Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

sewerrat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2009, 18:03

Unread post04 Jan 2013, 10:53

Perhaps at an airshow the PF could put on a better show with it's TV nozzels. Perhaps in a drag race the PF would win. But with something like a 4:1 (or maybe 5:1) numerical advantage, backed up by the silver bullet -22 fleet, the PF is nothing to lose any sleep over. For a single PF to defeat a single -35 in a BVR situation, the PF had better have some nifty new radar to detect the -35. If it can't detect the -35, it won't know its even in a fight until it's got a couple -120s closing in on it, and then it's on the defence... the wrong side of the "fence".
Online

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Jan 2013, 19:20

sewerrat wrote:Perhaps at an airshow the PF could put on a better show with it's TV nozzels. Perhaps in a drag race the PF would win. But with something like a 4:1 (or maybe 5:1) numerical advantage, backed up by the silver bullet -22 fleet, the PF is nothing to lose any sleep over. For a single PF to defeat a single -35 in a BVR situation, the PF had better have some nifty new radar to detect the -35. If it can't detect the -35, it won't know its even in a fight until it's got a couple -120s closing in on it, and then it's on the defence... the wrong side of the "fence".
In terms of total numbers, the F-35 will have a 10(or more) to 1 numerical advantage, against any foe equipped with Pak FAs.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post04 Jan 2013, 20:43

If the F-35 fired first, why would it turn tail and run? In such a scenario, the F-35 would be the aggressor. The PAK-FA would be defensive. It would have surely maneuvered hard to escape the incoming AMRAAM (I don't think any pilot is going to just chill out and count on his ECM suite to work). That would place it at a disadvantage even if the PAK-FA has superior kinematic performance.

While the PAK-FA pilot is evading the incoming missile, it's highly doubtful that he's focused on engaging the JSF. Meanwhile the F-35 pilot would be positioning himself for a second missile shot or closing in for the WVR engagement from an advantageous position. WVR is all about the setups. It rarely occurs on completely equal footing in real combat. Chances are, the guy who spots the other first will be the victor.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post04 Jan 2013, 21:29

Why all these given set of situations? Why wouldn't the PF or A-50U detect the fat bumpy F-35 when and if it launches its missiles. How much fuel left has the 35 to run back or engage in a game of circles etc etc..
What do we know about the larger AESA radar that eventually will be used on PF?

There are only questions and no answers what so ever..
Offline

thegroundeffect

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 18:33

Unread post04 Jan 2013, 23:28

- Chances are the F-35 has more fuel, because NATO and USAF have way more tankers.

- Radar evading shapes are very different from visual EM spectrum low observability

- The Russians are lagging behind in electronics since the very begining of the cold war. They buy Israeli AESA radars for their Su-35's and they couldn't sort out the AESA radar for the Mig-31 and had to settle with a PESA radar. I'm no expert on radars, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's larger because of it's poor performance.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 00:26

thegroundeffect wrote:- Chances are the F-35 has more fuel, because NATO and USAF have way more tankers.

- Radar evading shapes are very different from visual EM spectrum low observability

- The Russians are lagging behind in electronics since the very begining of the cold war. They buy Israeli AESA radars for their Su-35's and they couldn't sort out the AESA radar for the Mig-31 and had to settle with a PESA radar. I'm no expert on radars, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's larger because of it's poor performance.

I suspect the T-50 might have a higher fuel fraction than the F-35, but we don't know how efficient the new engines are, so that might offset the higher fuel fraction. The F-35 has a longer combat radius on internal fuel, compared to 4th gen fighters, such as the F-16 & F/A-18. Ferry range with 4 huge external wing tanks on a T-50 doesn't count for much in combat. I would suspect they are overstating the combat radius on internal fuel, if they are saying its much over 1000 miles.

The Su-30MKI uses Russian BARS N011M PESA radar & SU-35 probably has Russian built N035 Irbis-E AESA radar, but its their "first generation" AESA isn't as advanced as the APG-81 radar. I'm confident of that. The T-50 in Russian service are likely to use a variant of the N035 as well.

Buying Israeli AESA EL/M-2052 might be an option for Indian Su-30MKIs, but doubtful Israel would sell it to Russia or China. The US Gov objected to earlier sales to China of the Phalcon AEW radar.

The F-35 APG-81 is integrated with the EW suite and uses the Integrated Core Processors to a greater extent than earlier radar, including the APG-77 & APG-79 radar. That is why I can be confident the F-35 is more than a match for the PAK-FA.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 01:32

I think we can agree that even before the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were behind the West when it came to radars and avionics. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy absolutely tanked. R&D expenditures hit rock bottom. Even today, now that the Russian economy has recovered somewhat, its funding for R&D lags far behind that of the United States.

Are we really to believe that the Russians have caught up to the US despite a long period of time when their R&D was virtually zero? Even today, the Russian defense budget is about a 10th of the United States'. How many world-leading telecommunications and computer companies are based in Russia? I sure can't think of any. Remember also that the PAK-FA is being developed on a fraction of the budget of the F-35 and the F-22.

Let's also not forget that this will be the Russian's first operational stealth aircraft while Uncle Sam has been doing this since the 80s. Do you think the Americans might have learned a thing or two during their decades of experience with developing and operating stealth aircraft?

Given all of the above mentioned factors, my guess is that the PAK-FA will be significantly less stealthy than the F-35, will have significantly inferior avionics, computer and communications systems and will also have more design flaws. That's not even taking into consideration things like pilot training, numbers of aircraft in play, jamming, electronic warfare, AWACS, logistics etc.

So in conclusion, I think that most encounters between F-35s and PAK-FAs will turn out like engagements between the F-16/F-15 and the MiG-29. Remember, we're unlikely to be facing the Russians or Indians in air-to-air combat. Instead, if we do ever end up engaging the PAK-FA it will be flown by the likes of the Iranians, Sudanese, North Koreans etc.

I suspect that in the real world, the J-20 would be a significantly greater threat. But then, we know very little about this aircraft, so that's neither here nor there.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 01:58

haavarla wrote: fat bumpy


Image


What a "fat bumpy" stealth aircraft might look like.

Russia is behind. Whether they can catch up and equalize is another story, but I think even the most die hard Russian fan has to realize they are starting behind the US. Aren't the new engines that the PAK-FA requires to reach its full potential still years away?
Offline

sewerrat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2009, 18:03

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 18:45

XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: fat bumpy


Image


What a "fat bumpy" stealth aircraft might look like.

Russia is behind. Whether they can catch up and equalize is another story, but I think even the most die hard Russian fan has to realize they are starting behind the US. Aren't the new engines that the PAK-FA requires to reach its full potential still years away?


The -35 is fat and bumpy and shaped by PhD physicists and aerodynamicists to minimize RF reflectivity and spend more time at supersonic speeds than any other aircraft except a -22.

With all its passive sensors and low prop of intercept radar and low, low frontal RCS, the PF would almost always be on the defensive, turning & bleeding energy, & not focusing on finding the attacking -35s. The -35 may not win a beauty contest, but it will win where it actually counts.

Keep in mind, we still dont know a thing about the Cuda AAM. Keep in mind, we still don't know anything about a how (for example) 4-ship flight of -35s will be datalinked together as a force multiplier. Keep in mind, that with the -35s large internal fuel storage it could spend more time in a turniing engagement than take your pic of legacy fighters.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 19:25

Plain wrong!
The F-35 is fat, short and bumpy due to one reason alone.
Its the hand it was dealt when the designers got the Requirements from both USAF, USN and USM. It had to be able to fit on the ramp in CV.

So for some reason lost to me, they decided that the F-35A for USAF was to share all the traits, shape and size(more or less) that the B and C version.
I think the idea was that this would save huge buckets of funding.. go figure ;)
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 19:38

XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: fat bumpy




What a "fat bumpy" stealth aircraft might look like.

Russia is behind. Whether they can catch up and equalize is another story, but I think even the most die hard Russian fan has to realize they are starting behind the US. Aren't the new engines that the PAK-FA requires to reach its full potential still years away?


Just visit some official sites on Sukhoi or KnAAPO and do a readup.
After the initiall units that will be used for State trials. The first batches will use the current engines.
Mind you they do produce 2 * 15.000kgf.
It will have to do.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 19:50

haavarla wrote:Plain wrong!
The F-35 is fat, short and bumpy due to one reason alone.
Its the hand it was dealt when the designers got the Requirements from both USAF, USN and USM. It had to be able to fit on the ramp in CV.

So for some reason lost to me, they decided that the F-35A for USAF was to share all the traits, shape and size(more or less) that the B and C version.
I think the idea was that this would save huge buckets of funding.. go figure ;)

The shape of the F-35 is a combination of minimizing transonic drag and stealth, while housing a single large engine and internal weapon bays. You would be surprised how little it's shape would change without the STOVL requirement.
The PF looks like it does because Russia couldn't afford to develop a airframe with aerodynamics different from the Flanker.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24290
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 19:51

'haavarla' said (getting a bit harumphy probably) above: ...[The F-35A] had to be able to fit on the ramp in CV.

So for some reason lost to me, they decided that the F-35A for USAF was to share all the traits, shape and size(more or less) that the B and C version...."

Earlier the author of this paper differs about impact of flat deck versions on golf course version :D of the F-35, on this thread F119 and F135??? here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... car#175993

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Eric S. Ryberg 26 Feb 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (1Mb) [broken link fixed - a 'space' in the link caused the problem]

"...SHIP SUITABILITY DESIGN "PENALTY" page 10 of 11 (from PDF above)
Because of the numerous factors that influence the design of a ship-based aircraft, many assume these considerations have significantly compromised the mission performance of the CV and STOVL variants. Correspondingly, it is assumed that the remaining CTOL variant carries appreciable "scar impacts" to maintain commonality with its sea-going siblings.

However, the JSF design solution has been quite successful in minimizing the "penalty" of ship suitability....

...the CTOL variant carries virtually no scars as the result of the ship suitability of the other two variants. The JSF program has clearly shown that shipboard compatibility does not have to come at the expense of such critical attributes as lethality and survivability."
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Jan 2013, 23:25, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 22:26

haavarla wrote:Plain wrong!
The F-35 is fat, short and bumpy due to one reason alone.
Its the hand it was dealt when the designers got the Requirements from both USAF, USN and USM. It had to be able to fit on the ramp in CV.

So for some reason lost to me, they decided that the F-35A for USAF was to share all the traits, shape and size(more or less) that the B and C version.
I think the idea was that this would save huge buckets of funding.. go figure ;)



Generally when you design an airplane the first thing you do is spec the engine. Second thing you need to decide is how far you need it to go and at what speed as this determines your fuel load. The third thing you need to decide is what weapons it is going to carry. So Engine size and weight+
fuel weight+weapons weight will pretty much determine the size and weight of the aircraft and it will determine how much wing area you need. Once you have the wing area figured out you can size the horizontal stablizers and vertical stabalizer. In the old days they would just stretch out the nose of the aircraft to get more fuel and range but now with advanced CFD they use a high volume low drag airframe design. (F-86 to F-16 to F-35)
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 22:43

Only that the first thing the designers had to do was to calculate and add on all the necessary Carrier operation feats. As we all know is that this add a fair share of Cons in the way different performance spell out on. see F-14 and SH among other..
So when you first set about designing the jet the first thing is these CV operation constraints. The physical size and shape of the F-35 very much goes to show my point.
From there you can try and do your best shot, but still in the limitation of those requirements you have been given.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests