Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 07:23

ricnunes wrote:Thanks swiss :D

And the short answer to your post is: YES

I also believe that with the example above, one can appreciate how useful and important AWACS (which you mentioned) really are :wink:


Your welcome. Yes absolutely true.

blindpilot wrote:In the interest of completeness there are OTH (over the horizon) techniques such as HF backscatter, and longwave groundwave for surface targets (ships etc.)
OTH backscatter.jpg

But these have serious limitations, working around solar issues (other noise), faint return signals, lack of fine targeting info etc. etc. At best currently these are "something may have just hit the fence" warnings, not tracking or targeting per se. I once was at the Pentagon discussing this and had to remind the "users" that the accuracy was not great. "Sure you can tell the NCA that Guam is the target if you want to, as long as you are ready to tell him it went 1500 miles north of that and it's looking more like Okinawa now, once we get the real tracking data."

There's a reason you want to have forward tracking Radars like THAAD (or AWACS) in the equation. And that has to do with more than just altitude. (basically you get a couple hundredish extra miles from being above 30,000 ish feet or so.) You need/want radars placed forward near the origin/launch locations. That's why the Navy has E-2Ds, to send them forward, the altitude certainly helps but they need the radars forward. to get more fine targeting data earlier than just a few hundred miles extra. ( A balloon on a tether can do that)

FWIW,
BP


Very interesting BP. I even didn't know such a technique exits. Maybe its more useful in a future conflict , when the OTH Radar its more evolved. Thanks also spazsinbad for the links.

So the most advantage of the E-D2 you can carry them very close to the battle zone. And you have a nearby "airport" for them.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16
  • Warnings: 5

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 11:07

Surely F-35 or even Super Hornet make more economic sense let alone technical ...

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ighter-buy

“The 36 Dassault Rafales that India procured after the demise of the M-MRCA program had a total cost of $9 billion. The commitment that Russia is asking for on the Su-57 is $6.7 billion, for a program that will produce around 130 aircraft,” explained one Indian military aerospace analyst.

“From the public perspective, people look at those numbers here in India and get the impression that the Russian offer is a real bargain: 130-plus aircraft for $2.3 billion less than the price of 36 Rafales. This is what they think,” he explained. “But what no one realizes is that the $6.7 billion pays only for the program set-up costs and the production of the initial four FGFA prototype aircraft. The 127 aircraft to then be license-built in India will be at least another $135 million apiece, which is another $17.1 billion on top of the initial $6.7 billion outlay.”

The final numbers put the per-unit cost of the Su-57 at $183 million compared with $250 million for the Rafale, although the same Indian analysts suggest those comparisons are not “apples for apples.” There are additional costs for weapons systems and other infrastructure expenses that are not folded into the estimate for the Su-57. However, those line items are included in the price tag for the Rafale program, they say.

“The Su-30MK was an existing, working airplane in the Russian Air Force, and turning it into the Su-30MKI was not a huge leap in capability,” said the same Indian military aerospace analyst. “Even those comparatively modest enhancements cost more than $700 million,” he added.

“The big worry for India is there is a much greater distance between the Su-57 as it exists today and the requirements for the FGFA, and there is no reliable methodology to predict that cost for closing that gap,” concluded an analyst who chose not to be named.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 20:03

swiss wrote:Very interesting BP. I even didn't know such a technique exits. Maybe its more useful in a future conflict , when the OTH Radar its more evolved. Thanks also spazsinbad for the links.


However the problem is the OTH radar/systems limitations which are basically "too many". From what I could gather, here are a few:

- Susceptible to lots of background noise (generating from the waves bouncing into the ionosphere)

- Apparently highly susceptible to jamming

- Actual limitation in detection range. For example the JINDALEE Radar network detection range is said to be 3,000 km. But in fact this data is incomplete - The detection range (JINDALEE Radar network detection range) is actually between 1,000 km (minimal detection range) and 3,000 km (maximum range). So this means that this radar station cannot detect targets flying at a range inferior to 1000 km relative to the OTH radars position - This of course doesn't only affect JINDALEE but also all and any other OTH radars. This following picture originally posted by spazsinbad clearly shows this:
Image
This of course doesn't affect the "more conventional" radars which can theoretically detect targets between 0 km/miles/nautical miles/whatever (well not actually zero but I guess you get the idea) and the max detection range (whatever that might be).
And by the way, here's more info about the JINDALEE Radar network:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100ye ... /jorn.html

- Like I previously mentioned, OTH radars have very low resolutions and precision.

- Needs massive land size to install the radars and associated equipment - Nice and HUGE juicy targets.

Here's another great read about OTH radars:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

From what I understand, it seems that OTH radars are best used against naval contacts (although they are also capable of detecting air contacts) and also by the way, contacts that don't have jamming capabilities. Resuming they seem more fitted to a "constabulary" role than an actual wartime military role. And it also seems that OTH radars have a hard time detecting maneuvering targets/contacts.

And following the "mountain subject" earlier, I also take with a "mountain of salt" the claims that OTH radars managed to (and somehow easily) detect Stealth aircraft.
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 17:51

Thanks a lot for your explanations Ric.

It seems that the OTH Radar has a long way to go, bevor its a useful tool in a conflict. Especially against a high end threat ( stealth, modern jamming capabilities).
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 18:03

OTH radar has a pretty hard limit on its spatial resolution; namely, the skin depth and uniformity of the ionosphere.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 00:37

I really wouldn't take the released numbers on JORN seriously. Nor it's stated capabilities of detection and believe it or not, targeting. It's used by the US in their network for a reason
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 00:52

swiss wrote:Thanks a lot for your explanations Ric.

It seems that the OTH Radar has a long way to go, bevor its a useful tool in a conflict.


I even dare to say the following:
- It seems that the OTH Radar will never be a useful tool in a conflict!

Independently of any technological advances you just can't break the laws of physics :wink:


optimist wrote:I really wouldn't take the released numbers on JORN seriously. Nor it's stated capabilities of detection and believe it or not, targeting. It's used by the US in their network for a reason


Agreed! Hence why I previously said that I take with a "mountain of salt" their claims.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 01:07

If that was your take away from what I said, perhaps I was a bit too subtle. There is enough public stuff to say. I suppose I could have said it could be an air controller and harbour master for Guam, with what can be described as a sidelobe. We don't even point that way. :|

Here is some more public stuff in P15
http://www.defence-today.com.au/pdfs/de ... 16-web.pdf
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19875
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2018, 05:07

This LONG article makes the case that India is likely to drop the T-50/FGFA/Su-57, whatever it is called, altogether.
Sukhoi Su-57: Will India Join the Program?
07 Feb 2018 Reuben F. Johnson

"In December 2010, India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) signed an agreement for New Delhi to fund the preliminary design stage of what was called the Future Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). The development of this aircraft, which was originally intended to be a two-seat variant of the Sukhoi T-50 5th-generation fighter, was to be tailored to meet Indian requirements.

This aircraft, now known as the Su-57, would be the logical follow-on for—and would eventually replace—some of the missions for another variant-developed-for-India fighter aircraft, the Su-30MKI. The 2010 agreement, however, only committed India to pay $295 million, which was funding for the initial design and concept-definition phase....

...Indian Skepticism
The reason that analysts in both Moscow and in New Delhi are looking at the Su-57 program as the most likely candidate among those above to fall off the list of programs is that the Su-57 has too few backers and too many problems associated with its procurement. Officially, there has been a partnership between Russia and India on developing the PAK-FA since 2007, which was years before almost all of the other programs above were in place.

This is the first of many problems, according to Indian military aerospace observers, because during this 10-year period the Su-57 program has seen “rather slow progress,” according to one. Another difficulty from the Indian side was that the number of this type initially projected to be produced was around 800. This number has now shrunk to between 300 and 400, which includes the 127 units to be purchased by India, leaving New Delhi to pick up almost 50 percent of the initial non-recoverable development costs.

This puts the total cost estimate for the program at over $30 billion, a figure that has not been widely publicized by the IAF. “A lot of the Indian public looks at the numbers between these two [Rafale and Su-57] and think the Russian option is a bargain,” said one Indian aerospace expert. “They do not realize that the $9 billion pays for all 36 Rafales, but the $6.7 billion we would have to invest in the Su-57 would only pay for four prototypes—with the total program cost more than three times that of the Rafale acquisition.”

Additionally, the actual unit cost of an Indian version of the Su-57 remains an unknown. An IAF team that examined the Su-57 program’s T-50 prototypes reportedly found dozens of design changes that they would request before they would deem the aircraft compliant with their requirements, many of which involved radar-cross-section (RCS) issues or other expensive modifications.... [then stuff about 'new' engines]

...For now, the VKS has only 12 Su-57s on order. According to the current plan, the first 10 of these will be powered with the previous-generation 117 engine, and the last two will utilize the new izdeliye 30. How well these aircraft perform, particularly those that fly with the new engine, may well determine just how far the program will continue to run—and if it will attract the kind of export orders it may very well need to become viable."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... in-program
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1847
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Feb 2018, 14:24

So when will we know if India is in or out on the SU-57/FGFA?

They've been releasing info that they're unhappy with its progress for some time now. Is it more likely they're trying to just create leverage with the Russians? The nod to the F-35 is curious, as it's the SU-57's competition (assuming SU-57 is ever ready for export). Are they not so subtly courting the US/Lockheed to give them a real shot at the F-35??

Can't wait to see what the State Dept. says about that, LOL
Offline

loke

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post09 Feb 2018, 20:23

The IAF are not idiots -- of course, if the F-35 had been an option to them, they would jump at it, immediately.

However currently they will not get access to it.

They are clearly very unhappy with the technical specifications of the PAK FA.

It must be very frustrating to them... Luckily they have the 4.5 gen Rafales to keep the J-20s at bay! :D
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 684
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post09 Feb 2018, 23:37

I still have troubles believing my eyes every time I see a PAK-FA picture.

No clue what they know (or don't) about stealth, but this is nothing like it.

Might as well hang a campfire in the sky and say "shoot".
Offline

rnvalencia

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2014, 12:06

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 15:23

terrygedran wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Escort flights fly close to the high value assets (AWACS, Tankers, etc...) so I fail you to understand your "place fighters" argument! AWACS are able to detect incoming Mig-31s from very far (much farther than vice-versa!)



Boeing E-3 Sentry
Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,500 m)
400km fighter - 600km bomber( or Mig-31)

F-15C/F-22 Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
F-35A Service ceiling: 50,000(15,000 m)



F-22 Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,960 km/h) At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)
F-15 Maximum speed: High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,665+ km/h) - but we know he will not do it with weapon.
F-35 Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 highcruise1.3 ( 1380.6 km/h)


F-35A's mach 1.6 has 1200 Mph attached to it.

"Speed (full internal weapons load) Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)"
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... riant.aspx

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... -DFRC.html
F/A-18 has Mach 1.8 ( *1190 mph* ).

Speed of sound is not a constant

Altitude (relates to air density) vs speed of sound e.g.

sea level = 761 MPH
10000 feet = 734 MPH
20000 feet = 701 MPH
30000 feet = 678 MPH
40000 feet = 660 MPH
50000 feet = 660 MPH

Using NASA's speed of sound for it's F/A-18's mach 1.8 with 1190 Mph for F-35A's 1200 Mph yields mach 8.15.
Last edited by rnvalencia on 12 Feb 2018, 07:11, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3910
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 04:26

loke wrote:The IAF are not idiots -- of course, if the F-35 had been an option to them, they would jump at it, immediately.

However currently they will not get access to it.

They are clearly very unhappy with the technical specifications of the PAK FA.

It must be very frustrating to them... Luckily they have the 4.5 gen Rafales to keep the J-20s at bay! :D



What makes you believe the non-Stealthy Rafale will be able to keep the J-20 at bay??? :shock:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3910
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 04:36

vilters wrote:I still have troubles believing my eyes every time I see a PAK-FA picture.

No clue what they know (or don't) about stealth, but this is nothing like it.

Might as well hang a campfire in the sky and say "shoot".



The PAK-FA (Su-57) is really nothing more than a Semi-Stealthy Flanker. Honestly, I would be far more concern with the Chinese J-20 and/or J-31 Stealth Fighters.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: castlebravo and 6 guests