 launchers for wingtip (drag index 1) (previously carrying the expended AIM-120s)
-4x LAU-129 launcher+adapters for 2,3 7 and 8 (drag index 6)
-4x AIM-9M missiles on stations 2,3,7 and 8 (drag index 5)
-basic drag index includes two wingtip AIM-9s, removing both -> drag index -8
-F-16 “C” basic drag index = 7

Calculating those will give us drag index = 45. If F-16 was carrying wing EFTs and dropped them, there would be additional +8 drag index for each NNJET pylon, additonal centerline tank pylon (after dropping the tank itself) would add +7 to the drag index. I will simply take the F-16’s data from Drag Index 50 graph.

As F-35 will be carrying AIM-9s internally there will be no drag penalty. Its launcher/adapter mechanism is also integrated, so I will only add 88x4 = 352 kg to the weight.

Comparing armed F-35 armed with 4x internal AIM-9s versus F-16 armed with 4 AIM-9Ms and 2 empty pylons. At sea level;
Image
At very slow speeds, F-16 still has slight advantage, but at above M0,6 F-35 actually sustains turns BETTER than F-16 blk50. On ITR part, F-35 gets advantage as the speed increases, topping out at 24,4 deg/s versus F-16’s 22,5 deg/s.
Same aircraft, at 30k feet:
Image
On average; F-35 has 1,2 deg/s superiority to F-16’s Sustained turn performance at subsonic and transonic realm. While supersonic F-16 has better STR. Their ITR is mostly comperable, however at supersonic F-16 enters PhiMax state which degrades ITR performance.

sergei wrote:"The real question is why anyone would be satisfied with performance comparable to an aircraft fielded 40+ years earlier"

because F-16 is still one of the most agile aircraft nowadays ,it matched Typhoon below 10K ft and have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35

sergei wrote:"oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, " :doh:
The main purpose of these missiles fight at medium ranges.
AIM-120 AMRAAM Medium-range, active radar homing air-to-air missile
Launch range min. 2.0 km

R-77 Medium-Range Active-Radar Homing Air-to-Air Missile
Launch range min 0.3 km Overloading the targeted objects 12G

can you give the source for this
sergei wrote:"Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, [b]were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM."[/b]

if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ?
sergei wrote: Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-course updates for the missile's flight, they are also flying into their opponents' missiles."

that why we need stealth

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 07:19
by mk82
sergei wrote:zero-one

"so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel"
Viper against an F-35A
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs Fuel
Because we want to test the proposition comparability manoeuvring and acceleration characteristics 2 aircraft.

F16 Combat radius: 550km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
F35A Combat radius: 570km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
Has some advantage only at high bomb load but not in "Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)" air-air configure.
Of course we can take a fully fueled F-35A he will seriously surpass the F-16 in range but in terms of maneuverability and acceleration? No chance.
And if you fill the same amount of fuel in the aircraft 6000lb ? Guess who wins in the range.


Bwahahaha.....you are comparing apples to oranges. It should have been F35A fuel = 6000 lbs, F16C fuel = 6000 lbs (or 9000 lbs each). Then you will have a fairer comparison of maneuverability and acceleration.

Talking about range with 6000 lbs of fuel in each plane...it depends whether they are clean or carrying ordnance? With 2 x 2000 lb bombs and 2 X AMRAAMs, the F35A has the edge...internal carriage.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 10:43
by sergei
eloise
F15
The APG-63 has a range of 100 miles (87 nmi; 160 km) no near 400km
F14
The APG-71 system itself is capable of a 700 km range, but the antenna design limits this to only 370 km -
Very close but still less.
F22
The APG-77 201–241 km at best and unofficially 193 km for a 1 m2 target
F35
APG-81 80-85nm for Su-27 whose RCS greater than 10

"Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km"
False statement ,that it were true This information should look strictly contrary-just as looking your information for Zaslon-m

F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

"this is what they achieved "
And ?


"It shown how APG-81 deal with Su-27 at that distance , but it doesnt say APG-81 only able to start tracking Su-27 at that distance , and you dont know the jamming condition in that simulation either"
If there were any conditions that you have not forgotten about it to praise.
And you think that the pilot simply ignored the appearance on the radar 2 hostile objects If it see them from 300km?
"Pfft they are too far away, I do not care, they do not see me."

"Rafale and typhoon have 2 engine but dont use TVC "
Ignore the technical ability of France and Germany to do so,I'm not interested in doing they are in this field of study or not.

To maximize the effect of the TVC engines on the aircraft must be much farther apart than Rafale and typhoon .

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofight ... 06.arp.jpg
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_ ... 19_045.jpg
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1 ... 282%29.jpg

"F-35 will be carrying AIM-9s internally"
He was not able to do it.Only Aim-120.

"can you give the source for this "

http://vympelmkb.com/products/prod01/

"if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ? "
Turn ON your brain-because they launch it themselves.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 11:36
by zero-one
sergei wrote:zero-one

"so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel"
Viper against an F-35A
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs Fuel
Because we want to test the proposition comparability manoeuvring and acceleration characteristics 2 aircraft.

F16 Combat radius: 550km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
F35A Combat radius: 570km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
Has some advantage only at high bomb load but not in "Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)" air-air configure.
Of course we can take a fully fueled F-35A he will seriously surpass the F-16 in range but in terms of maneuverability and acceleration? No chance.
And if you fill the same amount of fuel in the aircraft 6000lb ? Guess who wins in the range.



What? Those range figures you gave? What was their fuel state? And where did you get the nu,bers by the way? i got mine from the reference page of F-16.net.

Okey lets just put it this way, according to F-16.net, an F-16 block 50 has a range of 312 nautical miles (360 miles) in hi-lo-hi flight configuration with 3,000 lbs of bombs and 100% internal fuel, thats 7,000 lbs.

Alright, now the F-35As published combat radius on internal fuel is 613 nautical miles.

In short, in order to match the F-16 block 50's range, the F-35A only needs 50.8% internal fuel.

So lets calculate
Mission profile: combat radius requirement 360 miles, load 3,000 lbs.

F-16 block 50
Empty: 18,900 lbs
Fuel (100%): 7,000 lbs
Weapons: 3,000 lbs
Wing area: 300 feet
Thrust 29,000 lbs

wing loading: 96.33 lbs/sq feet
T/W ratio: 1
________________________________________________
F-35A
Empty: 29,300 lbs
Fuel (50%) 9,000lbs
Weapons: 3,000 lbs
Wing area: 460 feet
Thrust 43,000 lbs

wing loading: 89.78 lbs/sq feet
T/W ratio: 1.04


Again, how does the F-35 have "no chance"? Looks like it actually has the upper hand

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 14:28
by sergei
zero-one

It seems one of the first posts from me you read inattentively.

Fully loaded F-16 is inferior in terms of manoeuvrability and acceleration half-empty F-35. This one does not even doubt.
Just look at their take-off weight.
To more or less compare 2 very different aircraft we have to load them in proportion ie 50% of fuel, 50% of arms .
Next, we compare the obtained results half-empty F-35 less manoeuvrable and fast but its range is superior opponent 2 time.
What does this mean? That one plane makes work faster but at a short distance,another plane does business slowly but in a much greater distance.All this affects the choice of what kind of plane you send and for what objective,and what time do you have for an operation.
If you look at what these aircraft originally developed then there should be no questions.


P/S
By the way I would like to know how it is certainly possible to achieve high manoeuvrability without methods inaccessible to the F-35.
P/P/S re-read my post "PostFri Mar 27, 2015 10:45 am"

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 14:42
by ata
blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:10
by eloise
sergei , your comment shown that you have very limited knowledge about radar or how they work
here are some link about radar range equation : have a read ( carefully ) , try to understand it before you comment anything , they said the same thing with different number so it may be a bit hard to understand if you not good at math :?
Image
where

S = signal energy received by the radar
Pavg = average power transmitted by the radar
G = gain of the radar antenna
σ = radar cross section of the target
Ae = effective area of the radar antenna, or "aperture efficiency"
tot = time the radar antenna is pointed at the target (time on target)
R = range to the target

According to this relationship, reducing the radar cross section of a vehicle to 1/10th of its original value will reduce the maximum range at which the target can be detected by nearly 44%! While that reduction alone is significant, even greater reductions in RCS are possible.

An aircraft that reduces its front aspect signature by a factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent.

it take 95 % RCS reduction to reduce radar detection range by 50 %, and a 99 % reduction in signature reduce radar detection range by 67 % .

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/el ... 0168.shtml
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=Ut ... ge&f=false
http://anagnostou.sdsmt.edu/2007Fall/RC ... Ch2.17.pdf
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=rz ... ge&f=false

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=0W ... ge&f=false
sergei wrote:F15
The APG-63 has a range of 100 miles (87 nmi; 160 km) no near 400km
F14
The APG-71 system itself is capable of a 700 km range, but the antenna design limits this to only 370 km
F22
The APG-77 201–241 km at best and unofficially 193 km for a 1 m2 target
F35
APG-81 80-85nm for Su-27 whose RCS greater than 10
"Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km"
False statement ,that it were true This information should look strictly contrary-just as looking your information for Zaslon-m

Now after you understand the basic of radar equation above , here are the radar tracking range they calculate from available public information ( you can also calculate Zaslon-M range from public figure by yourself based on the radar equation)
Image
Image
here is the Su-35 Irbis-e range based on public figure
Image
( btw the most modern F-15 now using APG-63v3 and AN/APG-82 , which have much better range than APG-63v2 )

sergei wrote:And ?

that was 30 years before the F-35 , F-35 can atleast achieve the same level of RCS reduction , and as i have explained it not hard to keep your enemy within 45 degree from your nose ,and you should also remember that at wide angle Su-35 will have very high RCS too


sergei wrote:And you think that the pilot simply ignored the appearance on the radar 2 hostile objects If it see them from 300km?

no , but closer target equal higher threat level

sergei wrote:To maximize the effect of the TVC engines on the aircraft must be much farther apart than Rafale and typhoon

really ? , why ? F-22 TVC is not very further apart , Aim-9X still have TVC despite the fact that it only have 1 engine :|
do you really think that put TVC on 2 engine further apart will have better effect on turn rate than if they were close together ?
btw you havenot answer my question : how long does it take for Su-27 or Su-35 to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2 when it is aimed with 4 missiles ? ( or 10 missiles since russian fan boy often like to brag about how many AAM their su-27 can carry )

sergei wrote:"if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ? "
Turn ON your brain-because they launch it themselves.

no , you should turn On your brain
the only available information was recorded by USAF is the number of missiles kill , and distance to target , the assessment that targets dont try to evade Aim-120 is a make up statement by APA , not a fact

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:14
by eloise
ata wrote:blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.

to be able to change people mind about something , you must atleast have more knowledge than them about the topic , but from what you have comments it show that you know very little about fighter , radar or aerodynamic

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:23
by sergei
"have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35"
Let's check

F16
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.079

Su-27
Loaded weight: 51,650 lb Thrust with afterburner: 55,100+ lb
Thrust/weight:1.067

Su-35
Loaded weight:56,660 lb Thrust with afterburner: 64,000 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.295

F16 have 0.012 better ( but not much better - only 1.112%) acceleration than Su-27 ,
F16 have 0.216 worse acceleration than Su-35(That's what I call a significantly worse - 20%)

Summing= Half-truth for Su-27, completely untrue for Su-35

What with the manoeuvrability?

F-16 Wing area: 300ft Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Su-27 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft
Su-35 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft²

No, and here F-16 lost

But perhaps climb ?Let see.

F-16 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min
Su-27 Rate of climb: 59,000 ft/min
Su-35 Rate of climb: >55,000 ft/min

Sad but F-16 lost again :?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:36
by eloise
sergei wrote:"have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35"
Let's check

F16
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.079

Su-27
Loaded weight: 51,650 lb Thrust with afterburner: 55,100+ lb
Thrust/weight:1.067

Su-35
Loaded weight:56,660 lb Thrust with afterburner: 64,000 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.295

F16 have 0.012 better ( but not much better - only 1.112%) acceleration than Su-27 ,
F16 have 0.216 worse acceleration than Su-35(That's what I call a significantly worse - 20%)

Summing= Half-truth for Su-27, completely untrue for Su-35

What with the manoeuvrability?

F-16 Wing area: 300ft Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Su-27 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft
Su-35 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft²

No, and here F-16 lost

But perhaps climb ?Let see.

F-16 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min
Su-27 Rate of climb: 59,000 ft/min
Su-35 Rate of climb: >55,000 ft/min

Sad but F-16 lost again :?

:doh:
1 ) acceleration is not just about thrust/weight , you have to take into account drag as well ( dont be lazy , take out the flight manual )
example : Image
2 ) F-4 have much lower wing loading than F-16 does that mean F-4 turn better than F-16 ? :roll:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:45
by sergei
eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 15:53
by sergei
eloise
F-4E
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 0.86
F-16
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 1.079

F16 Win

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 16:02
by eloise
sergei wrote:eloise
F-4E
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 0.86
F-16
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 1.079

F16 Win

sergei
Firstly, acceleration of an object according to Newton is :
acceleration = force/ mass
for a fighter, the resultant force on it is :
engine thrust- drag :| understand ?
hence thrust/weight is not the right value to consider when you want to know what fighter accelerate better, the right value is
(thrust-drag) / mass so when calculate acceleration rate you have to consider drag index and airfoil of the aircraft
Secondly, i asked you, F-4 have lower wing loading than F-16, does that mean it will turn better ? ( iam not talking about acceleration here)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 16:16
by eloise
sergei wrote:eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.

alright , firstly let start with something simpler :
if a car need around 5 gallons of fuel to go 10 km, how much fuel it need to go 20 km? ( radar equation is somewhat based on the same principle, just read it carefully then you will understand )

secondly, radar equation is not from any producers, it not advertising but rather physics rule

last but not least, it true that radar equation is not perfect, it doesn't take into account things such as clutter rejection threshold, signal to noise ratio.. etc but if you take into account these things, the situation will favor stealth fighter even more

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 16:45
by blindpilot
ata wrote:blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.


You're welcome.

To be clear the statement above is for specific classified specifications such as actual RCS, and capabilities of EW, and radar modes and functions.

So
1. As to classified performance you are left to the generic opinions of those who have actually used systems and planned stealth attacks etc. in real world combat. You can work on changing their opinions I suppose, but I would probably assume their opinions are based on real understanding. That's just me.

2. The public knowledge data and statements of design philosophy are readily available and understood. That's where discernment of the meaning of that data can answer some of your questions very well. Just read through the many threads here and you might pick up some answers.

The SU-35 is not a 4th +++++++ plus plus gen aircraft. That's marketing commercial talk. Actually you could say that 5th Gen is commercial speak. I have no problem with that statement.

The SU-35 is a 1970's Soviet era design, with replacement parts and new toys bolted on. But it is still that basic 4th gen airplane. One problem with that is the add-ons that are bolted to the design, are known to be, proven to be a generation or so behind current western electronics.

Follow the money. How many SU-35s have been sold to other countries, or to Russia itself for that matter? That's with bargain basement discount prices. How many countries have bought the F-35 at very expensive prices?

Forget bought and ordered! There are already five countries other than the US services that have actual aircraft you can touch, and many more ordering more F-35s. There are more non US F-35s flying now than Russian T-50s. There are more F-35s flying now than SU-35s plan to have in the near futrue, and the F-35s at "LOW" rate of production will be building more F-35s a month than Sukhoi will ever build in a month of the SU-35s.

I agree politicians can be stupid, but you have to decide that a lot of very smart people, who have been honest in the past, have joined a pretty big conspiracy to not see what the money is telling you.

So no you probably won't change a lot of minds. What does that tell you?
BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:11
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.

alright , firstly let start with something simpler :
if a car need around 5 gallons of fuel to go 10 km, how much fuel it need to go 20 km? ( radar equation is somewhat based on the same principle, just read it carefully then you will understand )

secondly, radar equation is not from any producers, it not advertising but rather physics rule

last but not least, it true that radar equation is not perfect, it doesn't take into account things such as clutter rejection threshold, signal to noise ratio.. etc but if you take into account these things, the situation will favor stealth fighter even more

I assumed that we are discussing the range of the APG-81 if so give me max range APG-81

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:14
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:Perfect, thanks a lot.
I have questions.
1. When 1st wave is close to reach fire distance, why they are still going all in the same line and at the same altitude (I guess)? If they know to be fired, it's quite a stupid tactic, I believe. Especially is they know there are 3 more waves and it's possible to manage them to organise better group than what you described.


The 1st wave of Su-35s can't see the Stealth F-35s, for all they know the only things they can see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock', they need to get close enough to fire their R-77s at optimum range which is why they stay in formation as long as possible.

Attacking in separate waves is a common Soviet tactic used, it was used in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars by Soviet advised enemy forces. now if you have a better tactic, please elaborate.

ata wrote:2. When stealth F-35s to guide the AMRAAMs, will the keep stealth mode? How do they communicate with missiles?

Oh yes they can, the F-35s are equipped with advanced LPI capable data links like MADL that are very difficult to track.

ata wrote:
3. Non-stealthy F-35 would be visible for Su-35 from much more than 100+ km. It means second wave still able to guide the missiles. I have no idea why they all must misfire?

Possible, but remember the F-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the Su-35s to track and target anything precisely.

ata wrote:
Also, in real life stealthy F-35 will be detected by ground system as well (and it will be known that 4 from 8 are stealth), so Flankers could make different tactic from the beginning.


Again as I said, we will have minimal support from 3rd party units, its unfair already that I gave the Su-35s initial support from GCI at the beginning, and no Growler or E-3 support for the F-35s at all.

Again if you have a better tactic for the Flankers please elaborate so that we may continue this chess match


Blindpilot already said this modelling is wrong, anyway, I want to answer.
The problem here is that we have not enough "proven" information. The same I have no proven details (except official commercials) about modern Flankers the same you have no even official details about F-35 (some is known, but key things like RCS is not known at all). We also have no understanding about LRI, I mean I didn't make deep research, but it doesn't seem to impossible to detect it. Of course "front attack"' is'n working for LRI but I can imagine that if I'm able to scan LRI signals from not only one point (let's say two/three radars flying in one group) should be possible to make some math to recognise the source. But it's just my guessing. Not something to be used in this discussion.
So, any modelling in such a case is like playing DOTA, could be interesting, but nothing about real life.
Anyway, to answer you, I would prefer this tactic: When first wave detect emeny they are going down...

Let me explain how (I guess) that could work. Radar distance-resolution depends on impulse length (which normally limits it's power). Should be (again, I only guess) LRI has worse distance resolution than "normal mode", but even for any mode if jet flies at altitude comparable with object size it should be dig deal to detect it.

..then second group tries to keep as close as possible to heavy F-35's but to be far enough to be safe from AMRAAM. We are talking about reasonable distances, because safe zone would be 120-130+ km, while to attack with R-77 (ok-ok... even from such a low altitude) should be about 50 km. This distance will be covered in just 2-3 minutes. So F-35 can't attack second group because they're too far, and can't attack first group because they are not using radars (getting direction from second group) and only turn it on just before attack. Or even come so close (if would be possible depend of condition) to lock the target with IR missiles.
What those stealth F-35 could do in that case? I suppose: "nothing". Also, because second group would try to get quite close to heavy F-35's then at those angles it should be possible to detect also stealthy F-35 at flanks.

Your turn :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:37
by zero-one
sergei wrote:zero-one

It seems one of the first posts from me you read inattentively.

Fully loaded F-16 is inferior in terms of manoeuvrability and acceleration half-empty F-35. This one does not even doubt.
Just look at their take-off weight.
To more or less compare 2 very different aircraft we have to load them in proportion ie 50% of fuel, 50% of arms .
Next, we compare the obtained results half-empty F-35 less manoeuvrable and fast but its range is superior opponent 2 time.
What does this mean? That one plane makes work faster but at a short distance,another plane does business slowly but in a much greater distance.All this affects the choice of what kind of plane you send and for what objective,and what time do you have for an operation.
If you look at what these aircraft originally developed then there should be no questions.


P/S
By the way I would like to know how it is certainly possible to achieve high manoeuvrability without methods inaccessible to the F-35.
P/P/S re-read my post "PostFri Mar 27, 2015 10:45 am"



Your English is so darn difficult to understand, and dont tell me that its because english is not your mother tounge, because Im asian and English isn't my primary language as well.

Anyway,

Why will you load both aircraft with 50% fuel?
Is that how you go into combat? Ofcourse not.

Imagine this combat scenario.

No body goes into combat saying, "hey lets load both aircraft with 80% fuel and send them into combat".

That doesnt happen.

So let me explain it slowly, i'll even put a script for you.

Lets say, a base in Ukrain hosting USAF F-16s and F-35s are ordered to attack a base near the Russian boarder.

The distance to the target is 500 nautical miles.
The F-16 can't reach that target so the F-16 needs to carry an additional 50% of fuel using external fuel tanks.
The F-35A on the other hand only needs 82% internal fuel to reach the target.

Thats how combat is derived.

But okey lets test the F-35A against the Su-30 and lets load them both with 40% fuel and 6 missiles.

F-35 vs Su-30

Su-30

Empty:40,565 lbs
Fuel(40%): 8,290 lbs

weapons:
4xR-77: 1540 lbs
2xR-11: 460 lbs
150 rounds: 450 lbs
Total: 2450 lbs

Combat Load: 51,305 lbs
Thrust(dry/AB): 33,820/55,120
Wing Area: 667 feet

TW Ratio
Dry:0.659
AB:1.07
Wing Loading: 76.91
Wing Loading plus body lift of 40%: 46.13 lbs/sq ft

_____________________________________________

F-35A
Weights
Empty: 29,300 lbs
Fuel(40%): 7,392 lbs

Weapons:
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
180 rounds: 216 lbs
Total: 1,932 lbs

Combat weight: 38,642

Thrust
Dry: 28,000
AB: 43,000
Wing Area: 460 feet

TW Ratio
Dry:0.72
AB: 1.11
Wing Loading:84 lbs/ sq ft.
Wing Loading plus body lift of 45%: 46.13 lbs/sq ft

Both aircraft can reach considerable ranges with 40% internal fuel.

However the F-35 will have the advantage in both thrust to weight ratio and thrust to drag ratio because of it's internal weapons carriage.

When body and tail lift are taken into account, both aircraft's wing loading sits at approximately at 46 lbs / sq feet when loaded this way.

All Fighter statistics are taken in clean configuration, (no external weapons)

Once you hang weapons, external fuel tanks, jamming pods, sensor pods and countermeasures, the "kinematic" performance as we call them, drops.

This is true for all fighters, but for 5th gen fighters which have the option to carry only internal weapons when needed, the kinematics do not drop considerably due to the lack of weapons carriage drag.

An F-35 performing a pure air-air mission will always go out in a clean configuration (no external ordnance)
And according to pilots, an internally armed F-35 has the following attributes compared to an F-16C.
-Better maneuverability
-Better subsonic acceleration
-Better supersonic persistence
-Better departure resistance
-Better departure recovery.

Why am I comparing it to an F-16?
Because according to Ukrainian Flanker pilot Lt. Col. Dmytro Fisher said:

“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable. It was such an honor to fly with Col. Toomey, and the adrenalin is still pumping, it was an experience of a lifetime."


Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/safe ... -x-HdoaySM#ixzz3AM9NLHAj

In conclusion, an F-35A going into a dogfight will enjoy many advantages in kinematic performance alone.

Now combine that with Stealth, integrated avionics, sensor fusion and advanced electronic warfare capabilities, then it becomes clear that the F-35 will have a significant advantage over most aircraft.


You're saying that the F-35 cannot be highly maneuverable because it does not have Thrust vectoring or canards?

Thrust vectoring (according to Su-35 and F-22 pilots) are only useful in extreme slow speed maneuvers, but in high speed dogfights, TV is not used.

Canards, in an unstable design canards can add great pitch authority however they also produce a down force that increases wing loading, this is the disadvantage of canards in unstable aircraft which is why Sukhoi removed canards on the Su-35.

The F-35 is an unstable design with a large smooth underbelly designed to create bodylift which in turn increases maneuverability.

The engine cowls and forward fuselage is chined in order to produce vortex lift while turning which reduces wing loading and again increases maneuverability.

The F-35 uses a trapizoidal wing design which reduces drag and maintains energy in a turn.

The F-35 has a canted tail design which again increases lift and decreases wing loading and aids the aircraft's maneuverability.

The F-35 has the single most powerful engine in the world which gives it a very high Thrust to weight ratio and internal carriage which eliminates or reduces weapons carrige drag


All of these things increases the F-35's maneuverability, its not just about canards and Thrust vectoring

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:39
by mrigdon
ata wrote:We also have no understanding about LRI, I mean I didn't make deep research, but it doesn't seem to impossible to detect it.


I'll go out on a limb and say it would be impossible to detect a lower respiratory infection in a pilot flying an F-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:50
by zero-one
ata wrote:

..then second group tries to keep as close as possible to heavy F-35's but to be far enough to be safe from AMRAAM. We are talking about reasonable distances, because safe zone would be 120-130+ km, while to attack with R-77 (ok-ok... even from such a low altitude) should be about 50 km. This distance will be covered in just 2-3 minutes. So F-35 can't attack second group because they're too far, and can't attack first group because they are not using radars (getting direction from second group) and only turn it on just before attack. Or even come so close (if would be possible depend of condition) to lock the target with IR missiles.
What those stealth F-35 could do in that case? I suppose: "nothing". Also, because second group would try to get quite close to heavy F-35's then at those angles it should be possible to detect also stealthy F-35 at flanks.

Your turn :)


First the F-35s dont need to use Radar ata all, they have EOTS and DAS, both are passive IR sensors and DAS has 360 degree coverage around the aircraft, these sensors can be used to queue and guide AMRAAMs to their targets even without Radar support.

Second the F-35 uses AESA radar which has LPI(not LRI) capability, which means low probability of intercept.

This means that the F-35 can use their radars more freely than the Su-35s who are still using PESA systems taht are easier to track and detect.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:53
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.


You're welcome.

To be clear the statement above is for specific classified specifications such as actual RCS, and capabilities of EW, and radar modes and functions.

So
1. As to classified performance you are left to the generic opinions of those who have actually used systems and planned stealth attacks etc. in real world combat. You can work on changing their opinions I suppose, but I would probably assume their opinions are based on real understanding. That's just me.

2. The public knowledge data and statements of design philosophy are readily available and understood. That's where discernment of the meaning of that data can answer some of your questions very well. Just read through the many threads here and you might pick up some answers.

The SU-35 is not a 4th +++++++ plus plus gen aircraft. That's marketing commercial talk. Actually you could say that 5th Gen is commercial speak. I have no problem with that statement.

The SU-35 is a 1970's Soviet era design, with replacement parts and new toys bolted on. But it is still that basic 4th gen airplane. One problem with that is the add-ons that are bolted to the design, are known to be, proven to be a generation or so behind current western electronics.

Follow the money. How many SU-35s have been sold to other countries, or to Russia itself for that matter? That's with bargain basement discount prices. How many countries have bought the F-35 at very expensive prices?

Forget bought and ordered! There are already five countries other than the US services that have actual aircraft you can touch, and many more ordering more F-35s. There are more non US F-35s flying now than Russian T-50s. There are more F-35s flying now than SU-35s plan to have in the near futrue, and the F-35s at "LOW" rate of production will be building more F-35s a month than Sukhoi will ever build in a month of the SU-35s.

I agree politicians can be stupid, but you have to decide that a lot of very smart people, who have been honest in the past, have joined a pretty big conspiracy to not see what the money is telling you.

So no you probably won't change a lot of minds. What does that tell you?
BP


Well, if to talk about money, then as far as I know F-35 marketing for non-US countries was like you pay first, then we're going to develop the plane. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Moreover, there are a lot of "western" aircrafts with great sensors, radars etc which are not Flankers or F-35. But there are 430 Su-30 ordered/sold around the world (not in Russia). How many Rafales? Eurofighters? Would China buy F-35 if they can or rather try to build their own? Who knows... But they ordered Su-35 by the way just recently. The same about India, where FGFA project is still under development.
What could it say about planes itself? I believe nothing. It would tell me more about politics, economic plans but not about planes.
I've said already here that Su-30/35 is "good enough". In different words the weight of real-world circumstances is likely the same (or comparable) as stealth-sensors concept in this comparison. But this is only my opinion.
I can remember a lot of times when great concept was ruined by real life. When Romans we fighting with barbarians they had perfect well-organised, prepared, great armed army. They lost. Do you remember 300 spartans? Tiny pass changed history. It was what I call real-life influence. When Hitler invaded Russia he planned to win in few weeks. Because by his concept he had much-much better tanks and planes. And it was not far from reality. You know the end of the story. When Napoleon tried to do the same he almost succeeded, he even captured Moscow. But he forgot (or didn't mind) Russian winter. It destroyed him.

As I said I'd like to never test if your concept works. But the guys here are so aggressive even here that I'm worried they would be happy :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:55
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:

..then second group tries to keep as close as possible to heavy F-35's but to be far enough to be safe from AMRAAM. We are talking about reasonable distances, because safe zone would be 120-130+ km, while to attack with R-77 (ok-ok... even from such a low altitude) should be about 50 km. This distance will be covered in just 2-3 minutes. So F-35 can't attack second group because they're too far, and can't attack first group because they are not using radars (getting direction from second group) and only turn it on just before attack. Or even come so close (if would be possible depend of condition) to lock the target with IR missiles.
What those stealth F-35 could do in that case? I suppose: "nothing". Also, because second group would try to get quite close to heavy F-35's then at those angles it should be possible to detect also stealthy F-35 at flanks.

Your turn :)


First the F-35s dont need to use Radar ata all, they have EOTS and DAS, both are passive IR sensors and DAS has 360 degree coverage around the aircraft, these sensors can be used to queue and guide AMRAAMs to their targets even without Radar support.

Second the F-35 uses AESA radar which has LPI(not LRI) capability, which means low probability of intercept.

This means that the F-35 can use their radars more freely than the Su-35s who are still using PESA systems taht are easier to track and detect.


This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:18
by sergei
I have a question:
In which mode the radar of F-35 work when track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km - is it LPI or other mode?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:31
by eloise
ata since your English is bad , can you at least try to use Google translate ? :shock:
ata wrote:The problem here is that we have not enough "proven" information. The same I have no proven details (except official commercials) about modern Flankers the same you have no even official details about F-35 (some is known, but key things like RCS is not known at all)

according to USAF , F-35 have frontal RCS of about 0.0015 m2 ( real value may be smaller ) ,

and we also know that ,they done the same thing in HaveBlue program about 30 years before F-35
Image
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
ata wrote:. We also have no understanding about LRI, I mean I didn't make deep research, but it doesn't seem to impossible to detect it. Of course "front attack"' is'n working for LRI but I can imagine that if I'm able to scan LRI signals from not only one point (let's say two/three radars flying in one group) should be possible to make some math to recognise the source. But it's just my guessing. Not something to be used in this discussion.
So, any modelling in such a case is like playing DOTA, could be interesting, but nothing about real life.


Firstly ,it LPI not LRI

Secondly , it very hard ( or near impossible )for RWR to detect and separate AESA radar signal from background noise because AESA radar change frequency very fast and scan in irregular pattern + the compression of pulses , unless the RWR know the logic of the transmitter (radar ) , it not possible for the RWR to recognize the signal it received as a radar ,instead the RWR will treat the AESA radar signal it received as background noise ( picture posted 1-2 pages ago )

Thirdly , there are 3 main ways a RWR can geolocate a radar for aircraft to attack it ,
Image
however none will work again air target using AESA radar
here is why :
1- triangulation method required target to be stationary , and take very long time
2- Azimuth / Elevation method will not work because you dont know enemy fighter altitude ( for a ground target you know the altitude is 0 ) thus cant use the Sine and Cosine function to work out the distance to target
3 - Time different arrival method required at least 3 aircraft stay at significant distance from the other ,but doesnt work again AESA radar due to it very small side lobe , and thin beam

there are some additional methods to determine distance by RWR included :
4- phase rate change : doesnt work again air target because it required target to be stationary to be accurate
5- determine distance by signal strength : required to threat radar characteristic to be known , and still doesnt work because F-35 can reduce radar transmitting power at short range to reduce probably of detection
6- RF doppler processing : doesnt work again air target because both side are moving ,and you dont know the moving speed of enemy

conclusion : very hard to detect fighter AESA radar , and even if you can detect it , you sill cant attack it
ata wrote:Let me explain how (I guess) that could work. Radar distance-resolution depends on impulse length (which normally limits it's power). Should be (again, I only guess) LRI has worse distance resolution than "normal mode", but even for any mode if jet flies at altitude comparable with object size it should be dig deal to detect it

modern fighter radar have look down/ shot down mode , so ground clutter doesnt effected them too much , moreover Su-35 RCS is too big to hide in ground clutter
ata wrote:..then second group tries to keep as close as possible to heavy F-35's but to be far enough to be safe from AMRAAM. We are talking about reasonable distances, because safe zone would be 120-130+ km, while to attack with R-77 (ok-ok... even from such a low altitude) should be about 50 km. This distance will be covered in just 2-3 minutes. So F-35 can't attack second group because they're too far, and can't attack first group because they are not using radars (getting direction from second group) and only turn it on just before attack. Or even come so close (if would be possible depend of condition) to lock the target with IR missiles.

if the second group is too far , they wont be able to detect F-35
First group dont turn on their radar , but they still have huge RCS
your tactic will only work if , you know the direction F-35 fly to , from start , and the first group are also LO aircraft

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:37
by johnwill
With regard to the little hissing contest between Sergei and Eloise about acceleration, let's just look at some numbers. Eloise is of course correct about drag being an essential term in the acceleration equation, but there is something both are missing, engine thrust at the flight condition. Both are using nominal thrust at sea level, zero airspeed, which is very different from thrust at the flight condition.

To show how important drag and actual thrust are, let's take a look at Eloise's graph comparing mach number vs. time for several airplanes. Using the Su-27S as an example, it can accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.11 in 40 seconds. Speed of sound at 20,000 ft is 1037 ft/sec, so the airplane velocity increases 321 ft/sec in 40 seconds. That is .25g, or (thrust-drag/weight), a long way from Sergei's thrust/weight of 1.067 he shows for the Su-27.

If the graph can be believed, it is also very clear the F-16 easily can beat the Russian airplanes at acceleration in WVR combat conditions, as they seem to be optimized for best performance above 1.2 mach, beyond WVR conditions.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:53
by eloise
sergei wrote:I have a question:
In which mode the radar of F-35 work when track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km - is it LPI or other mode?


AESA achieved LPI characteristic due to how it work : changing frequency many time per second + irregular search pattern + compression of pulse , it not a specific mode
so i say APG-81 can track target with RCS = 1 m2 from 150km with full LPI characteristic
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:56
by ata
eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D
In fact, it seems you really don't understand me, because I've said already my thanks for numbers and that it answers mostly all my questions. I'm not going to change your mind, so why you want to change mine? Are you sure in you concept? Great! I'm not trying to call it in question anymore.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:07
by eloise
ata wrote:eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D

the thing is you are on an American forum, so if you cant properly explain your idea in English , it only bad for you because most people here ( i think 99%) use English
many spelling and grammar mistakes in your post can be fixed if you spend only 5-6 seconds, putting your post into Google Translate before submitting it ( that will be better for you and everyone else )

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:11
by zero-one
ata wrote:
This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.


Actually, the Heavy F-35s and the 1st wave of Su-35s can detect each other because their radars are on.

Let me try to illustrate,

Legend:
>* non stealthy heavy F-35
> stealthy F-35
@ Su-35

I had to use dots instead of spaces but disregard them

..............>
.................>

>*..................... @..................@
>* ................... @...................@
>*....................... @..................@
>*......................... @....................@


.................>
...................>

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:17
by eloise
johnwill wrote:With regard to the little hissing contest between Sergei and Eloise about acceleration, let's just look at some numbers. Eloise is of course correct about drag being an essential term in the acceleration equation, but there is something both are missing, engine thrust at the flight condition. Both are using nominal thrust at sea level, zero airspeed, which is very different from thrust at the flight condition.

To show how important drag and actual thrust are, let's take a look at Eloise's graph comparing mach number vs. time for several airplanes. Using the Su-27S as an example, it can accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.11 in 40 seconds. Speed of sound at 20,000 ft is 1037 ft/sec, so the airplane velocity increases 321 ft/sec in 40 seconds. That is .25g, or (thrust-drag/weight), a long way from Sergei's thrust/weight of 1.067 he shows for the Su-27.

If the graph can be believed, it is also very clear the F-16 easily can beat the Russian airplanes at acceleration in WVR combat conditions, as they seem to be optimized for best performance above 1.2 mach, beyond WVR conditions.

ok yeah thanks, i forgot that jet engine thust are not constant at different speed and altitude

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:41
by sergei
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D

the thing is you are on an American forum, so if you cant properly explain your idea in English , it only bad for you because most people here ( i think 99%) use English
many spelling and grammar mistakes in your post can be fixed if you spend only 5-6 seconds, putting your post into Google Translate before submitting it ( that will be better for you and everyone else )


You may not believe me but when write I write through the Google translator

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:47
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:
This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.


Actually, the Heavy F-35s and the 1st wave of Su-35s can detect each other because their radars are on.

Let me try to illustrate,

Legend:
>* non stealthy heavy F-35
> stealthy F-35
@ Su-35

I had to use dots instead of spaces but disregard them

..............>
.................>

>*..................... @..................@
>* ................... @...................@
>*....................... @..................@
>*......................... @....................@


.................>
...................>


:) yes, I've got the order from first time, but thank's for picture anyway :)
So, 1st wave and heavy F-35 see each other clearly, then 1st wave is doing what I described, what F-35 would do? Both stealth and non-stealth.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 20:39
by sergei
"so i say APG-81 "
I say you don't know.

But suppose that this is true ,that it gives us?
The APG-77 has range 250-300km for a 1 m2 target in LPI it will be 4/5 or 2/3 ie 190 km .

Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI, less than 40 km compared to APG-77
Now let's say that the technology LPI was improved - is it possible? Perhaps.
If 150km are 4/5 of max range, then max range=187km , If 150km are 2/3 of max range(ie technology not improved)
then max range=225km
This leads us to the conclusion that the radar Apg-81 is inferior in size and maximum power to radar APG-77 .
(hornetfinn :wink: )

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 20:46
by basher54321
johnwill wrote:With regard to the little hissing contest between Sergei and Eloise about acceleration, let's just look at some numbers. Eloise is of course correct about drag being an essential term in the acceleration equation, but there is something both are missing, engine thrust at the flight condition. Both are using nominal thrust at sea level, zero airspeed, which is very different from thrust at the flight condition.

To show how important drag and actual thrust are, let's take a look at Eloise's graph comparing mach number vs. time for several airplanes. Using the Su-27S as an example, it can accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.11 in 40 seconds. Speed of sound at 20,000 ft is 1037 ft/sec, so the airplane velocity increases 321 ft/sec in 40 seconds. That is .25g, or (thrust-drag/weight), a long way from Sergei's thrust/weight of 1.067 he shows for the Su-27.

If the graph can be believed, it is also very clear the F-16 easily can beat the Russian airplanes at acceleration in WVR combat conditions, as they seem to be optimized for best performance above 1.2 mach, beyond WVR conditions.


^THIS^

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 20:50
by zero-one
ata wrote:
:) yes, I've got the order from first time, but thank's for picture anyway :)
So, 1st wave and heavy F-35 see each other clearly, then 1st wave is doing what I described, what F-35 would do? Both stealth and non-stealth.


Heavy F-35s fire 2 AMRAAMs each at 1st wave of Su-35s, while 1st wave of Su-35s fire 2 R-77s each at heavy F-35s

Both waves immidiately take evasive maneuvers, this means that their missiles cannot be guided anymore,
However the Stealthy F-35s, still undetected, datalink targeting info to the Aim-120s launched by the heavy F-35s,

The 2nd wave of Su-35s cannot data link targeting info because of several reasons
1. They may be the target of the incoming AMRAAMs and take evasive maneuvers as well
2. Heavy ECM employed by the F-35s limit their participation at those ranges
3. They do not have LPI capable data links.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 21:42
by sergei
eloise
"fact that F-35 jammer will be more effective "

You jamm opponent or not. What's in my understanding is Jamming-opponent can not see anything at all, its radar radiation completely depressed.F-35 is unable to do this with the Su-35 for several reasons.But thanks to stealth and jamming F35 able to hide its presence from Su-35 even if it is under not most successful angles to the Su-35.
------------
Su-35 sees heavy F-35 from 400 km and don't see stealth F35 that come before them for 100-150 km.

Su-35 approaching heavy F-35 and launches R-37 or R-77.
Stealth F35 see Su-35 and provides target designation for heavy F-35 , heavy F-35 evades R-37.
Su-35 got in range Aim-120 ,heavy F-35 in range R-77 all shooting at each other.
Stealth F35 provides target designation for heavy F-35 and shoot it own missiles at Su-35.
Su-35 with high probability shot down simultaneous attack from different angles , will some of R-77 hit target ? Unknown but possibly as target designation for them may give other Su-35 have not yet entered into battle yet.
What happens next depends on the decision of the commander of the Su-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 21:50
by sergei
zero-one
------------
1. They may be the target of the incoming AMRAAMs and take evasive maneuvers as well
2. Heavy ECM employed by the F-35s limit their participation at those ranges
3. They do not have LPI capable data links.
--------------
1. F35 dont have Long-range missiles, 2 wave Su-35 to far away for Aim 120.
2.You cant jumm at range more then range your can see(if there is no pod)
3. Do they need it ?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 21:59
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:"have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35"
Let's check

F16
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.079

Su-27
Loaded weight: 51,650 lb Thrust with afterburner: 55,100+ lb
Thrust/weight:1.067

Su-35
Loaded weight:56,660 lb Thrust with afterburner: 64,000 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.295

F16 have 0.012 better ( but not much better - only 1.112%) acceleration than Su-27 ,
F16 have 0.216 worse acceleration than Su-35(That's what I call a significantly worse - 20%)

Summing= Half-truth for Su-27, completely untrue for Su-35

What with the manoeuvrability?

F-16 Wing area: 300ft Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Su-27 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft
Su-35 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft²

No, and here F-16 lost

But perhaps climb ?Let see.

F-16 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min
Su-27 Rate of climb: 59,000 ft/min
Su-35 Rate of climb: >55,000 ft/min

Sad but F-16 lost again :?

:doh:
1 ) acceleration is not just about thrust/weight , you have to take into account drag as well ( dont be lazy , take out the flight manual )
example : Image
2 ) F-4 have much lower wing loading than F-16 does that mean F-4 turn better than F-16 ? :roll:


eloise
Do you have a graph with better resolution ?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 23:10
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:
:) yes, I've got the order from first time, but thank's for picture anyway :)
So, 1st wave and heavy F-35 see each other clearly, then 1st wave is doing what I described, what F-35 would do? Both stealth and non-stealth.


Heavy F-35s fire 2 AMRAAMs each at 1st wave of Su-35s, while 1st wave of Su-35s fire 2 R-77s each at heavy F-35s

Both waves immidiately take evasive maneuvers, this means that their missiles cannot be guided anymore,
However the Stealthy F-35s, still undetected, datalink targeting info to the Aim-120s launched by the heavy F-35s,

The 2nd wave of Su-35s cannot data link targeting info because of several reasons
1. They may be the target of the incoming AMRAAMs and take evasive maneuvers as well
2. Heavy ECM employed by the F-35s limit their participation at those ranges
3. They do not have LPI capable data links.


Wait, I've offered different thing.
We agreed that both sides know about each other from long distance. Let's say 200+ km (too far to launch missiles for both sides). Then at about 150 from each other 1st wave is going down. So, before it can be fired. Second wave is let's say at 50 km back from 1st wave.
1st wave is unreachable for heavy F-35s nor for stealth F-35. And despite all of F-35s are able to detect second group they can't fire because it's too far. Meantime 2nd group reduces speed while 1st group moves as fast as possible and after 2-3 minutes (or even faster, depends on F-35's speed) they will be at 50 km from F-35 still hidden from them. Even if F-35 will be changing direction second group can guide first group even if 1st group turns off all the transmitters.
50 kms from F-35 and still hidden - I can imagine several scenarios here. They are all risky, but it's not a game, isn't it? :) They can turn on radars and fire R-77 even from that low altitude. Alternatively they can try to get even closer and fire IR missiles without any radar at all.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 23:31
by sergei
zero-one
weapons:
4xR-77: 1540 lbs
2xR-11:

R-11 Soviet tactical ballistic missile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-11_Zemlya

:bang:

F-35 destroyed by a nuclear explosion, Su-30 win.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 01:51
by blindpilot
ata wrote:...

Wait, I've offered different thing.
We agreed that both sides know about each other from long distance. Let's say 200+ km (too far to launch missiles for both sides). Then at about 150 from each other 1st wave is going down. So, before it can be fired. Second wave is let's say at 50 km back from 1st wave.

1st wave is unreachable ....despite all of F-35s are able to detect second group they can't fire because it's too far.

...at 50 km from F-35 still hidden from them...... turns off all the transmitters.
50 kms from F-35 and still hidden - I can imagine several scenarios here. .... They can turn on radars and fire R-77 even from that low altitude. Alternatively they can try to get even closer and fire IR missiles without any radar at all.


<Sarcasm on>
OK let me see if I can understand how you are planning this engagement.

First some aircraft stay very very far away and slow down to cruise along, because the range is too far while there are stealthy F-35s (or maybe F 22s) wandering the area somewhere, ... you have no clue... they could be right behind you?
Second the other aircraft are still going to stay on the deck, turn radar off and hope to shoot missiles through thick sea level air, thousands of meters UP into the sky and pray they aren't running out of energy, as they coast UP to altitude...
And you are doing this based on unclassified range charts hoping that some F-35 missiles weren't given a boost from a high altitude Mach launch speed, and because you helped them out by staying low, they are also going down hill.... for even more range. ...
And this is based on believing that no one can see your 10m2 radar return and your "fast as possible" heat signature at low level in the trees...

Good luck with that
<Sarcasm off>


Is it just me?
Or am I missing something in translation?
BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 03:48
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:...

Wait, I've offered different thing.
We agreed that both sides know about each other from long distance. Let's say 200+ km (too far to launch missiles for both sides). Then at about 150 from each other 1st wave is going down. So, before it can be fired. Second wave is let's say at 50 km back from 1st wave.

1st wave is unreachable ....despite all of F-35s are able to detect second group they can't fire because it's too far. Ju

...at 50 km from F-35 still hidden from them...... turns off all the transmitters.
50 kms from F-35 and still hidden - I can imagine several scenarios here. .... They can turn on radars and fire R-77 even from that low altitude. Alternatively they can try to get even closer and fire IR missiles without any radar at all.


<Sarcasm on>
OK let me see if I can understand how you are planning this engagement.

First some aircraft stay very very far away and slow down to cruise along, because the range is too far while there are stealthy F-35s (or maybe F 22s) wandering the area somewhere, ... you have no clue... they could be right behind you?
Second the other aircraft are still going to stay on the deck, turn radar off and hope to shoot missiles through thick sea level air, thousands of meters UP into the sky and pray they aren't running out of energy, as they coast UP to altitude...
And you are doing this based on unclassified range charts hoping that some F-35 missiles weren't given a boost from a high altitude Mach launch speed, and because you helped them out by staying low, they are also going down hill.... for even more range. ...
And this is based on believing that no one can see your 10m2 radar return and your "fast as possible" heat signature at low level in the trees...

Good luck with that
<Sarcasm off>


Is it just me?
Or am I missing something in translation?
BP

You haven't taken into account that he's a "scientist" and has "science" on his side. LOL.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 05:32
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:... am I missing something in translation?
BP

You haven't taken into account that he's a "scientist" and has "science" on his side. LOL.


Yeah I guess. Did I mention that I got a BS degree in the Physical Sciences from the USAF Academy, and one of my senior projects was preparing an operational system on the Skylab space station?? I suppose I need to go back and brush up on my high school physics. I knew I needed to get the post graduate degree in Physics instead of the other stuff, but ,,,. Who'd thunk it?

:D
BP

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 05:56
by mk82
blindpilot wrote:
ata wrote:...

Wait, I've offered different thing.
We agreed that both sides know about each other from long distance. Let's say 200+ km (too far to launch missiles for both sides). Then at about 150 from each other 1st wave is going down. So, before it can be fired. Second wave is let's say at 50 km back from 1st wave.

1st wave is unreachable ....despite all of F-35s are able to detect second group they can't fire because it's too far.

...at 50 km from F-35 still hidden from them...... turns off all the transmitters.
50 kms from F-35 and still hidden - I can imagine several scenarios here. .... They can turn on radars and fire R-77 even from that low altitude. Alternatively they can try to get even closer and fire IR missiles without any radar at all.


<Sarcasm on>
OK let me see if I can understand how you are planning this engagement.

First some aircraft stay very very far away and slow down to cruise along, because the range is too far while there are stealthy F-35s (or maybe F 22s) wandering the area somewhere, ... you have no clue... they could be right behind you?
Second the other aircraft are still going to stay on the deck, turn radar off and hope to shoot missiles through thick sea level air, thousands of meters UP into the sky and pray they aren't running out of energy, as they coast UP to altitude...
And you are doing this based on unclassified range charts hoping that some F-35 missiles weren't given a boost from a high altitude Mach launch speed, and because you helped them out by staying low, they are also going down hill.... for even more range. ...
And this is based on believing that no one can see your 10m2 radar return and your "fast as possible" heat signature at low level in the trees...

Good luck with that
<Sarcasm off>


Is it just me?
Or am I missing something in translation?
BP


I have a sneaking suspicion that ata is stuck in the 1960s and has not heard of look down shoot down radars Bwahahaha :mrgreen: .

Ata certainly has not heard of radar "tactics"....i.e. Some aircraft in the group searching the "deck"/down low with their radars whilst other aircraft in the group search at the same and higher altitudes with their own radars. Let me give you a clue ata, go to YouTube and search History Channel's Dogfights - Gulf War 1. Look for the BVR engagement between USAF F15Cs and Iraqi Air Force Mig 23s....very interesting information how USAF F15C pilots used their radar in their four ship group.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 06:12
by eloise
sergei wrote:eloise
"fact that F-35 jammer will be more effective "

You jamm opponent or not. What's in my understanding is Jamming-opponent can not see anything at all, its radar radiation completely depressed.F-35 is unable to do this with the Su-35 for several reasons.But thanks to stealth and jamming F35 able to hide its presence from Su-35 even if it is under not most successful angles to the Su-35.
------------

there are 2 kind of jamming
1) deception jamming : receive enemy radar signal , process it and resend signal with wrong characteristics in attempt to break missiles lock, common deceptive jamming are RGPO, VGPO, Cross eye.. etc
the advantages of this kind of jamming is that they dont required very high power and missiles dont know they are being jammed thus they dont change to HOJ mode, however the disadvantage is that they dont work well ( may not even work at all) again frequency agile radar or LPI radar, it also doesn't overload enemy radar by fool signal, as a result enemy radar can still see your aircraft ( they still see new target but your aircraft not disappear )

2) noise jamming : very simple, overload enemy radar with noise signal, so they cant see the real return from your aircraft , there are several kind of noise jamming : barrage jamming, spot jamming, sweep jamming.. etc, noise jamming effectiveness depending on signal-to-noise ratio so you either raised the noise ( much more powerful jammer ) or reduce the return signal ( smaller RCS) , advantage of noise jamming is that they can work again LPI radar, disadvantage is that if you are more vulnerable to HOJ missiles ( unless you transmitted the jamming signal by your Towed decoy, but towed decoy transmiter are quite weak due to their size ) , not very effective if your RCS too big


sergei wrote:Su-35 sees heavy F-35 from 400 km and don't see stealth F35 that come before them for 100-150 km.


Su-35 can hardly see stealth F-35 from more than 20 km ( in jamming condition)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 06:22
by eloise
sergei wrote:
2.You cant jumm at range more then range your can see(if there is no pod)

in theory, you can jam longer range than you can see ( because the jamming signal only have to go one way while radar signal have to go and travel back)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 06:58
by eloise
sergei wrote:
eloise
Do you have a graph with better resolution ?

sadly no, but you can draw your own from flight manual

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 14:07
by sergei
"Su-35 can hardly see stealth F-35 from more than 20 km ( in jamming condition)"
Will see at 50km in infrared.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 15:13
by basher54321
sergei wrote:Will see at 50km in infrared.


My eyes saw that one coming at least 1000000 miles away. :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 16:21
by shrimpman
eloise wrote:the thing is you are on an American forum, so if you cant properly explain your idea in English , it only bad for you because most people here ( i think 99%) use English
many spelling and grammar mistakes in your post can be fixed if you spend only 5-6 seconds, putting your post into Google Translate before submitting it ( that will be better for you and everyone else )


Please don't go this way. We, the non-English types, are trying our best. Personally, as a Polish living in Ireland, I think this is really unfair when people say this kind of things to me. It is extremely frustrating to speak five languages and be told by a monoglote native that I should learn more. Come on, Eloise, beat them with arguments, not with groin kicks ;)

Can you guys please help me understand one thing (I know nothing about RCS). If F-35 is carrying external stores, it loses its stealth because the launchers and weapons can be seen. I get that. But RCS of 2 AMRAAMs cannot possibly be detected THAT easily from a distance? I mean a non-stealthy 10m2 RCS plane would be detected far earlier than a stealthy one with some visible weapons? When I read your comments it looks like "heavy" F-35 can be seen from halfway round the globe. Is there something I am missing?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 16:56
by eloise
sergei wrote:"Su-35 can hardly see stealth F-35 from more than 20 km ( in jamming condition)"
Will see at 50km in infrared.

hmm, fair enough, but i think F-35 pilot can fly near or in cloud to reduce enemy's IRST effectiveness

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 16:59
by basher54321
shrimpman wrote:
Can you guys please help me understand one thing (I know nothing about RCS). If F-35 is carrying external stores, it loses its stealth because the launchers and weapons can be seen. I get that. But RCS of 2 AMRAAMs cannot possibly be detected THAT easily from a distance? I mean a non-stealthy 10m2 RCS plane would be detected far earlier than a stealthy one with some visible weapons? When I read your comments it looks like "heavy" F-35 can be seen from halfway round the globe. Is there something I am missing?


You would still expect the RCS to still be vastly reduced compared to a conventional aircraft like the Su-35 with pylons and missiles.

The estimations of range with RCS/IR are usually based on what aircraft you are arguing for and normally take no account of actual limitations or scenarios. 8)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 17:05
by eloise
shrimpman wrote: Please don't go this way. We, the non-English types, are trying our best. Personally, as a Polish living in Ireland, I think this is really unfair when people say this kind of things to me. It is extremely frustrating to speak five languages and be told by a monoglote native that I should learn more. Come on, Eloise, beat them with arguments, not with groin kicks ;)

alright my bad, actually English is not my mother tongue either
shrimpman wrote:

Can you guys please help me understand one thing (I know nothing about RCS). If F-35 is carrying external stores, it loses its stealth because the launchers and weapons can be seen. I get that. But RCS of 2 AMRAAMs cannot possibly be detected THAT easily from a distance? I mean a non-stealthy 10m2 RCS plane would be detected far earlier than a stealthy one with some visible weapons? When I read your comments it looks like "heavy" F-35 can be seen from halfway round the globe. Is there something I am missing?

RCS are a little bit different from visual
if object A have RCS = 1 m2
object B have RCS = 2 m2
that doesn't mean they will have RCS = 3 m2 when they are together, their RCS could be alot more due to the reflecting radar wave between 2 object ( create a conner reflector)
in the F-35 case, the pylon make a 90 degree angle with the wing, missiles fins are also perpendicular ( perpendicular surface have huge RCS)

body_corner_reflector_ex..png

body_corner_reflector_ex.png

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 17:41
by sergei
basher54321 wrote:
sergei wrote:Will see at 50km in infrared.


My eyes saw that one coming at least 1000000 miles away. :D

My ears have heard the sound of keys on your keyboard earlier than you start typing it :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 21:14
by zero-one
sergei wrote:zero-one
weapons:
4xR-77: 1540 lbs
2xR-11:

R-11 Soviet tactical ballistic missile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-11_Zemlya

:bang:

F-35 destroyed by a nuclear explosion, Su-30 win.



Slight mistype. You know very well that what I meant was the AA-11 archer, and it doesnt change the fact that the F-35A has better thrust - weight ratio stats and equal wing loading stats once body lift and tail lift is taken into account.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 23:26
by SpudmanWP
sergei wrote:"Su-35 can hardly see stealth F-35 from more than 20 km ( in jamming condition)"
Will see at 50km in infrared.


The main problem with that is that it might know that "something" is in that direction, but it will not know if it's a fighter at 25km, an AWACS at 200km, or soemthing else at 2000km.

Without the ability to determine range, no tracking and more importantly no weapons, can be used.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 12:29
by hornetfinn
I think AN/APG-81 range performance is severely underestimated by most people and it most probably equals or outperforms even Irbis-E rangewise and is otherwise far superior radar system. This is my reasoning for this:

AWG-9 and AN/APG-67 range performance is well known. Both use slotted planar array antenna and TWT transmitters and have otherwise similar construction. AN/APG-73 also has very similar construction and it also sits directly between these two radars. AWG-9 had detection range of 213 km and tracking range of 167 km against 5 square meter RCS target. AN/APG-67 had a detection range of about 90 km and tracking range of about 70 km against same target. As AN/APG-73 (of late Classic Hornets and early Super Hornets) is directly between the two, it should have a detection range of about 150 km and tracking range of about 115-120 km against that same target. This performance is very likely as Swedish sources claim Ericsson PS-05/A radar for JAS Gripen can detect that kind of target 120 km away. PS-05/A has quite a bit smaller antenna than AN/APG-73 and thus will have shorter range as the two have very similar construction otherwise. Russians claim their Phazotron Zhuk-ME also has similar detection performance as PS-05/A and it also has very similar construction and smaller antenna to AN/APG-73.

Why did I mention AN/APG-73 and all those old radars? Because USN claims that AN/APG-79 for Super Hornet has two to three times the detection range of the earlier AN/APG-73. Same claims have been made by a number of airforces taking AESA radars into service, so it’s very likely true. This would mean AN/APG-79 can detect that 5 square meter target out somewhere between 300 and 450 km away and track it between 240 and 360 km away. Now AN/APG-81 has larger antenna with much higher T/R module count meaning it has superior output power and antenna gain. My estimate would give it about 1/3 longer range without any other improvements. That would give it detection range of about 400 to 600 km against that same target. Of course AN/APG-81 is about a decade newer implementing much newer technology, including new T/R modules. So it likely has even bigger advantage than that due to each T/R module having higher output power and lower losses.

Now another angle: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA391893.pdf

This is a report paper made 15 years ago by US Secretary of Defense Office Defense Science Board and they should really know their stuff about technology. They predicted then that a very conservative estimate for ground surveillance optimized AESA radar with average power output of 2.5 to 4.5 kW would give a detection range of about 230 km against 3 square meter target and a cued search (smaller search area) range of about 300 km. Now they used extremely conservative technology assumption of 15 percent efficiency for the modules and about 10W peak power in each module. Modern T/R modules have efficiencies at least twice that and 40-50 percent efficiency is pretty standard with much more powerful (15W to 25W) modules readily available. This along with higher module efficiency would mean that those earlier figures for APG-79 and APG-81 are very believable as even the APG-79 should easily have at least equal and likely significantly superior average power. APG-81 likely has a lot more average power available.

I believe Russian figures for Irbis-E and their other radars as they are achievable. Irbis-E is said to be able to detect 3 square meter target 350 to 400 km away within 100 square degree search area (which is very small search area). This means normal search mode detection range is likely about 230 to 270 km against that same 3 m^2 target depending on many variables. Those figures are because cued search usually has at least 50 percent longer range than normal search. Cued search is useful for targets which have been quite accurately detected by other sensors and is not that good for searching due to small search area.

Calculating all of the above together, we can estimate the following range performance against different RCS targets (numbers are rounded somewhat):

Irbis-E
0.0001 m^2: cued search 30 km, normal search: 20 km
0.001 m^2: cued 50 km, normal 35 km
0.01 m^2: cued 90 km, normal 60 km
0.1 m^2: cued 160 km, normal 115 km
1 m^2: cued 300 km, normal 200 km
10 m^2: cued 500 km, normal 350 km

AN/APG-79:
0.0001 m^2: cued search 32 km, normal search: 23 km
0.001 m^2: cued 55 km, normal 40 km
0.01 m^2: cued 100 km, normal 75 km
0.1 m^2: cued 180 km, normal 135 km
1 m^2: cued 330 km, normal 250 km
10 m^2: cued 600 km, normal 450 km

AN/APG-81 (conservative estimate):
0.0001 m^2: cued search 40 km, normal search: 30 km
0.001 m^2: cued 60 km, normal 40 km
0.01 m^2: cued 125 km, normal 85 km
0.1 m^2: cued 220 km, normal 150 km
1 m^2: cued 450 km, normal 300 km
10 m^2: cued 750 km, normal 500 km

This only shows that 4th gen fighters will be detected by all of these fighters at very long ranges with ease. Even most advanced 4th gen fighters would be detected quite a long distance away. It also shows that AN/APG-81 will detect Su-35S at far longer distances than Su-35S is capable of detecting F-35. This also shows that even Super Hornet very likely has quite significant detection/tracking advantages against Su-35. Even if we take the lowest end numbers for APG-81 (for example T/R modules which have been available for over 15 years for US radar manufacturers), it still likely has at least equal range performance to Irbis-E. These numbers also show that Irbis-E has the advantage against all current non-AESA radars.

Comparing F-35 and any 4th gen fighter, including Su-35, in EW environment would not be pretty for any of those 4th gen fighters. Su-35 does have EW system in KNIRTI SAP 518. Problem is that it’s a sector jamming system. Those kinds of jammers can jam certain frequency or frequencies forward or aft section of the aircraft. The difference between F-35 EW system is that using APG-81, F-35 can concentrate the jamming power precisely towards the enemy emitter. End result is that enemy radar receives much more powerful jamming signal compared to conventional self protection jammer systems. In more technical terms, conventional jammer systems have very low gain antennas as they transmit a wide beam to cover the whole sector at once. They lack the capability to accurately target the enemy radar and thus most of their radiated power is wasted. Facing off against each other, F-35 will have much lower radar cross section, at least as powerful radar and much more powerful jamming system. Even as F-35 uses part of the radar as a jammer, it won’t severely affect the radar performance as only small fraction of the modules would be needed for jamming duty.

I'm not trying to paint Flankers as bad fighters, definitely not. I'm just illustrating what advantages F-35 will have against all 4th gen fighters, no matter how much they are upgraded.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 13:49
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:zero-one
------------
1. They may be the target of the incoming AMRAAMs and take evasive maneuvers as well
2. Heavy ECM employed by the F-35s limit their participation at those ranges
3. They do not have LPI capable data links.
--------------
1. F35 dont have Long-range missiles, 2 wave Su-35 to far away for Aim 120.
2.You cant jumm at range more then range your can see(if there is no pod)
3. Do they need it ?


2. Yes you can jam at ranges far longer than you yourself can see. For jamming you only need to receive enemy transmitted signal to know where enemy radar is and then you can send your own signals back. You don't need to see the enemy to be able to jam its radar. This applies to podded or not podded EW systems.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 14:36
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:

Why did I mention AN/APG-73 and all those old radars? Because USN claims that AN/APG-79 for Super Hornet has two to three times the detection range of the earlier AN/APG-73. Same claims have been made by a number of airforces taking AESA radars into service, so it’s very likely true. This would mean AN/APG-79 can detect that 5 square meter target out somewhere between 300 and 450 km away and track it between 240 and 360 km away. Now AN/APG-81 has larger antenna with much higher T/R module count meaning it has superior output power and antenna gain. My estimate would give it about 1/3 longer range without any other improvements. That would give it detection range of about 400 to 600 km against that same target. Of course AN/APG-81 is about a decade newer implementing much newer technology, including new T/R modules. So it likely has even bigger advantage than that due to each T/R module having higher output power and lower losses.


yeah, i do remember that APG-80 was claimed to have 2 times the range of APG-69v9 too
btw wasnt Apg-80 have the same size and power as APG-79
hornetfinn wrote:I believe Russian figures for Irbis-E and their other radars as they are achievable. Irbis-E is said to be able to detect 3 square meter target 350 to 400 km away within 100 square degree search area (which is very small search area). This means normal search mode detection range is likely about 230 to 270 km against that same 3 m^2 target depending on many variables. Those figures are because cued search usually has at least 50 percent longer range than normal search. Cued search is useful for targets which have been quite accurately detected by other sensors and is not that good for searching due to small search area.

Calculating all of the above together, we can estimate the following range performance against different RCS targets (numbers are rounded somewhat):

Irbis-E
0.0001 m^2: cued search 30 km, normal search: 20 km
0.001 m^2: cued 50 km, normal 35 km
0.01 m^2: cued 90 km, normal 60 km
0.1 m^2: cued 160 km, normal 115 km
1 m^2: cued 300 km, normal 200 km
10 m^2: cued 500 km, normal 350 km

AN/APG-79:
0.0001 m^2: cued search 32 km, normal search: 23 km
0.001 m^2: cued 55 km, normal 40 km
0.01 m^2: cued 100 km, normal 75 km
0.1 m^2: cued 180 km, normal 135 km
1 m^2: cued 330 km, normal 250 km
10 m^2: cued 600 km, normal 450 km

AN/APG-81 (conservative estimate):
0.0001 m^2: cued search 40 km, normal search: 30 km
0.001 m^2: cued 60 km, normal 40 km
0.01 m^2: cued 125 km, normal 85 km
0.1 m^2: cued 220 km, normal 150 km
1 m^2: cued 450 km, normal 300 km
10 m^2: cued 750 km, normal 500 km


these range seen too high to be honest , 60 km again targets with RCS = 0.001 m2 sound like performance of a ground radar
hornetfinn wrote:Comparing F-35 and any 4th gen fighter, including Su-35, in EW environment would not be pretty for any of those 4th gen fighters. Su-35 does have EW system in KNIRTI SAP 518. Problem is that it’s a sector jamming system. Those kinds of jammers can jam certain frequency or frequencies forward or aft section of the aircraft. The difference between F-35 EW system is that using APG-81, F-35 can concentrate the jamming power precisely towards enemy

APG-81 cant jam enemy from behind or at the side though

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 14:43
by eloise
btw what RAM are used to make the F-35? , it seem that most radar absorbing pain only work well around ( 9-10 Ghz)

image13.png

c3nr04087a-f3_hi-res.gif

13f07f.gif

03f6.gif

epl11646fig5.jpg

Shaping work well again most frequency, but dont reduce RCS as much
A year ago a study was published in the International Journal of Research in Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering pegging the F-22 without RAM at -9 dBsm frontal, 30 dbSm lateral and 50 dbSm at X-Band. And around 20 dBsm in UHF/VFH.


Available at: http://www.ijrame.com/vol2issue1/V2i105.pdf

pitch_rcs_b2-sim.png

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 14:50
by spazsinbad
Thanks for all your input 'eloise' (a lot goes over my head though) meanwhile here is some old info: (search on key distinct words on this forum to find the original discussion or similar info). Already we know the F-35s are manufactured to extreme tight tolerances for the outer mold line. Recently there was info about old/new paint systems in use - newer ones will save money - being applied by robots and other weird stuff. :mrgreen: More info on request - or search forum etc.

It is late at night in my part of the world with a large thunderstorm about to put the hammer down here so I'll just give some URLs for paint: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... craft.aspx
OR
http://www.denix.osd.mil/awards/upload/ ... e-Base.pdf
&
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Co ... e21321.htm
"According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS head on than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2."

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm

F-35C STEALTH ON THE CARRIER DECK MEANS HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW MAINTENANCE

"...The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature...."

Source: http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080 ... ARRIER.rtf

Production techniques gear F-35 for stealth

"...In addition to machining advances that allow LM to achieve high manufacturing tolerances, advances have also been made in the composition of the radar-absorbent structure (RAS) of the aircraft. This Linhart said, is "completely different" from earlier RAS materials in the way it is resistant to chipping, even in the face of bird-strikes...."

Source: http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/p ... July48.pdf

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept
17 May 2010 Amy Butler

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 80e3609ae1

New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost
17 May 2010 Amy Butler

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat. Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified...."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

Composites Machining for the F-35
03 Aug 2010 Peter Zelinski, Senior Editor

“...Lockheed Martin’s precision machining of composite skin sections for the F-35 provides part of the reason why this plane saves money for U.S. taxpayers. That machining makes the plane compelling in ways that have led other countries to take up some of the cost. Here is a look at a high-value, highly engineered machining process for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft....

...The F-35 features “supportable” VLO. That is, the VLO on this plane comes with very low maintenance cost. Stealth aircraft of the past couldn’t make that claim. Because radar detects sharp edges, even small mismatches between exterior parts on past VLO planes were smoothed out using epoxy. The epoxy would dry, harden and separate in the field—meaning it had to be frequently inspected and replaced.

By contrast, adjacent parts of the F-35 match so fluidly and precisely that no epoxy is needed. The trouble with previous stealth aircraft has disappeared....”

Source: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles ... r-the-f-35

THE F-35 LOW OBSERVABILITY’S LIFELONG SUSTAINABILITY: A REVOLUTIONARY ASSET FOR 21ST CENTURY COMBAT AVIATION
22 Mar 2010 SLDinfo

"...Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with....

...From day one, the supportable LO has been a key entity on the program and has had a profound influence on the very design of the airplane. In fact, the element that is manufactured into the skin was an initiative brought about by our LO maintenance discipline...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=6065

The F-35: Creating a 21st Century Fighter
A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin

“...As Bill Grant, Lockheed Martin F-35 Supportable Low Observables Integrated Product Team leader, has put it:
From day one, supportable LO has been a key entity on the program and has had a profound influence on the very design of the airplane. In fact, the element that is manufactured into the skin was an initiative brought about by our LO maintenance discipline. We’ve also had a profound influence on the selection of the materials and then once they were decided upon, we helped refine the properties to make them more workable for field use.

And Grant added:
Our system requirement was for end of life, which means that throughout the 8,000-hour service life of the jet, it is to remain fully mission-capable. So we anticipated that the amount of maintenance that would be done over the life of the airplane and anticipated that in the design. So when we deliver the jet, it’s delivered with a significant margin of degradation that’s allowed for all of these types of repairs over the life of the airplane, again, without having to return to the depot for refurbishment. There may be some cosmetic-based reasons why the jet might go back to a facility to get its appearance improved, but from a performance-standpoint we recognize no need to do that....”

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... y-fighter/

The F-35’s Race Against Time
Nov 2012 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor

“...When it comes to maintainable stealth design, the F-35 represents the state of the art, O’Bryan said, superior even to the F-22 Raptor, USAF’s top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft. The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, ac-cording to the Lockheed team. "We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35 —verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges — is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22. This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse in-coming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

Dramatic Stealthiness
The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations....”

Source: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 11:18
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:yeah, i do remember that APG-80 was claimed to have 2 times the range of APG-69v9 too
btw wasnt Apg-80 have the same size and power as APG-79


APG-80 is smaller in size and power to APG-79. APG-80 is designed to fit inside the smaller 600mm diameter class nose of F-16 and APG-79 the larger 700mm class nose of Super Hornet. This means that APG-80 has about 75% of the range performance of APG-79 if both are using similar construction and same T/R modules (lower power, smaller antenna area).

eloise wrote:these range seen too high to be honest , 60 km again targets with RCS = 0.001 m2 sound like performance of a ground radar


That might be, I was just trying to show the difference between different radars. However, APG-79 does have huge amount of power, equaling many long range surveillance radars from 1980's and older.

Look here: https://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/nmarler_apg79aesa.pdf

At the last page there is APG-79 power supply specs. I states that it has about 18 kVA power supply, which equals about 14.4 kW. With now pretty standard 85-90 percent efficiency, this means the radar can use about 12.5 kW of power. With AESA the main things that use power is the transmitters (T/R modules) and processing system. As modern processing systems use fairly low amount of power, most of that power goes to transmission. Let's say that APG-79 uses about 80 percent for transmission and rest goes to other radar requirements (mostly processing system). This means APG-79 would have 10 kW power available for transmitters. Of course not all of this would go into radiated power as much of it would be turned to heat due to T/R module inefficiencies. Modern T/R modules have PAE of about 40-60 percent using GaAs modules depending on their exact requirements (power, bandwidth, temperature etc). This means APG-79 has about 4-6 kW radiated average output power capability unless it uses exceptionally good or bad modules. As a sidenote, Irbis-E is said to have 5 kW maximum average output power and most fighter radars have average output power of about 1 kW. F-14 and MiG-31 radars have or had about 2 to 2.5 kW of average power. Interestingly, long range (240 nautical miles) surveillance radar AN/TPS-75 has a average power output of 4.7 kW: http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte103.en.html

Average power output is the only power that affects the radar range performance and peak power is just a side-effect of producing it. Average power also is the power that needs to be fulfilled by the power supply. I see it pretty certain that AN/APG-79 has about equal average output power level to Irbis-E used in Su-35. Higher efficiency of AESA should easily overcome the larger diameter antenna of PESA Irbis-E. AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 14:11
by eloise
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for all your input 'eloise' (a lot goes over my head though) meanwhile here is some old info: (search on key distinct words on this forum to find the original discussion or similar info)]

thanks spazsinbad
i was just trying to estimate F-22, F-35 approximate average frontal RCS with different kind of RAM
For example , here is F-22 RCS simulation if it was made fully from metal
Image
here is absorbing capabilities at different frequency of a common RAM
Image
put these 2 together , we can see that with this RAM F-22 will have RCS of about - 44 dBsm at 8 Ghz, around - 35 dBsm at 9 Ghz, - 13 dBsm at 10 Ghz, - 12 dBsm at 2 Ghz, and so on
obviously with different kind of RAM the results will be very different
for example with this RAM
Image
F-22 will have RCS = - 20 dBsm at 10 Ghz but it will have around - 30 dBsm at 8 Ghz

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 14:27
by bring_it_on
What is common RAM? Do you think the "secret sauce" is 'commonly shared'?

On RAM and RCS -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260281522/RAM-and-RCS

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 14:29
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:
APG-80 is smaller in size and power to APG-79. APG-80 is designed to fit inside the smaller 600mm diameter class nose of F-16 and APG-79 the larger 700mm class nose of Super Hornet. This means that APG-80 has about 75% of the range performance of APG-79 if both are using similar construction and same T/R modules (lower power, smaller antenna area).

.

sorry i was trying to say APG-81 and APG-79 have same size and diameter, power
btw what do you think about Gripen NG radar?, it use a new kind of T/R modules, i think

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 14:45
by eloise
bring_it_on wrote:What is common RAM? Do you think the "secret sauce" is 'commonly shared'?


no, but i think there may be something similar, for example i haven't seen any RAM have attenuation of more than - 20 dBsm at 10Ghz, most RAM dont work or not effective at all below 2 Ghz

bring_it_on wrote:On RAM and RCS
https://www.scribd.com/doc/260281522/RAM-and-RCS

interesting

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 15:04
by bring_it_on
Good luck estimating classified capability that has been backed by significant investment over the last 2-3 decades.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 15:28
by sergei
" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."

Apg-77 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 190 km+ in LPI
Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 15:36
by eloise
bring_it_on wrote:Good luck estimating classified capability that has been backed by significant investment over the last 2-3 decades.

:? doesn't we estimate fighter and weapons capabilities all the time. :?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 15:46
by eloise
sergei wrote:" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."

Apg-77 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 190 km+ in LPI
Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?

i think you probably interested in this
here is YF-23 RCS pattern if it was made fully from metal ( simulation)
Image
so frontal is around - 10 dBsm to - 20 dBsm
applied RAM will reduce RCS by another 20 to 25 dBsm, it easy to see how stealth fighter can achieve - 30 to - 40 dBsm frontal

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 16:21
by sergei

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 16:47
by eloise
sergei wrote:http://s8.uploads.ru/T3O8i.png

flight manual ?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 17:41
by sergei
"Руководства по технической эксплуатации N 10 книги 1"
"aircraft have half filling fuel in internal tanks, engine operation - full afterburner"

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 17:46
by eloise
sergei wrote:"Руководства по технической эксплуатации N 10 книги 1"

T-10 is also known as Flanker A :wink: aka Su-27

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 17:59
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:"Руководства по технической эксплуатации N 10 книги 1"

T-10 is also known as Flanker A :wink: aka Su-27


F16=F16A

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 18:13
by eloise
sergei wrote:
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:"Руководства по технической эксплуатации N 10 книги 1"

T-10 is also known as Flanker A :wink: aka Su-27


F16=F16A

can you just post the pictures on here ? i cant actually see it in the link

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 20:14
by sergei

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 20:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
So, that's a no

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 23:43
by archeman
bring_it_on wrote:Good luck estimating classified capability that has been backed by significant investment over the last 2-3 decades.


Related materials...

http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436262.pdf

The battery died on my scientific calculator but I'll be sure to verify every single formula in that paper as soon as I run over to the Radio Shack for a replacement :wink:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 01:01
by bring_it_on
Thats Canadian estimate of worldwide classified RAM material development.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 08:09
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
APG-80 is smaller in size and power to APG-79. APG-80 is designed to fit inside the smaller 600mm diameter class nose of F-16 and APG-79 the larger 700mm class nose of Super Hornet. This means that APG-80 has about 75% of the range performance of APG-79 if both are using similar construction and same T/R modules (lower power, smaller antenna area).

.

sorry i was trying to say APG-81 and APG-79 have same size and diameter, power
btw what do you think about Gripen NG radar?, it use a new kind of T/R modules, i think


We have pretty good photographic evidence that APG-81 has quite a bit more T/R modules (about 1,676 vs. 1,368 or so modules) and very likely also has larger diameter antenna. Originally APG-79 was said to have about 1,100 modules and the larger number might be upgraded or actual production version. AFAIK, APG-81 has 800 mm diameter class antenna and APG-79 has 700 mm diameter class antenna. That would be consistent with the difference between the T/R module count also. APG-81 also has new T/R modules that have been specifically developed for them. It would be really strange if they didn't have better performance than the earlier modules. If the modules had exactly the same performance and radars exactly similar construction, APG-81 should have about 15 percent longer range. With better modules and radar construction, I can see it being quite a bit more like (like 1/3 better range).

JAS Gripen NG will use Selex Galileo Raven ES-05 radar and it seems to be pretty standard modern AESA radar. I think it's great improvement over PS-05/A radar but not that special compared to other modern AESA radars. Currently they are using similar GaAs T/R modules although all radar manufacturers are going to use GaN modules in the future.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 08:35
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."

Apg-77 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 190 km+ in LPI
Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?


I'd really like to know the source for these figures. Could you provide a credible source?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 09:09
by eloise
What exactly the difference between GaAs and GaN module?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 12:15
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:what exactly the difference between GaAs and GaN module?


Material used. Gallium Nitride will be used (and is already used in some products) instead of Gallium Arsenide in current modules. GaN has some properties that make it far superior material to GaAs, namely:

- About 10 times the output power density potential which means much more power from smaller modules
- Higher operating and breakdown voltage meaning modules are more efficient and more resilient
- Higher thermal conductivity and resistance to higher temperatures which makes cooling much easier
- Several times wider bandwidth available (superior ECM resistance and EW, LPI and communications capabilities)
- Lower signal losses improving efficiency and making radar more sensitive

All in all GaN AESA could have something like twice the range performance, superior capabilities for LPI, EW and communications and much better ECM resistance with even higher reliability compared to GaAs AESA. Of course GaN is currently more expensive and the processes are more complex and costly which is why they are initially reserved for applications where really high performance is needed and costs are not much of an issue. In the future, most military AESA radars will likely be made from them.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 17:48
by sergei
hornetfinn wrote:
sergei wrote:" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."
Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?


I'd really like to know the source for these figures. Could you provide a credible source?


It is necessary to ask eloise

eloise Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:42 pm

After a short search I find it probable:


1.31
and

6.02

PS; read all post not only latest.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 18:11
by pron
He asked for "Could you provide a credible source?" and not a youtube video that are made for marketing.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 18:25
by sergei
pron wrote:He asked for "Could you provide a credible source?" and not a youtube video that are made for marketing.


You does not believe Western manufacturers? :shock:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 19:21
by SpudmanWP
Those videos do not show the scale of the display (which is adjustable) or the RCS of the contacts.

Information without context is almost worthless.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 19:24
by sergei
SpudmanWP wrote:Those videos do not show the scale of the display (which is adjustable) or the RCS of the contacts.

Information without context is almost worthless.


These characteristics are discussed very well watch video with sound : 2 Su-27

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 20:30
by SpudmanWP
The videos you linked to make my point for me.


1.31

The only thing that shows is a simulated display having 4 rangebands of 20nm each. Remember that 20nm number


6.02

The "two SU-27s have been scrambled", (ie they are just taking off from an airfield) which is why they were not detected sooner.
You will also note that the scale of the rangebands has changed and now are 40nm each (up to 160nm in this instance). If you look at the TSD from 5:55 to 6:00 you will see the scale change and cycle through 10nm, 20nm, and 40nm per band.

The video does not say that the APG-81 is what detected the Su-27s and only mentions the ESM. Keep in mind that the TSD represents the "Big Picture" which combines data from ALL sensors (on and off board) and is not a just radar display.

Here is a pic showing the TSD (Tactical Situation Display) with 10nm rangebands.
v1PgRZR.png

You also might note that it took a SAR image from at least 40nm (3:40)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 01:06
by archeman
bring_it_on wrote:Thats Canadian estimate of worldwide classified RAM material development.


Posted that to demonstrate that the idea that there is some kind of generic 'Normal RAM Coating' is kind of overly simplistic assumption. Even though that is kind of an old paper and addresses only non-clasified RAM materials and assembly techniques and attenuation methods, the field is very deep indeed.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 01:12
by bring_it_on
archeman wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Thats Canadian estimate of worldwide classified RAM material development.


Posted that to demonstrate that the idea that there is some kind of generic 'Normal RAM Coating' is kind of overly simplistic assumption. Even though that is kind of an old paper and addresses only non-clasified RAM materials and assembly techniques and attenuation methods, the field is very deep indeed.


Of course it is deep, but it is not going to give you a reasonable estimate on what is achieved by a highly classified product developed by and for a user that has had experience with RAM that goes into decades.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 01:59
by archeman
bring_it_on wrote:
archeman wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Thats Canadian estimate of worldwide classified RAM material development.


Posted that to demonstrate that the idea that there is some kind of generic 'Normal RAM Coating' is kind of overly simplistic assumption. Even though that is kind of an old paper and addresses only non-clasified RAM materials and assembly techniques and attenuation methods, the field is very deep indeed.


Of course it is deep, but it is not going to give you a reasonable estimate on what is achieved by a highly classified product developed by and for a user that has had experience with RAM that goes into decades.


Yes, exactly my point.
There is probably many different materials, thicknesses, layers, inductance and capacitance absorption grids, bonding methods and using varying application and repair techniques based on the RF risk and environment of a particular surface.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 07:36
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
sergei wrote:" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."

Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?


I'd really like to know the source for these figures. Could you provide a credible source?


It is necessary to ask eloise

eloise Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:42 pm

After a short search I find it probable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.31
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.02

P/S read all post not only latest.


Thank you for those videos, nice find!

How am I supposed to know that you were referring to eloise's post? Anyway, those numbers seem like someone's estimate from 10-15 years ago. For example F-22 AN/APG-77 figures flying around come from estimates published in Aviation Week and Jane's in 1999 and 2000. That's 15-16 years ago and several years before F-22 even reached IOC. Of course then it AN/APG-77 was supposed to have only 1,500 T/R modules as in reality it has quite a bit higher count (about 2,000) and thus longer range. As those numbers have become the truth to many people, they just calculate what the AN/APG-81 range would be as it has smaller array. Of course there might have been some improvements over original AN/APG-77 during the last 15 years or so...

Btw, your first video does show AN/APG-81 test (starting at about 1:00) where the longest range tracks are well over 80 nautical miles away. Of course we do not know the RCS of the targets, what the test conditions are or how far the longest range targets actually are. Interesting detail is that the radar beams appear to be of different shapes, probably optimizing search and tracking functions in each beam.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 09:43
by sergei
hornetfinn wrote:
sergei wrote:" AN/APG-81 likely has quite a bit more as it has more and likely newer (higher efficiency and higher power) modules and probably has better cooling capacity. I see it possibly having closer to 10 kW average output power, which is huge amount of power for a fighter radar."

Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km in LPI
:?

I'd really like to know the source for these figures. Could you provide a credible source?


It is necessary to ask eloise

eloise Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:42 pm

After a short search I find it probable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.31
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.02

P/S read all post not only latest.

---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for those videos, nice find!

How am I supposed to know that you were referring to eloise's post? Anyway, those numbers seem like someone's estimate from 10-15 years ago. For example F-22 AN/APG-77 figures flying around come from estimates published in Aviation Week and Jane's in 1999 and 2000. That's 15-16 years ago and several years before F-22 even reached IOC. Of course then it AN/APG-77 was supposed to have only 1,500 T/R modules as in reality it has quite a bit higher count (about 2,000) and thus longer range. As those numbers have become the truth to many people, they just calculate what the AN/APG-81 range would be as it has smaller array. Of course there might have been some improvements over original AN/APG-77 during the last 15 years or so...

Btw, your first video does show AN/APG-81 test (starting at about 1:00) where the longest range tracks are well over 80 nautical miles away. Of course we do not know the RCS of the targets, what the test conditions are or how far the longest range targets actually are. Interesting detail is that the radar beams appear to be of different shapes, probably optimizing search and tracking functions in each beam.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"well over 80 nautical miles " 100nm to be more precise but " we do not know the RCS of the targets"
Instrumental range F35 avionic more than 500 km.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 13:01
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:"well over 80 nautical miles " 100nm to be more precise but " we do not know the RCS of the targets"
Instrumental range F35 avionic more than 500 km.


Actually we do not know exactly how the display system works and how far away the targets really are when they are further away than that 80 nm range circle. It might be about that 100 nm or it might just show that the target is more distant than that 80 nm. Of course such videos likely will not show any really interesting things about performance, but even if it was 100 nm, then the tracking ranges are quite impressive (regardless of RCS) given that it's searching that whole field of view while tracking large number of targets. Narrowing that down to some small area would considerably increase range performance. Besides, this video does not try to present anything about performance envelope and I don't think we can draw that many conclusions about videos like it.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 12:27
by munny
Think I posted it on this forum once before, but there's a moment in that segment of video where the radar is simultaneously tracking 6 separate targets, then detects a new target beyond 80 nm at the same time.

Assuming the power is being distributed equally across all 7 beams, and taking into account the low gain due to the heavily thinned array, it implies that the maximum detection range for those particular targets is in the 200 nm+ range. Potentially gives the APG-81 similar range to the Irbis-E unjammed and far better range in jamming conditions.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 09:37
by sergei
munny wrote:Think I posted it on this forum once before, but there's a moment in that segment of video where the radar is simultaneously tracking 6 separate targets, then detects a new target beyond 80 nm at the same time.

Assuming the power is being distributed equally across all 7 beams, and taking into account the low gain due to the heavily thinned array, it implies that the maximum detection range for those particular targets is in the 200 km+ range. Potentially gives the APG-81 similar range to the Irbis-E unjammed and far better range in jamming conditions.


Small correction for greater realism.

P/S " power is being distributed" I'm certainly not a great expert on the radio location but it is news to me.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 13:49
by munny
Nope, no mistake there.

Assuming the radar is using 1/7th of its power and aperture area to detect that new target at 80nm, we can approximate the maximum range to detect the target with a single beam using all TRMs by using the range equation. Basically the forth root of 7 times the power * 7 times the gain squared, or basically single beam range = 80nm * 7^3^.25

Comes to about 4 times greater range if it uses a single beam on all TRMs. So based on an 80nm (140ish km) detection of the targets with a 1/7th thinned array, it could theoretically have a maximum detection range for the targets tested of around 620km before factoring in atmospheric attenuation.

Shouldn't be a great surprise that the 81 can vastly outperform the irbis. Consider 1650+ modules running at a peak of 15w each with a higher gain and better duty cycle due to cooling. It's only a matter of time until GaN is used (30w and 60w modules seem to be the sweet spot for manufacturers right now). Their current products have an excellent frequency range to, 6-12GHz for amplifiers suitable for fighter radar. DoD may just skip straight to Diamond substrates though which have had massive advances in the past year and yield 3 times the power and double the life of GaN TRMs.

No mistakes about it, US semiconductor research and manufacturing is in a different league to what the Russians are doing right now. All major US transistor makers are using GAN exclusively right now and TEGaN (diamond wafers) has been developed and is about to boom. Russia are still prototyping GaN on SiC and have no means of mass manufacturing due to their reliance on European equipment and sanctions on dual purpose equipment.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 14:15
by madrat
Sounds like F-14D scan range only using four F-14D's lined abreast at 30 km increments. :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 21:05
by sergei
munny wrote:Nope, no mistake there.

Assuming the radar is using 1/7th of its power and aperture area

Why do you think the radar will operate in such a strange mode?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 23:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sergei, this is not a "strange mode". This is what makes AESA different than PESA. Different groups of T/R modules are doing different things in different areas of the sky in different frequencies at the same time.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 23:23
by popcorn
That was a strange question.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 09:37
by hornetfinn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:sergei, this is not a "strange mode". This is what makes AESA different than PESA. Different groups of T/R modules are doing different things in different areas of the sky in different frequencies at the same time.


Exactly. PESA and MSA radars can create only one beam of relatively constant power and that one beam is all they can work with. AESA can theoretically create as many beams as they have T/R modules (very impractical in reality), but in practice they can usually create a handful of beams (like 3-8 for fighter radars). If only one (transmit) beam is used, then all the T/R modules work together to create that beam. Then all the available power goes to generating that one beam. End result is one very powerful beam which can be used to look very far. However using only one beam will result in reduced search area or increased scan time (takes a lot longer to scan the volume) depending on which is more important. Using all the power all the time is also not good for LPI and EW considerations.

Much of the radar tasks can be achieved with much less power than max power. For example tracking nearby large RCS target requires very little power. Looking up or down more than 10 degrees will also require very little power most of the time as targets will be rather close (less than 60 km away from normal operating altitudes). So AESA radar can scan some parts of the whole search area with very strong beams and some areas with weaker beams. Same with tracking different targets. A B-52 or Tu-95 30 km away will require very very weak beam to track. Stealthy target 100 km away will require a lot of power for constant tracking. Given that modern AESA radars have a large number of powerful T/R modules, they can generate several beams simultaneously and each beam can have as much average power as most MSA or PESA radars can generate in their only beam. Basically AESA will use only as much power as is required to achieve each task. Using multiple simultaneous beams they can scan far larger area of the sky than MSA or PESA radar could or they can do so to much longer distances or shorter scan times. For example Russian PESA radars from Zaslon-A to Irbis-E have scan areas of about 100 to 300 square degree area (like about 10x10 to 30x10 degree box) depending on modes according to Russian sources. AESA radars can scan far larger area of the sky (several thousand square degrees) and still have good range and target tracking performance.

People seem to think that Irbis-E is some ultimate radar that has as good performance as can be had. This is very far from truth (although Irbis-E seems to have very respectable performance) and similar or superior performance can definitely be had from smaller AESA radars. The performance will grow in the future and there doesn't seem to be end to this development.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 13:46
by sergei
hornetfinn wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:sergei, this is not a "strange mode". This is what makes AESA different than PESA. Different groups of T/R modules are doing different things in different areas of the sky in different frequencies at the same time.

Exactly. PESA and MSA radars can create only one beam of relatively constant power and that one beam is all they can work with. AESA can theoretically create as many beams as they have T/R modules (very impractical in reality), but in practice they can usually create a handful of beams (like 3-8 for fighter radars). If only one (transmit) beam is used, then all the T/R modules work together to create that beam. Then all the available power goes to generating that one beam. End result is one very powerful beam which can be used to look very far. However using only one beam will result in reduced search area or increased scan time (takes a lot longer to scan the volume) depending on which is more important. Using all the power all the time is also not good for LPI and EW considerations.

Much of the radar tasks can be achieved with much less power than max power. For example tracking nearby large RCS target requires very little power. Looking up or down more than 10 degrees will also require very little power most of the time as targets will be rather close (less than 60 km away from normal operating altitudes). So AESA radar can scan some parts of the whole search area with very strong beams and some areas with weaker beams. Same with tracking different targets. A B-52 or Tu-95 30 km away will require very very weak beam to track. Stealthy target 100 km away will require a lot of power for constant tracking. Given that modern AESA radars have a large number of powerful T/R modules, they can generate several beams simultaneously and each beam can have as much average power as most MSA or PESA radars can generate in their only beam. Basically AESA will use only as much power as is required to achieve each task. Using multiple simultaneous beams they can scan far larger area of the sky than MSA or PESA radar could or they can do so to much longer distances or shorter scan times. For example Russian PESA radars from Zaslon-A to Irbis-E have scan areas of about 100 to 300 square degree area (like about 10x10 to 30x10 degree box) depending on modes according to Russian sources. AESA radars can scan far larger area of the sky (several thousand square degrees) and still have good range and target tracking performance.

People seem to think that Irbis-E is some ultimate radar that has as good performance as can be had. This is very far from truth (although Irbis-E seems to have very respectable performance) and similar or superior performance can definitely be had from smaller AESA radars. The performance will grow in the future and there doesn't seem to be end to this development.

The problem is that before turn on the radar you do not know what is near, is it large RCS target like bomber? or it may be small fighter very far away? To track large RCS target do not need many power it is true, but to that would be confident in discovering new targets at maximum range you must use the maximum power.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 16:06
by popcorn
@hornetfinn,
can you talk to the reliability of AESA vs legacy radars? How robust are T/R modules and what kind of MTBFs can we expect with new GaN tech?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 17:51
by thomonkey
sergei wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:sergei, this is not a "strange mode". This is what makes AESA different than PESA. Different groups of T/R modules are doing different things in different areas of the sky in different frequencies at the same time.

Exactly. PESA and MSA radars can create only one beam of relatively constant power and that one beam is all they can work with. AESA can theoretically create as many beams as they have T/R modules (very impractical in reality), but in practice they can usually create a handful of beams (like 3-8 for fighter radars). If only one (transmit) beam is used, then all the T/R modules work together to create that beam. Then all the available power goes to generating that one beam. End result is one very powerful beam which can be used to look very far. However using only one beam will result in reduced search area or increased scan time (takes a lot longer to scan the volume) depending on which is more important. Using all the power all the time is also not good for LPI and EW considerations.

Much of the radar tasks can be achieved with much less power than max power. For example tracking nearby large RCS target requires very little power. Looking up or down more than 10 degrees will also require very little power most of the time as targets will be rather close (less than 60 km away from normal operating altitudes). So AESA radar can scan some parts of the whole search area with very strong beams and some areas with weaker beams. Same with tracking different targets. A B-52 or Tu-95 30 km away will require very very weak beam to track. Stealthy target 100 km away will require a lot of power for constant tracking. Given that modern AESA radars have a large number of powerful T/R modules, they can generate several beams simultaneously and each beam can have as much average power as most MSA or PESA radars can generate in their only beam. Basically AESA will use only as much power as is required to achieve each task. Using multiple simultaneous beams they can scan far larger area of the sky than MSA or PESA radar could or they can do so to much longer distances or shorter scan times. For example Russian PESA radars from Zaslon-A to Irbis-E have scan areas of about 100 to 300 square degree area (like about 10x10 to 30x10 degree box) depending on modes according to Russian sources. AESA radars can scan far larger area of the sky (several thousand square degrees) and still have good range and target tracking performance.

People seem to think that Irbis-E is some ultimate radar that has as good performance as can be had. This is very far from truth (although Irbis-E seems to have very respectable performance) and similar or superior performance can definitely be had from smaller AESA radars. The performance will grow in the future and there doesn't seem to be end to this development.

The problem is that before turn on the radar you do not know what is near, is it large RCS target like bomber? or it may be small fighter very far away? To track large RCS target do not need many power it is true, but to that would be confident in discovering new targets at maximum range you must use the maximum power.



Sergei, if I can give you a complement. Its astounding how confidently you speak, with such little knowledge.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 17:59
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:@hornetfinn,
can you talk to the reliability of AESA vs legacy radars? How robust are T/R modules and what kind of MTBFs can we expect with new GaN tech?


Considering that the radome of the F-35 was designed to never be opened throughout the lifetime of the F-35.. I would say the T&Rs are VERY robust.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 22:31
by sergei
Nothing surprising some of my opponents know less than me and often have problems with logic.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 22:49
by munny
Read an article on GaN on Diamond a few days ago. In the test in which amplifiers were run at the same high temperature, GAN transistors ran for 5,000 hours before degrading. TEGaN for 10,000.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 02:37
by KamenRiderBlade
sergei wrote:Nothing surprising some of my opponents know less than me and often have problems with logic.


LOL, you have proven nothing while on this board Sergei.

Your reputation here isn't as high as you would like to think.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 02:41
by mrigdon
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
sergei wrote:Nothing surprising some of my opponents know less than me and often have problems with logic.


LOL, you have proven nothing while on this board Sergei.

Your reputation here isn't as high as you would like to think.


What? No. Sergei is many-splendored inhibiter of truth on this board. Is strong bulwark against anti-Russian many who promote false notions.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 03:47
by popcorn
munny wrote:Read an article on GaN on Diamond a few days ago. In the test in which amplifiers were run at the same high temperature, GAN transistors ran for 5,000 hours before degrading. TEGaN for 10,000.

Amazing stats. AESA radars already setting the performance and reliability standards with GaAs and GaN will set the bar even higher still.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 07:46
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:
popcorn wrote:@hornetfinn,
can you talk to the reliability of AESA vs legacy radars? How robust are T/R modules and what kind of MTBFs can we expect with new GaN tech?


Considering that the radome of the F-35 was designed to never be opened throughout the lifetime of the F-35.. I would say the T&Rs are VERY robust.


I agree, T/R modules have proven to be extremely robust and reliable. IIRC, modern AESA radars have something like tens of thousands of hours between T/R module failure. Of course even if some modules fail, the radar performance will not degrade much. It's usually stated that up to 10 percent of the modules can fail before performance will be noticeably degraded. I think T/R modules very likely are the most reliable part of the whole aircraft.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 09:38
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:The problem is that before turn on the radar you do not know what is near, is it large RCS target like bomber? or it may be small fighter very far away? To track large RCS target do not need many power it is true, but to that would be confident in discovering new targets at maximum range you must use the maximum power.


There is really no problem. If you are flying at 10,000m or about 33,000ft, then any threat +/- 5 degrees is closer than 100 km away and +/- 10 degrees is closer than 50 km away. So multiple simultaneous beams could very safely be used below and above those elevations. This means if scanning from +20 degrees to -20 degrees (top down) with 2 degree beams, a PESA would require about 20 beams. A modern AESA would use about 5 full power beams (to scan near horizon to long range) and use simultaneous beams to scan the high and low elevation parts. The rest would require equal of say 5 full power beams (like 2 full beams split into 2 equaling 4 beams, 1 full beam split into 4 beams and 2 full beams split into 6 beams equaling 12 beams). So AESA could easily scan at least twice the search area without sacrificing detection range at all.

With tracking taken into account, things seem even better for AESA. Let's say there are 20 targets detected by the radar. A PESA would require 20 beams to track each target while AESA would usually require only about equal of 3-5 full beams. This means it saves a lot of time to scan other targets while tracking targets already detected. Combined with the above mentioned optimized beam patterns, AESA has rather huge search and tracking advantages compared to PESA and MSA radars.

One caveat is that simultaneous beams really require the use of digital beamforming to be possible. Analog beamforming can not practically do it. Of course pretty much all (at least Western) AESA radars use digital beamforming as it offers a lot of other advantages compared to analog systems besides simultaneous beams.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 13:21
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:
Considering that the radome of the F-35 was designed to never be opened throughout the lifetime of the F-35.. I would say the T&Rs are VERY robust.

wait, does that mean F-35 willnot be upgrade for it entire life time?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 13:25
by eloise
btw not very related, but here a graph of Su-27 RCS with and without RAM

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 14:01
by hornetfinn
Another interesting thing about that AN/APG-81 test video is that it fully tracks several receding targets, some over 80 nm (150 km) away. For example Bars radar for Su-30 can detect a receding MiG-29 target 60 km away according to manufacturer. Bars would be able to track the MiG-29 somewhere between 35-50 km away.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 14:27
by spazsinbad
but wait yourself 'eloise' [who said above: "wait, does that mean F-35 willnot be upgrade for it entire life time?"] just today or whenever your time we read this:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27171&p=288743&hilit=radar#p288743
"...said potential [F35] upgrades could include new avionics systems, radar, laser weapons and a new more fuel-efficient engine...."

And here is a recent otherworldly account of how a modern AESA radar is upgraded (replace 'wedgie' with 'stubby'):
Australia, Happy With Boeing E-7 Wedgetail, Plans Upgrades
08 Apr 2015 Bradley Perrrett Aviation Week & Space Technology

"...Now the Wedgetail is about to be fully operational—but not finally operational. The latter status will probably be reached the day before it is retired, says Carpenter, because the type will always be subject to upgrades. Already, “we still have a huge shopping list of things that still need to go in there, . . . lots more features to work on.”

Upgrades are easier now that signals processing in modern systems is changed by software, not necessarily by switching hardware. “There is an enormous amount of potential in that Mesa radar that is waiting to be unlocked by a whole bunch of ones and zeros,” Carpenter told reporters at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon near Melbourne in February. There are clear paths to upgrading the radar, he adds, giving no details.

Turkey and South Korea also operate the E-7. Although the three countries’ aircraft are not identical, they all feature the Mesa, the active, electronically scanned array of which is mounted on a dorsal fin on the fuselage of the E-7...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/austral ... s-upgrades

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 17:26
by sprstdlyscottsmn
eloise wrote:btw not very related, but here a graph of Su-27 RCS with and without RAM

So it's between 10 and 30 dB in the front area?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 17:32
by SpudmanWP
eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Considering that the radome of the F-35 was designed to never be opened throughout the lifetime of the F-35.. I would say the T&Rs are VERY robust.

wait, does that mean F-35 willnot be upgrade for it entire life time?


No

It just means that the radome only needs to be opened to upgrade the T&Rs if they ever decide to. All the computers that drive the AESA T&Rs are accessible from within the front wheelwell and that there are more T&Rs installed than are needed to meet spec. These extra T&Rs are there so that when the occasional T&R fails, the dish will still perform within spec.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 17:43
by sergei
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
sergei wrote:Nothing surprising some of my opponents know less than me and often have problems with logic.


LOL, you have proven nothing while on this board Sergei.

Your reputation here isn't as high as you would like to think.

I did not even try,the purpose of my staying there is not in the set of reputation and not propaganda- it is education itself.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 17:52
by sergei
hornetfinn wrote:
sergei wrote:The problem is that before turn on the radar you do not know what is near, is it large RCS target like bomber? or it may be small fighter very far away? To track large RCS target do not need many power it is true, but to that would be confident in discovering new targets at maximum range you must use the maximum power.


There is really no problem. If you are flying at 10,000m or about 33,000ft, then any threat +/- 5 degrees is closer than 100 km away and +/- 10 degrees is closer than 50 km away. So multiple simultaneous beams could very safely be used below and above those elevations



I honestly do not really understand you :?
If the target is rejected by less 5 degrees relative to the center it more 100km away ?
Detection accuracy of + -50 km is just amazing :drool:

P/S Maybe you tried to say : that for target shift perpendicular to the direction of flight of the aircraft radar performance falls?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 19:17
by mrigdon
sergei wrote:I did not even try,the purpose of my staying there is not in the set of reputation and not propaganda- it is education itself.


You're trying to educate yourself? Good for you. You might start by reading other people's posts.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 19:47
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:I did not even try,the purpose of my staying there is not in the set of reputation and not propaganda- it is education itself.


Cool, when does that start?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 06:31
by eloise
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
eloise wrote:btw not very related, but here a graph of Su-27 RCS with and without RAM

So it's between 10 and 30 dB in the front area?

without RAM it fluctuating between 20-30 dBsm t the front
with RAM it only around 10 dBsm

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 06:36
by eloise
sergei wrote:I honestly do not really understand you :?
If the target is rejected by less 5 degrees relative to the center it more 100km away ?
Detection accuracy of + -50 km is just amazing :drool:

P/S Maybe you tried to say : that for target shift perpendicular to the direction of flight of the aircraft radar performance falls?

no, try to image the radar field of view as a triangle or a cone
you only need a very narrow angle to cover huge area- (volume ) at long-distance , the shorter the distance the bigger angle you will need

look at the image below
Image
when the angle remains the same the higher the height the bigger the base

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 06:47
by hornetfinn
sergei wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
sergei wrote:The problem is that before turn on the radar you do not know what is near, is it large RCS target like bomber? or it may be small fighter very far away? To track large RCS target do not need many power it is true, but to that would be confident in discovering new targets at maximum range you must use the maximum power.


There is really no problem. If you are flying at 10,000m or about 33,000ft, then any threat +/- 5 degrees is closer than 100 km away and +/- 10 degrees is closer than 50 km away. So multiple simultaneous beams could very safely be used below and above those elevations



I honestly do not really understand you :?
If the target is rejected by less 5 degrees relative to the center it more 100km away ?
Detection accuracy of + -50 km is just amazing :drool:

P/S Maybe you tried to say : that for target shift perpendicular to the direction of flight of the aircraft radar performance falls?


No, what I meant was this:

1. If you fly at 10,000 m altitude and you look down more than 5 degrees from horizon, a target is definitely closer than about 100 km (actually about 114 km at sea level) or it would be below ground which is not good for aircraft.

2. If you fly at 10,000 m altitude and you look up more than 5 degrees from horizon, a target is definitely closer than about 100-120 km or it would be be flying at above 20-21,000 m and not many threat systems can do that.

3. If you fly at 10,000 m altitude and you look down more than 10 degrees from horizon, a target is definitely closer than about 50 km (actually 57 km at sea level) or it would be below ground.

4. If you fly at 10,000 m altitude and you look up more than 10 degrees from horizon, a target is definitely closer than about 50-60 km or it would be be flying at above 20-21,000 m.

5. Of course a target can be very close no matter the elevation/depression angle, but it elevation/depression angle sets the limits how far it can be.

Because you know that the target can not be further away than this, you can safely use multiple simultaneous beams to search for new targets as using all the power would be unnecessary and increasing search area/volume is very necessary. Of course a lot depends on situation, expected threat and what the mission is. Also a flight of AESA equipped fighters (especially F-35 with advanced datalinking and sensor/data fusion) can share the workload so that some fighters could look for long distance targets only and some would search for closer targets with very large search areas. A fighter could also look for long distance (low elevation/depression) targets 80 percent of the time and once in a while take a look at high elevation/depression (closer) targets rest of the time with multiple simultaneous beams. AESA equipped fighters have much more tactical options available than PESA or MSA equipped fighters have.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 06:56
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
eloise wrote:btw not very related, but here a graph of Su-27 RCS with and without RAM

So it's between 10 and 30 dB in the front area?

without RAM it fluctuating between 20-30 dBsm t the front
with RAM it only around 10 dBsm


If those values are true for the actual fighter, then it has huge RCS (up to several hundred square meters). No wonder Bars radar is said to have detected Su-27 330 km away even though it can detect MiG-29 only at 140 km away.

Where that graph is from?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 11:32
by ata
OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 12:08
by sergei
ata wrote:OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)

100% you russian troll , you dont understend AESA work!! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 12:20
by ata
sergei wrote:
ata wrote:OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)

100% you russian troll , you dont understend AESA work!! :mrgreen:


Of course :) In fact I'm not very experienced in radar tech, but I've developed several AESA antennas for telecom usage. Of course there is difference in power management for example, but basics is the same.
BTW there are several NAVAL multi-beams radars (even made in Russia by tovarishchs), but that guys are not limited in power and size.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 14:48
by eloise
ata wrote:OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)


AESA can transmit emissions by a proportion of it's total T/R modules number but it will always received reflected signal by all of them, thus the gain always remain the same
ata wrote:I've developed several AESA antennas
.

are you sure u not lying this time?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 14:53
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:Where that graph is from?

some Russian study for plasma stealth, they want to put a plasma screen in front of the radar, and paint the fan blade with RAM

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 14:54
by sergei
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)


AESA can transmit emissions by a proportion of it's total T/R modules number but it will always received reflected signal by all of them, thus the gain always remain the same
ata wrote:I've developed several AESA antennas
.

are you sure u not lying this time?

Always? always? always? to me it "to big to fail" claim= False

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 15:37
by sergei
eloise wrote:sergei , your comment shown that you have very limited knowledge about radar or how they work
here are some link about radar range equation : have a read ( carefully ) , try to understand it before you comment anything , they said the same thing with different number so it may be a bit hard to understand if you not good at math :?
Image
where

S = signal energy received by the radar
Pavg = average power transmitted by the radar
G = gain of the radar antenna
σ = radar cross section of the target
Ae = effective area of the radar antenna, or "aperture efficiency"
tot = time the radar antenna is pointed at the target (time on target)
R = range to the target

According to this relationship, reducing the radar cross section of a vehicle to 1/10th of its original value will reduce the maximum range at which the target can be detected by nearly 44%! While that reduction alone is significant, even greater reductions in RCS are possible.

An aircraft that reduces its front aspect signature by a factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent.

it take 95 % RCS reduction to reduce radar detection range by 50 %, and a 99 % reduction in signature reduce radar detection range by 67 % .

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/el ... 0168.shtml
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=Ut ... ge&f=false
http://anagnostou.sdsmt.edu/2007Fall/RC ... Ch2.17.pdf
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=rz ... ge&f=false

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=0W ... ge&f=false
sergei wrote:F15
The APG-63 has a range of 100 miles (87 nmi; 160 km) no near 400km
F14
The APG-71 system itself is capable of a 700 km range, but the antenna design limits this to only 370 km
F22
The APG-77 201–241 km at best and unofficially 193 km for a 1 m2 target
F35
APG-81 80-85nm for Su-27 whose RCS greater than 10
"Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km"
False statement ,that it were true This information should look strictly contrary-just as looking your information for Zaslon-m

Now after you understand the basic of radar equation above , here are the radar tracking range they calculate from available public information ( you can also calculate Zaslon-M range from public figure by yourself based on the radar equation)
Image
Image
here is the Su-35 Irbis-e range based on public figure
Image
( btw the most modern F-15 now using APG-63v3 and AN/APG-82 , which have much better range than APG-63v2 )

sergei wrote:And ?

that was 30 years before the F-35 , F-35 can atleast achieve the same level of RCS reduction , and as i have explained it not hard to keep your enemy within 45 degree from your nose ,and you should also remember that at wide angle Su-35 will have very high RCS too


sergei wrote:And you think that the pilot simply ignored the appearance on the radar 2 hostile objects If it see them from 300km?

no , but closer target equal higher threat level

sergei wrote:To maximize the effect of the TVC engines on the aircraft must be much farther apart than Rafale and typhoon

really ? , why ? F-22 TVC is not very further apart , Aim-9X still have TVC despite the fact that it only have 1 engine :|
do you really think that put TVC on 2 engine further apart will have better effect on turn rate than if they were close together ?
btw you havenot answer my question : how long does it take for Su-27 or Su-35 to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2 when it is aimed with 4 missiles ? ( or 10 missiles since russian fan boy often like to brag about how many AAM their su-27 can carry )

sergei wrote:"if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ? "
Turn ON your brain-because they launch it themselves.

no , you should turn On your brain
the only available information was recorded by USAF is the number of missiles kill , and distance to target , the assessment that targets dont try to evade Aim-120 is a make up statement by APA , not a fact

That seemed to me that this familiar graph

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/FA-22A- ... 05-APA.png


IT is APA!!!!!

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 15:45
by ata
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:OMG....
1/7 of power....
7 beams...
AESA can do what PESA can't...

I'd like to ask the very simple question why the hell AESA radars need so many basic modules in that case? Do you hear about GAIN? Your power (15W, 30W, brazillon watts) means nothing if you have no enough gain. This is a reason why so many modules are used. The more modules you have the more GAIN you have in a peak point. In other words to focus beam without wasting power to heat up the atmosphere you need all the basic oscillators you have. What would be your gain for each of 7 beams?
Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.
And yes it's possible to create even more beams than 7. How many you want? You can create a lot. With 0dB gain for every of them.
Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point. There is completely different reason why AESA is more preferable in military applications than PESA. But it's another one more advantage of "western" aircrafts, which would be too much for such a fantastic tool as F-35 :)


AESA can transmit emissions by a proportion of it's total T/R modules number but it will always received reflected signal by all of them, thus the gain always remain the same
ata wrote:I've developed several AESA antennas
.

are you sure u not lying this time?


:doh:

I would send you to the theory how AESA works and how it generates it's directivity pattern. Please, check how AESA gain depends of number of modules. It's not like 2 times less modules - two times less gain :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 15:56
by ata
eloise wrote:
AESA can transmit emissions by a proportion of it's total T/R modules number but it will always received reflected signal by all of them, thus the gain always remain the same


this is brilliant...

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 22:37
by archeman
hornetfinn wrote:No, what I meant was this:

1. If you fly at 10,000 m altitude and you look down more than 5 degrees from horizon, a target is definitely closer than about 100 km (actually about 114 km at sea level) or it would be below ground which is not good for aircraft.




ha ha ha -- indeed hornfin 'underground' not good for aircraft at all.
There are few flying devices that do well under those conditions, this is one but it can only fly there for a fraction of a second:

GBU-28-Statistics.png

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 03:27
by eloise
sergei wrote:That seemed to me that this familiar graph

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/FA-22A- ... 05-APA.png


IT is APA!!!!!

i know they have the tendency to reduce number related to F-35 and pump up number related to F-22 or Russian fighter, but in general the graph is not wrong, because it based on radar equation

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 03:29
by eloise
ata wrote:
:doh:

I would send you to the theory how AESA works and how it generates it's directivity pattern. Please, check how AESA gain depends of number of modules. It's not like 2 times less modules - two times less gain :D

go head, post it here and we will discuss it

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 09:38
by hornetfinn
Okay...

First of all, to be precise, there can be separate transmit and receive beams especially in AESA radars using technique called digital beamforming. In many situations you can use one wide transmit beam and multiple simultaneous receive beams. My previous example of high elevation/depression angle using multiple beams, I actually meant using one wide transmit beam and several simultaneous receive beams to be used but left that out for simplicity reasons. This technique doesn't affect the receive path gain at all but lowers the transmit path gain depending on how much the transmit beam is broadened (so gain loss is definitely not squared). Also full transmit power can be used in the transmit beam so that’s not affected. This technique is used in many latest AESA radars as it allows much faster volume scanning or much longer dwell time (improves range and sensitivity) or even both. For example using 16 receive beams could search 4 times larger area of the sky AND give 4 times longer dwell times. Max range would still be shorter than using one narrow transmit beam and receive beam, but performance in clutter (for example look down situation against ground) would be better (dwell time is much more important than power there). Of course this method is restricted by the shape of the transmit beam, which is usually some type of ellipse (circular or flat in one axis).

Here is further reading about this method: http://web.mit.edu/jync/www/pdfs/Weberetal-2005.pdf

Another method is using several simultaneous transmit beams along with as many or more receive beams (as in above). This could be achieved using several methods, but in any case only part of the array T/R modules would generate one transmit beam. Basically the whole array would be divided into several small arrays with maybe few hundred modules. This would naturally reduce the gain and power in the transmit beam. However, there are very many radar tasks where maximal gain and power are not needed. Besides, the receive path gain is also not reduced because the whole array is used for receive.

So first method would see only gain decrease (compared to using only one beam for both transmit and receive) within the transmit beam but would be really useful only during volume search. Second one would see both gain and power decrease in all beams, but would be applicable to both searching and tracking. Increasing dwell time would take some of that back at the expense of scan area.

Both of these methods are applicable to any modern AESA radar using digital beamforming. Digital beamforming technology will also allow totally new capabilities for the radar, like extremely fast communications and EW capabilities. These capabilities have already been demonstrated by F-22 and F-35. Such capabilities are not available using PESA or MSA technology.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 10:23
by ata
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:
:doh:

I would send you to the theory how AESA works and how it generates it's directivity pattern. Please, check how AESA gain depends of number of modules. It's not like 2 times less modules - two times less gain :D

go head, post it here and we will discuss it


Post it here.... :D
First of all, before you started to troll sergei, you had to do the same. That way, how munny calculated max radar range is a point to ask for Nobel prize, but you didn't ask him for confirmation.
Secondly, this question is quite out of topic, isn't it?
Thirdly, because in Soviet Russia everything is for free then there is a link: http://journals.ioffe.ru/jtf/2013/10/p117-121.pdf - this article in Russian (I was not able to find the similar in English) and it describes the very basic single axis array and the way how to calculate it. Even if you don't know Russian, you can see it uses numerical methods (not sure it's a correct translation, but google says it is) or in other words modelling of resulting beam. So, I really didn't check if there is way to calculate approximate directional pattern as a function, but all we did in the past with Ku- and C- band antennas we did in the same way using special soft made by us (actually I believe it should be available some simple examples for MathLab, but I didn't check). It was only more complicated because of two axis.
Conclusion. I would be happy to hear anything about REAL F-35's antenna and how creating several beams could affect it's gain. It would be interesting to make a model for "ideal" F-35-like antenna, and if one day I'll do that, I'll let you know. But anyway, I would not expect gain loss better than 12-15 db for 7 beams. Maybe I'm wrong in numbers so, if any X-band experienced guy could correct me I'll be happy.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 10:42
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:Okay...

First of all, to be precise, there can be separate transmit and receive beams especially in AESA radars using technique called digital beamforming. In many situations you can use one wide transmit beam and multiple simultaneous receive beams. My previous example of high elevation/depression angle using multiple beams, I actually meant using one wide transmit beam and several simultaneous receive beams to be used but left that out for simplicity reasons. This technique doesn't affect the receive path gain at all but lowers the transmit path gain depending on how much the transmit beam is broadened (so gain loss is definitely not squared). Also full transmit power can be used in the transmit beam so that’s not affected. This technique is used in many latest AESA radars as it allows much faster volume scanning or much longer dwell time (improves range and sensitivity) or even both. For example using 16 receive beams could search 4 times larger area of the sky AND give 4 times longer dwell times. Max range would still be shorter than using one narrow transmit beam and receive beam, but performance in clutter (for example look down situation against ground) would be better (dwell time is much more important than power there). Of course this method is restricted by the shape of the transmit beam, which is usually some type of ellipse (circular or flat in one axis).

Here is further reading about this method: http://web.mit.edu/jync/www/pdfs/Weberetal-2005.pdf

Another method is using several simultaneous transmit beams along with as many or more receive beams (as in above). This could be achieved using several methods, but in any case only part of the array T/R modules would generate one transmit beam. Basically the whole array would be divided into several small arrays with maybe few hundred modules. This would naturally reduce the gain and power in the transmit beam. However, there are very many radar tasks where maximal gain and power are not needed. Besides, the receive path gain is also not reduced because the whole array is used for receive.

So first method would see only gain decrease (compared to using only one beam for both transmit and receive) within the transmit beam but would be really useful only during volume search. Second one would see both gain and power decrease in all beams, but would be applicable to both searching and tracking. Increasing dwell time would take some of that back at the expense of scan area.

Both of these methods are applicable to any modern AESA radar using digital beamforming. Digital beamforming technology will also allow totally new capabilities for the radar, like extremely fast communications and EW capabilities. These capabilities have already been demonstrated by F-22 and F-35. Such capabilities are not available using PESA or MSA technology.


Thanks for the article. I'll check it more precisely, but I got a general idea already. As I said I agree, it's not a point if AESA can create more than one beam. It can, of course. And I said there are several multi-beam radars already existing and used. And your article explains how to form those beams, which is good task itself. Moreover this article is referring to 8m diameter 200 kW S-band antennas which is.... well I believe it should be acceptable parameters even if working in multi-beam mode. Also I didn't understand what do they mean about 220 beams. From picture 6 it seems like they're using more beams to get higher Q value, which is not the same as create several beams to scan independently.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 12:45
by shrimpman
ata wrote:
eloise wrote:
AESA can transmit emissions by a proportion of it's total T/R modules number but it will always received reflected signal by all of them, thus the gain always remain the same


this is brilliant...


Guys, too much sarcasm, too little discussion. If you put in doubt someone else’s opinion, you’ve got to explain what do you think is wrong with it, otherwise it adds nothing to your point. I know absolutely nothing about this technology, but I’m slowly learning the very basics. Because I have no opinion on my own, I just take in what you guys say, unless someone else clearly disproves it. So far, I have to admit, Sergei and Ata, you have to do better than that, because so far you are getting badly mauled. Dismissing opponents’ arguments and sources as unreliable do nothing for you if you cannot come up with anything more credible.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 13:43
by sergei
shrimpman wrote:
Guys, too much sarcasm, too little discussion. If you put in doubt someone else’s opinion, you’ve got to explain what do you think is wrong with it, otherwise it adds nothing to your point. I know absolutely nothing about this technology, but I’m slowly learning the very basics. Because I have no opinion on my own, I just take in what you guys say, unless someone else clearly disproves it. So far, I have to admit, Sergei and Ata, you have to do better than that, because so far you are getting badly mauled. Dismissing opponents’ arguments and sources as unreliable do nothing for you if you cannot come up with anything more credible.


The problem is that you can only discuss with those who at least understands what is in the discussion topic.
Let start from :
"Assuming the power is being distributed equally across all 7 beams, and taking into account the low gain due to the heavily thinned array, it implies that the maximum detection range for those particular targets is in the 200 nm+ range. Potentially gives the APG-81 similar range to the Irbis-E unjammed and far better range in jamming conditions."
I was very surprised this mode of operation APG-81 in those conditions have been on the video.
The answer to me was the story of how can act AESA radar (which I already knew).
The question was not how it works but why it works that way right now.
Power allocation radar target tracking reduces the overall performance of the radar.
And I tried to get an answer why this is necessary if you have 7 the same type of opponents .
Sane responses were very few and without details.
P/S
In my view, the AESA radar APG-81 can work with these objectives simultaneously without loss of efficiency.
P/P/S While writing the answer to reproach ,I had the assumption in what situation this mode of operation is selected. 8)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 16:20
by eloise
ata wrote:
Post it here.... :D
First of all, before you started to troll sergei, you had to do the same. That way, how munny calculated max radar range is a point to ask for Nobel prize, but you didn't ask him for confirmation.

no, i didn't try to troll anyone, in fact most of what i said until now are either back up by pictures, links or equation
and if you pay attention you will noticed that i didn't think or claim APG-81 have equal or better range than Irbis-e, i didnt ask mummy for confirmation of the way he calculate radar range either simply because i dont think F-35 need a long range radar to be effective, thus for me whether it really match irbis-e range or only match Zaslon-M range is not important
nevertheless i offered my opinion on how it may use seperate beam without reduced gain

ata wrote:Secondly, this question is quite out of topic, isn't it?

no


ata wrote:
Thirdly, because in Soviet Russia everything is for free then there is a link: http://journals.ioffe.ru/jtf/2013/10/p117-121.pdf - this article in Russian (I was not able to find the similar in English) .

ok i will try to put it in Google translate and come back when i understand it

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 16:29
by eloise
And Sergei can you posted the flight manual a few page ago here? and explain it?
( i cant see in the link, and cant read Russian either)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 17:31
by sergei
Comparative evaluation of the maneuvering capabilities of the Su-27 tactical fighter F-15, F-16 and Tornado-G2

Objectives 1.
Identify at altitudes and speeds of possible reference dog-fight superiority and loss in our fighter maneuvering properties compared with enemy fighters.
Objectives 2.
Determine the most advantageous range of speeds and altitudes, ensuring full implementation of the maneuvering capabilities comparable aircraft.
Objectives 3.
Construct and analyze field ties and conducting air combat maneuvering.


Table Su-27 vs F-16A where + denotes advantage of the Su-27 and - the advantage of F-16a
The first column indicates the comparison criteria and range of heights and speed
The second column compares short energetic maneuvering
The 3 column compares to long-term steady maneuvering
The 4 column compares for acceleration and energy rate of climb

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 18:55
by ata
So far, I have to admit, Sergei and Ata, you have to do better than that, because so far you are getting badly mauled. Dismissing opponents’ arguments and sources as unreliable do nothing for you if you cannot come up with anything more credible.


Ok, about "badly mauled" I want to say.
The tactical advantage of F-35 is based on three points: 1. Stealth tech 2. Sensors (both radar and optical) 3. Ability to work in a group with many different units. I have my 1 penny about each of them.
1. I've seen here several numbers about it's RCS, but no good information at all. What I mean "good information" - is very simple. It would be perfect to get 3D map of plane's RCS (which is obviously impossible) but at least I'd like to get it's MAX value, not only lowest possible number. For example F-35 has no protection or any shielding of it's engine, so from the back at least engine must be absolutely visible. I've seen here the picture where even F-22 with shielded engines has 20dB (!!!) higher RCS than in front direction. Only turbine blades should give us about 1 sq.m. It's absolutely clear that from the top or from the bottom it's RCS must be much higher than from the front direction. I've heard here about 0.001 sq.m. value. Ok, but what were the conditions of measurements? I've seen many graphs, is it modelling? If not, if those graphs based on measurements, then what is standard deviation? That's why I said "too many commercial" (by the way, I've found later sources of almost all the statements from this topic" and it's Lockheed and associated) and asked for more or less practical examples. I guess, F-35 is not that stealthy as Lockheed wants everybody to think. They maybe not lie, but they only sell the best numbers, and hide what is not that good.
2. Radar. Well, it's great radar, no doubts. I have just few words about LPI. Again, only one article here with simple technology explanation. Anyway, Lockheed statements only describe the distance of detection of enemy plane. And they declared that LPI "decrease probability to detect LPI source". But what about RANGE of that detection? In other words, what about range where Flanker will be able to detect LPI source? It's important, because signal received from the target (F-35 -> target -> back to F-35) is much-much lower than detected at target side (F-35 -> target). Yes, LPI decreases detection range (normal radar is like huge torch in the sky, while LPI is like normal lamp) but if it's like "detectable from 200 km", it would not help.
Optical sensors. Did you guys find somewhere what is the resolution of sensors? I've calculated and to resolve 5 meters diameter object at 50 km (object will take only 1 pixel, so, no recognition, no speed detection and it's absolutely ideal situation) it will require 15000x15000 sensor resolution to cover 90 degree (which is stated at Lockheed description). Well... it's possible of course, but it doesn't seem possible if we remember it's 10 years old sensor. And even today, this level of sensors are installed on satellites used for Google maps.
Moreover, I've never find those two statements used together - "system covers 360 degrees area" and "system is able to detect XX size object at YY distance". What I think, is that optical sensors have relatively low resolution which is only enough to create augmented reality for pilot, watch for ground targets, etc... And to "detect Flanker-size object at bla-bla-bla distance" it's using ZOOM. But zoom means "no 90 degrees of detection area", but the same kind of thing as Flanker and almost any modern jet in the world already have.
3. Working in group is not something unique. And gives the best result if every unit of group has it's own skill. I've seen Lockheed promo where F-35 is used to guide Hercules-based drone full of anti-radar missiles... I have no idea how they sell this science fiction to someone who pay the money, but F-35 (based on what I've said earlier has no special skill), it's a plane quite stealthy, quite fast, quite good. But it's not perfect in every of that.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 21:41
by eloise
ata wrote:1. I've seen here several numbers about it's RCS, but no good information at all. What I mean "good information" - is very simple. It would be perfect to get 3D map of plane's RCS (which is obviously impossible) but at least I'd like to get it's MAX value, not only lowest possible number. For example F-35 has no protection or any shielding of it's engine, so from the back at least engine must be absolutely visible. I've seen here the picture where even F-22 with shielded engines has 20dB (!!!) higher RCS than in front direction. Only turbine blades should give us about 1 sq.m. It's absolutely clear that from the top or from the bottom it's RCS must be much higher than from the front direction. I've heard here about 0.001 sq.m. value. Ok, but what were the conditions of measurements? I've seen many graphs, is it modelling? If not, if those graphs based on measurements, then what is standard deviation? That's why I said "too many commercial" (by the way, I've found later sources of almost all the statements from this topic" and it's Lockheed and associated) and asked for more or less practical examples. I guess, F-35 is not that stealthy as Lockheed wants everybody to think. They maybe not lie, but they only sell the best numbers, and hide what is not that good.

the F-135 engine will only be visible if you managed to get directly behind the F-35 ( that is not very possible )
RCS from the top or bottom of F-35 will obviously higher than from front , however it not relevant because the only time you see F-35 directly from the top or bottom is in close range dogfight,
most other time your radar will look at F-35 frontal angle
about the pictures i posted, these are graph of F-22, YF-23 RCS scattering simulation if they was made purely from metal ( based on 3D model of the aircraft )
Image
other graph for RAM showed that RAM will reduce RCS by another 20-30 dBsm
Image.
Image
thus i make the conclusion that with shaping + RAM it not very hard to achieved frontal RCS around - 30dBsm to - 40dBsm in X band
if the simulation are acceptable accurate the value of 0.001 m2 for F-35 is achieved with angle of around 45 degree each side frontal
btw, most statement in this thread are not from LM



ata wrote:2. Radar. Well, it's great radar, no doubts. I have just few words about LPI. Again, only one article here with simple technology explanation. Anyway, Lockheed statements only describe the distance of detection of enemy plane. And they declared that LPI "decrease probability to detect LPI source". But what about RANGE of that detection? In other words, what about range where Flanker will be able to detect LPI source? It's important, because signal received from the target (F-35 -> target -> back to F-35) is much-much lower than detected at target side (F-35 -> target). Yes, LPI decreases detection range (normal radar is like huge torch in the sky, while LPI is like normal lamp) but if it's like "detectable from 200 km", it would not help
.
i already explained to you that LPI is achieved because enemy's RWR classifying AESA radar signal not as a radar signal but as background clutter ( not necessary because the signal is weak, but because they spread for a wide frequency and and dont have particular pattern)
and as explained before RWR can't generate fire solution again moving air target, thus even if the RWR on Su-35 detect and recognised APG-81, it still wont allow you to attack the F-35
ata wrote:Optical sensors. Did you guys find somewhere what is the resolution of sensors? I've calculated and to resolve 5 meters diameter object at 50 km (object will take only 1 pixel, so, no recognition, no speed detection and it's absolutely ideal situation) it will require 15000x15000 sensor resolution to cover 90 degree (which is stated at Lockheed description). Well... it's possible of course, but it doesn't seem possible if we remember it's 10 years old sensor. And even today, this level of sensors are installed on satellites used for Google maps.
Moreover, I've never find those two statements used together - "system covers 360 degrees area" and "system is able to detect XX size object at YY distance". What I think, is that optical sensors have relatively low resolution which is only enough to create augmented reality for pilot, watch for ground targets, etc... And to "detect Flanker-size object at bla-bla-bla distance" it's using ZOOM. But zoom means "no 90 degrees of detection area", but the same kind of thing as Flanker and almost any modern jet in the world already

F-35 have 2 optical sensor :
EOTS for long range = narrow Fov
DAS for short range = 360 degree Fov
F-35 likely use Apg-81 to detect Su-30/35

P/s: you have to stop with you double standards Ata, anything good related to F-35 and you instantly said it just advertising, anything good related to Su-30 and you instantly accepted it as the truth, that isnot a healthy attitude for arguing

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 21:54
by eloise
sergei wrote:Comparative evaluation of the maneuvering capabilities of the Su-27 tactical fighter F-15, F-16 and Tornado-G2

Objectives 1.
Identify at altitudes and speeds of possible reference dog-fight superiority and loss in our fighter maneuvering properties compared with enemy fighters.
Objectives 2.
Determine the most advantageous range of speeds and altitudes, ensuring full implementation of the maneuvering capabilities comparable aircraft.
Objectives 3.
Construct and analyze field ties and conducting air combat maneuvering.


Table Su-27 vs F-16A where + denotes advantage of the Su-27 and - the advantage of F-16a
The first column indicates the comparison criteria and range of heights and speed
The second column compares short energetic maneuvering
The 3 column compares to long-term steady maneuvering
The 4 column compares for acceleration and energy rate of climb

thanks , i will have a look at it

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 23:53
by sferrin
eloise wrote:the F-135 engine will only be visible if you managed to get directly behind the F-35 ( that is not very possible )


Actually, the F135 in the F-35 has a radar blocker in the exhaust like the F-22 does in it's F119s.

From the Ares blog 3/17/11:

"Pratt says screech is a phenomenon caused by pressure pulsations in the afterburner at low altitude and high speed. The problem was discovered during development testing around March 2009, having previously been encountered - and solved - in the F-22's F119 engine, from which the F135 is derived. Pratt points out that the F119 and F135 are the only production engines with stealthy augmentors. Their design eliminates conventional spray bars and flame holders and integrates multi-zone reheat fuel injection into curved vanes that block the line-of-sight to the turbine."

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 00:01
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'sferrin' - had forgotten that bit - go here for more SCREECH! : viewtopic.php?t=15287 (the ARES blogpost URL does not work now - I'll go look)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 02:26
by charlielima223
ata wrote:
For example F-35 has no protection or any shielding of it's engine, so from the back at least engine must be absolutely visible. I've seen here the picture where even F-22 with shielded engines has 20dB (!!!) higher RCS than in front direction. Only turbine blades should give us about 1 sq.m. It's absolutely clear that from the top or from the bottom it's RCS must be much higher than from the front direction. I've heard here about 0.001 sq.m. value. Ok, but what were the conditions of measurements? I've seen many graphs, is it modelling? If not, if those graphs based on measurements, then what is standard .


conventional jet engine exhaust nozzle...
Image

Someone here mentioned the F-16 LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) that was used as a technology test and evaluation for (then) JSF a ways back
Image
Image

.... i might be misunderstanding the content if so I am sorry :?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 03:03
by munny
ata wrote:Moreover munny if you already know what equation is, you probably can see that gain is squared, while for power there is a linear function. So having 3dB less gain you need 4 times more power to compensate it. It's math basics, you probably need to go back to the school or finish the school first.


My old man always told me to make sure I have my argument straight before I bother to insult someone's competence. For example, before suggesting I go back to school, did you bother to check that I had indeed factored in Gain squared in my simplified calculation? :oops:

Basically the forth root of 7 times the power * 7 times the gain squared, or basically single beam range = 80nm * 7^3^.25


I guess no amount of fancy book learnin' can make up for poor attention to detail and inability to comprehend?

My statement was that in the test video shown, precisely at 1.1-1.2 seconds into the test, the APG-81 detected a target beyond 80nm while emitting 7 separate beams simultaneously. (anecdotally, the rear aspect is one of the lowest RCS angles for most civilian aircraft such as airliners if that is what the radar is detecting in the test).

80nm.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk

Obvious, previously stated Assumption 1 - was that all 7 beams transmitted equal power - probably incorrect as hornetfinn mentioned, as the radar will use a minimal number of modules to track closer/larger targets. Without knowing the specifics on the distribution, 1/7th power (1/7th TRM count running at APO) was used for simplicity. One should note that in the video, at the moment it detected the target at 80nm, at least 3 beams were in search mode (2 had no targets within the beams, 1 had a target within the beam, but was also the one that detected the 80nm target so must have been searching).

search beams.png


Obvious, implied Assumption 2a was that Gt = Gr so G^2 was used. Assuming equal transmit and receive gain based on the relationship to surface area alone for the APG-81 is also probably incorrect due to differences in receive and transmit efficiency for the TRMs.

Obvious, implied Assumption 2b was that 1/7th of total antenna area was used for each beam for simplification. This is also not fully accurate due to the way array thinning is actually performed. Rather than splitting the array into sections of contiguous emitters like so.....

contiguous.jpg


...phased array thinning works by spacing out active emitters for each beam, but not so much as to cause grating waves (ie. it would aim to keep active emitters within half wavelength separation for each beam).

thinned.jpg


Assumption 3 was that the beams shown in the video directly represent dwell times, but there's the possibility that there may actually be fewer beams rapidly switching back and forth between locations but 7 directions are being scanned in that 10th of a second. Operating this way would lead to lower overall dwell times which impacts detection range anyway.

I'm surprised I had to spell all this out for you with you being so smart and educated and all :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 03:41
by munny
ata wrote:Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point


Please describe, in credible detail, by what mechanism a PESA array can generate a more powerful, directional beam than an AESA array considering equal, average power output?

Please compare appropriate operating modes.
Please don't forget to provide sources for your assertions on AESA limitations.
Please do not just post some obscure link with no supporting text demonstrating insight.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 06:03
by munny
charlielima223 wrote:.... i might be misunderstanding the content if so I am sorry :?


Think they are talking about what's INSIDE the nozzle. Eg, F-22 vs F-15 below....

nozzle.png


The picture's not very hi-res, but it looks like there's two stages of "spray bars or flame holders" present in the F-22 nozzle if I'm looking at the right thing.

Willing to bet that the two stages are spaced at a certain distance apart (eg a multiple of 30mm, add 15mm) to cause destructive interference at 10GHz. There's a TV documentary on the F-35 on youtube somewhere where the person escorting the camera crew told them to stay away from pointing the camera at the "Device" inside the nozzle, so there's certainly something signature related and classified in there.

The outer nozzles close quite a bit on both aircraft though, which would improve rear sector RCS as well as frontal Infrared signature significantly.

f35 noz.jpg


I wonder what speed the F-35 can do at that nozzle setting. The "holy sh*t I need to GTFO of here!" setting is quite open...

open.png

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 10:04
by charlielima223
munny wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:.... i might be misunderstanding the content if so I am sorry :?


Think they are talking about what's INSIDE the nozzle. Eg, F-22 vs F-15 below....

nozzle.png


The picture's not very hi-res, but it looks like there's two stages of "spray bars or flame holders" present in the F-22 nozzle if I'm looking at the right thing.

Willing to bet that the two stages are spaced at a certain distance apart (eg a multiple of 30mm, add 15mm) to cause destructive interference at 10GHz. There's a TV documentary on the F-35 on youtube somewhere where the person escorting the camera crew told them to stay away from pointing the camera at the "Device" inside the nozzle, so there's certainly something signature related and classified in there.

The outer nozzles close quite a bit on both aircraft though, which would improve rear sector RCS as well as frontal Infrared signature significantly.

f35 noz.jpg


I wonder what speed the F-35 can do at that nozzle setting. The "holy sh*t I need to GTFO of here!" setting is quite open...

open.png


It was either a Canadian or Australian documentary (I am pretty sure its Australian). Unfortunately it had two PoS individuals interviewed who like throw around their ignorance like monkeys fling poo. During a walk around when the film crew was getting real close to the back end of the aircraft the military liaison was quick to stop them. Also now that you mention it, when I was at the Nellis AFB open house last year when they had the static F-35 on the ground... the engine exhaust opening was covered.
if you want to watch the video for SnGs... please request to post because I wouldn't know where to put it.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 10:42
by sergei
munny wrote:
ata wrote:Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point


Please describe, in credible detail, by what mechanism a PESA array can generate a more powerful, directional beam than an AESA array considering equal, average power output?

Please compare appropriate operating modes.
Please don't forget to provide sources for your assertions on AESA limitations.
Please do not just post some obscure link with no supporting text demonstrating insight.

PESA having the same power as the AESA will be much older and belong to the previous generation.
If you take PESA and AESA radars around of equal area and time ,PESA will have more power.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 10:51
by ata
the F-135 engine will only be visible if you managed to get directly behind the F-35 ( that is not very possible )
RCS from the top or bottom of F-35 will obviously higher than from front , however it not relevant because the only time you see F-35 directly from the top or bottom is in close range dogfight,
most other time your radar will look at F-35 frontal angle
about the pictures i posted, these are graph of F-22, YF-23 RCS scattering simulation if they was made purely from metal ( based on 3D model of the aircraft )


sorry, I didn't notice it's simulation for metal shape. Anyway, Do you remember what I've started from here? I said, let's talk about real life. In real life it's not necessary to talk about 10 sq. m. objects. If in some directions any of them F-22 of F-35 will have RCS more than 0.01 sq. m. that means they're visible. Even if they have that relatively low RCS at front direction it's quite a strange to make your life deal on something which must be always turned in only one direction to your enemy. Now the question is only "if F-35 reaches 0.01 sq. m. or more in some directions". My opinion is "yes". Even if it has engine stealth protection it simply can't be very effective. It maybe reduce RCS from 1 sq. m. to 0.1 (which is still better than nothing), but it will not help in real life. And of course it will be visible not only "directly behind the F-35" but from quite a wide angle.

thus i make the conclusion that with shaping + RAM it not very hard to achieved frontal RCS around - 30dBsm to - 40dBsm in X band


Frontal - maybe. Moreover, because I have no evidences against this calculation I will say "yes, ok... in front direction let's declare F-35 is invisible in real life". But I already said about "front invisibility only".

if the simulation are acceptable accurate the value of 0.001 m2 for F-35 is achieved with angle of around 45 degree each side frontal


This is based on F-22 (!) 2D (!) simulation and we have, I believe, very limited understanding of how that simulation had been done. In addition we have statement that F-35's RCS at least 10 times higher than that for F-22. All of that give me an idea, that because it's not very big gap between 0.01 (practically visible) and 0.001 (practically invisible) it can be reached in many directions different from frontal.

btw, most statement in this thread are not from LM


I've seen many of theirs promo videos, and the guys were using almost the same words as I've seen here. Journalists came to LM parties, LM engineers, LM sales, LM articles... It's obvious, because LM is the only source of ANY information about F-35.

i already explained to you that LPI is achieved because enemy's RWR classifying AESA radar signal not as a radar signal but as background clutter ( not necessary because the signal is weak, but because they spread for a wide frequency and and dont have particular pattern)
and as explained before RWR can't generate fire solution again moving air target, thus even if the RWR on Su-35 detect and recognised APG-81, it still wont allow you to attack the F-35


Please, don't EXPLAIN me how radar works. In radio tech there is only meaningful values here are LEVELS. Remember that radar of F-35 has also to detect it's own signal from noise. I've got an idea - LPI radar is able to collect information from long time measurements and this make it able to operate lowest possible power. But to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35. Again, imagine working radar as a torch in the sky. Or better imagine you come to a dark room with very-very weak lamp, you can only hardly see what is in that room. But for the guy how sits in that room will you be the same "hard to see"?


F-35 have 2 optical sensor :
EOTS for long range = narrow Fov
DAS for short range = 360 degree Fov
F-35 likely use Apg-81 to detect Su-30/35


Using radar to detect Flanker (I've explained me idea about LPI already) would mean F-35 has no even it's stealthy advantage. So, no advantage against Flanker at all.

P/s: you have to stop with you double standards Ata, anything good related to F-35 and you instantly said it just advertising, anything good related to Su-30 and you instantly accepted it as the truth, that isnot a healthy attitude for arguing


The difference between us, is that I'm operating numbers (at least those I can find somewhere) and you operate statements. As I said, ALL the information about F-35 you/me can get only from LM. There is simply no other source. And the problem is that all the numbers LM provide us are about things not related to F-35's tactical advantages. No info about RCS, nothing about DAS sensor. No required info about LPI. All we know is about EOTS and it's Flanker detection range. But EOTS is the same "straw" as all modern fighters have, no advantage.
All those things like "ok, LPI radar will detect you easily and we see-first-kill-first, and we also have mega-superior optical sensors" - it's what I call commercial. No numbers, no even explanation how that will appear in real fight.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 11:01
by ata
munny wrote:
ata wrote:Moreover, PESA in general is able to create more powerful beam in single point


Please describe, in credible detail, by what mechanism a PESA array can generate a more powerful, directional beam than an AESA array considering equal, average power output?

Please compare appropriate operating modes.
Please don't forget to provide sources for your assertions on AESA limitations.
Please do not just post some obscure link with no supporting text demonstrating insight.


It's very simple. My source is physics, is it credible source for you? Do you want a link to "physics"?
When AESA works at every moment not all the modules are working at highest power. This "power distribution map" moves when radar scans. I actually don't know what the exact phase distribution model guys had chosen, but you know... there is very universal level in radio tech which is always working well :D - 0.7
So, I have no evidence, and you're in your right to say I'm faking you, but I would say in best case, in scan mode APG-81 has about 0.7 of it's max power (calculated by each module power * number of modules).
There is no that problem for PESA. In case of PESA it's like virtual oscillators in the spot transmit more power than guys in AESA, but because there is only one real oscillator, it always works at max power.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 11:28
by ata
My old man always told me to make sure I have my argument straight before I bother to insult someone's competence. For example, before suggesting I go back to school, did you bother to check that I had indeed factored in Gain squared in my simplified calculation? :oops:


I was not referring to your "simplified calculation" because it's just wrong. I'm not referring to something what is wrong. I was talking about your gain understanding. 7 beams is mostly not a question of power, but question of gain. Even gain of every beam will be much lower, but because gain plays it's game twice at transmitting and receiving step it's squared.

I guess no amount of fancy book learnin' can make up for poor attention to detail and inability to comprehend?

My statement was that in the test video shown, precisely at 1.1-1.2 seconds into the test, the APG-81 detected a target beyond 80nm while emitting 7 separate beams simultaneously. (anecdotally, the rear aspect is one of the lowest RCS angles for most civilian aircraft such as airliners if that is what the radar is detecting in the test).

80nm.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk


:doh:
What do you see at that video? I mean I've seen it several times. I have no idea what those grey sectors mean. Do yo have? Do you think beams? What makes you think this? Again, I'm absolutely confused of those promos made but LM. Not only this video but many others. No details, no reference, no numbers. Why do you think those objects in the video are Flanker-size? Again, what did you see at that video, exactly?


Obvious, implied Assumption 2a was that Gt = Gr so G^2 was used. Assuming equal transmit and receive gain based on the relationship to surface area alone for the APG-81 is also probably incorrect due to differences in receive and transmit efficiency for the TRMs.

Obvious, implied Assumption 2b was that 1/7th of total antenna area was used for each beam for simplification. This is also not fully accurate due to the way array thinning is actually performed. Rather than splitting the array into sections of contiguous emitters like so.....


Ohhh...
You can play with power/phase distribution as you want. In some cases you'll get better result, in some worse, but it doesn't change the simple fact, that your gain will be ALWAYS lower (much lower) than max possible value. That's it.

So, you're great guy. Let's just forget about your calculation. F-35 has enough advantages even without your radar concept.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 15:11
by sferrin
munny wrote:Think they are talking about what's INSIDE the nozzle. Eg, F-22 vs F-15 below....


That's the YF-22. The F-22A's back end is very different.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 18:59
by bring_it_on

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 21:55
by eloise
ata wrote:sorry, I didn't notice it's simulation for metal shape. Anyway, Do you remember what I've started from here? I said, let's talk about real life. In real life it's not necessary to talk about 10 sq. m. objects. If in some directions any of them F-22 of F-35 will have RCS more than 0.01 sq. m. that means they're visible. Even if they have that relatively low RCS at front direction it's quite a strange to make your life deal on something which must be always turned in only one direction to your enemy. Now the question is only "if F-35 reaches 0.01 sq. m. or more in some directions". My opinion is "yes". Even if it has engine stealth protection it simply can't be very effective. It maybe reduce RCS from 1 sq. m. to 0.1 (which is still better than nothing), but it will not help in real life. And of course it will be visible not only "directly behind the F-35" but from quite a wide angle.
Frontal - maybe. Moreover, because I have no evidences against this calculation I will say "yes, ok... in front direction let's declare F-35 is invisible in real life". But I already said about "front invisibility only".
This is based on F-22 (!) 2D (!) simulation and we have, I believe, very limited understanding of how that simulation had been done. In addition we have statement that F-35's RCS at least 10 times higher than that for F-22. All of that give me an idea, that because it's not very big gap between 0.01 (practically visible) and 0.001 (practically invisible) it can be reached in many directions different from frontal.

Firstly, neither F-22 or F-35 are invisible , they just have really low RCS thus enemy cant detect them soon enough, allow them to have first look, first shot, first kill advantage ( just like a submarine)

Secondly, recently according to general Hostage, F-35 is even more stealthy than F-22 ( it likely that at the start they didn't required f-35 to have better LO characteristics than F-22, however it
is said that F-35 excess the LO requirements)

Thirdly, almost most all fighter radar only have FoV of around 60 degree ahead, and in BVR they are likely to go head on to the other



Last, look at the pictures below ( RCS simulation of stealth fighter like F-22, F-23)
Image

without RAM the 90 degree frontal arcs have RCS of around - 20 dBsm with some part reached - 13 dBsm, 2 spike reached - 5 dBsm but the angle is too narrow to have significant impact

without RAM the 90 degree tail arc have RCS fluctuating between -5 dBsm and 0 dBsm , and reached the peak of 10 dBsm if the enemy is directly behind

RCS from the side are very high, however when you fly perpendicular to enemy then doppler effect on reflect signal will be really low thus they are rejected by enemy radar, as a result your fighter become invisible

Now we dont know exactly what kind of RAM and paint that F-22 and F-35 use, they are likely using many different kind of advanced RAM at the same time, so we can only estimated
Image
Image
Image

it can be seen from these graph that using different kind of RAM can reduce RCS by another 18-30 dBsm depending on frequently
( now you can put this and the picture above together to estimated F-22/35 RCS from different angle if they have RAM, may be come up with sth like this, yourself

Image





--------—-------

ata wrote:I've seen many of theirs promo videos, and the guys were using almost the same words as I've seen here. Journalists came to LM parties, LM engineers, LM sales, LM articles... It's obvious, because LM is the only source of ANY information about F-35.

by your way of thinking then any information related to Su-30/35 come from sukhoi as well so what is your point?
btw the theory about how stealth affected jamming and radar range doesn't come from LM, the radar equation doesnt come from LM , the simulation of RCS and RAM that i posted above doesn't come from LM either, even the theory of how LPI doesn't come from LM. they are not even advertising but rather the principles based on physics


ata wrote:Please, don't EXPLAIN me how radar works. In radio tech there is only meaningful values here are LEVELS. Remember that radar of F-35 has also to detect it's own signal from noise. I've got an idea - LPI radar is able to collect information from long time measurements and this make it able to operate lowest possible power. But to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35. Again, imagine working radar as a torch in the sky. Or better imagine you come to a dark room with very-very weak lamp, you can only hardly see what is in that room. But for the guy how sits in that room will you be the same "hard to see"?

No things are not that simple
again you dont understand how a RWR classified the signal as threat, just because it can detect something doesnt mean it can classified that thing as enemy radar, if RWR instantly classified anything it detect as enemy radar then your screen will be filled with background noise, ground reflection from your own radar, datalink or ECM : ( read the slide below about compression of pulse)
Image




------------------------------------
ata wrote:Using radar to detect Flanker (I've explained me idea about LPI already) would mean F-35 has no even it's stealthy advantage. So, no advantage against Flanker at all.

i have explained this before
Firstly, it very very unlikely that your RWR recognised APG-81 signal as radar signal
Secondly, even if it does, and you managed to track the F-35 by your RWR , you still cant attack it by missiles because you cant use RWR to measure range or speed of a moving air target, the only thing you know is the direction
there are 6 ways a RWR can geolocate a ground radar for an aircraft to attack it
Image
owever none will work again air target using AESA radar
here is why :
1- triangulation method required target to be stationary , and take very long time
2- Azimuth / Elevation method will not work because you dont know enemy fighter altitude ( for a ground target you know the altitude is 0 ) thus cant use the Sine and Cosine function to work out the distance to target
3 - Time different arrival method required at least 3 aircraft stay at significant distance from the other ,but doesnt work again AESA radar due to it very small side lobe , and thin beam

there are some additional methods to determine distance by RWR included :
4- phase rate change : doesnt work again air target because it required target to be stationary to be accurate
5- determine distance by signal strength : required to threat radar characteristic to be known , and still doesnt work because F-35 can reduce radar transmitting power at short range to reduce probably of detection
6- RF doppler processing : doesnt work again air target because both side are moving ,and you dont know the moving speed of enemy
,




-----------------------------
ata wrote:The difference between us, is that I'm operating numbers (at least those I can find somewhere) and you operate statements. As I said, ALL the information about F-35 you/me can get only from LM. There is simply no other source. And the problem is that all the numbers LM provide us are about things not related to F-35's tactical advantages. No info about RCS, nothing about DAS sensor. No required info about LPI. All we know is about EOTS and it's Flanker detection range. But EOTS is the same "straw" as all modern fighters have, no advantage.
All those things like "ok, LPI radar will detect you easily and we see-first-kill-first, and we also have mega-superior optical sensors" - it's what I call commercial. No numbers, no even explanation how that will appear in real fight.

no, i gave you many number, as well as theory on how things work, most of them not even from LM, but you just dont bother to read any of that
for example the RCS have been discussing many time, and you got the info from both USAF, LM, as well as simulation of the third party , but you just really un willing to accept it

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 22:15
by eloise
sferrin wrote:From the Ares blog 3/17/11:

"Pratt says screech is a phenomenon caused by pressure pulsations in the afterburner at low altitude and high speed. The problem was discovered during development testing around March 2009, having previously been encountered - and solved - in the F-22's F119 engine, from which the F135 is derived. Pratt points out that the F119 and F135 are the only production engines with stealthy augmentors. Their design eliminates conventional spray bars and flame holders and integrates multi-zone reheat fuel injection into curved vanes that block the line-of-sight to the turbine."

First time i heard of that, thanks

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 23:35
by sergei
on average - 20 dB front 135-45 degrees,-10dB on 90,on 135 and 45 a large peak to 20 dB, then a gradual increase with -10dB to +20dB to 180-0 degrees,after 180-0 decrease from +20dB to -10dB with peak to 10bB at 270 degrees

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 00:30
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:
You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35 (the area of antenna, the maximum power)

Irbis-e can detect target with RCS = 0.01 m2 from 90km , so according to radar equation (reduce RCS by factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent ) it can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 50.4 km , tracking range is around 80% of detection range ,since F-35 have RCS = 0.0015 m2 , irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km ( in perfect condition , no jamming , no clutter ...etc)
Apg-81 can track target with RCS =1 m2 from 150 km ,Su-35 have RCS = 10 m2 so according to radar equation , Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )
However both side will likely use jamming : F-35 gonna use ALE-70 , APG-81 , MALD-J , Su-35 gonna use KNIRTI SAP 518 ..etc so the number above will be reduced significantly ,may be only to half as big ( Su-35 many only able to trackF-35 at 20 km )

since F-35 have lower radar cross section it will have this advantage as well :
Image
not only that lower RCS reduce burn through distance , jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction ,50% reduction in RCS = 50% less power required to overwhelm real radar reflection with noise ( you can work it out for yourself , 99.9% reduction in RCS= 99.9% less power required to achieve same level of effectiveness , and so on )
now let take example of 4 aircraft :
1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
2) Su-35 : RCS = 10 m2
3) F-16 : RCS = 1 m2
4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
now compared them :
from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
from Su-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
from F-16 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require
so despite the fact that su-35 is much bigger , and can carry jammer that is more powerful than the F-35's one , Su-35 jamming is still gonna be less effective ( assume both side have equal technology level )




sergei wrote:35km/90km-this data is from 2013 , in 2010-2011 it was 25km/50km, in 2007 it was 15km/45km(for mig 29 as target)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd7YWrGMNU
0.00-0.27
http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/about/pr ... et_rus.pdf
PAGE 12
50km/90km

so the maximum range that OLS-35 can detect a fighter head on is 50 km
however there are 2 things you should remember
1- that is detection range , to generate firing solution for missiles , IRST rely on LRF , and the LRF on OLS-35 is limited to only 20 km
2- while IRST is not affected by jamming , infrared radiation is absorbed by moisture very significantly so your IRST will be quite useless if the weather is bad or if enemy fighter decide to fly in or near the cloud





sergei wrote:"The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2." - I suspect that this is at very specific angles of irradiation.

.

0.001 m2 may sound pretty low , however it have been achieved very long time ago since HAVE BLUE program (aka F-117 program ) , iam pretty sure the F-35 that was designed 20 years later can at least match that
The main emphasis is laid on the radar reflection from the front sector, which has been defined as a region of 45 degrees to each side of the longitudinal axis of the machine. Aircraft had to face the primary Gun Dish radar, which used light armored Soviet radar anti-aircraft gun ZSU-23-4 and worked in the J band at a frequency of 16 GHz. Hopeless Diamond and its derivative Lockheed Have Blue were optimized almost exclusively on the radar and range of frequencies. As the possibility of calculating RCS improve, increased the range of the target frequency, but the main focus was still on the radar gun measures Dish. In contrast, the plane of Northrop were of low radar cross at lower frequencies in the zones A and B which used the long-range radar. However, since a similar design is always compromises, the price for a wider range of frequencies were slightly worse in the principal target zone A.

Image
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
btw it is interesting to note that they achieve low RCS not only again X-band but also again frequency from 2.3 Ghz to 16 Ghz

I got info that Su-35 RSC is 0.5-2 not 10

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 03:54
by eloise
sergei wrote:I got info that Su-35 RSC is 0.5-2 not 10

well then that info is wrong then, here is Su-35 RCS graph with and without RAM
Image
sergei wrote:on average - 20 dB front 135-45 degrees,-10dB on 90,on 135 and 45 a large peak to 20 dB, then a gradual increase with -10dB to +20dB to 180-0 degrees,after 180-0 decrease from +20dB to -10dB with peak to 10bB at 270 degrees

not sure if you are right or wrong , but just take value from the pictures below, minus another 18 or 30 dBsm depending on frequency then you will have what you want
Image

Btw here is an interesting link that worth looking at too
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=b5 ... =html_text

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 05:17
by bring_it_on

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 07:29
by eloise
bring_it_on wrote:https://www.scribd.com/doc/261603337/Scattering-Characteristics

thanks bring_it_on, that is alot more details and much better resolution

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 11:34
by ata
Firstly, neither F-22 or F-35 are invisible , they just have really low RCS thus enemy cant detect them soon enough, allow them to have first look, first shot, first kill advantage ( just like a submarine)

Secondly, recently according to general Hostage, F-35 is even more stealthy than F-22 ( it likely that at the start they didn't required f-35 to have better LO characteristics than F-22, however it
is said that F-35 excess the LO requirements)

Thirdly, almost most all fighter radar only have FoV of around 60 degree ahead, and in BVR they are likely to go head on to the other


Oh man...
Ok, let's go step by step. At first, I was using word "invisible" just to avoid always word "stealth". Ok, I wont do this it makes problems of understanding.
have really low RCS


Again and again - where are the numbers? Let's check what you have posted. First is the picture of F-22 simulation:

Last, look at the pictures below ( RCS simulation of stealth fighter like F-22, F-23)
Image


As I said it's 2D (!) simulation of another (!) plane. It's a good picture which can be used as a reference. Also, if we compare it with other similar pictures we can clearly see that metal body has bad RCS from sides, at 45 angle, and from the back.
There is no more information in this picture. I mean no more helpful information. No information we can use in any calculation.
I trust you that general Hostage said that. But even if we assume that "Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering" is enough to understand the whole massive radio tech part of physics, then why do you think he mean different thing than I already said about LM guys? I agree F-35 in some projections could be better that F-22. But what does it mean practically?
It's no matter how wide radar beam is. If I'll come to you from 45 azimuth, even 10 degrees will be enough for me. Or maybe you want to say that fighters always attack from the front?

Let's go ahead:

without RAM the 90 degree frontal arcs have RCS of around - 20 dBsm with some part reached - 13 dBsm, 2 spike reached - 5 dBsm but the angle is too narrow to have significant impact

without RAM the 90 degree tail arc have RCS fluctuating between -5 dBsm and 0 dBsm , and reached the peak of 10 dBsm if the enemy is directly behind

RCS from the side are very high, however when you fly perpendicular to enemy then doppler effect on reflect signal will be really low thus they are rejected by enemy radar, as a result your fighter become invisible

Now we dont know exactly what kind of RAM and paint that F-22 and F-35 use, they are likely using many different kind of advanced RAM at the same time, so we can only estimated
Image
Image
Image

it can be seen from these graph that using different kind of RAM can reduce RCS by another 18-30 dBsm depending on frequently
( now you can put this and the picture above together to estimated F-22/35 RCS from different angle if they have RAM, may be come up with sth like this, yourself

Image


Again, no. If you want more or less meaningful analysis this way is wrong.
Every RAM only realise it's best when it's used specifically. If you use one after another or mix of them you'll get less performance for every of them.
Moreover, it's not a big deal to make flat shape to be "stealthy". The biggest deal is to make the same for things like cockpit (btw, F-22 has one piece of "glass" version, while F-35 has a frame, which is also radio-reflecting element) - it's simply hard to paint a pilot with RAM as well. What about radar? You can't protect radar with RAM. There are ways to reduce it's impact, but you can't terminate it anyway. Optical elements, the same problem, do you know if any RAM can be transparent? And because X-band wavelength is about 3cm, then all the elements including any curves, any edges with comparable or bigger size will be a problem.
Radar, pilot, everything inside cabin, inside optical elements - all of those you can't apply to your "metal body simulation" + "RAM graph".
I'm absolutely sure that LM guys know that much-much better than me, and they of course know how to deal with that, but it's simply impossible to completely remove all those things.
I believe, this is a reason, why F-22 is not equipped with EOTS/DAS sensors, for example.
Again and again, another problem - engines. You can't use effective RAM inside of engine nozzle. It means every time I can see part of it - I see it clearly. And of course turbine blades (which are visible from quite a wide angle from the rear) are very radar-bright as well.


by your way of thinking then any information related to Su-30/35 come from sukhoi as well so what is your point?
btw the theory about how stealth affected jamming and radar range doesn't come from LM, the radar equation doesnt come from LM , the simulation of RCS and RAM that i posted above doesn't come from LM either, even the theory of how LPI doesn't come from LM. they are not even advertising but rather the principles based on physics


What are the tactical advantages of Su-35? Speed. Range. Radar. Manoeuvrability. Armament. Do you have any question about any of those points? Do you need explanation how every of them could help in a fight? We can discuss.
What the tactical advantages of F-35? Stealth. Radar. Optical sensors. And it's clear already there are plenty of question on every of them.

No things are not that simple
again you dont understand how a RWR classified the signal as threat, just because it can detect something doesnt mean it can classified that thing as enemy radar, if RWR instantly classified anything it detect as enemy radar then your screen will be filled with background noise, ground reflection from your own radar, datalink or ECM : ( read the slide below about compression of pulse)
Image


I've read that article. And some others as well. LPI is not a magic (as well as stealth) and concept is very clear. Bu again, please read this carefully: "to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35" - there is only one way how to avoid it. Receivers at F-35 side must the same time more sensitive. In fact thousands times more sensitive. And not simply "more sensitive" but with thousands times higher selecting ability. If they're not, then signal level received at target side will be always higher, and will be detectable easily. And then it's only a question of target radar if it's able to detect it. And I was surprised, but seems like S-300/400 missiles also has this option. So, it's pretty well know technology.
I think idea of LPI was exactly how it's described in wiki: "A low-probability-of-intercept radar (LPIR) is designed to be difficult to detect by passive radar detection equipment (such as a radar warning receiver – RWR) while it is searching for a target or engaged in target tracking." In this case LPI could really help, making F-35 to be detectable not just from horizon, but from maybe 100-200 km. Which makes sense, of course.


i have explained this before
Firstly, it very very unlikely that your RWR recognised APG-81 signal as radar signal


Again, it's only a question of distance and processing (because LPI switches frequency), but it's not a big deal anyway.

Secondly, even if it does, and you managed to track the F-35 by your RWR , you still cant attack it by missiles because you cant use RWR to measure range or speed of a moving air target, the only thing you know is the direction
there are 6 ways a RWR can geolocate a ground radar for an aircraft to attack it
Image
owever none will work again air target using AESA radar
here is why :
1- triangulation method required target to be stationary , and take very long time
2- Azimuth / Elevation method will not work because you dont know enemy fighter altitude ( for a ground target you know the altitude is 0 ) thus cant use the Sine and Cosine function to work out the distance to target
3 - Time different arrival method required at least 3 aircraft stay at significant distance from the other ,but doesnt work again AESA radar due to it very small side lobe , and thin beam

there are some additional methods to determine distance by RWR included :
4- phase rate change : doesnt work again air target because it required target to be stationary to be accurate
5- determine distance by signal strength : required to threat radar characteristic to be known , and still doesnt work because F-35 can reduce radar transmitting power at short range to reduce probably of detection
6- RF doppler processing : doesnt work again air target because both side are moving ,and you dont know the moving speed of enemy


No difference. LPI is still source of signal. All of this also works for F-35 receiving signal from Flanker radar. You can only make any conclusion if you detect the target with your own radar.
There is also a "detection probability" because even if your beam is 2 degrees thin, at 100 km range it will be 3,5 km spot and because beam's gain is not constant than Flanker must be in the center or close to the center of that spot (3,5 km diameter). If it's not in the center then there is a probability that F-35 will not detect it. BUT, because as I said signal in incoming beam is thousands time higher than in reflected Flanker will detect F-35 even at the edge of that spot.
Let's also talk about plane coming from the side. Why do you think it's invisible? How do you think doppler radar works? First of all, of course that plane will be moving for me, because I'm moving to it! The only problem here is that I can't recognise it for example from the mountain behind it. But that's why modern radars are using impulse+doppler technique. Moreover after two scans I'll be able even make a conclusion about it's speed, because it will move in front of me.

no, I gave you many number, as well as theory on how things work, most of them not even from LM, but you just dont bother to read any of that
for example the RCS have been discussing many time, and you got the info from both USAF, LM, as well as simulation of the third party , but you just really un willing to accept it


It works like this: you give me a number which is simulated and can't be used in any conclusion and you build your theory on those numbers. But if I give you another number (for example about engines visibility) you say no, it's wrong, let's see our simulation. So, from your numbers there is no one we can take as a basis. NO ONE.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 11:49
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:I got info that Su-35 RSC is 0.5-2 not 10

well then that info is wrong then, here is Su-35 RCS graph with and without RAM
Image
sergei wrote:on average - 20 dB front 135-45 degrees,-10dB on 90,on 135 and 45 a large peak to 20 dB, then a gradual increase with -10dB to +20dB to 180-0 degrees,after 180-0 decrease from +20dB to -10dB with peak to 10bB at 270 degrees

not sure if you are right or wrong , but just take value from the pictures below, minus another 18 or 30 dBsm depending on frequency then you will have what you want
Image

Btw here is an interesting link that worth looking at too
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=b5 ... =html_text

I said Su-35 RSC = 0.5-2 with ram, you dont have Su-35 diagram you got Su-27 without ram.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 12:56
by eloise
sergei wrote:I said Su-35 RSC = 0.5-2 with ram, you dont have Su-35 diagram you got Su-27 without ram.

what exactly do you think are different between a Su-27 and Su-35? apart from engine, Radar and internal EW equipment ?
they basically have similar shape, made from similar material
also in the graph i posted, the one on the left is Su-27 RCs without RAM, the one on the right is Su-27 with RAM painted on engine fan blade, Missile, pylon, and have a plasma screen in front of its radar

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 16:47
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:I said Su-35 RSC = 0.5-2 with ram, you dont have Su-35 diagram you got Su-27 without ram.

what exactly do you think are different between a Su-27 and Su-35? apart from engine, Radar and internal EW equipment ?
they basically have similar shape, made from similar material
also in the graph i posted, the one on the left is Su-27 RCs without RAM, the one on the right is Su-27 with RAM painted on engine fan blade, Missile, pylon, and have a plasma screen in front of its radar


Su-27 + ram
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM]

Su-35
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

Основными особенностями самолета Су-35 являются: ____Конструктивные мероприятия по снижению радиолокационной заметности._____


The main features of the Su-35 are: _________ Structural measures to reduce the radar signature._______


RAM is not "Structural" it coating.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 17:48
by eloise
sergei wrote:
Su-27 + ram
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM]

Su-35
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

Основными особенностями самолета Су-35 являются: ____Конструктивные мероприятия по снижению радиолокационной заметности._____


The main features of the Su-35 are: _________ Structural measures to reduce the radar signature._______


RAM is not "Structural" it coating.

1- the exterior airframe of su-27 and su-35 is exactly the same,they made from same material, i cant find any source mention anything different, left alone significant difference ( by contrast you can find many sources state many difference between F-18C and F-18E/F airframe for example)
2- Su-27 with RCS reduction measures are actually just a study, as far as i know there isn't any Su-27 in production with RAM painted on the engine fan blade and a plasma screen in front of it's radar

so in my opinion the Su-35 have RCS of 10 m2 that is after radar absorbing paint have been painted on the engine fan blade and pylon ( i guess you can reduced Su-35 RCS significantly if you can have sth to block the view of engine fan blade, like DSI, but they dont have anything like that on Su-35)
btw according to this link the aircraft in the study was a Su-35 http://www.fighter-planes.com/stealth2.htm

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 19:15
by eloise
ata wrote:Oh man...
Ok, let's go step by step. At first, I was using word "invisible" just to avoid always word "stealth". Ok, I wont do this it makes problems of understanding.

i dont like using the word invisible because, nothing is invisible, that word will cause misunderstanding because many radar producer claim that their radar can detect stealth aircraft , which is a really meaning less claim, because any radar can do that, the only problem is distance



ata wrote:Again and again - where are the numbers? Let's check what you have posted. First is the picture of F-22 simulation:
As I said it's 2D (!) simulation of another (!) plane. It's a good picture which can be used as a reference. Also, if we compare it with other similar pictures we can clearly see that metal body has bad RCS from sides, at 45 angle, and from the back.There is no more information in this picture. I mean no more helpful information. No information we can use in any calculation.

1) i gave you the USAF claim for F-35 RCS, which is around 0.0015 m2

2) when you complain that F-35 will only have low RCS from very narrow frontal angle, i gave you F-117 average frontal RCS that they measured in Have Blue program, which is around 0.001 m2 within 45 degree frontal

3) i also gave you the simulation of YF-23 radar scattering characteristics without RAM, sure it a bigger aircraft than f-35 but they are both stealth fighter with somewhat similar shape, btw in the pictures RCS was measured in dBsm
so i dont really understand what you mean by not enough number?

if you can some how get a perfect 3D model of F-35, put it in the software to calculate radar scattering characteristics, and the results from that are somehow different from mine then go a head, do that and post it here , iam always open to learn new things
ata wrote:I trust you that general Hostage said that. But even if we assume that "Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering" is enough to understand the whole massive radio tech part of physics, then why do you think he mean different thing than I already said about LM guys? I agree F-35 in some projections could be better that F-22. But what does it mean practically?

i dont really get what you trying to say, obviously stealth aircraft are more stealthy from some angle than the other, because they doesn't have round shape

ata wrote:It's no matter how wide radar beam is. If I'll come to you from 45 azimuth, even 10 degrees will be enough for me. Or maybe you want to say that fighters always attack from the front?

i dont quite understand what you trying to say, can you draw a picture or something ? , if you are trying to say you will spread su-35 formation apart so that they will see F-35 from angle wider than 45 degree each side and F-35 can't turn it's nose to them, then the Su-35 must be very very far apart from each other , for example if the distance between f-35 and su-35 is 100 km then to be able to see F-35 from angle of 45 degree then the su-35 must be about 200 km from the other
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

ata wrote:Again, no. If you want more or less meaningful analysis this way is wrong.
Every RAM only realise it's best when it's used specifically. If you use one after another or mix of them you'll get less performance for every of them.

do you have any source that support that statement ? , also i didnt mean to plus all their absorbing capabilities together like at 10 Ghz type A absorb 20 dbsm + type B absorb 10 dBsm = 30 dBsm, what i mean is combine them, some RAM work well at low frequency but bad at high frequency , some good at high frequency but bad at low frequency .. and so on
also : F-35 doesn't have just RAM and shaping, it has RAS as well

Major Vassilios A. Evangelidis, Hellenic Army Aviation, wrote:
[...] On the F-35 several special materials are used, including Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM), Radar Absorbing Structure and Infrared (IR) Topcoat. Unlike the F-117, which was totally coated with 2,000 pounds of RAM, these materials are more selectively used on the JSF. Lockheed Martin developed paint-type RAM which is applied around the edges of doors and control surfaces. RAS is used on the body, wing and tail edges. For the application of this paint robots will be used, like the CASPER (Computer Aided Spray Paint Expelling Robot) system used for F-22 and the Have Glass II program used for painting 1,700 F-16s with RAM. Robots are essential because they can reach confined areas, as the inlet ducts, and can work without stepping on the aircraft.

These materials comprise ferromagnetic particles, embedded in a high-dielectric-constant polymer base. The dielectric material slows down the wave and the ferromagnetic particles absorb the energy. These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. This is not an easy procedure, and it makes RAM design much more tricky than most people believe.

JSF’s entire airframe is also painted with a camouflage topcoat that suppresses IR.



ata wrote:Moreover, it's not a big deal to make flat shape to be "stealthy". The biggest deal is to make the same for things like cockpit (btw, F-22 has one piece of "glass" version, while F-35 has a frame, which is also radio-reflecting element) - it's simply hard to paint a pilot with RAM as well. What about radar? You can't protect radar with RAM. There are ways to reduce it's impact, but you can't terminate it anyway. Optical elements, the same problem, do you know if any RAM can be transparent? And because X-band wavelength is about 3cm, then all the elements including any curves, any edges with comparable or bigger size will be a problem.
Radar, pilot, everything inside cabin, inside optical elements - all of those you can't apply to your "metal body simulation" + "RAM graph".
I'm absolutely sure that LM guys know that much-much better than me, and they of course know how to deal with that, but it's simply impossible to completely remove all those things.
I believe, this is a reason, why F-22 is not equipped with EOTS/DAS sensors, for example.

look at F-22 and F-35 canopy, they are not completely transparent are they? , that is because they are coated with really thin layer of gold to prevent the radar wave from entering the cockpit, they are also designed to be able to reflected radar wave away from the source, same with EOTS
btw F-22 was meant to have similar thing to EOTS but there wasnt enough funding and it was meant to be air superiority fighter only so that part was cut.
Also the radome of F-22, F-35 was coated with some sort of bypass RAM that only allow a certain frequently go in and out, the radar was also canted to reflect enemy radar wave aways other than back to the source
ata wrote:Again and again, another problem - engines. You can't use effective RAM inside of engine nozzle. It means every time I can see part of it - I see it clearly. And of course turbine blades (which are visible from quite a wide angle from the rear) are very radar-bright as well.

someone else already posted information related to engine fan blocker in F-135 and F-119 engine above ( have a look ) , there was info about LOAN nozzle as well
also i dont really think you can see the engine fan from wide angle


ata wrote:Again and again, a
What are the tactical advantages of Su-35? Speed. Range. Radar. Manoeuvrability. Armament. Do you have any question about any of those points? Do you need explanation how every of them could help in a fight? We can discuss.

Top speed of Su-35 is higher than F-35 in clean configuration, what is it top speed when it fully loaded with 10-12 AAM? , what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet, also since F-35 detect Su-35 much earlier than Su-35 can detect F-35, thus it will have much longer time to accelerate to high speed, altitude to give it's missiles more energy if necessary

Range? : ok, i think Su-35 have better range

Radar? : in theory, if F-35 and Su-35 producers both have access to same level of funding and technology then the su-35 radar should be better because it is bigger, However in reality F-35 program have much higher funding and arguably better technology, as a result it was equipped with modern AESA with really good LPI characteristics, by contrast Su-35 only equipped with PESA radar,
while i still think Irbis-e have better range than APG-81, according to some one else calculatiom here, that may not be the truth
=> APG-81 have better LPI than Irbis-e, which one have better range performance is still to be discussed

Maneuverability : in theory due to TVC su-35 will have better max turn rate, lower wing loading will likely give it better sustain turn performance at high altitude , by contrast F-35 high wing loading will give it better roll rate, dive rate, sustain turn ability at low altitude,
su-27 with 4 AAM have much worse acceleration rate compared to F-16 with similar load out, Su-35 have better engine but it also quite a bit heavier, if you want to load it with 10 AAM do you really think it will out accelerate F-35 with 4-6 internal AAM? i dont think so

Armaments : i really don't see R-77 and R-27 have any advantage over Aim-120D or Meteor, CUDA


ata wrote:
What the tactical advantages of F-35? Stealth. Radar. Optical sensors. And it's clear already there are plenty of question on every of them.

Stealth characteristics : try to argue that Su-35 is more stealthy than F-35 is ridiculous
Radar : ( i dont understand, first you claim Su-35 have advantage in Radar, now you claim the exact opposite)
Optical sensor : Let assume that EOTS is similar to OLS-35, then F-35 still have DAS that give it 360 degree view that is very useful in dogfight, it also have DIRCM that help it fool modern IIR missiles
another advantage of F-35 is ECM : because it have much lower RCS, it's ECM will be much more effective as i have explained several page ago

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 19:47
by eloise
ata wrote: I've read that article. And some others as well. LPI is not a magic (as well as stealth) and concept is very clear. Bu again, please read this carefully: "to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35" - there is only one way how to avoid it. Receivers at F-35 side must the same time more sensitive. In fact thousands times more sensitive. And not simply "more sensitive" but with thousands times higher selecting ability. If they're not, then signal level received at target side will be always higher, and will be detectable easily. And then it's only a question of target radar if it's able to detect it. And I was surprised, but seems like S-300/400 missiles also has this option. So, it's pretty well know technology.

Ok can you give me a an exact source that said the radar signal at the target is several thousand times stronger than reflected signal? because that simply doesn't fit the radar equation at all
secondly, as i have explained, RWR have trouble detect LPI radar not because it doesn't detect the radar signal, or that the radar signal lower than the noise level, but because the LPI signal have little to zero characteristics for RWR to separate it from background noise ( remember the background noise level are not the same all the time so you cant just classified all signal above a certain level is radar signal)
read the part about compression of pulse in the slide i gave you



ata wrote:
Again, it's only a question of distance and processing (because LPI switches frequency), but it's not a big deal anyway.

AESA changing frequency extremely fast, have irregular search pattern, low side lobe, very rapid search speed, it applies pulse compression with irregular pattern so that a pretty big deal if you asl me

ata wrote:
No difference. LPI is still source of signal. All of this also works for F-35 receiving signal from Flanker radar. You can only make any conclusion if you detect the target with your own radar.

no, there are significant differences between an moving air target and a ground stationary target, if you spend even a minute to read the slide, you will understand why RWR can not be used to give firing solution again air target ( same reason why ASQ-213 doesnt make F-16 CJ a super powerful BVR fighter)
ata wrote:
There is also a "detection probability" because even if your beam is 2 degrees thin, at 100 km range it will be 3,5 km spot and because beam's gain is not constant than Flanker must be in the center or close to the center of that spot (3,5 km diameter). If it's not in the center then there is a probability that F-35 will not detect it. BUT, because as I said signal in incoming beam is thousands time higher than in reflected Flanker will detect F-35 even at the edge of that spot.

you know AESA radar scan rate is extremely fast right?

ata wrote:
Let's also talk about plane coming from the side. Why do you think it's invisible? How do you think doppler radar works? First of all, of course that plane will be moving for me, because I'm moving to it! The only problem here is that I can't recognise it for example from the mountain behind it. But that's why modern radars are using impulse+doppler technique. Moreover after two scans I'll be able even make a conclusion about it's speed, because it will move in front of me.

doppler radar on fighter will rejected signal that doesn't have doppler effect on it after taken in to account the speed of the aircraft carried the radar, in fact it will reject slow moving air object as well, otherwise your radar screen will be full of insect, bird, infact if your radar doesn't reject slow moving target then i can just drop a few package of chaff, and you will have like thousands of different targets on your screen for very very long time

ata wrote:
It works like this: you give me a number which is simulated and can't be used in any conclusion and you build your theory on those numbers. But if I give you another number (for example about engines visibility) you say no, it's wrong, let's see our simulation. So, from your numbers there is no one we can take as a basis. NO ONE.

No, I gave you number that USAF claimed, then i gave you number from actually measurement in Have Blue competition, then i gave you the simulation radar scattering graph, and then i use available theory to explain these value
Also i dont invented any theory, the radar equation for example are pretty well known

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 21:17
by sergei
http://www.fighter-planes.com/stealth2.htm
"(RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter"
Source: INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JANUARY 01, 2004

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

" "Фасеточная" модель самолета Су-27 (вверху) и диаграмма эффективной поверхности рассеяния самолета
в зависимости от угла наблюдения в горизонтальной плоскости (внизу) "

"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК

том 73, № 9, с. 848 (2003)"

"su-27 with 4 AAM have much worse acceleration rate compared to F-16 with similar load out"
Su27 2 R73+2 R27 vs F16 4 Aim9, Su27 have advantage in acceleration.
download/file.php?id=20477&mode=view

"1- the exterior airframe of su-27 and su-35 is exactly the same,they made from same material, "


"Airframe generally similar to the Su-27, but when create the su-35 used a new aluminum-lithium alloys, greatly expanded the use of composite materials. "

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 01:41
by eloise
sergei wrote:http://www.fighter-planes.com/stealth2.htm
"(RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter"
Source: INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JANUARY 01, 2004

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

" "Фасеточная" модель самолета Су-27 (вверху) и диаграмма эффективной поверхности рассеяния самолета
в зависимости от угла наблюдения в горизонтальной плоскости (внизу) "

"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК

том 73, № 9, с. 848 (2003)"

what you mean?
sergei wrote:"su-27 with 4 AAM have much worse acceleration rate compared to F-16 with similar load out"
Su27 2 R73+2 R27 vs F16 4 Aim9, Su27 have advantage in acceleration.
download/file.php?id=20477&mode=view


that is again F-16A,, I was talking about F-16 Block 50,* The original Pratt & Whitney engine on the YF-16 developed about 23,000 pounds of thrust. The engines on the Block 50/52 aircraft develop nearly 30,000 pounds of thrust. The GE F110-GE-132 engine on the Block 60 F-16 is rated at 32,500 pounds of thrust.

sergei wrote:"1- the exterior airframe of su-27 and su-35 is exactly the same,they made from same material, "


"Airframe generally similar to the Su-27, but when create the su-35 used a new aluminum-lithium alloys, greatly expanded the use of composite materials. "

they said they expand the use of composite materials, but it doesn't say, they do it at the surface , it is likely that new composite materials is only for internal part, the truth is things that contribute greatly to high RCS on su-27 such as intake, engine fan blade, vertical stablizer, pylon, wing stay exactly the same on Su-35, same shapeand they didn't change the shape or materials for these part

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 08:25
by sergei
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:http://www.fighter-planes.com/stealth2.htm
"(RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter"
Source: INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - JANUARY 01, 2004

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

" "Фасеточная" модель самолета Су-27 (вверху) и диаграмма эффективной поверхности рассеяния самолета
в зависимости от угла наблюдения в горизонтальной плоскости (внизу) "

"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК

том 73, № 9, с. 848 (2003)"

what you mean?
sergei wrote:"su-27 with 4 AAM have much worse acceleration rate compared to F-16 with similar load out"
Su27 2 R73+2 R27 vs F16 4 Aim9, Su27 have advantage in acceleration.
download/file.php?id=20477&mode=view


that is again F-16A,, I was talking about F-16 Block 50,* The original Pratt & Whitney engine on the YF-16 developed about 23,000 pounds of thrust. The engines on the Block 50/52 aircraft develop nearly 30,000 pounds of thrust. The GE F110-GE-132 engine on the Block 60 F-16 is rated at 32,500 pounds of thrust.

sergei wrote:"1- the exterior airframe of su-27 and su-35 is exactly the same,they made from same material, "


"Airframe generally similar to the Su-27, but when create the su-35 used a new aluminum-lithium alloys, greatly expanded the use of composite materials. "

they said they expand the use of composite materials, but it doesn't say, they do it at the surface , it is likely that new composite materials is only for internal part, the truth is things that contribute greatly to high RCS on su-27 such as intake, engine fan blade, vertical stablizer, pylon, wing stay exactly the same on Su-35, same shapeand they didn't change the shape or materials for these part

Earlier in the international air under the symbol "Su-35" was exhibited aircraft Su-27M.
"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК" - Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lagarkov Andrey - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics, Joint Institute for High Temperatures.
Mikhail Pogosyan - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of "Sukhoy ".
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM
Source much more reliable than http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su35.htm ,data relied upon by your magazine it
some strange mix of Su-27,Su-37,Su-35 and Chengdu J-10b(J-10B: An upgraded variant of the J-10 from 2008) with engine never exist (AL-31MF)
" I was talking about F-16 Block 50"
F-16A/ F-16 Block 50
Thrust 23,800 lbf/28,600 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 37,500 lb/42,300 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb
Thrust/weight: 0.6346/0.676 1.079
Su-27/Su-35
Thrust 27,700 lbf/31,900 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 67,100 lb/76,060 lb Loaded weight: 56,660 lb
0.8256/0.8388 1.26
And Su35 have advantage in acceleration vs F-16 Block 50

" it is likely that new " You heard about this for the first time from me and you already know what and where it was applied? :drool:

"what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet"
If my memory serves me something like 0.85m+ for F35 and 1.01 for Su-35

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 09:16
by geforcerfx
eloise wrote:"Airframe generally similar to the Su-27, but when create the su-35 used a new aluminum-lithium alloys, greatly expanded the use of composite materials. "

they said they expand the use of composite materials, but it doesn't say, they do it at the surface , it is likely that new composite materials is only for internal part, the truth is things that contribute greatly to high RCS on su-27 such as intake, engine fan blade, vertical stablizer, pylon, wing stay exactly the same on Su-35, same shapeand they didn't change the shape or materials for these part[/quote]

Well I found this

"The engine gives the Su-35 limited supercruise capability, or sustained supersonic speed without the use of afterburners.[47] Radar-absorbent material is applied to the engine inlets and the front stages of the engine compressor to halve the Su-35's frontal radar cross-section (RCS); the canopy was also modified to deflect radar waves.[48]"

on Wikipedia (whoop) with some articles linked, I thought I remembered seeing the Su-35 had S-Ducts but they have some kind of RAM applied to the engine, somehow. Prob still not half the Su-27 but I would venture a guess the Su-35 is definitely not the exact same signature as the Su-27, the real question is do they keep up on the ram maintenance on the Su-35.

sergei wrote:
"what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet"
If my memory serves me something like 0.85m+ for F35 and 1.01 for Su-35


I call BS on that, if i remember correctly 1.1 or 1.2 was achieved when the aircraft was clean, if you have 8 A2A missiles hanging off that thing its cruise will be .95 for any flight planning on lasting longer then 30 min. The F-35 cruise speed depends on mission profile it can do as low as .75 for CAS and strike for maximum fuel efficiency or up to 1.2-1.3 for 150nm for "efficient" dash speed.

At the end of all this data there is two glaring things sticking out the flanker and F-35 are different classes of fighter jets, the F-22 vs Su-35 debates are much more relevant since we are talking two air superiority platforms (as much as the Russians wish the Su-35 was multi-role it's limited). The F-35 has some advantages in technology, avionics, sensors, radar (gonna give it to the F-35), the Su-35 is the better kinematic platform, thought I think both the F-35 and the Su-35 would have fantastic ranges looking at there fuel margins.

But the real question at the end of all of this is not can a single F-35 beat a Single Su-35. But can the 100(who knows maybe 200) SU-35's that Russia would like to buy be able to take on 300-800 F-35's(only half the USAF projected force)? That's really the question, does the advantages the Su-35 leverage over the F-35 give it enough capability to take on 4 to 1 odds against the F-35? Personally me thinks not. :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 10:14
by ata
Ok can you give me a an exact source that said the radar signal at the target is several thousand times stronger than reflected signal? because that simply doesn't fit the radar equation at all
secondly, as i have explained, RWR have trouble detect LPI radar not because it doesn't detect the radar signal, or that the radar signal lower than the noise level, but because the LPI signal have little to zero characteristics for RWR to separate it from background noise ( remember the background noise level are not the same all the time so you cant just classified all signal above a certain level is radar signal)
read the part about compression of pulse in the slide i gave you


I'll answer this first, because all the rest will take even more time.
The source of my statement again simply is physics. Let me explain you some basic theory. I'm sorry in advance if it sounds arrogantly.
In our case any antenna we can present as master oscillator. The main characteristic of ANY antenna in the world will be it's GAIN. For example aperture is absolutely unimportant because aperture in general only define gain. You can create huge aperture antenna, but if it's gain will be low, then such a size just useless. So, what in fact gain means? Frankly speaking it's how wide or thin antenna's beam. Of course it's not a definition (there are lobes, losses etc), but it's enough to understand the idea.
Look at this: http://www.aktivsb.ru/article-info1499.html
Compare left and right patterns at first picture. At right side antenna has very low gain because it transmit power to whole world in front direction. At the left side gain is much higher because it only sends signals in one thin beam (skip the lobes at the moment). All the power just in one point. Why is it important? Because in case of radar: LPI, non-LPI, no matter what engineers try to create the thinest reasonable beam possible. To bring all the available power in one point.
Do you remember I've calculated that at 100 km 2 degrees beam will give you 3,5 km spot? It's not exactly truth. It will be even bigger, but normally this kind of sizes measured at -3db, -10 db levels (it's all depend of agreement and standards). That size's spot will be about 10 sq. km. while Flanker size object (not it RCS) actual size will be about 10 sq. m. So only 1/1 million part of your energy will make sense. All the rest you spent to heat up atmosphere.
The another theory. What electro-magnetic reflection means? Again, frankly speaking incoming wave generates some electric current in metal shape, and that current generates electro-magnetic field in back (this is very simplified theory, because for example dielectric materials also reflect some radio waves). In fact your target acts like secondary oscillator. The only difference it will transmit it's power in every direction. Let's say in every direction in the same level. Let's calculate how big is your radar (1 m in diameter) from 100 km far away for antenna with 0 db gain.
Approximately it will be 1/4*10ˆ-11
We also have to remember about initial 1/1 million part of energy. Finally you'll get 1/4*10ˆ-17. It's -164 dB. While at target side it's just -80 dB (because Flanker's radar has approximately 1 sq. m size as well). About 80 dB difference.
Wow, isn't it? In fact because I simplified the idea (to show the origin of such high loss) it's not exactly correct. Look at this: http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... on.en.html
Function (9) shows that received power is 1/Rˆ4 function (because antenna gain, RCS, transmitted power are constants). Even if you have 40 db antenna gain (which seems not really possible) and squared it's just 10ˆ8. If you have relatively high RSC it's another 10ˆ1. Even in that case it will be still 10ˆ-11 of transmitted power. While at target side it will be 10ˆ-5.
So, Flanker radar operates in fact not thousands, but million times higher signal level than that at F-35. So, if F-35 is able to detect it's signal from the noise why do you think it's a problem to do with million times better option (noise level is the same for both sides)? Yes LPI switches frequencies, but it's not like "from any to any" those peaks are still in X-band. And because Flanker radar is also X-band it will receive all of them. We can talk about fighting with the noise but believe me dealing with noise is huge part of radio tech and I need to take all my old books from the shelf to remember all the stuff. It's well known problem and it's discovered from the first phone-line in the world.
If you have any application to generate spectrograms for sound files try to do the following. Generate the file with several very short peaks with different frequencies. It will emulate LPI. Then apply some noise (it's possible with apps like SoundForge). Even you can do noise level similar to peaks level. Then generate spectrogram. It should look like this: http://audiophilesoft.ru/articles/quali ... fhg320.jpg
At your picture you'll see small bright dots - these are your peaks. If you can see it with your eyes, then it's possible to create algorithm to detect it. This is how LPI works.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 11:18
by ata
eloise,

let's continue...

1) i gave you the USAF claim for F-35 RCS, which is around 0.0015 m2

2) when you complain that F-35 will only have low RCS from very narrow frontal angle, i gave you F-117 average frontal RCS that they measured in Have Blue program, which is around 0.001 m2 within 45 degree frontal

3) i also gave you the simulation of YF-23 radar scattering characteristics without RAM, sure it a bigger aircraft than f-35 but they are both stealth fighter with somewhat similar shape, btw in the pictures RCS was measured in dBsm
so i dont really understand what you mean by not enough number?


and

someone else already posted information related to engine fan blocker in F-135 and F-119 engine above ( have a look ) , there was info about LOAN nozzle as well
also i dont really think you can see the engine fan from wide angle


So, please check this picture:
Image

What is the angle of the shot?

And here:
Image

And here:
Image

And here:
Image

So, the angle I would say about 30 degrees at max. If not 45.
This is what I mean, add here "side view" and "from the top and bottom" -> RCS ALWAYS needs to be indicated at min at max value. At least at tactically meaningful directions. Front direction doesn't make us able to make any conclusion.
F-117 is an ottoman with wings and powerful engine. It even has no radar at all (which we remember is very important from RCS point of view), and even that "all in the name of stealthy" was downed when it touched more or less effective SAM. So, it's not a good reference point.
And "similar shape" is perfect. All the aircrafts have more or less similar shape. Body, tail, wings.... Sorry, I'm joking. In fact, as I said it's incredibly hard to know in advance which parts of the body will affect RCS and which will not. Even it's quite useless to model "metal body" because main impact caused by internal parts, of something sticks out from the body (like EOTS).

Also

i dont quite understand what you trying to say, can you draw a picture or something ? , if you are trying to say you will spread su-35 formation apart so that they will see F-35 from angle wider than 45 degree each side and F-35 can't turn it's nose to them, then the Su-35 must be very very far apart from each other , for example if the distance between f-35 and su-35 is 100 km then to be able to see F-35 from angle of 45 degree then the su-35 must be about 200 km from the other
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm


I'm not quite good at drawing. Well.... I'm really bad at that. Anyway: http://flockdraw.com/gallery/view/2020723
So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 11:35
by ata
But the real question at the end of all of this is not can a single F-35 beat a Single Su-35. But can the 100(who knows maybe 200) SU-35's that Russia would like to buy be able to take on 300-800 F-35's(only half the USAF projected force)? That's really the question, does the advantages the Su-35 leverage over the F-35 give it enough capability to take on 4 to 1 odds against the F-35? Personally me thinks not.


You should add here Mig-31 (about 200 units) and plenty of old Su-27 (almost 400), Mig-29 (250) which are still excellent as simple missile carriers (just need support from better radar equipped units). But as I said earlier, in real situation main enemy of F-35 would be not Su-35, or Su-27 and even not a Mig-31, but S-300/400 which doesn't care of stealth at all, it's able to detect them all as soon as they get up from horizon. And because in new versions it's able to down planes from 400 km.... well, it's not that obvious.
That's why we're talking about F-35 vs Su-35 face to face.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 11:55
by shrimpman
You created a lot of questions in my head, Ata :) America is still asleep, I will keep close attention to what they are going to say. Sorry for my uneducated opinion, but there is something I cannot understand. Ever since I have found this website and started to get familiar with the forum contents, I got a very clear image, that the biggest word, bar none, in military aviation nowadays is AESA. You say PESA can be just as powerful, or even stronger. Your calculations make sense, but I’m no physicist, gotta wait for Americans to wake up and brew up a reply. What bothers me is that I find it very hard to believe PESA would really be that effective. As far as I can speculate, Su-27 family is most closely resembling American F-15 in performance, radar size and role. And yet PESA equipped F-15’s are a duck soup against stealthy F-22. The only instance F-22 AESA radar was even detected was by F-35 as someone mentioned already couple weeks ago. Immediate assumption is that targeting F-35 would be a very challenging task as well, while F-35 LPI radar would have little trouble seeing non-stealthy objects at long distances. If a couple of AMRAAMS hanging on the external hardpoints makes the F-35 quite easy to detect, then I would assume a Flanker armed with its 10 AA missiles would lit up like a Christmas tree even when hit with a relatively weak beam. Am I badly wrong here? I’m sorry to doubt your point, but it’s quite hard for me to grasp that idea. It feels a little bit like reading history books about pre-WWII generals arguing that all-metal monoplanes were a ridiculous idea and that bi-planes were the way to go. Or your own marshal Budionny, who claimed in 1937 (IIRC) that tanks will never replace cavalry.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 12:26
by ata
shrimpman wrote:You created a lot of questions in my head, Ata :) America is still asleep, I will keep close attention to what they are going to say. Sorry for my uneducated opinion, but there is something I cannot understand. Ever since I have found this website and started to get familiar with the forum contents, I got a very clear image, that the biggest word, bar none, in military aviation nowadays is AESA. You say PESA can be just as powerful, or even stronger. Your calculations make sense, but I’m no physicist, gotta wait for Americans to wake up and brew up a reply. What bothers me is that I find it very hard to believe PESA would really be that effective. As far as I can speculate, Su-27 family is most closely resembling American F-15 in performance, radar size and role. And yet PESA equipped F-15’s are a duck soup against stealthy F-22. The only instance F-22 AESA radar was even detected was by F-35 as someone mentioned already couple weeks ago. Immediate assumption is that targeting F-35 would be a very challenging task as well, while F-35 LPI radar would have little trouble seeing non-stealthy objects at long distances. If a couple of AMRAAMS hanging on the external hardpoints makes the F-35 quite easy to detect, then I would assume a Flanker armed with its 10 AA missiles would lit up like a Christmas tree even when hit with a relatively weak beam. Am I badly wrong here? I’m sorry to doubt your point, but it’s quite hard for me to grasp that idea. It feels a little bit like reading history books about pre-WWII generals arguing that all-metal monoplanes were a ridiculous idea and that bi-planes were the way to go. Or your own marshal Budionny, who claimed in 1937 (IIRC) that tanks will never replace cavalry.


Well, these are good questions, actually. And, if you ask my opinion, I would say AESA is much better than PESA. Again, more power doesn't mean PESA is better. When I answered about PESA I only mentioned the statement AESA is more powerful. There are many limitations PESA technology has. So, of course if you can choose, then AESA is a best choice. BUT. If you need simply max detection range, then PESA will be (in general (!)) better then AESA. Point here is that brightest torch is not always better option. It all depends of situation.
About that statement F-22 radar was only detected by F-35. What is source, first of all? I'd like also to know more about conditions. Of course LPI makes sense. In equal conditions if you transmit less power you're less visible. It's obvious. So, maybe F-15 simply has no that algorithm as I mentioned to process many small peaks. BTW I'm not sure if Flanker is able to do that, I only said it's possible in theory. Maybe something else was different from our "ideal situation", I don't know. I only want to say LPI as well as "stealth" is not something magical, and it required details to be applied to any tactical modelling.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 14:19
by ata
ok, eloise, let's continue

look at F-22 and F-35 canopy, they are not completely transparent are they? , that is because they are coated with really thin layer of gold to prevent the radar wave from entering the cockpit, they are also designed to be able to reflected radar wave away from the source, same with EOTS
btw F-22 was meant to have similar thing to EOTS but there wasnt enough funding and it was meant to be air superiority fighter only so that part was cut.
Also the radome of F-22, F-35 was coated with some sort of bypass RAM that only allow a certain frequently go in and out, the radar was also canted to reflect enemy radar wave aways other than back to the source


I know for both F-22 and F-35 there are a lot of efforts to decrease canopy/pilot impact to RCS, but thin layer of gold, from my understanding is simply works as a mirror for optical range. If you put piece of mirror in the sky and will light it with a torch, in case of right angle it's will be invisible, because all the torch power will be reflected out from you. I guess it the same with gold coating for radio waves. But if only that mirror in the sky will be curved and you'll get appropriate angle you'll see very bright spot. I agree, in real life if F-22 or F-35 are high in the sky you likely can never see canopy at all. But you will see EOTS in that case.
Bypass RAM is useless to discuss in this case, because both radars operate in the same band, so it simply transparent for Flanker radar. And what do you mean for "the radar was also canted to reflect enemy radar wave" - if radome is transparent, then it can reflect nothing. As far as I know this is a reason why radar is slightly angled in dome (in addition it gives lower aperture so, it's better for aerodynamic). But again, if Flanker is higher than F-35 then it may get directly at 90 degrees to F-35's radar plane.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 14:28
by ata
Top speed of Su-35 is higher than F-35 in clean configuration, what is it top speed when it fully loaded with 10-12 AAM? , what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet, also since F-35 detect Su-35 much earlier than Su-35 can detect F-35, thus it will have much longer time to accelerate to high speed, altitude to give it's missiles more energy if necessary

Range? : ok, i think Su-35 have better range

Radar? : in theory, if F-35 and Su-35 producers both have access to same level of funding and technology then the su-35 radar should be better because it is bigger, However in reality F-35 program have much higher funding and arguably better technology, as a result it was equipped with modern AESA with really good LPI characteristics, by contrast Su-35 only equipped with PESA radar,
while i still think Irbis-e have better range than APG-81, according to some one else calculatiom here, that may not be the truth
=> APG-81 have better LPI than Irbis-e, which one have better range performance is still to be discussed

Maneuverability : in theory due to TVC su-35 will have better max turn rate, lower wing loading will likely give it better sustain turn performance at high altitude , by contrast F-35 high wing loading will give it better roll rate, dive rate, sustain turn ability at low altitude,
su-27 with 4 AAM have much worse acceleration rate compared to F-16 with similar load out, Su-35 have better engine but it also quite a bit heavier, if you want to load it with 10 AAM do you really think it will out accelerate F-35 with 4-6 internal AAM? i dont think so

Armaments : i really don't see R-77 and R-27 have any advantage over Aim-120D or Meteor, CUDA


Su-35 vs F-35 dynamics I'll leave to sergei, he's much better than me in this part
This was only to answer your statement that we can't trust Sukhoi as well as to LM. My idea is that Sukhoi statements are about things that a proved for a long time. Of course it's a point of discussion how effective Su-35 RAM coating for exaample. And I'll easily believe if you can find info or ideas why it's not that good. Because Su-35 "stealth" option is just an option. If they can do that, then why not? If it works, perfect, if not... then all the rest of advantages are still here.
In opposite, I've provided many reasons why stealth, LPI, EOTS are not that effective as LM wants us to believe.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 17:57
by mk82
ata:

"So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time."

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 20:42
by sergei
ata wrote:
shrimpman wrote:You created a lot of questions in my head, Ata :) America is still asleep, I will keep close attention to what they are going to say. Sorry for my uneducated opinion, but there is something I cannot understand. Ever since I have found this website and started to get familiar with the forum contents, I got a very clear image, that the biggest word, bar none, in military aviation nowadays is AESA. You say PESA can be just as powerful, or even stronger. Your calculations make sense, but I’m no physicist, gotta wait for Americans to wake up and brew up a reply. What bothers me is that I find it very hard to believe PESA would really be that effective. As far as I can speculate, Su-27 family is most closely resembling American F-15 in performance, radar size and role. And yet PESA equipped F-15’s are a duck soup against stealthy F-22. The only instance F-22 AESA radar was even detected was by F-35 as someone mentioned already couple weeks ago. Immediate assumption is that targeting F-35 would be a very challenging task as well, while F-35 LPI radar would have little trouble seeing non-stealthy objects at long distances. If a couple of AMRAAMS hanging on the external hardpoints makes the F-35 quite easy to detect, then I would assume a Flanker armed with its 10 AA missiles would lit up like a Christmas tree even when hit with a relatively weak beam. Am I badly wrong here? I’m sorry to doubt your point, but it’s quite hard for me to grasp that idea. It feels a little bit like reading history books about pre-WWII generals arguing that all-metal monoplanes were a ridiculous idea and that bi-planes were the way to go. Or your own marshal Budionny, who claimed in 1937 (IIRC) that tanks will never replace cavalry.


Well, these are good questions, actually. And, if you ask my opinion, I would say AESA is much better than PESA. Again, more power doesn't mean PESA is better. When I answered about PESA I only mentioned the statement AESA is more powerful. There are many limitations PESA technology has. So, of course if you can choose, then AESA is a best choice. BUT. If you need simply max detection range, then PESA will be (in general (!)) better then AESA. Point here is that brightest torch is not always better option. It all depends of situation.
About that statement F-22 radar was only detected by F-35. What is source, first of all? I'd like also to know more about conditions. Of course LPI makes sense. In equal conditions if you transmit less power you're less visible. It's obvious. So, maybe F-15 simply has no that algorithm as I mentioned to process many small peaks. BTW I'm not sure if Flanker is able to do that, I only said it's possible in theory. Maybe something else was different from our "ideal situation", I don't know. I only want to say LPI as well as "stealth" is not something magical, and it required details to be applied to any tactical modelling.

PESA has a number of advantages over AESA which AESA will never reach:simplicity of design compared AESA-emerging from this better cooling -more power -more range- low cost.
P/S " radar size" Not for first Su-27 variant , it have some minor advance in radar range but all rest radar performance worse .

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 20:59
by sergei
---------------
"what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet"
If my memory serves me something like 0.85m+ for F35 and 1.01 for Su-35[/quote]

I call BS on that, if i remember correctly 1.1 or 1.2 was achieved when the aircraft was clean, if you have 8 A2A missiles hanging off that thing its cruise will be .95 for any flight planning on lasting longer then 30 min. The F-35 cruise speed depends on mission profile it can do as low as .75 for CAS and strike for maximum fuel efficiency or up to 1.2-1.3 for 150nm for "efficient" dash speed.
----------------------------

"if you have 8 A2A missiles" Want to see F35 have them all inside.
"The F-35 cruise speed depends on mission" Su-35 too oddly enough, and 8 A2A sounds a lot lighter than 8 A2G for CAS
Not Su-35 Not F-35 not created originally for Super-cruise they will never reach the performance F-22,T-50, or Mig-31 and Sr-71.
Cruise speed 1.1m for Su-35 is a small bonus for very good thrust-to-weight ratio discovered during tests.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 21:51
by sergei
--------------------------------------------
in theory due to TVC su-35 will have better max turn rate, lower wing loading will likely give it better sustain turn performance at high altitude , by contrast F-35 high wing loading will give it better roll rate, dive rate, sustain turn ability at low altitude,
--------------------------------------
Su-27vs F16 combat load 4 A2A+50% fuel
Su27 have better max turn on altitude 200m-7000m and speed 300kmh-700kmh,better sustain turn on altitude 200m-7000m and speed 300kmh-1200kmh
F16 have equal max turn on altitude 200m-7000m and speed 700kmh-1200kmh
---------
Su-35 better Su-27
F35 need to be much better F16 to beat Su-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2015, 22:51
by madrat
You go ahead and use TVC to swing your nose on target. You're momentum is decreasing rapidly at that point. You just turned your energy advantage on its head.

If what ata is saying is right then LPI is going to track targets with minimal energy. Does that mean you cannot search for other targets in the direction of the tracks without revealing your position? And if your AESA relies on a single frequency at any one moment, does that mean your amplitude of the signal is dependent on the nearest track?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 03:01
by eloise
geforcerfx wrote:Well I found this

"The engine gives the Su-35 limited supercruise capability, or sustained supersonic speed without the use of afterburners.[47] Radar-absorbent material is applied to the engine inlets and the front stages of the engine compressor to halve the Su-35's frontal radar cross-section (RCS); the canopy was also modified to deflect radar waves.[48]"

on Wikipedia (whoop) with some articles linked, I thought I remembered seeing the Su-35 had S-Ducts but they have some kind of RAM applied to the engine, somehow. Prob still not half the Su-27 but I would venture a guess the Su-35 is definitely not the exact same signature as the Su-27, the real question is do they keep up on the ram maintenance on the Su-35.


geforcerfx : neither Su-27 or Su-35 have S ducts
also the RAM applied to the engine fan blade , pylon and airframe was what reduced Su-27 RCS to around 10 m2 as stated in the link , without the RAM applied to these area the RCS of Su-27 will be significantly higher
Image
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 03:17
by eloise
ata wrote:Image

What is the angle of the shot?

And here:
Image

And here:
Image

And here:
Image

So, the angle I would say about 30 degrees at max. If not 45.

I cannot see the engine fan blade in any of these picture :shock:

ata wrote:This is what I mean, add here "side view" and "from the top and bottom" -> RCS ALWAYS needs to be indicated at min at max value. At least at tactically meaningful directions. Front direction doesn't make us able to make any conclusion.

frontal direction is obviously the most important direction :? , for example if F-35 was to attack an Su-35 airfield , and the Su-35 take off to defense themselves , wouldnt they come at the other head on ?
ata wrote: F-117 is an ottoman with wings and powerful engine. It even has no radar at all (which we remember is very important from RCS point of view), and even that "all in the name of stealthy" was downed when it touched more or less effective SAM. So, it's not a good reference point.

F-117 was designed 40-50 years before the F-35 , and even with low band radar the Serbia was only able to shot it down 1 time out of over 1000 sorties , and only from 12 km :) , i have to say that is pretty impressive achievement
ata wrote: And "similar shape" is perfect. All the aircrafts have more or less similar shape. Body, tail, wings.... Sorry, I'm joking. In fact, as I said it's incredibly hard to know in advance which parts of the body will affect RCS and which will not. Even it's quite useless to model "metal body" because main impact caused by internal parts, of something sticks out from the body (like EOTS).

every part of aircraft body will affect RCS , unless your fighter is transparent to radar wave , the graph was to estimated because you want to know in what direction stealth fighter will have high RCS , and in what direction it will have small RCS , the way radar wave scatter


ata wrote:I'm not quite good at drawing. Well.... I'm really bad at that. Anyway: http://flockdraw.com/gallery/view/2020723
So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time.

ok how the Su-35 suddently know what the direction of F-35 to turn its radar that way ? , what stop the F-35 from turnning its nose to Su-35 direction ? , even if Su-35 cruise at mach 2 , it still take 221 second to cover 150 km and obviously Su-35 cannot reach mach 2 with 10 AAM , and when f-35 turn it's nose to Su-35 direction , it will be disappear from the radar screen , thus Su-35 will be blindly rushing to F-35 direction , what stop the F-35 from attacking the blind Su-35 ? , remember the faster you go , the bigger your turn radius and the smaller G you can pull , making your aircraft an easy target to hit
ata wrote: but S-300/400 which doesn't care of stealth at all, it's able to detect them all as soon as they get up from horizon. And because in new versions it's able to down planes from 400 km.... well, it's not that obvious.
That's why we're talking about F-35 vs Su-35 face to face.

just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 03:39
by eloise
ata wrote:

I know for both F-22 and F-35 there are a lot of efforts to decrease canopy/pilot impact to RCS, but thin layer of gold, from my understanding is simply works as a mirror for optical range. If you put piece of mirror in the sky and will light it with a torch, in case of right angle it's will be invisible, because all the torch power will be reflected out from you. I guess it the same with gold coating for radio waves. But if only that mirror in the sky will be curved and you'll get appropriate angle you'll see very bright spot. I agree, in real life if F-22 or F-35 are high in the sky you likely can never see canopy at all. But you will see EOTS in that case.

in theory , if you can get in right angle , you can see stealth fighter very clear , however , what angle would that be ? , how often and easy to get in that angle ? , EOTS was also canted to reflect radar wave away

ata wrote:Bypass RAM is useless to discuss in this case, because both radars operate in the same band, so it simply transparent for Flanker radar. And what do you mean for "the radar was also canted to reflect enemy radar wave" - if radome is transparent, then it can reflect nothing. As far as I know this is a reason why radar is slightly angled in dome (in addition it gives lower aperture so, it's better for aerodynamic). But again, if Flanker is higher than F-35 then it may get directly at 90 degrees to F-35's radar plane.

Flanker radar and F-35 radar both work in X-band , but X band range from 8 Ghz to 12 Ghz , so while Irbis-e may work at 8 Ghz , APG-81 may work at 9.5 Ghz ..etc , i think you understand what i mean
look at the picture below here is what i call canted
APG-81
Image
vs
APG-63
Image
so you can see that in stealth fighter the radar is slightly canted to reflect enemy radar wave away from the source
to be able to look at APG-81 radar from 90 degree angle , Su-35 must be fly extremely close and extremely higher than F-35 ( you can draw a triangle and see for yourself )

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 04:12
by eloise
sergei wrote: "The F-35 cruise speed depends on mission" Su-35 too oddly enough, and 8 A2A sounds a lot lighter than 8 A2G for CAS

Cruise speed 1.1m for Su-35 is a small bonus for very good thrust-to-weight ratio discovered during tests.

cruise at mach 1.1 -1.2 clean is not really that rare , F-16 can do that too with 2 wing tip missiles
btw the main problem is not light or heavy , the main problem is drag , Su-35 cannot cruise faster than mach 0.85 with 10 AAM , while F-35 with 4-6 Aim-120/Meteor can cruise at mach 1.2 ( for around 150 miles )


sergei wrote:Earlier in the international air under the symbol "Su-35" was exhibited aircraft Su-27M.
"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК" - Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lagarkov Andrey - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics, Joint Institute for High Temperatures.
Mikhail Pogosyan - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of "Sukhoy ".
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM
Source much more reliable than http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su35.htm ,data relied upon by your magazine it
some strange mix of Su-27,Su-37,Su-35 and Chengdu J-10b(J-10B: An upgraded variant of the J-10 from 2008) with engine never exist (AL-31MF)
You heard about this for the first time from me and you already know what and where it was applied?

ok , let just say your source is more reliable than mine , however as i have said Su-35 doesnt have different in material of outer airframe atleast not when viewed from frontal , it true that i didnt know Su-35 start to use composite for some of it's part , but you still cant prove that Su-35 use composite for outer part ( different from Su-27) that why i said it is likely they only done that for internal structure
sergei wrote:" I was talking about F-16 Block 50"
F-16A/ F-16 Block 50
Thrust 23,800 lbf/28,600 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 37,500 lb/42,300 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb
Thrust/weight: 0.6346/0.676 1.079
Su-27/Su-35
Thrust 27,700 lbf/31,900 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 67,100 lb/76,060 lb Loaded weight: 56,660 lb
0.8256/0.8388 1.26
And Su35 have advantage in acceleration vs F-16 Block 50


According to your number the different between thrust of F-16 Block 50 and F-16A is 4800 lbs
the different between thrust of Su-35 and Su-27 is 4200 lbs
so F-16 is only a little bit better in that aspect , however as i have explained before :
acceleration of an object = force/mass
Firstly ,force = thrust- drag , Su-27/35 is a much bigger aircraft than F-16 , so which one will have more drag ? , which one will have higher resultance force from the increased thrust ? i think we have the same answer
secondly , since acceleration = force/mass , that mean : with equal resultance force , the lighter ( lower mass ) object will accelerate faster , Su-27/35 is obviously alot heavier ( higher mass ) than F-16
with the same amount of thrust increase which fighter benefit more is quite obvious

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 05:09
by eloise
ata wrote:. The main characteristic of ANY antenna in the world will be it's GAIN. For example aperture is absolutely unimportant because aperture in general only define gain. You can create huge aperture antenna, but if it's gain will be low, then such a size just useless. So, what in fact gain means? Frankly speaking it's how wide or thin antenna's beam. Of course it's not a definition (there are lobes, losses etc), but it's enough to understand the idea.
Look at this: http://www.aktivsb.ru/article-info1499.html
Compare left and right patterns at first picture. At right side antenna has very low gain because it transmit power to whole world in front direction. At the left side gain is much higher because it only sends signals in one thin beam (skip the lobes at the moment). All the power just in one point. Why is it important? Because in case of radar: LPI, non-LPI, no matter what engineers try to create the thinest reasonable beam possible. To bring all the available power in one point.


Beamwidth varies directly with wavelength and inversely with antenna size
for example : if operating frequency is 1 ghz and antenna is 1 meter then the beam width will be 25 degree ( same reason why the T-50 wing edge thing is not a radar but only a IFF system ) , inversely if the antenna is 10 meters in dimension then the beam width will be 2.5 degree
Higher wavelengths allow a smaller antenna to have the same gain.
For example, at X Band (3 cm); you need an antenna 45” in diameter to get a gain of 40 dB; while at S Band (10 cm); you need an antenna 150” in diameter to get the same gain of 40 dB.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Radar ... istics.htm
ata wrote:Do you remember I've calculated that at 100 km 2 degrees beam will give you 3,5 km spot? It's not exactly truth. It will be even bigger, but normally this kind of sizes measured at -3db, -10 db levels (it's all depend of agreement and standards). That size's spot will be about 10 sq. km. while Flanker size object (not it RCS) actual size will be about 10 sq. m. So only 1/1 million part of your energy will make sense. All the rest you spent to heat up atmosphere.

the part that spend heat up the atmosphere doesnt get intercepted by Su-35 sensor either :wink: , and Su-35 doesnt have radar receiver all over it's body but only very few part , accounted for less than 0.1% of it's surface area , as a result :) of all the signal come to Su-35 direction, only 1/1 million part will hit it's airframe , and 1/1000 will hit it's RWR antenna
ata wrote:The another theory. What electro-magnetic reflection means? Again, frankly speaking incoming wave generates some electric current in metal shape, and that current generates electro-magnetic field in back (this is very simplified theory, because for example dielectric materials also reflect some radio waves). In fact your target acts like secondary oscillator. The only difference it will transmit it's power in every direction. Let's say in every direction in the same level

wrong , if that was the case then it would be impossible to designed any stealth fighter , and all fighter of similar size will have equal RCS in all direction :?

ata wrote:. Let's calculate how big is your radar (1 m in diameter) from 100 km far away for antenna with 0 db gain.
Approximately it will be 1/4*10ˆ-11
We also have to remember about initial 1/1 million part of energy. Finally you'll get 1/4*10ˆ-17. It's -164 dB. While at target side it's just -80 dB (because Flanker's radar has approximately 1 sq. m size as well). About 80 dB difference.
Wow, isn't it? In fact because I simplified the idea (to show the origin of such high loss) it's not exactly correct. Look at this: http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... on.en.html
Function (9) shows that received power is 1/Rˆ4 function (because antenna gain, RCS, transmitted power are constants). Even if you have 40 db antenna gain (which seems not really possible) and squared it's just 10ˆ8. If you have relatively high RSC it's another 10ˆ1. Even in that case it will be still 10ˆ-11 of transmitted power. While at target side it will be 10ˆ-5.
So, Flanker radar operates in fact not thousands, but million times higher signal level than that at F-35.

unlike RWR , radar only intended to receive it's own signal , if the flanker radar treat all signal it received as a target , then the radar screen will be clutter with thousand targets made by deceptive jammer , Irbis-e will be super easy to fool

ata wrote:So, if F-35 is able to detect it's signal from the noise why do you think it's a problem to do with million times better option (noise level is the same for both sides)? Yes LPI switches frequencies, but it's not like "from any to any" those peaks are still in X-band. And because Flanker radar is also X-band it will receive all of them. We can talk about fighting with the noise but believe me dealing with noise is huge part of radio tech and I need to take all my old books from the shelf to remember all the stuff. It's well known problem and it's discovered from the first phone-line in the world.
If you have any application to generate spectrograms for sound files try to do the following. Generate the file with several very short peaks with different frequencies. It will emulate LPI. Then apply some noise (it's possible with apps like SoundForge). Even you can do noise level similar to peaks level. Then generate spectrogram. It should look like this: http://audiophilesoft.ru/articles/quali ... fhg320.jpg
At your picture you'll see small bright dots - these are your peaks. If you can see it with your eyes, then it's possible to create algorithm to detect it. This is how LPI works.

As you said your self before , only a small part of energy from APG-81 hit the Su-35 , the rest heat up the air , hit the ground ..etc
How do flanker RWR discriminate between the signal come from APG-81 direction it's self and the signal from APG-81 that hit the ground , or bird first before reflected to the Flanker ?
And as i explained , since RWR cannot compute the distance to an moving air target so even if RWR on Su-35 some how detect APG-81 , the only information the Su-35 pilot will know is the direction that F-35 come from :D , no distance , no speed he cant attack it , and we back to low band radar problem , only helpful for early warning

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 07:05
by eloise
ata wrote:
Su-35 vs F-35 dynamics I'll leave to sergei, he's much better than me in this part
This was only to answer your statement that we can't trust Sukhoi as well as to LM. My idea is that Sukhoi statements are about things that a proved for a long time. Of course it's a point of discussion how effective Su-35 RAM coating for exaample. And I'll easily believe if you can find info or ideas why it's not that good. Because Su-35 "stealth" option is just an option. If they can do that, then why not? If it works, perfect, if not... then all the rest of advantages are still here.
In opposite, I've provided many reasons why stealth, LPI, EOTS are not that effective as LM wants us to believe.

the things is , you said Sukhoi statement is about thing that have been proved ,but they aren't
you said Su-35 will be better than F-35 in term of :
Speed : still to be discussed , while clean Su-35 fly faster than F-35 , it doesnt have better cruise speed or top speed with weapon
Radar : still to be discussed , Irbis-E likely to have better range , but APG-81 likely to have better ECCM , LPI
Armament : still to be discussed , but I think Meteor is a much better missiles than R-77
Maneuver : i think Su-35 is more agile
while I said F-35 is better than Su-35 in term of
Stealth : obviously
ECM : more effective due to stealth as I have explained several page ago
DIRCM : F-35 have DIRCM while Su-35 doesnt
IRST : even if we assume OLS-35 and EOTS are similar , F-35 still have DAS which give it 360 degree view

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 07:44
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:Every RAM only realise it's best when it's used specifically. If you use one after another or mix of them you'll get less performance for every of them.


Not true. Layered RAM has been tested in many occasions and there seems to be no noticeable degradation in performance compared to only using one layer optimized for one frequency range. It's only matter of putting layers in the right order and right thickness to achieve high absorption at all frequencies.

ata wrote:Moreover, it's not a big deal to make flat shape to be "stealthy". The biggest deal is to make the same for things like cockpit (btw, F-22 has one piece of "glass" version, while F-35 has a frame, which is also radio-reflecting element) - it's simply hard to paint a pilot with RAM as well.
What about radar? You can't protect radar with RAM. There are ways to reduce it's impact, but you can't terminate it anyway. Optical elements, the same problem, do you know if any RAM can be transparent?


Wrong again. F-35 does have a frame, but it doesn’t affect RCS as the frame is inside the cockpit glass. The glass has layers for absorbing and redirecting the radar energy and. This means very little (if any) radar energy gets within the cockpit. If any radar energy gets inside, it will further be attenuated when it goes through the glass again. PAK FA is the fighter which has very poorly constructed cockpit with external frame which creates a discontinuations that does reflect radar energy.

There are transparent RAM available:
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~kocabas/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ncomms7628.pdf

Figure 5d shows the variation of the microwave reflection from the cylindrical surface as a function of voltage. Even for a large curvature, the microwave reflection is suppressed by 45 dB at 2 V. This modulation is slightly less than the flat resonant surface due to the curvature of the device


http://www.cfoam.com/radar.htm

http://www.navysbir.com/13_1/138.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928574/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622314005405

http://www.google.tl/patents/WO2010014648A1?cl=en

For example indium tin oxide and graphene can be used in a layer with good optical transparency and with very good radar absorbing properties, like -45 dB for highly curved structure (like cockpit glass).

ata wrote:Again and again, another problem - engines. You can't use effective RAM inside of engine nozzle. It means every time I can see part of it - I see it clearly. And of course turbine blades (which are visible from quite a wide angle from the rear) are very radar-bright as well.


Wrong again.

Image

Add the engine exhaust nozzle which is missing in this picture and it’s actually an extremely small angle where you could see the turbine blades at all. F-135 engine has a rather long exhaust tube after turbine blades before exhaust nozzle. This means the angle where the turbine blades could be visible is much smaller than for example Su-27 derivatives or PAK FA which have much shorter exhaust tube and regular exhaust nozzle. Their turbine blades are visible at much wider angles.

http://tx.technion.ac.il/~jetlab/11thSymposium/f135.pdf
Here is page 9 where it's stated that there is a fan duct blocker at the rear of the engine. So the turbine blades are blocked from rear view. It's likely that F-35 has higher RCS directly from behind, but it's also likely not be that huge due to all these features.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 08:11
by ata
mk82 wrote:ata:

"So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time."

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!


You need to better read what we're talking about. Even if my English is not that good, I believe main idea is quite clear. So, please read all that stuff again, because what you had just asked means you're out of the points we discuss.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 08:21
by ata
If what ata is saying is right then LPI is going to track targets with minimal energy. Does that mean you cannot search for other targets in the direction of the tracks without revealing your position? And if your AESA relies on a single frequency at any one moment, does that mean your amplitude of the signal is dependent on the nearest track?


Because I have no detailed information about LPI, I can only guess. What I think is they just use wide, low gain beam with high Q factor which is switching frequencies in addition. If your processing is good enough you don't need focused beam to calculate azimuth to the target. This is also supported by the fact they need some time to collect the data. So, in fact LPI from this point of view is just the same for a pilot as normal scan mode, with only limited range. This is how I imagine that. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if they realised it in different way tactically if should not have another limitations than range.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:13
by ata
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:19
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:I've read that article. And some others as well. LPI is not a magic (as well as stealth) and concept is very clear. Bu again, please read this carefully: "to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35" - there is only one way how to avoid it. Receivers at F-35 side must the same time more sensitive. In fact thousands times more sensitive. And not simply "more sensitive" but with thousands times higher selecting ability. If they're not, then signal level received at target side will be always higher, and will be detectable easily. And then it's only a question of target radar if it's able to detect it. And I was surprised, but seems like S-300/400 missiles also has this option. So, it's pretty well know technology.


You don’t seem to really understand how RWR/ESM and radar system works. It’s true that the receiver of AN/APG-81 would need to be much more sensitive than the receiver of Sukhoi’s RWR. This is because radar is a two way system and RWR is a one way system. How could this much higher sensitivity be achieved? It’s because radar knows what, how and where it transmits and RWR/ESM system cannot know that.

1. BANDWIDTH: Current high-end AESA radars can use a total bandwidth of about 3-4 GHz and GaN AESAs have even wider like 10-15 GHz. This means APG-81 can spread the transmissions over this whole bandwidth. As it knows exactly the frequency it sends, listen to narrow bandwidth. For example: Let’s say APG-81 has a bandwidth between 8-12 GHz. It sends at exactly 9.073 GHz and listens to a bandwidth at say 1 MHz wide. Next it sends at 11.871 GHz with the same bandwidth. Sukhoi RWR cannot know what frequency the APG-81 is using and has thus constantly listen to the whole 4 GHz wide bandwidth. As receiver sensitivity is inversely proportional to bandwidth, this gives a huge advantage to AN/APG-81 compared to Sukhoi RWR. On the other hand fighter PESA and MSA radars have bandwidths of about 100 to 400 MHz and are thus much easier for RWR/ESM systems to detect.

2. GAIN. Radar transmits the energy in very tight beams and thus has very high gain. Basically AESA radar knows exactly where it sends beams and can listen to only those exact directions. RWR has to use very low gain (wide beamwidth) antennas as it has to listen to very wide areas of the sky. Fighter radar usually has a gain of about 35 to 40 dB. Fighter RWR antennas have gain that is usually very close to 0 dB in X-band. This gives the radar another big advantage.

3. SIGNALS: Radar knows exactly what kinds of signals it sends and RWR cannot know. LPI radar spreads the actual radar signals over wide frequency range and thus the transmitted power in any given frequency will be lowered. The energy in transmitted pulse is Pulse power multiplied with time. So with long pulses the power requirement is reduced. Long pulses are then compressed using pulse compression tech to get short pulse lengths. As the radar knows the coding for what it has sent, it can decode it back from the received RF energy using matched filters. RWR/ESM cannot know the coding as it can be totally random to it and is forced to use mismatched filtering with guesses about the coding. There may be spikes in the whole 4 GHz spectrum, but how an earth can you know what is just noise and what is part of actual radar signal?

AESA radars using digital beamforming technology have far superior control of signals to any PESA/MSA radar as they use analog beamforming technology. Very complex coding can be used and only processing power and software is the limit here. Signal advantage gives the radar a very big processing gain. This makes detecting and especially classifying the radar far more difficult (how do you know it’s F-35 and not F-22?). Also the average power of the radar is not diminished at all and it can still have very long range.

4. LOW SIDELOBES: This means the radar leaks very little power to other directions besides main beam. This means it’s very difficult to hear such radar other than when being directly illuminated. As the radar beam will last only for a very short duration (microseconds to milliseconds), there is very short time for RWR/ESM to work against the radar. Along with the bandwidth, gain and signals advantage the radar has, this makes the RWR/ESM work very hard against AESA radar. This makes it very hard to get the correct heading for the detected signals or even detecting the signal in the first place.

5. RANDOMNESS: All phased array radars can scan and track targets with random beams. They can also vary the beam shape with phase shifters. AESA radars can also do many other tricks like creating multiple simultaneous beams and varying beam properties for example by modulating the element amplitudes. This makes detecting and especially classifying the radar far more difficult.

6. POWER MANAGEMENT: AESA can vary the power they send in each beam and can thus use only as much power as required to search and track the targets. AESA radar also has less losses especially in the receive path than MSA or PESA radars have. The difference is about 3-4 dB. Another advantage is that AESA works with highest average power to peak power level. Radar works only with the average power (range equation for example use only average power). RWR/ESM on the other hand can work with peak power to detect the signal. All this gives much less RF power for enemy RWR/ESM systems to work with. It also makes estimating range far more difficult as the transmit power is not known unlike in other radar types.

LPI is not a mode, but a number of features all modern radars have. I agree it's definitely not magic, but it's not easy to implement and requires advanced hardware to accomplish. Of course all this is relative and what was LPI in 1970 is not LPI today. It's just that AESA radars have by far the best features of all radar types as they have the widest bandwidth, highest available gain, best control of signals and beams and best power management and randomness qualities. Given only the very wide bandwidth and high gain, AESA radar truly has huge advantage in sensitivity compared to RWR/ESM system. Together with all the other advantages, I would not be surprised if conventional fighter RWR/ESM systems can’t detect AN/APG-81 at all. Even latest tech systems might well need to be inside AN/APG-81 operational range to detect its presence. Especially so, if the aircraft carrying has a large RCS like Su-27 derivatives.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:22
by mk82
ata wrote:
mk82 wrote:ata:

"So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time."

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!


You need to better read what we're talking about. Even if my English is not that good, I believe main idea is quite clear. So, please read all that stuff again, because what you had just asked means you're out of the points we discuss.


No, I understand your English loud and clear. All I am hearing from you is yap yap yap....let's use stupid tactics for warmed over Flankers that will get it's pilots killed. So my points are very relevant to this discussion.

Geez, if I was a Russian fighter pilot, the last I want to do is to use your stupid tactics and get myself killed. Air combat is brutal....use stupid tactics and fly like a kapusta...you die. I consider tactics, techniques and procedures even more important than the technology itself. How you use the technology is very important.

This is not just about LM and it's claims about the F35. Think deeper...as I mentioned before, why do you think leaders in your (Russian) Air Force wants a PAK FA with many features of the F35/F22 (low RCS....LPI AESA radars....next gen EW systems...integrated high definition EO systems....high level of sensor fusion....broadband plus LPI networking)...those features are needed just to survive future air combat. Not the yesteryear concepts of a warmed up Flanker (a "Golden"/upgraded F15Cs will give it a run for its money)

You seem to to be trapped in your own world on why concepts/technologies like LPI waveforms, stealth etc doesn't work. Well a lot of these concepts/technologies do work and are proven...it's called the F22 Raptor (a lot of F35 technology is leveraged from the F22 Raptor). And why would Sukhoi be interested in integrating these technologies/concepts into the PAK FA if they don't work. Get with the program ata.

Eloise and Hornetfinn have provided very good technical arguments so far. Take heed Tovarisch! Frankly, you need to do more basic research on the F35 too (the internal carriage capabilities of the F35 is a classic one!)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:24
by eloise
Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft's performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.
Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company's strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter's case).
On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.
With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft tasked for a 600 n mile 'out and back' mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was "nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category".
When accelerating from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 - important if evading a surface-to-air missile or in combat with other aircraft - the F-35 showed a comparable performance to its counterparts.
Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust. The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear - as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.
Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.
Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.
Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future".
He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35's superior stealth and situational awareness.
In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.
"The WVR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation," Mazanowski said.
He added: "One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well."

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lockheed-martin-defends-jsf-s-close-in-capabilities

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:31
by eloise
ata wrote:Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system

F-35 will have support from ITALD, MALD-J, NGJ as well
ata wrote:stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m.

you sure?
Image
Image
Stealth reduced it's effectiveness at low frequency, but not that much

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:36
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 09:56
by mk82
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


You are right that S300s are not going to be deployed as standalone systems in competently configured IADS. But an IADS is not infallible either. It's all about tactics. Throw in multiple decoys, decoy plus jammers, wild weasels, potential cyber attacks, VLO aircraft and non kinetic/kinetic anti-radiation weapons from multiple directions vs an IADS crewed by personnel not used to these countermeasures...not a pretty sight. Lots of wasted missiles fired at phantom targets, IADS crewmen going into meltdown because their situational awareness has shredded to bits and nodes of the IADS being prime targets themselves. No S300/S400 is going to change that.

Actually, I have heard Russian EW helicopters successfully jamming S300s on the Kapustin Yar firing range...the S300 crewmen had no idea how to deal with the jamming. Having equipment does not mean squat. How well your crewmen are trained is more important.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 10:03
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.


С-125 which was used for F-117 has 20 km missiles range. It's low-range 60 years old system :D

you sure?
Image
Image
Stealth reduced it's effectiveness at low frequency, but not that much


Never tested :) But firstly it's claimed by our generals :) Secondly you can come to Moscow air show (at this year August for example) where S-300/400 are always shown and ask by yourself. I did, and guys told me "in general it's not a problem". And thirdly, because even at S band (I'm not even going lower) wavelength is almost 5 times higher it doesn't seem possible to create such a wide-band RAM.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 10:09
by ata
mk82 wrote:
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


You are right that S300s are not going to be deployed as standalone systems in competently configured IADS. But an IADS is not infallible either. It's all about tactics. Throw in multiple decoys, decoy plus jammers, wild weasels, potential cyber attacks, VLO aircraft and non kinetic/kinetic anti-radiation weapons from multiple directions vs an IADS crewed by personnel not used to these countermeasures...not a pretty sight. Lots of wasted missiles fired at phantom targets, IADS crewmen going into meltdown because their situational awareness has shredded to bits and nodes of the IADS being prime targets themselves. No S300/S400 is going to change that.

Actually, I have heard Russian EW helicopters successfully jamming S300s on the Kapustin Yar firing range...the S300 crewmen had no idea how to deal with the jamming. Having equipment does not mean squat. How well your crewmen are trained is more important.


Well, guys are going to kill each other, they'll do all their best to make it not that easy. So, of course there is nothing working at "100%" in the world. Just remember 1 missile costs 1 million dollar and we have them a lot. There is no order to make "economy fire" :) So, how much F-35 costs? :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 10:20
by ata
mk82 wrote:
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


You are right that S300s are not going to be deployed as standalone systems in competently configured IADS. But an IADS is not infallible either. It's all about tactics. Throw in multiple decoys, decoy plus jammers, wild weasels, potential cyber attacks, VLO aircraft and non kinetic/kinetic anti-radiation weapons from multiple directions vs an IADS crewed by personnel not used to these countermeasures...not a pretty sight. Lots of wasted missiles fired at phantom targets, IADS crewmen going into meltdown because their situational awareness has shredded to bits and nodes of the IADS being prime targets themselves. No S300/S400 is going to change that.

Actually, I have heard Russian EW helicopters successfully jamming S300s on the Kapustin Yar firing range...the S300 crewmen had no idea how to deal with the jamming. Having equipment does not mean squat. How well your crewmen are trained is more important.


S-300 itself (even without Pantsir-S1) has special light missiles like 9М96 designed to fight with antiradar missiles, so it's of course well known problem. Also remember, S-300 has brilliant option - inflatable dummy, which is exactly real system from 100 km distance. With the exactly same radio, IR, optical signatures. It costs nothing and as far as I know we have plenty of them. It's like for every real S-300 there are dozens of dummy units :)
And yes, we have very powerful jamming systems, differet kinds of them, it's true :D

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 10:48
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.


С-125 which was used for F-117 has 20 km missiles range. It's low-range 60 years old system :D


Yes it is, but I was talking about P-18 VHF radar, which is old, but is still capable of detecting regular fighter targets at least 5 time longer ranges than what it proved it could do against F-117 in real world and without any jamming interference. So this real world example proved that stealth tech affects low frequency radars a lot. It also proved that such an old system can be a threat still if you get really careless and/or overconfident and enemy is smart. Of course newer tech radars will have much longer range, but stealth tech will affect them very much still.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 11:03
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.


С-125 which was used for F-117 has 20 km missiles range. It's low-range 60 years old system :D


Yes it is, but I was talking about P-18 VHF radar, which is old, but is still capable of detecting regular fighter targets at least 5 time longer ranges than what it proved it could do against F-117 in real world and without any jamming interference. So this real world example proved that stealth tech affects low frequency radars a lot. It also proved that such an old system can be a threat still if you get really careless and/or overconfident and enemy is smart. Of course newer tech radars will have much longer range, but stealth tech will affect them very much still.


I have no idea how you do this conclusion. Really. According to want I know F-117 was downed at 13 km from launch system. It's in fact no matter how far or near radar was deployed. Guys simply had no possibility to fire earlier, because claimed missile range 16-22 km. If you where sitting next to them and you can confirm they didn't see F-117 before it reached firing range, then ok... it makes sense, but I don't think so.
By the way, when I was looking for information about that case, I've found there is at least one more F-117 damaged (not downed) by the same system almost at the same time. And there are several more cases unconfirmed. So guys where firing a lot. I actually didn't know that.
Anyway, it proves nothing, it only indicates that stealth in not that stealthy as designers and sales guys want everybody to think. Let's just keep it mind and get back to F-35 vs Su-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 11:05
by disconnectedradical
sergei wrote:Earlier in the international air under the symbol "Su-35" was exhibited aircraft Su-27M.
"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК" - Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lagarkov Andrey - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics, Joint Institute for High Temperatures.
Mikhail Pogosyan - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of "Sukhoy ".
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM
Source much more reliable than http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su35.htm ,data relied upon by your magazine it
some strange mix of Su-27,Su-37,Su-35 and Chengdu J-10b(J-10B: An upgraded variant of the J-10 from 2008) with engine never exist (AL-31MF)
" I was talking about F-16 Block 50"
F-16A/ F-16 Block 50
Thrust 23,800 lbf/28,600 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 37,500 lb/42,300 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb
Thrust/weight: 0.6346/0.676 1.079
Su-27/Su-35
Thrust 27,700 lbf/31,900 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 67,100 lb/76,060 lb Loaded weight: 56,660 lb
0.8256/0.8388 1.26
And Su35 have advantage in acceleration vs F-16 Block 50

" it is likely that new " You heard about this for the first time from me and you already know what and where it was applied? :drool:

"what about cruising speed? not faster than F-35 i bet"
If my memory serves me something like 0.85m+ for F35 and 1.01 for Su-35


Su-35 has acceleration advantage over the F-16 Block 50? You better give me a source or some acceleration figures.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 11:22
by sergei
eloise wrote:
Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft's performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.
Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company's strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter's case).
On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.
With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft tasked for a 600 n mile 'out and back' mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was "nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category".
When accelerating from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 - important if evading a surface-to-air missile or in combat with other aircraft - the F-35 showed a comparable performance to its counterparts.
Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust. The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear - as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.
Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.
Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.
Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future".
He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35's superior stealth and situational awareness.
In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.
"The WVR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation," Mazanowski said.
He added: "One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well."

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lockheed-martin-defends-jsf-s-close-in-capabilities


"Su-35 cannot cruise faster than mach 0.85 with 10 AAM , while F-35 with 4-6 Aim-120/Meteor can cruise at mach 1.2 ( for around 150 miles )"
Su-35 10 A2A and F-35 only 4-6 A2A ie stealth config :roll: remind load of the F-16 and Su-27 : 4A2A+50% Fuel that's a fair comparison not like LM do it usually.

" can cruise at mach 1.2" It is not cruise speed ,F35 loaded with more then 4A2A will have drag too .

"According to your number the different between thrust of F-16 Block 50 and F-16A is 4800 lbs
the different between thrust of Su-35 and Su-27 is 4200 lbs "
No it is not 4200 lb, the different between thrust of Su-35 and Su-27 is 8400 - 2 engines want to remind.

"Su-27/35 is a much bigger aircraft than F-16 , so which one will have more drag"
Su-27 will have more drag and still more maneuverable and acceleration F16

"with equal resultants force , the lighter ( lower mass ) object will accelerate faster , Su-27/35 is obviously allot heavier ( higher mass ) than F-16
with the same amount of thrust increase which fighter benefit more is quite obvious"
It not "equal" "the lighter" will accelerate faster only if it have better thrust-to-weight and shape,and it have not .
"same amount of thrust increase" again it is not the same , and increase not only thrust -weight increase too .
Su-27/Su-35
Thrust 55,400 lbf/63,800 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 67,100 lb/76,060 lb Loaded weight:51650lb/56,660 lb
Thrust increase 15.16%+ Max. takeoff weight increase 13.35% Loaded weight increase 9.7%
Thrust-to-weight 0.8256/0.8388 1.072/1.26
F-16A/ F-16 Block 50
Thrust 23,800 lbf/28,600 lb Max. takeoff weight: 37,500 lb/42,300 lb Loaded weight: 25,281lb /26,500 lb
Thrust increase 20% Max. takeoff weight increase 12.8% Loaded weight increase 4%
Thrust-to-weight 0.6346/0.676 0.94/1.079

F-16E Block 60
Max. takeoff weigh : 49890lb Loaded weight: 33684lb
Thrust:32500lb
Thrust-to-weight 0.65/0.94

"Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM"
And R-77 short-range performance better than AMRAAM.

P/S disconnectedradical read from 23 page

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 11:46
by sergei
Su-27/Su-35

Thrust-to-weight 0.8256/0.8388 1.072/1.26

F-16A/ F-16 Block 50

Thrust-to-weight 0.6346/0.676 0.94/1.079

Su27 have 0.191 advantage over the F-16A in max. t .w and 0.132 in combat load

Su-35 have 0.1628 advantage over the F-16 Block50 in max. t .w and 0.181 in combat load

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 12:25
by hornetfinn
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Yes it is, but I was talking about P-18 VHF radar, which is old, but is still capable of detecting regular fighter targets at least 5 time longer ranges than what it proved it could do against F-117 in real world and without any jamming interference. So this real world example proved that stealth tech affects low frequency radars a lot. It also proved that such an old system can be a threat still if you get really careless and/or overconfident and enemy is smart. Of course newer tech radars will have much longer range, but stealth tech will affect them very much still.


I have no idea how you do this conclusion. Really. According to want I know F-117 was downed at 13 km from launch system. It's in fact no matter how far or near radar was deployed. Guys simply had no possibility to fire earlier, because claimed missile range 16-22 km. If you where sitting next to them and you can confirm they didn't see F-117 before it reached firing range, then ok... it makes sense, but I don't think so.
By the way, when I was looking for information about that case, I've found there is at least one more F-117 damaged (not downed) by the same system almost at the same time. And there are several more cases unconfirmed. So guys where firing a lot. I actually didn't know that.
Anyway, it proves nothing, it only indicates that stealth in not that stealthy as designers and sales guys want everybody to think. Let's just keep it mind and get back to F-35 vs Su-35.


Is it really that hard? There was S-125 battery which had a P-18 early warning radar scanning the sky to specifically find F-117. This radar is capable of detecting non-stealthy fighters at about 150 km away. Against F-117 it proved to be able to do that at significantly shorter range. This proves that F-117 stealth decreased the detection range significantly even in VHF frequency. So stating that stealth technology works only in X-band is totally wrong and I challenge you to find a credible source to support your claim about it.

Another thing is that S-125 actually has flight range of 25 km for the missile model Serbians used (5V27) and can be launched against incoming targets at 35 km away. Only the very earliest missiles (before 1964) had shorter range. So they were able to get a shot at 13 km away and the F-117 actually was hit and came down 8 km away from the battery. Stealth is not invisibility cloak but rather shortens the range of enemy sensors and thus weapons. In Serbia it worked just fine in real world situation in many frequencies, including really low frequency VHF. In that instance, it just was not enough as the F-117 was heading directly towards the S-125 battery which knew it was coming and was ready. Especially since F-117 has nothing else besides stealth to protect itself. Su-27 has been shot down with even more ancient and cumbersome S-75 Dvina system. Does that make it bad aircraft?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 13:23
by mixelflick
The idea that a single F-117 downed = stealth failure is laughable.

In 2 major conflicts, we lost ONE stealth aircraft. How many sorties were successfully flown? No idea, but I'm sure it numbers in the hundreds, perhaps more. If you're really banking on the fact stealth = failure and conveys no protection for the F-35 vs. SU-35, you're grasping at straws Sergei...

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 14:57
by eloise
ata wrote:Never tested :) But firstly it's claimed by our generals :) Secondly you can come to Moscow air show (at this year August for example) where S-300/400 are always shown and ask by yourself. I did, and guys told me "in general it's not a problem". And thirdly, because even at S band (I'm not even going lower) wavelength is almost 5 times higher it doesn't seem possible to create such a wide-band RAM.

US general claim exactly the opposite though
btw, shaping working quite well again L, S band radar
About RAM :

A radar absorbing composite includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite absorbs radar in a frequency range from about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the radar. A method of manufacturing this composite includes disposing a CNT-infused fiber material in a portion of a matrix material with a controlled orientation of the CNT-infused fiber material within the matrix material, and curing the matrix material. The composite can be formed into a panel which is adaptable as a structural component of a transport vessel or missile for use in stealth applications.

The barrier coating can also be less than 10 nm, including 1 nm, 2 nm, 3nm, 4 nm, 5 nm, 6 nm, 7 nm, 8 nm, 9 nm, 10 nm, and any value in between.

FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention relates to generally to radar absorbing materials.

BACKGROUND
Low observable, or stealth, technology is utilized on aircrafts, ships, submarines, and missiles, for example, to make them less visible or observable to radar, infrared, sonar and other detection methods. Various radar absorbing materials (RAMs), which absorb electromagnetic frequencies, such as in the radar range, have been developed for such low observable applications. However, the RAMs presently employed have some drawbacks. For example, many RAMs are not an integral part of the surface of a low observable structure. Instead, the RAMs are applied as coatings or paints over the surface of the low observable structure making them heavier, and prone to wear, chipping, and failure. An example of such a RAM includes iron ball paint, which contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite. Moreover, these coatings require bonding to the surface of the structure because they are not an integrated part of the structure or surface.

Another example of a RAM is urethane foam impregnated with carbon. Such RAMs are used in very thick layers. Such RAMs are inherently non-structural in nature such that they add weight and volume to structures while providing no structural support. These types of foam RAMs are frequently cut into long pyramids. For low frequency damping, the distance from base to tip of the pyramid structure is often 24 inches, while high frequency panels can be as short as 3-4 inches.

Another RAM takes the form of doped polymer tiles bonded to the surface of the low observable structure. Such tiles which include neoprene doped with carbon black or iron particles, for example, are prone to separation, particularly in extreme operating environments such as extremely high or low temperatures, and/or high altitudes. Finally, numerous RAMs do not perform adequately in the long radar wavelength band, about 2 GHz.

It would be beneficial to develop alternative RAMs that address one or more of the aforementioned issues. The present invention satisfies this need and provides related advantages as well.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In some aspects, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a radar absorbing composite that includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the absorbed radar.

Original Assignee Lockheed Martin Corporation

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253#v=onepage&q&f=false


Lockheed Martin has revealed the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites in non-load bearing airframe components.

A thermoset epoxy reinforced by carbon nanotubes will replace carbon fibre as the material used to produce F-35 wingtip fairings beginning with low rate initial production (LRIP)-4 aircraft, said Travis Earles, a manager for corporate nanotechnology initiatives.

Meanwhile, the same carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP) material is being considered to replace about 100 components made with other composites or metals throughout the F-35's airframe, he said.

The shift to CNRP as an airframe material has been anticipated ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991. It is widely considered one of the strongest materials ever invented - several times stronger than carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), yet lighter by about 25-30%.

Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite-357223/

Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:17
by ata
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Yes it is, but I was talking about P-18 VHF radar, which is old, but is still capable of detecting regular fighter targets at least 5 time longer ranges than what it proved it could do against F-117 in real world and without any jamming interference. So this real world example proved that stealth tech affects low frequency radars a lot. It also proved that such an old system can be a threat still if you get really careless and/or overconfident and enemy is smart. Of course newer tech radars will have much longer range, but stealth tech will affect them very much still.


I have no idea how you do this conclusion. Really. According to want I know F-117 was downed at 13 km from launch system. It's in fact no matter how far or near radar was deployed. Guys simply had no possibility to fire earlier, because claimed missile range 16-22 km. If you where sitting next to them and you can confirm they didn't see F-117 before it reached firing range, then ok... it makes sense, but I don't think so.
By the way, when I was looking for information about that case, I've found there is at least one more F-117 damaged (not downed) by the same system almost at the same time. And there are several more cases unconfirmed. So guys where firing a lot. I actually didn't know that.
Anyway, it proves nothing, it only indicates that stealth in not that stealthy as designers and sales guys want everybody to think. Let's just keep it mind and get back to F-35 vs Su-35.


Is it really that hard? There was S-125 battery which had a P-18 early warning radar scanning the sky to specifically find F-117. This radar is capable of detecting non-stealthy fighters at about 150 km away. Against F-117 it proved to be able to do that at significantly shorter range. This proves that F-117 stealth decreased the detection range significantly even in VHF frequency. So stating that stealth technology works only in X-band is totally wrong and I challenge you to find a credible source to support your claim about it.

Another thing is that S-125 actually has flight range of 25 km for the missile model Serbians used (5V27) and can be launched against incoming targets at 35 km away. Only the very earliest missiles (before 1964) had shorter range. So they were able to get a shot at 13 km away and the F-117 actually was hit and came down 8 km away from the battery. Stealth is not invisibility cloak but rather shortens the range of enemy sensors and thus weapons. In Serbia it worked just fine in real world situation in many frequencies, including really low frequency VHF. In that instance, it just was not enough as the F-117 was heading directly towards the S-125 battery which knew it was coming and was ready. Especially since F-117 has nothing else besides stealth to protect itself. Su-27 has been shot down with even more ancient and cumbersome S-75 Dvina system. Does that make it bad aircraft?


Ok, ok man... you're right. You described all the details of how that happened it only possible if you are a witness. In that case it's simply stupid to discuss, let's just trust you.
I'm not trying to prove my concept with this case as an evidence. It's simply impossible to prove any hypothesis with an example. I only want to say, that because I have another explanation of why stealth is not working at different frequencies...

Just to be clear I want to repeat it again and again. When I say "stealth is not working" I mean tactically meaningful reducing level of reflected power. So, for example 10 dB less level is simply means - aircraft is visible. So to be really effective RAM+shape+whatever effect must be 20-30 db at least (in fact even more).

...then I'm using all the available examples to support my idea. And this is difference, because you believe that stealth just works and you create scenarios why this or that happened due any reason but not stealth weakness.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:19
by ata
mixelflick wrote:The idea that a single F-117 downed = stealth failure is laughable.

In 2 major conflicts, we lost ONE stealth aircraft. How many sorties were successfully flown? No idea, but I'm sure it numbers in the hundreds, perhaps more. If you're really banking on the fact stealth = failure and conveys no protection for the F-35 vs. SU-35, you're grasping at straws Sergei...


Who said that "F-117 downed = stealth failure"? Could you show us that person? Because it's really laughable. Let's laugh all together.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:29
by eloise
ata wrote:Well, guys are going to kill each other, they'll do all their best to make it not that easy. So, of course there is nothing working at "100%" in the world. Just remember 1 missile costs 1 million dollar and we have them a lot. There is no order to make "economy fire" :) So, how much F-35 costs?

S-300 itself (even without Pantsir-S1) has special light missiles like 9М96 designed to fight with antiradar missiles, so it's of course well known problem. Also remember, S-300 has brilliant option - inflatable dummy, which is exactly real system from 100 km distance. With the exactly same radio, IR, optical signatures. It costs nothing and as far as I know we have plenty of them. It's like for every real S-300 there are dozens of dummy units :)
And yes, we have very powerful jamming systems, differet kinds of them, it's true :D

F-35 side can use MALD-J, ITALD, 1 aircraft can carry around 18 of them ( any pylon that can carry MK-82 can carry them) , they can simulated RCS of any aircraft, have 2 way datalink, they also have engine and can move at speed of around mach 0.9, have range of 400-900 km, each of them cost around 330.000 USD :D , Not to mention that they also carry jammer, thus it may required several missiles to kill them

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:39
by ata
"mk82"

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point


I'm assuming Flankers will never just spend time in the sky, just because they like to do that. No, I never said about mandatory VHF radar support. And about radars protection I also already said.

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.


You have taken part of our discussion, made a conclusion, and imagined how I would answer and answered to my virtual answer. So, I agree in situation you described it will be as you said.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.


You seem have a knowledge of how LPI exactly works. So, please share your knowledge with us. I posted my theory based on my understanding of technologies related to LPI, and what you are based on?

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.


Maybe because we're in different topic?

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!


:)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:46
by mk82
ata:

" Well, guys are going to kill each other, they'll do all their best to make it not that easy. So, of course there is nothing working at "100%" in the world. Just remember 1 missile costs 1 million dollar and we have them a lot. There is no order to make "economy fire" :) So, how much F-35 costs? :D "

Indeed ata, it's just not economic cost of losing fighter aircraft. There is also the human cost of fighter pilots being shot down as well. However, as "cheap" as these SAM missiles are, a S300/S400/S whatever SAM battery only has a finite number of missiles. Now if the SAM battery fires at everything including numerous convincing decoys, that battery is going to run out of missiles before the fight is over! Good luck trying to reload your SAM battery in the middle of a fight....where a PGM might literally land on your head at any time.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:54
by mk82
ata wrote:
S-300 itself (even without Pantsir-S1) has special light missiles like 9М96 designed to fight with antiradar missiles, so it's of course well known problem. Also remember, S-300 has brilliant option - inflatable dummy, which is exactly real system from 100 km distance. With the exactly same radio, IR, optical signatures. It costs nothing and as far as I know we have plenty of them. It's like for every real S-300 there are dozens of dummy units :)
And yes, we have very powerful jamming systems, differet kinds of them, it's true :D


Indeed, may the best tactician and best trained crewmen win.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 15:56
by ata
eloise,

I cannot see the engine fan blade in any of these picture :shock:


Do you see the surface inside of the nozzle? What kind of RAM is it protected?

frontal direction is obviously the most important direction :? , for example if F-35 was to attack an Su-35 airfield , and the Su-35 take off to defense themselves , wouldnt they come at the other head on ?


Frontal direction is a most important. I mean this is my opinion as well. Is it the only one tactically important? I don't think so.

F-117 was designed 40-50 years before the F-35 , and even with low band radar the Serbia was only able to shot it down 1 time out of over 1000 sorties , and only from 12 km :) , i have to say that is pretty impressive achievement


Ok, I already said that example proves nothing. Just an indication.

every part of aircraft body will affect RCS , unless your fighter is transparent to radar wave , the graph was to estimated because you want to know in what direction stealth fighter will have high RCS , and in what direction it will have small RCS , the way radar wave scatter


My point is that modelling of metal body shows you nothing, because main RCS impact caused not by "surfaces" but by the things which couldn't be considered. In opposite, this kind of models could be helpful for non-stealthy aircrafts, because in that case body itself affects RCS much more than additional equipment or pilot etc.

ok how the Su-35 suddently know what the direction of F-35 to turn its radar that way ? , what stop the F-35 from turnning its nose to Su-35 direction ? , even if Su-35 cruise at mach 2 , it still take 221 second to cover 150 km and obviously Su-35 cannot reach mach 2 with 10 AAM , and when f-35 turn it's nose to Su-35 direction , it will be disappear from the radar screen , thus Su-35 will be blindly rushing to F-35 direction , what stop the F-35 from attacking the blind Su-35 ? , remember the faster you go , the bigger your turn radius and the smaller G you can pull , making your aircraft an easy target to hit


Ooook, this is what I've started from at this forum. This kind of things could be only clarified when you model real fight.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 16:02
by ata
mk82 wrote:ata:

" Well, guys are going to kill each other, they'll do all their best to make it not that easy. So, of course there is nothing working at "100%" in the world. Just remember 1 missile costs 1 million dollar and we have them a lot. There is no order to make "economy fire" :) So, how much F-35 costs? :D "

Indeed ata, it's just not economic cost of losing fighter aircraft. There is also the human cost of fighter pilots being shot down as well. However, as "cheap" as these SAM missiles are, a S300/S400/S whatever SAM battery only has a finite number of missiles. Now if the SAM battery fires at everything including numerous convincing decoys, that battery is going to run out of missiles before the fight is over! Good luck trying to reload your SAM battery in the middle of a fight....where a PGM might literally land on your head at any time.


Oh, S-300 division supported by all that stuff I've listed recently has hundreds of missiles (48 missiles from only S-300 + many-many more at Buk, Tor supporters). It would be very short conflict if you're ready to send hundreds of F-35 just to kill just one S-300 division :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 16:02
by ata
mk82 wrote:
ata wrote:
S-300 itself (even without Pantsir-S1) has special light missiles like 9М96 designed to fight with antiradar missiles, so it's of course well known problem. Also remember, S-300 has brilliant option - inflatable dummy, which is exactly real system from 100 km distance. With the exactly same radio, IR, optical signatures. It costs nothing and as far as I know we have plenty of them. It's like for every real S-300 there are dozens of dummy units :)
And yes, we have very powerful jamming systems, differet kinds of them, it's true :D


Indeed, may the best tactician and best trained crewmen win.


That's simply truth.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 16:11
by mk82
ata wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
I have no idea how you do this conclusion. Really. According to want I know F-117 was downed at 13 km from launch system. It's in fact no matter how far or near radar was deployed. Guys simply had no possibility to fire earlier, because claimed missile range 16-22 km. If you where sitting next to them and you can confirm they didn't see F-117 before it reached firing range, then ok... it makes sense, but I don't think so.
By the way, when I was looking for information about that case, I've found there is at least one more F-117 damaged (not downed) by the same system almost at the same time. And there are several more cases unconfirmed. So guys where firing a lot. I actually didn't know that.
Anyway, it proves nothing, it only indicates that stealth in not that stealthy as designers and sales guys want everybody to think. Let's just keep it mind and get back to F-35 vs Su-35.


Is it really that hard? There was S-125 battery which had a P-18 early warning radar scanning the sky to specifically find F-117. This radar is capable of detecting non-stealthy fighters at about 150 km away. Against F-117 it proved to be able to do that at significantly shorter range. This proves that F-117 stealth decreased the detection range significantly even in VHF frequency. So stating that stealth technology works only in X-band is totally wrong and I challenge you to find a credible source to support your claim about it.

Another thing is that S-125 actually has flight range of 25 km for the missile model Serbians used (5V27) and can be launched against incoming targets at 35 km away. Only the very earliest missiles (before 1964) had shorter range. So they were able to get a shot at 13 km away and the F-117 actually was hit and came down 8 km away from the battery. Stealth is not invisibility cloak but rather shortens the range of enemy sensors and thus weapons. In Serbia it worked just fine in real world situation in many frequencies, including really low frequency VHF. In that instance, it just was not enough as the F-117 was heading directly towards the S-125 battery which knew it was coming and was ready. Especially since F-117 has nothing else besides stealth to protect itself. Su-27 has been shot down with even more ancient and cumbersome S-75 Dvina system. Does that make it bad aircraft?


Ok, ok man... you're right. You described all the details of how that happened it only possible if you are a witness. In that case it's simply stupid to discuss, let's just trust you.
I'm not trying to prove my concept with this case as an evidence. It's simply impossible to prove any hypothesis with an example. I only want to say, that because I have another explanation of why stealth is not working at different frequencies...

Just to be clear I want to repeat it again and again. When I say "stealth is not working" I mean tactically meaningful reducing level of reflected power. So, for example 10 dB less level is simply means - aircraft is visible. So to be really effective RAM+shape+whatever effect must be 20-30 db at least (in fact even more).

...then I'm using all the available examples to support my idea. And this is difference, because you believe that stealth just works and you create scenarios why this or that happened due any reason but not stealth weakness.


Looks like it is a recurring mantra with you - do your research. Read up on Colonel Dani Zoltan's account and the F117A pilot's account of the shoot down. There are even YouTube videos of both men! Better still, they are participants, not just witnesses. Dani Zoltan's account seems to indicate that the P18 radar started to detect the F117A at relatively close ranges...no where near it's maximal/optimal range! Hornetfinn is not pulling things out of his ****! He has been providing well documented real life examples and good technical information.

Frankly, I haven't seen much "real life" examples from you ata to support your assertions.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 16:21
by mk82
ata wrote:
mk82 wrote:ata:

" Well, guys are going to kill each other, they'll do all their best to make it not that easy. So, of course there is nothing working at "100%" in the world. Just remember 1 missile costs 1 million dollar and we have them a lot. There is no order to make "economy fire" :) So, how much F-35 costs? :D "

Indeed ata, it's just not economic cost of losing fighter aircraft. There is also the human cost of fighter pilots being shot down as well. However, as "cheap" as these SAM missiles are, a S300/S400/S whatever SAM battery only has a finite number of missiles. Now if the SAM battery fires at everything including numerous convincing decoys, that battery is going to run out of missiles before the fight is over! Good luck trying to reload your SAM battery in the middle of a fight....where a PGM might literally land on your head at any time.


Oh, S-300 division supported by all that stuff I've listed recently has hundreds of missiles (48 missiles from only S-300 + many-many more at Buk, Tor supporters). It would be very short conflict if you're ready to send hundreds of F-35 just to kill just one S-300 division :)


Two can play at the same game...good luck dealing with potentially higher number of decoys. And not every country has a S300 division or massive numbers of Buk or Tor etc. And a good SAM crew will try to be careful when they fire off missiles. Once a SAM battery fires it's missiles, it's location potentially becomes more obvious for a counter strike. Being mobile is a good defensive tactic but when the SAM battery spends more time travelling just to survive rather than defending the air space, it has failed at it's mission.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 16:24
by KamenRiderBlade
Look at Desert Storm.

All the IADS in the world won't stop the US when it plans out and takes out all your SAM sites along with everything else.

If anything, Saddam had one of the toughest Anti-Air defense systems in the world, and look what became of it.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:02
by ata
All the IADS in the world won't stop the US when it plans out and takes out all your SAM sites along with everything else.


:D :D :D Good luck

If anything, Saddam had one of the toughest Anti-Air defense systems in the world, and look what became of it.


OMG
300 S-75 and S-125... Another 300 Kub, Osa and Strela... And Artillery! All are older than dinosaurs even at that time. And even this "huge power" required 600 aircrafts to make 2000-3000 missions per day. And that incredible power, of course, downed more than 15% of aircrafts, because it was such an incredible.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:12
by ata
Looks like it is a recurring mantra with you - do your research. Read up on Colonel Dani Zoltan's account and the F117A pilot's account of the shoot down. There are even YouTube videos of both men! Better still, they are participants, not just witnesses. Dani Zoltan's account seems to indicate that the P18 radar started to detect the F117A at relatively close ranges...no where near it's maximal/optimal range! Hornetfinn is not pulling things out of his ****! He has been providing well documented real life examples and good technical information.

Frankly, I haven't seen much "real life" examples from you ata to support your assertions.


It will be recurring mantra of course, as we simply have no information. All the sources we have are only make us able to guess. The problem here is that you are confident about your sources at 100% (when they provide suitable information) while I can't share your confidence. There is only one way to solve this problem, or you will guess at the same way as me or you need to provide absolutely credible information, measurements, protocols, which is obviously impossible. I'm not talking now about that situation with F-117, but about all this topic about stealth, LPI etc.
"Real life examples"... well I've provided you real life physics, and because I'm not experienced at radar tech, as I already said, I can only google in the same way as you, and as soon as I'll get any important information I'll let you know.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:18
by eloise
ata wrote:Oh, S-300 division supported by all that stuff I've listed recently has hundreds of missiles (48 missiles from only S-300 + many-many more at Buk, Tor supporters). It would be very short conflict if you're ready to send hundreds of F-35 just to kill just one S-300 division :)

didnt you read what i wrote ?
F-35 side can use MALD-J, ITALD, 1 aircraft can carry around 18 of them ( any pylon that can carry MK-82 can carry them, so using MER, TER you can carry 3-6 of them per pylon ) , they can simulated RCS of any aircraft, have 2 way datalink, they also have engine and can move at speed of around mach 0.9, have range of 400-900 km, each of them cost around 330.000 USD :D , Not to mention that they also carry jammer, thus it may required several missiles to kill them
i will just load each F-35 with 18 MALD-J / ITALD externally + 8 SDB II internally , since MALD can fly for around 900 km, the F-35 can just drop them at the border, jettison the pylon become stealth again, and you will have 260 targets to shot down for for every 10 F-35, take into account jamming from MALD-J, NGJ, enemy will need to launch more than 1 missiles for each decoy

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:24
by ata
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:. The main characteristic of ANY antenna in the world will be it's GAIN. For example aperture is absolutely unimportant because aperture in general only define gain. You can create huge aperture antenna, but if it's gain will be low, then such a size just useless. So, what in fact gain means? Frankly speaking it's how wide or thin antenna's beam. Of course it's not a definition (there are lobes, losses etc), but it's enough to understand the idea.
Look at this: http://www.aktivsb.ru/article-info1499.html
Compare left and right patterns at first picture. At right side antenna has very low gain because it transmit power to whole world in front direction. At the left side gain is much higher because it only sends signals in one thin beam (skip the lobes at the moment). All the power just in one point. Why is it important? Because in case of radar: LPI, non-LPI, no matter what engineers try to create the thinest reasonable beam possible. To bring all the available power in one point.


Beamwidth varies directly with wavelength and inversely with antenna size
for example : if operating frequency is 1 ghz and antenna is 1 meter then the beam width will be 25 degree ( same reason why the T-50 wing edge thing is not a radar but only a IFF system ) , inversely if the antenna is 10 meters in dimension then the beam width will be 2.5 degree
Higher wavelengths allow a smaller antenna to have the same gain.
For example, at X Band (3 cm); you need an antenna 45” in diameter to get a gain of 40 dB; while at S Band (10 cm); you need an antenna 150” in diameter to get the same gain of 40 dB.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Radar ... istics.htm
ata wrote:Do you remember I've calculated that at 100 km 2 degrees beam will give you 3,5 km spot? It's not exactly truth. It will be even bigger, but normally this kind of sizes measured at -3db, -10 db levels (it's all depend of agreement and standards). That size's spot will be about 10 sq. km. while Flanker size object (not it RCS) actual size will be about 10 sq. m. So only 1/1 million part of your energy will make sense. All the rest you spent to heat up atmosphere.

the part that spend heat up the atmosphere doesnt get intercepted by Su-35 sensor either :wink: , and Su-35 doesnt have radar receiver all over it's body but only very few part , accounted for less than 0.1% of it's surface area , as a result :) of all the signal come to Su-35 direction, only 1/1 million part will hit it's airframe , and 1/1000 will hit it's RWR antenna
ata wrote:The another theory. What electro-magnetic reflection means? Again, frankly speaking incoming wave generates some electric current in metal shape, and that current generates electro-magnetic field in back (this is very simplified theory, because for example dielectric materials also reflect some radio waves). In fact your target acts like secondary oscillator. The only difference it will transmit it's power in every direction. Let's say in every direction in the same level

wrong , if that was the case then it would be impossible to designed any stealth fighter , and all fighter of similar size will have equal RCS in all direction :?

ata wrote:. Let's calculate how big is your radar (1 m in diameter) from 100 km far away for antenna with 0 db gain.
Approximately it will be 1/4*10ˆ-11
We also have to remember about initial 1/1 million part of energy. Finally you'll get 1/4*10ˆ-17. It's -164 dB. While at target side it's just -80 dB (because Flanker's radar has approximately 1 sq. m size as well). About 80 dB difference.
Wow, isn't it? In fact because I simplified the idea (to show the origin of such high loss) it's not exactly correct. Look at this: http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... on.en.html
Function (9) shows that received power is 1/Rˆ4 function (because antenna gain, RCS, transmitted power are constants). Even if you have 40 db antenna gain (which seems not really possible) and squared it's just 10ˆ8. If you have relatively high RSC it's another 10ˆ1. Even in that case it will be still 10ˆ-11 of transmitted power. While at target side it will be 10ˆ-5.
So, Flanker radar operates in fact not thousands, but million times higher signal level than that at F-35.

unlike RWR , radar only intended to receive it's own signal , if the flanker radar treat all signal it received as a target , then the radar screen will be clutter with thousand targets made by deceptive jammer , Irbis-e will be super easy to fool

ata wrote:So, if F-35 is able to detect it's signal from the noise why do you think it's a problem to do with million times better option (noise level is the same for both sides)? Yes LPI switches frequencies, but it's not like "from any to any" those peaks are still in X-band. And because Flanker radar is also X-band it will receive all of them. We can talk about fighting with the noise but believe me dealing with noise is huge part of radio tech and I need to take all my old books from the shelf to remember all the stuff. It's well known problem and it's discovered from the first phone-line in the world.
If you have any application to generate spectrograms for sound files try to do the following. Generate the file with several very short peaks with different frequencies. It will emulate LPI. Then apply some noise (it's possible with apps like SoundForge). Even you can do noise level similar to peaks level. Then generate spectrogram. It should look like this: http://audiophilesoft.ru/articles/quali ... fhg320.jpg
At your picture you'll see small bright dots - these are your peaks. If you can see it with your eyes, then it's possible to create algorithm to detect it. This is how LPI works.

As you said your self before , only a small part of energy from APG-81 hit the Su-35 , the rest heat up the air , hit the ground ..etc
How do flanker RWR discriminate between the signal come from APG-81 direction it's self and the signal from APG-81 that hit the ground , or bird first before reflected to the Flanker ?
And as i explained , since RWR cannot compute the distance to an moving air target so even if RWR on Su-35 some how detect APG-81 , the only information the Su-35 pilot will know is the direction that F-35 come from :D , no distance , no speed he cant attack it , and we back to low band radar problem , only helpful for early warning


Sorry, it becomes too much about basic physics. I would address you to those guys:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... ooks%2C402
Really, I'd be happy to talk more about this stuff and we can get back to this later, but it's too much for the moment.
I mean when you says that my explanation of waves reflection is wrong (actually, I said, it simplified model but it very well describes how it happens in real life), then I believe you either know this better than me or you just have no idea what are you talking about. So, to continue this discussion we need to get the same level. Or you need to ask instead of make statements.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:33
by ata
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:Oh, S-300 division supported by all that stuff I've listed recently has hundreds of missiles (48 missiles from only S-300 + many-many more at Buk, Tor supporters). It would be very short conflict if you're ready to send hundreds of F-35 just to kill just one S-300 division :)

didnt you read what i wrote ?
F-35 side can use MALD-J, ITALD, 1 aircraft can carry around 18 of them ( any pylon that can carry MK-82 can carry them, so using MER, TER you can carry 3-6 of them per pylon ) , they can simulated RCS of any aircraft, have 2 way datalink, they also have engine and can move at speed of around mach 0.9, have range of 400-900 km, each of them cost around 330.000 USD :D , Not to mention that they also carry jammer, thus it may required several missiles to kill them
i will just load each F-35 with 18 MALD-J / ITALD externally + 8 SDB II internally , since MALD can fly for around 900 km, the F-35 can just drop them at the border, jettison the pylon become stealth again, and you will have 260 targets to shot down for for every 10 F-35, take into account jamming from MALD-J, NGJ, enemy will need to launch more than 1 missiles for each decoy


Yes, I've read. All that subsonic stuff will be simply downed by artillery. You can even choose which one, because we have even range of them. And we can play this game for a long time, but I would rather prefer to do the same about F-35 vs Su-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:35
by KamenRiderBlade
ata wrote:
All the IADS in the world won't stop the US when it plans out and takes out all your SAM sites along with everything else.


:D :D :D Good luck

If anything, Saddam had one of the toughest Anti-Air defense systems in the world, and look what became of it.


OMG
300 S-75 and S-125... Another 300 Kub, Osa and Strela... And Artillery! All are older than dinosaurs even at that time. And even this "huge power" required 600 aircrafts to make 2000-3000 missions per day. And that incredible power, of course, downed more than 15% of aircrafts, because it was such an incredible.


At the end of the day, the IADS was taken down, the SAM sites were destroyed.

Once you get past the Anti-Air defense, you are open to attack, the fact of the matter is that once we blow up all your defense or waste the ammo in your SAM sites, you have nothing left to protect yourself.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 17:36
by eloise
ata wrote:

Do you see the surface inside of the nozzle? What kind of RAM is it protected?

i have no id