Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

mrbsct

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 27 May 2015, 00:26

Unread post31 May 2015, 05:11

[quote="mrbsct"]From my reading of Air Power Australia, the PAK FA's radar is based of Ibris-E only AESA, so its performance is probably similar. The PAK FA radar power is around 1500 modules the F35's 1200. The F35 radar will the T50's RCS of 0.1(source Sukhoi) around 90 km . While the T50's radar will find the F35's RCS of 0.001 at around 40 km.

F35 has some of the most advanced RWR based the F22's ALR-94 capable of cueing on the radar to make it even more stealthy. Russia just got AESA, so its LPI and anti-jamming capabilities are probably less.

APG-81 and Ibris-B capabilities listed below.
Image
Image

PAK FA's IRST(probably based on OLS-50M) can find the F35 probably around 50-60 km(its laser rangefinder is around 20-30 km so a missile shot would probably not be likely)but if its lucky with such a narrow azimuth search, and the F35 already detected the PAK FA would try to flank the azimuth and the T50 wouldn't know it.

Once it the F35 get's within 50 km its capable firing the AIM-120D effectively.

But if lets say the T50 has an improved radar range than the Ibris-B or spots the F35 with IRST due to being supersonic.(it lacks IR nozzle and supercruise)

If the T50 has a better radar than the previous Ibris-E and finds the F35 at around 60-70 km and fires its longer missiles the F35's is screwed.(ramjet R77, K100s and R37s) The AIM-120D is only good at probably 45-50 km vs a 9 G target, minus flares and jammers.(estimate on Red Flag AIM-120C targeting at 20 miles(32km) and report saying AIM-120C was to improved for engaging targets at 30 km that manuver 9 G). If the F35 is equipped with Meteor the chances are better.) and the AIM-120D having 50 percent improvement range puts the effective range around 45-50 km. F35 has poor kinematic acceleration, and lack of IR nozzle and supercruise putting it on supersonic to increase missile effective range will be slow and getting tracked by IRST.

The F35 only has 4 AMRAAMs while the T50 has 6 R77s, and carry 12 non-stealthy probably since its knows its going to tracked first, and find the closing F35 when out of AIM-120D range(45-50km). If both can see eachother looking at each other at 60 km, if F35 ripple fires, the T50 has likely of escape, if T50 ripple fires the F35 has no chance of escape.

It would depend on-
How much has Russian radar improved range?
How better is the IRST than older Russian IRST?
Does the F35 have Meteor missile?
Where the two fighter located?
Can the F35 jam the T50's radar?


F35 was never meant to handle the PAK FA. F22 is.

Again this is estimates. Agree?
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post31 May 2015, 07:44

APG-81 has closer to 1600 TR modules
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24978

module power on the APG-81 would anywhere from 10-25 watt modules

Russian system claims 1500 modules with two side facing arrays with 350 modules

Module power would be anywhere from 5-15 watts prob.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 May 2015, 08:07

mrbsct wrote:From my reading of Air Power Australia, the PAK FA's radar is based of Ibris-E only AESA, so its performance is probably similar. The PAK FA radar power is around 1500 modules the F35's 1200

APG-81 have 1676 T/R modules
Image

mrbsct wrote:. The F35 radar will the T50's RCS of 0.1(source Sukhoi) around 90 km . While the T50's radar will find the F35's RCS of 0.001 at around 40 km.

i dont know T-50 RCS, but if we assume T-50 have something similar to irbis-e then maximum range it can detect F-35 is about 45 km, tracking range around 80% of that, if F-35 use APG-81 to jam T-50 radar then the detection, tracking range will shink even lower
, can be less than 20 km

mrbsct wrote:F35 has some of the most advanced RWR based the F22's ALR-94 capable of cueing on the radar to make it even more stealthy. Russia just got AESA, so its LPI and anti-jamming capabilities are probably less.

most aircraft with sensor fuse can cue their radar by RWR, however F-35 jamming will be more effective due to it's lower RCS
Image


mrbsct wrote:But if lets say the T50 has an improved radar range than the Ibris-B or

To increase radar range by 2 times, you will have to increase transmitted power by 16 times


mrbsct wrote:spots the F35 with IRST due to being supersonic.(it lacks IR nozzle and supercruise)

. No supercruise mean f-35 fly slower thus have smaller skin friction => smaller heat signature . F-35 operate at lower altitude compared to T-50, F-22 , Eurofighter.. etc thus less contrast in heat signature with background and there are more moisture to absorb IR radiation . F-35 have IR reducing nozzle too ( it called LOAN nozzle ) , F-35 have a paint called Topcoat to reduce IR signature .
=> conclusion, even if both side have similar IRST system, T-50 will be detected earlier because it fly faster, higher, lack IR reduction paimt
mrbsct wrote:If the T50 has a better radar than the previous Ibris-E and finds the F35 at around 60-70 km and fires its longer missiles the F35's is screwed.(ramjet R77, K100s and R37s) The AIM-120D is only good at probably 45-50 km vs a 9 G target, minus flares and jammers.(estimate on Red Flag AIM-120C targeting at 20 miles(32km) and report saying AIM-120C was to improved for engaging targets at 30 km that manuver 9 G). If the F35 is equipped with Meteor the chances are better.) and the AIM-120D having 50 percent improvement range puts the effective range around 45-50 km

R-77 ramjet and K-100 doesn't even go into production , K100 and R-37 are basically like AIM-54, they are meant to be used again bomber, AWACS
mrbsct wrote:. F35 has poor kinematic acceleration,

F-35 acceleration is quite similar to a Su-35 carry 4 AAM
Image
mrbsct wrote: putting it on supersonic to increase missile effective range will be slow and getting tracked by IRST.

IRST can be useless if there are some cloud between the IRST and target, and there are alot of cloud at medium altitude
Image
Image
mrbsct wrote:The F35 only has 4 AMRAAMs while the T50 has 6 R77s,

F-35 can carry 6 Aim-120 internally after block 5
Image
mrbsct wrote:and carry 12 non-stealthy probably since its knows its going to tracked first, and find the closing F35 when out of AIM-120D range(45-50km). If both can see eachother looking at each other at 60 km,

As explained before NEZ isn't a constant number, The F-35 pilot can either fly at medium altitude and take advantage of cloud and moisture to hide from enemy EO/IR sensor or fly very high to give his missile a significant boost in range and speed
If you carry missiles externally on T-50 then you basically turn it to a Su-35, there a thread about F-35 vs su-30/35, you can use the search function
mrbsct wrote: F35 ripple fires, the T50 has likely of escape, if T50 ripple fires the F35 has no chance of escape.

Sure T-50 have better kinematics than F-35, but the difference is not that big :wink:

mrbsct wrote:Does the F35 have Meteor missile?

Yes, MBDA ( the UK company that produced Meteor) say they will intergrated it, and F-35 are used by UK , Japan also cooperate with MBDA to produce a version of Meteor with AESA radar for their F-35
mrbsct wrote:Can the F35 jam the T50's radar?

You can jam anything with noise jamming as long as your jammer is powerful enough or your RCS is low enough

mrbsct wrote:F35 was never meant to handle the PAK FA. F22 is.

when F-22 was desidesigned , T-50 wasn't even on paper
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post31 May 2015, 13:53

All these x vs y post are boring.. and to a great extent incorrect.
The F-35 and PakFa is not in the same weight class.

One is a twin engine design, the other is not.
F-35 was meant to be a cheaper alternative to the F-22(a 5th gen F-16 i you want).

The PakFa has all the elements of a heavy interceptor/fighter(F-15, Typhoon, Su-27, F-22 etc) role with it.
With One Difference though, is that the PakFa will have the possibility to perform stand-off(Kh-58UShKE) A2G mission from day one.

nough said..
Here is something new(it flew with these missile last year too though)
R-77-1/RVV-SD i think?
Attachments
attachment.jpg
Last edited by borg on 31 May 2015, 17:44, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post31 May 2015, 14:03

Didn't see Su-35 on graph.

" but the difference is not that big :wink:"
IT IS BIG.

F-35 aerodynamic model acceleration is quite similar to a Su-27S carry 4 AAM
IT is very different.
Su-27s and F35 acceleration from 0.8M to 1.45M = 70 sec
F35 acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M = 50 sec

Su-27s acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M =13sec at 50sec it will accelerate to 1.9M


And let see not "aerodynamic model" from graph but KPP for F35A/B/C

Acceleration 0.8M-1.2M
F-35A =63sec
F-35B =81sec
F-35C =118sec
F-35 aerodynamic model = 35sec
And what we can see from graph? Su-27s at 63 sec will have 1.35M speed.........
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post31 May 2015, 15:23

"To increase radar range by 2 times, you will have to increase transmitted power by 16 times"

:shock:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 May 2015, 17:08

sergei wrote:"To increase radar range by 2 times, you will have to increase transmitted power by 16 times"

:shock:

:mrgreen: lol i know, hard to believe right, but that physics
In order to double the range, the transmitted power would have to be increased by 16-fold

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... ce.en.html
Last edited by eloise on 31 May 2015, 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 May 2015, 17:59

sergei wrote:IT IS BIG.

F-35 aerodynamic model acceleration is quite similar to a Su-27S carry 4 AAM
IT is very different.
Su-27s and F35 acceleration from 0.8M to 1.45M = 70 sec
F35 acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M = 50 sec

Su-27s acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M =13sec at 50sec it will accelerate to 1.9M
And let see not "aerodynamic model" from graph but KPP for F35A/B/C

Acceleration 0.8M-1.2M
F-35A =63sec
F-35B =81sec
F-35C =118sec
F-35 aerodynamic model = 35sec
And what we can see from graph? Su-27s at 63 sec will have 1.35M speed.........


i was talking about transonic acceleration sergei , aka from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2, i didn't talk about acceleration from mach 0.8 to mach 2, why? because it take too much time to give any tactical application again stealth fighter , it take 150 seconds for Su-27S with only 4 AAM to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 2 right? :wink: remember this : if 2 aircraft both fly at mach 1, head on, in 150 seconds they will cover 100 km distance in total. Su-27/35 or T-50 ,f-35 can detect another stealth fighter from less than 50 km, do you really think they will have time to accelerate to mach 2? :wink: :wink: , not to mention the fact that all fighter fly like brick at that speed.
So why did i say the different in transonic acceleration is small? look at the graph below for KIAS :
Image
ok let go with KPP number : in 65 sec, from mach 0.8 F-35A can accelerate to mach 1.2 while Su-27s can accelerate to mach 1.35 correct?
so the difference is 0.15 mach, or 60 KIAS, 60 KIAS equal to 111 km/h :? :wink:
P/s and i have not even mentioned the fact that F-35 can cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust :?

also KPP acceleration number for f-35 is when it carry 2 2000 pounds JDAM and 2 aim-120, which is heavier than F-35 with only AAM, thus have higher wave drag and that lead to slower acceleration, when carried AAM only, it go like this :
Screenshot_2015-05-31-23-21-33.png

Screenshot_2015-05-31-23-21-49.png
Offline

mrbsct

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 27 May 2015, 00:26

Unread post31 May 2015, 18:46

Eloise, thanks for your response.

My point is the T50 radar is a improvement of the Ibris-E and probably has improved range. So it maybye can find the F35 at 50-60 km. Also it has a higher flight ceiling so its missiles would be more effective. 60 km is beyond the limit the AIM-120D's NEZ at medium altitudes and the F35 might not shoot at those distances. If the F35 is using Meteor the story may be different.

If the merge to effective range happens(they both see each other) to 40-50 km. The one the superior kinematics and missile load will have the upper hand.

The Ibris-E is reported to have range of 400 km against 3m2 target. Do its T/R modules amount and how the 1500 T/R PAK FA effects its range?

My source missile on missile effective range is:
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html

It read once the effective range of AIM-120A is around 19 km probably average altitudes, the AIM-120B probably at 25km the AIM-120C an improvement probably has a effective range of 30 km since the source says the improvement was designed to engage 9 G targets at 30 km and Red Flag says German pilots cannot get within 32 km without being engaged.(probably at medium altitudes) The AIM-120D with a 50 percent increase of range makes its effective range around 45-50 km. The Meteor 3 times the NEZ of AIM-120B makes it around 60-75 km.

I read supersonic increases at increase missile range as much as 30 km higher(R27 70 km max goes 100 km when supersonic) probably increase NEZ as well. The F22 is said to have 50 percent increase range of the AIM-120 than other cruising platforms due to supercruise

What is your take on this? Let's say the AIM-120D's NEZ is only 45 km at medium altitudes. Does supercruise increase this number 67 km(50 percent increase) and supersonic(full blown) up to 75 km?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 00:02

Good PNGs thanks. Here is the text for future reference. [IF any errors in text please point them out because it is OCRed]
Lockheed Martin defends JSF's close-in capabilities
13 Feb 2009 Julian Kerr Jane's Defence Weekly

"Key Points:
• The F-35 has little advantage over other aircraft: in combat situations within visual range, Lockheed Martin has conceded

• However, the aircraft's superior stealth and situational awareness means it comfortably outperforms rivals in longer-range scenarios


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 WNR 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 WNR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well.""

Source: download/file.php?id=20843&mode=view & download/file.php?id=20844&mode=view
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 03:00

eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:"To increase radar range by 2 times, you will have to increase transmitted power by 16 times"

:shock:

:mrgreen: lol i know, hard to believe right, but that physics
In order to double the range, the transmitted power would have to be increased by 16-fold

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... ce.en.html


" russian Radar “Spoon Rest”"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar

"Azimuth 360 degrees"

Not very much like an airplane radar?
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 05:37

eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:IT IS BIG.

F-35 aerodynamic model acceleration is quite similar to a Su-27S carry 4 AAM
IT is very different.
Su-27s and F35 acceleration from 0.8M to 1.45M = 70 sec
F35 acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M = 50 sec

Su-27s acceleration from 1.45M to 1.6M =13sec at 50sec it will accelerate to 1.9M
And let see not "aerodynamic model" from graph but KPP for F35A/B/C

Acceleration 0.8M-1.2M
F-35A =63sec
F-35B =81sec
F-35C =118sec
F-35 aerodynamic model = 35sec
And what we can see from graph? Su-27s at 63 sec will have 1.35M speed.........


i was talking about transonic acceleration sergei , aka from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2, i didn't talk about acceleration from mach 0.8 to mach 2, why? because it take too much time to give any tactical application again stealth fighter , it take 150 seconds for Su-27S with only 4 AAM to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 2 right? :wink: remember this : if 2 aircraft both fly at mach 1, head on, in 150 seconds they will cover 100 km distance in total. Su-27/35 or T-50 ,f-35 can detect another stealth fighter from less than 50 km, do you really think they will have time to accelerate to mach 2? :wink: :wink: , not to mention the fact that all fighter fly like brick at that speed.
So why did i say the different in transonic acceleration is small? look at the graph below for KIAS :
Image
ok let go with KPP number : in 65 sec, from mach 0.8 F-35A can accelerate to mach 1.2 while Su-27s can accelerate to mach 1.35 correct?
so the difference is 0.15 mach, or 60 KIAS, 60 KIAS equal to 111 km/h :? :wink:
P/s and i have not even mentioned the fact that F-35 can cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust :?

also KPP acceleration number for f-35 is when it carry 2 2000 pounds JDAM and 2 aim-120, which is heavier than F-35 with only AAM, thus have higher wave drag and that lead to slower acceleration, when carried AAM only, it go like this :
Screenshot_2015-05-31-23-21-33.png

Screenshot_2015-05-31-23-21-49.png

"F35 ripple fires, the T50 has likely of escape, if T50 ripple fires the F35 has no chance of escape"
" i didn't talk about acceleration from mach 0.8 to mach 2"
Because F-35 cant do 2M it max speed =1.6M+
Aim-120D speed = M4=1.36km/s
50km =36.7 sec
Su-27S Vs F35 head on ,fired missiles at each other,then try to escape.
speed Su-27s=1.12M get hit range , F35 speed=1M get hit range
Su-27s acceleration better on 12%
"cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust "
It cant cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust , 1.2M it is thrust without afterburner on the limited range .

"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 "
4 vs 8 why not 4 vs 10 i bet F-35 will out accelerate Su-30MKI much more.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 07:10

sergei wrote:"F35 ripple fires, the T50 has likely of escape, if T50 ripple fires the F35 has no chance of escape"
" i didn't talk about acceleration from mach 0.8 to mach 2"
Because F-35 cant do 2M it max speed =1.6M+
Aim-120D speed = M4=1.36km/s
50km =36.7 sec
Su-27S Vs F35 head on ,fired missiles at each other,then try to escape.
speed Su-27s=1.12M get hit range , F35 speed=1M get hit range
Su-27s acceleration better on 12%
"cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust "
It cant cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust , 1.2M it is thrust without afterburner on the limited range .

"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 "
4 vs 8 why not 4 vs 10 i bet F-35 will out accelerate Su-30MKI much more.


The tested top speeds (and the required top speed of the JSF design) is Mach 1.6, its listed as Mach 1.6+ because lockheed designed it to exceed mach 1.6, even though it was only called to do 1.6. So saying the F-35 can't do mach 2 is incorrect, nobody has taken it there yet. Also in what scenario has a fighter vs fighter BVR fight happened above mach 1.2-1.6? As Eloise mentioned at mach 1 your time till merge is fast at 100km.

"It cant cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust , 1.2M it is thrust without afterburner on the limited range"

Well it cruised at level flight at mach 1.2 without using afterburner to maintain the speed for 150miles (241km) how is that a limited distance? Even though its not using the same fuel amount as Afterburner you still burn more fuel to cover the distance. The only place super cruise seems to be really needed for the F-35 would be in a BVR situation so being able to do so for 240km would seem to be more then enough for that situation.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 07:23

sergei wrote:
" russian Radar “Spoon Rest”"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar

"Azimuth 360 degrees"

Not very much like an airplane radar?

:| ????
what azimuth have to do with range ? :? :| , i said for a radar , if yo want to double it's range again same target , you have to increase transmit power by 16 times
also since we are at it , P-18 have transmit power of 260 kw ( fighter radar have transmit power around 10-12 kw ) and P-18 work at VHF band ( much more effective again stealth fighter compared to X band radar ) , and at what range it can detect F-117 ? :wink:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post01 Jun 2015, 07:50

sergei wrote:Because F-35 cant do 2M it max speed =1.6M+

alright , the principal still the same , your Su-27/35 or T-50 whatever will not have enough time to accelerate to mach 2 when they have to face a stealth fighter . And all fighter fly like brick at mach 2

sergei wrote: Aim-120D speed = M4=1.36km/s
50km =36.7 sec

Wrong , firstly air to air missiles maximum speed will depending on altitude and launching speed of the aircraft ( read my post in that topic )
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27373
Secondly , your Su-35 is not stationary , thus the total time it take for aim-120 to hit target equal distance/the closure rate , if Su-35 moving at mach 1 head on then time taken is around 29 second

sergei wrote:Su-27S Vs F35 head on ,fired missiles at each other,then try to escape.
speed Su-27s=1.12M get hit range , F35 speed=1M get hit range

:? i dont quite understand what you trying to say here ,however , as explained before , 0.1 mach at 30K feet is around 40 KIAS ( around 74 km/h ) the different in speed between mach 1.2 and 1.35 isnt as big as you think it is , the actual reason why they want to accelerate above mach 1 before launching missiles is to stay away from the mach barrier, above mach 1.2 the drag is lower than at mach 1-1.1 , thus missiles have to spend less fuel to accelerate supersonic
Image


sergei wrote: Su-27s acceleration better on 12%

F-35 detect Su-27/35 from around 300 km , Su-35S can detect F-35 from around 50 km , So the time F-35 pilot have to accelerate is 6 times longer than su-35 pilot :roll:
sergei wrote:It cant cruise at mach 1.2 in dry thrust , 1.2M it is thrust without afterburner on the limited range
.
thrust without afterburner is dry thrust sergei
sergei wrote:"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 "
4 vs 8 why not 4 vs 10 i bet F-35 will out accelerate Su-30MKI much more.

are you sure ? :wink: , shall we look at it again
Lockheed Martin defends JSF's close-in capabilities
13 Feb 2009 Julian Kerr Jane's Defence Weekly

"Key Points:
• The F-35 has little advantage over other aircraft: in combat situations within visual range, Lockheed Martin has conceded

• However, the aircraft's superior stealth and situational awareness means it comfortably outperforms rivals in longer-range scenarios

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.

the first part was about maximum speed , the second part they talking about acceleration :mrgreen: that are very different
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests