Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

[hornetfinn]

F-22 truly needs great maneuverability for WVR combat as it doesn't have HOBS missiles and helmet mounted sight and as mentioned, doesn't have DAS capability. Of course all these could be put into it as all these are available. It seems like F-22 will get at least HOBS missile capability, although no HMS or DAS capability is planned at the moment. It seems like F-22 is thought to have enough capability through stealth, sensors, sensor fusion and raw performance as not to need them enough to warrant the cost.

PAK-FA will probably have quite comparable performance to F-22 in many regimes and could even have certain performance figures that are better. Especially range could quite possibly be better as F-22 seems to have rather low fuel volume and fuel fraction (probably due to stealth reasons). There is really very little indicating that PAK-FA will have anywhere near the stealth capability of either F-22 or F-35, although it's definitely better than most currently operational fighters, especially when loaded with weapons. I see PAK-FA as being quite superior to 4th generation jets due to (likely) performance and LO stealth. I think Russians went for biggest bang for the ruble for their needs. They already have a lot of expertise in making very high performance jets and much less with stealth technology. So having (for them) reasonable LO capabilities and high kinematic performance seems like pretty good compromise. If they went for F-22 or F-35 like stealth, then the development, production and operational costs would've been prohibitive.

F-35 is definitely more compromised as it has to be small (F-16 like outer dimensions) with VLO stealth and have latest in sensors/sensor fusion and be able to carry heavy (2000 lbs class) weapons internally and have very long range on internal fuel and to be really affordable (both purchase price and operational costs). If the aim was to have F-22 like performance, it'd most likely be too big and/or far too expensive for the requirements. I think F-35 will not be capable of similar kinematic performance in supersonic regime to F-22 or most likely PAK-FA. In transonic and subsonic regimes, I think the difference will not be very great between the jets. All of them most likely have quite high acceleration and very good nose pointing capability. I think given all the requirements, F-35 kinematic performance seems to be really good..

I think all of these fighters will have their own strengths and weaknesses. F-35 will definitely be by far the best A/G jet of the lot. It has the best sensors and weapons carrying capability for the task. In air to air, it seems to have the best overall sensor suite.with very capable radar, DAS and EOTS. PAK-FA will definitely have powerful radar and OLS-50 might have pretty decent IRST capability, although it's most likely far less capable than EOTS as Russian tech in this area is couple of generations behind. F-22 probably has the best radar (for A-A) and very good sensors/sensor fusion, although it totally lacks IRST and DAS capability giving both PAK-FA and especially F-35 an advantage. I think F-35 and F-22 have very comparable stealth, although F-22 probably has the edge. PAK-FA most likely is way behind both, but much better than combat loaded 4+ generation jets.

I think F-35 would be very difficult opponent for PAK-FA (or even F-22) because of VLO stealth, sensor fit and sensor fusion. Fully developed PAK-FA would most likely be much more difficult opponent than Su-35S due to LO stealth, more capable sensors and flight performance but I still think F-35 will have more strengths than weaknesses, even though it might have weaker performance in some regimes. On the other hand PAK-FA would be very difficult opponent for 4+ generation fighters and I think this is really the reason for PAK-FA. To have fighter that can take out enemy 4+ generation jets and develop know-how in advanced fighter technology.

[munny]

If the question in the OP relates to air to air between the two, then whoever has the best stealth of the two is going to be a winner. You can assume that detection range for both is going to be within missile range.

So:

Frontal Aspect Radar stealth: F-35 will be the clear winner here.
- Smaller aircraft with fewer, smaller and sharper leading edges.
- No pitots, etc sticking out everywhere
- No rounded IRST
- No exposed fan or blocker (either way that's the poor man's approach)
- Clearly more attention to surface edge alignment and treatment

IR Stealth:
I read somewhere that aircraft IR stealth has a lot to do with obstructing a sensor's line of sightto the exhaust behind the airframe as seen here.



It goes without saying that the larger the airframe compared to nozzle size, the more effective the signature reduction. While the PAK FA has widely set engines, the F-35 nozzle is centralized.

The F-35 has a MUCH larger area obscuring the radiative flux from the nozzles. The image below shows the size of the nozzle outlet at a closed setting while flying (taken from photographs).

As you can see, there's quite a difference between the two aircraft. I believe the F-35 with its fewer, smaller and more sharpened edges as mentioned for radar stealth, combined with the innately cooler running engine and nozzle to airframe ratio will see it win the IR engagement fight as well.

[count_to_10]

You would think that the Russians would do something about IRST. Is it really that hard to put it in a LO window?

[haavarla]

Do you mean inside the Cockpit glass?
There are Clear coverage from official site that the Cockpit glass of later Flankers and Pak-Fa has the same LO/VLO rcs reduction as any western adversary. I'm talking about the glass quality itself.
Naturaly the sphere glass on the OLS-35 has similar treatment.

If you mean Sukhoi should make a quadrant boxy shape IRIST house.. well then pls show us how it would look by design then?

[haavarla]

"munny"]If the question in the OP relates to air to air between the two, then whoever has the best stealth of the two is going to be a winner. You can assume that detection range for both is going to be within missile range.

A lot of assumption without any Clear evidence. Quite typical coming from LM club i see.
Try to aspire an objective view on such matter.

Why on Earth do you assume the detection range gonna be equall and within AIM-120 missile range?

Do we know anything about the N050 AESA radar other than it will outperform the IRBIS-E radar?
Also, do we know what kind of long range missiles the Pak-Fa will carry, judging by the lenght of those main W-bays, it can house larger missile than AIM-120.

Frontal Aspect Radar stealth: F-35 will be the clear winner here.
- Smaller aircraft with fewer, smaller and sharper leading edges.
- No pitots, etc sticking out everywhere
- No rounded IRST
- No exposed fan or blocker (either way that's the poor man's approach)
- Clearly more attention to surface edge alignment and treatment

First off, you mention frontal Aspect. The F-35 is not a smaller Aircraft from this aspect. They are pretty much equall. I can give you a more presice view on this if you want.
The Top/bottom side is the actuall sizeble different between the two jets.
And pls show me where on frontal aspect the T-50 has more, larger and bluntly leading edges?

Show how many pitot tubes the T-50-54 has going everywhere?
If sukhoi designed a square IRIST house, it would have to be quite larger in volume, so where is the gain?
Also how much upwards can the F-35 IRIST housing look in angle? there are large volume of airspace which it can not cover in an A2A mission.

Oh look, Sukhoi can make F-22 like airintakes. see Yak-130. What did Sukhoi do With its forward fan blades, its the question everybody ask, same should you. Do you claim the intakes on T-50 is the same shape and material as Flankers?
Only in LM world is this design a poor man design.

Have you seen closeup on F-22, its rivets all over on several areas on the airframe?
Hense is the F-22 RAM coating an poor mans approach?
Have you seen an Serial Pak-Fa With RAM coating flying?
Even the latest Su-35S has a smoother and better quality skin vs T-50.
My point being, its an PROTOTYPE.

IR Stealth:
I read somewhere that aircraft IR stealth has a lot to do with obstructing a sensor's line of sightto the exhaust behind the airframe as seen here.

It goes without saying that the larger the airframe compared to nozzle size, the more effective the signature reduction. While the PAK FA has widely set engines, the F-35 nozzle is centralized.

The F-35 has a MUCH larger area obscuring the radiative flux from the nozzles. The image below shows the size of the nozzle outlet at a closed setting while flying (taken from photographs).

Nice try.
The physical size of F-35 come from the Engine size, internal fuel tanks, systems and cooling pipes. Did a mention a chubby gun surface? On the ones that have them.. And ofcourse internal W-bays, cant leave them out. Other than this, Nice try to make the F-35 an F-16 size jet though..

So you see, the IR being obsqured by its airframe was not set out by Choice. i'm 1000% sure LM did their best to minimize the F-35 airframe size, and this was the best they could do.
The F-22 exaust size also comes at expence of loss of nozzle thrust.
Do you get my point. There is no free lunch

As you can see, there's quite a difference between the two aircraft. I believe the F-35 with its fewer, smaller and more sharpened edges as mentioned for radar stealth, combined with the innately cooler running engine and nozzle to airframe ratio will see it win the IR engagement fight as well.

And what do you know about the Type 30 engine and its cooling traits?
What do you know about the internal structure and cooling ducts on the Pak-Fa compaired to F-35?
The T-50 has more Space for everything since its a much more body/wing blended design. Still its frontal aspect is not any notical degree larger vs F-35.

Did you forget to mention the size difference on the Verticals(all moving verticals)?
From a completly side angle the T-50 gives a smaller volume surface vs F-35.. how is this possible? Let me give you a tip, Triplane design.

Your frontal pic of T-50 is not completly dead senter, but taken above senter, which makes it look larger.
About the Pictures below, i whish it was the F-15C instead, it would prove my point in frontal size compairison.
And look how sleek the T-50 looks compaired to the Mig-29K. The Mig-29K being a smaller bird.

[XanderCrews]

There are Clear coverage from official site that the Cockpit glass of later Flankers and Pak-Fa has the same LO/VLO rcs reduction as any western adversary.

A lot of assumption without any Clear evidence. Quite typical coming from LM club i see.
Try to aspire an objective view on such matter.

Meant to be Ironic?

[disconnectedradical]

fair enough then.

Here is another fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SuscRjpSA

Pak-Fa doing some crazy airshow stuff from Maks 2013.
I notice one difference from the Flankers, the T-50 use less AB duration.
Which is expected, less drag and 19.000kgf of dry thrust.

This is quite impressive, considering its still in test phase, and probably has some safety limitations going.

Sorry for not talking about F-35 though, but its difficult as we cannot visually compair them.
On that note, when will we see the F-35 on flight display?

Actually, judging from engine nozzles, the T-50 seems to be using min afterburner a lot when turning and maneuvering.

Also, your diagram showing the top and side views of various fighters isn't accurate. This is a more accurate diagram, since the T-50 picture was from the patent and the F-22 picture is from USAF website. As you can see, their frontal areas are practically identical. When I have time I'll add F-35A on there.

[haavarla]

fair enough then.

Here is another fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SuscRjpSA

Pak-Fa doing some crazy airshow stuff from Maks 2013.
I notice one difference from the Flankers, the T-50 use less AB duration.
Which is expected, less drag and 19.000kgf of dry thrust.

This is quite impressive, considering its still in test phase, and probably has some safety limitations going.

Sorry for not talking about F-35 though, but its difficult as we cannot visually compair them.
On that note, when will we see the F-35 on flight display?

Actually, judging from engine nozzles, the T-50 seems to be using min afterburner a lot when turning and maneuvering.

The smoke coming from those 117 engine must be due to the Power handeling up n down, but when on AB the engine does not produce any visible smoke.
Also you can hear it quite well on some of the high quality vids, when he engage AB and vice verca.
B.t.w. did i mention the sound of those engine sounds like no other jets, its a very distinctive sound.

[haavarla]

fair enough then.

Here is another fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SuscRjpSA

Pak-Fa doing some crazy airshow stuff from Maks 2013.
I notice one difference from the Flankers, the T-50 use less AB duration.
Which is expected, less drag and 19.000kgf of dry thrust.

This is quite impressive, considering its still in test phase, and probably has some safety limitations going.

Sorry for not talking about F-35 though, but its difficult as we cannot visually compair them.
On that note, when will we see the F-35 on flight display?

Also, your diagram showing the top and side views of various fighters isn't accurate. This is a more accurate diagram, since the T-50 picture was from the patent and the F-22 picture is from USAF website. As you can see, their frontal areas are practically identical. When I have time I'll add F-35A on there.

If you notice the Pak-Fa looking from side view when its on the Tarmac, the Whole jet is angling nose Down quite heavily, i'm not making this up.

Hense why most pics taken from ground is angeled too high from a senter aspect, thus making it look larger.

I'll try to located some pics when its in the air. This is not senter obviously, but you get some idea. The lower side of the Pak-Fa front aspect very small.

[hornetfinn]

Also how much upwards can the F-35 IRIST housing look in angle? there are large volume of airspace which it can not cover in an A2A mission.

F-35 EOTS is definitely much more limited in upward angles than OLS/Pirate/FSO-type systems which on the other hand are much more limited in downward angles. Of course this is because EOTS puts much more emphasis on air to ground capability than those other systems which are much more A/A oriented. But wait, there is DAS system which is omnidirectional and can see objects not in the field of view of EOTS. Even if the enemy aircraft flies at significantly higher altitude to not be in EOTS FOV, it will most likely be close enough for DAS to detect and track. EOTS+DAS is very hard to beat when it comes to detection/tracking/identification range and/or field of view.

[disconnectedradical]

fair enough then.

Here is another fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SuscRjpSA

Pak-Fa doing some crazy airshow stuff from Maks 2013.
I notice one difference from the Flankers, the T-50 use less AB duration.
Which is expected, less drag and 19.000kgf of dry thrust.

This is quite impressive, considering its still in test phase, and probably has some safety limitations going.

Sorry for not talking about F-35 though, but its difficult as we cannot visually compair them.
On that note, when will we see the F-35 on flight display?

Actually, judging from engine nozzles, the T-50 seems to be using min afterburner a lot when turning and maneuvering.

The smoke coming from those 117 engine must be due to the Power handeling up n down, but when on AB the engine does not produce any visible smoke.
Also you can hear it quite well on some of the high quality vids, when he engage AB and vice verca.
B.t.w. did i mention the sound of those engine sounds like no other jets, its a very distinctive sound.

Maybe TEG can pitch in, but when nozzles are open, they should either be in idle or in an AB setting.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

when full open, yes.

[disconnectedradical]

when full open, yes.

Also, would you see any visible flame when looking directly into the nozzle when it's not in afterburner?

On the topic of drag, when in supersonic flight (i.e. mach 1.5-1.8 ), what are the main contributors of drag, like wave, friction, interference, etc. And what would be their rough percentages of overall drag at those speeds?

[rkap]

Bottom line... it will more likely depend on the actual Air-Air munitions being employed by each aircraft, the self-protection measures employed and raw numbers of aircraft being launched vs the other guys package, in which this hypothetical 2018 hostile engagement is calculated.
If however the scenario is faced with something like a 4v4, or 8v8 in 2019 (give or take a year), then I hate to say that the F-35 package would probably decide to abort and return to base... unless being escorted by enhanced Golden Eagles or F-22.

Good to see you on here again.
I agree with you. By 1919 if 4xF35's doing the job they were designed to do [sneak in and deliver bombs] were lucky enough to pick up 4 Pak Fa's or even possibly 4xSU35,s soon enough being vectored by ground radar to intercept them at a higher altitude on Supercruise they would abort if they had time. Having the time to do that will be the problem. Being at a lower level and with relatively average acceleration if they have to turn they may not be able to do that. They certainly will need those F15's or F22's to save the day. The Russians will have achieved exactly what the Pak Fa was designed to do. How it will go against the F22's is the big question. This will never happen of course as the Russians have said they will not export the Pak Fa to anyone but India until around 2025. There customers will have to make do with SU35's until then. I don't see Uncle Sam or the Russians getting into any conflict. Niggle each other for sure. It looks like that will never stop. It never seems to occur to most the Pak Fa overall is not primarily designed to do the same job as the F35. It is optimised more as an Interceptor and Fighter not a Penetrator. Just like the Mig15,17,19,25,31 and early T10's. It is multi-role but still optimised to intercept and fight more than anything. I also believe its frontal aspect will be very stealthy in the long term. All it needs is a few redesigned antenna and the engine turbine reflection dealt with. Many ways to do that as discussed on this Forum by those with real expertise.

[XanderCrews]

I agree with you. By 1919 if 4xF35's doing the job they were designed to do [sneak in and deliver bombs]

That is if LM ever gets the F-35 time machine software upgrades to ever work.

were lucky enough to pick up 4 Pak Fa's or even possibly 4xSU35,s soon enough being vectored by ground radar to intercept them at a higher altitude on Supercruise they would abort if they had time.

assuming the Ground radar picks up the F-35s. You don't even think the F-35 radar will pick up a + version of a 1970's era fighter? That's pretty bold. The jury may be out on the PAKFA pending design changes, but wow if you think an SU-35 can't be seen the moment it takes off.

Having the time to do that will be the problem. Being at a lower level and with relatively average acceleration if they have to turn they may not be able to do that. They certainly will need those F15's or F22's to save the day. The Russians will have achieved exactly what the Pak Fa was designed to do.

In this scenario i just made up.

t never seems to occur to most the Pak Fa overall is not primarily designed to do the same job as the F35. It is optimised more as an Interceptor and Fighter not a Penetrator.

So its a defensive fighter. Neat.

I also believe its frontal aspect will be very stealthy in the long term. All it needs is a few redesigned antenna and the engine turbine reflection dealt with. Many ways to do that as discussed on this Forum by those with real expertise.

Belief is not a course of action. Until those changes are made, it is what it is.