Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 22:27

wrightwing wrote:They have better detection ranges than the Irbis, which has a claimed detection range of 90nm vs a .01m^2 target.


According official sources the Irbis-e has a detection Range of 200 km vs a 3m2 traget. So that means 26nm against a .01m2 target.

The most important difference between the Su-35 and ”4+” generation fighters is its fifth-generation avionics. The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km. The Irbis-E is able to track up to 30 targets at a time and guide missiles at 8 of them, without an interruption in airspace surveillance. The radar control system also provides for the selective acquisition of moving ground targets and cueing for low-level missions.


http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... n-features
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 22:40

swiss wrote:
wrightwing wrote:They have better detection ranges than the Irbis, which has a claimed detection range of 90nm vs a .01m^2 target.


According official sources the Irbis-e has a detection Range of 200 km vs a 3m2 traget. So that means 26nm against a .01m2 target.

The most important difference between the Su-35 and ”4+” generation fighters is its fifth-generation avionics. The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km. The Irbis-E is able to track up to 30 targets at a time and guide missiles at 8 of them, without an interruption in airspace surveillance. The radar control system also provides for the selective acquisition of moving ground targets and cueing for low-level missions.


http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... n-features

I was giving them the benefit of doubt, with narrow beam searches. You are absolutely correct, with regard to typical detection ranges.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 22:42

Is PESA or AESA radar slower using narrow beam then non ESA radars using wide beam?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:04

milosh wrote:Is PESA or AESA radar slower using narrow beam then non ESA radars using wide beam?

AESA>PESA>MSA
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:18

I wolud dare say that a relatively modern MSA can be faster than any ESA that's using narrow beam - however, as much as I understand the issue, narrow beam is not really intended for search, but for tracking targets that have already been found. I'd love to hear from hornetfinn or other members that understand radars better than I do if that's correct.
Russia stronk
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:18

Look how fast the beams sweep and you can answer that yourself.



answer = No way in hell an MSA can compete with a modern AESA with respect to speed.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:27

juretrn wrote:I wolud dare say that a relatively modern MSA can be faster than any ESA that's using narrow beam - however, as much as I understand the issue, narrow beam is not really intended for search, but for tracking targets that have already been found. I'd love to hear from hornetfinn or other members that understand radars better than I do if that's correct.


Me too because ESA are blazing fast with normal (wide) beams as we can see from video SpudmanWP posted. So it would be interesting to see in narrow beam make them lot lot lot slower.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:36

I am not sure an APG-81 does a "wide beam". I have yet to see any references to different scan rates, ranges, etc.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:40

zero-one wrote:
They do have some overhyped tech that turned out to be less stellar than we previously thought. But once in a while they come up with stuff like the Su-27.

When that came out, it really had a good chance against the F-15. So much so that it led the USAF to create the ATF program. Europe went with the Eurocanards, all of them to counter the Flanker.

In fact I think there is a good argument to be made that if a war broke out in the late 80s or 90s, the Soviets or Russians may have had parity in the air.

BVR would still be with the Americans and I think thats where most of the kills will be made.
But would the Su-27s and Mig-29 win most of the WVR engagements, maybe. The F-15 had advantages high and fast agaisnt the Flanker but not by much. Slow speed and high alpha are firmly on the Flanker's side. The F-16 would be better than almost anything in a high speed fight but the Russians had some HOBS and Archer combos we couldn't match yet.


The problem I always run up against is that much of their stuff is over hyped. So much so that it has become like the boy who cried wolf. While I will give them credit where credit is due (e.i Flanker series aircraft and Fulcrums) however despite Russia's ingenuity to come up with formidable designs at a low cost, they vastly fall behind in other areas. I point to my acquaintance opinions of the Mig-29 when he was on the Hornet.

Also the origins date back well before the 80's...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=40

The official beginning of the ATF program usually traces to 1981 when USAF Aeronautical Systems Division, or ASD, released a request for information for concepts for an advanced tactical fighter. (ASD is now the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.) The term advanced tactical fighter and its abbreviation, ATF, however, appeared in a general operational requirements document issued to contractors by the Advanced Planning Branch of ASD almost ten years earlier in 1972. The requirements document pertained to a new air-to-ground fighter to complement the new F-15 air-superiority fighter. The ATF would replace an aging fleet of F-4 and F-111 aircraft.
+++
The Flight Dynamics Lab nurtured the advanced tactical fighter through the 1970s, sponsoring research and development contracts. General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas performed a 1975 study titled, "Advanced Technology Ground Attack Fighter." After that, six companies participated in an "Air-to-Surface Technology Study." The lab sponsored two more studies in 1980: a "Tactical Fighter Technology Alternatives" for future air-to-ground fighters and a "1995 Fighter Technology Study" for future air-to-air fighters. Boeing and Grumman conducted the air-to-ground studies. General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas conducted the air-to-air studies.


(time index 4:15)


Yes the official start of the ATF Program started in 1982 yet its origins can be traced back much further. One can make the statement that Russia was scrambling to counter the "teen" series aircraft in an attempt to gain parity or superiority. It would seem that whatever forms of parity Soviet Russia might have had with their Fulcrums and Flankers was short lived when the YF-22 and YF-23 started their Dem/Eval along with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then Russia has been frantically trying to catch up to what was achieved more than 20 years ago. What they can't actually create, they make up with nonsensical rhetoric and propaganda.
Western Europe on the other hand nothing that was in the same class as the F-15 when it came out. NATO knew they couldn't solely depend on the US F-15s to keep or gain air superiority. To answer this the UK, (at the time) West Germany, Italy, Spain, and France came together to create their own air superiority fighter design.

Now fast forward to the PAKFA. The US is already playing in a league Russia can't even compete with yet. Yes they got their foot in the door but they aren't even on the field yet. Not just having proper design and technologies, but also tactics as well. It wouldn't surprise me that they have already been having F-22s go against other F-22s. How can the PAKFA be considered counter stealth when they haven't even developed tactics for it yet? How can it just suddenly leap ahead of F-22 and F-35 when it's engines and radar are still in a testing phase? Russian "media", MoD propagandists, and interweb fanboys can play up the PAKFA all they want but the TRUTH is that the PAKFA is late to the game.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jul 2018, 23:45

Regarding this subject of Narrow vs Wide beams in AESA/PESA radars, this is something that I would also like to "hear" from hornetfinn.
However my two cents on the subject are:
There shouldn't be much of a diference in terms of "scanning speed" between both modes. The diference between both modes should IMO be the following:
- Narrow beam manages to put more energy on its scanning sector, this however at the cost of scanning a much smaller airspace (compared obviously to Wide beam) which by itself has a "tremendous cost" in terms of the so called and very important Situational Awareness or SA.
This is IMO because with Narrow beam you will probably have much more radar modules pointing at the same spots (compared with Wide mode) which means more energy put in those same spots but since more modules are being used to scan less spots which translates in less area, the result is a much smaller or more precisely a much narrower scanned space, hence "Narrow Beam". If I'm correct with this assessment, I would say that the "scanning speed" between both modes shouldn't be that different - again one (Wide) will scan more space than the other since it will have more modules freed to scan/look at other places which creates a wider (Wide) area to be scanned.

But again, these are my 2 cents. Would really like to know from hornetfinn if I'm rather correct or not :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 00:29

Narrow beam in the context of the Irbis, is a cued search scanning a volume of 10 deg x 10 deg. The F-22 and F-35 can greatly increase their detection ranges, with cued searches (2 deg x 2 deg), too. Wide beam refers more to volume search (i.e. 120 deg x 120 deg.)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23331
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 01:30

'charlielima223' you may be interested in this latest JSF official history:

F-35 Program History – From JAST to IOC 16 May 2018

download/file.php?id=27741 (PDF 5.4Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 08:57

botsing wrote:How would they know where to fly to intercept an invisible enemy?

Most of the time they won't. but again, Stealth is not invisibility, they know the general location,

botsing wrote:And why would the F-35's allow these planes to get closer?


In RedFlag 17-1, 7 F-35s were killed, all in WVR. Not allowing something doesn't mean it can't happen

botsing wrote:And why are these F-35's out there without any support?


The whole point of 5th gens is to be able to operate deep inside enemy IADS zones without support.

This scenario makes no sense, nobody would base their whole strategy on a once in a lifetime lucky shot like this.


what choice do they have, so far every exercise points that the only chance you have against a 5th gen is if you make it to the merge.

So you can bet that everyone's strategy will be focused on increasing their chances to make it there.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 12:38

zero-one wrote:
botsing wrote:How would they know where to fly to intercept an invisible enemy?

Most of the time they won't. but again, Stealth is not invisibility, they know the general location,

The general location is not the same as knowing the exact location and the ability to get a firing solution. The F-35's would detect you long before you would know their specific location and they would make sure to keep the sweetspot of this engagement.

zero-one wrote:
botsing wrote:And why would the F-35's allow these planes to get closer?


In RedFlag 17-1, 7 F-35s were killed, all in WVR. Not allowing something doesn't mean it can't happen

In Red Flag they were killed by aircraft that were respawned, the F-35 just killed those aircraft and they were reactivated, not something that will happen in the real world. The area for Red Flag is also much smaller and confined than real world scenario's.


zero-one wrote:
botsing wrote:And why are these F-35's out there without any support?


The whole point of 5th gens is to be able to operate deep inside enemy IADS zones without support.


Where did you get that idea? You are putting out a straw man argument here.


zero-one wrote:
botsing wrote:This scenario makes no sense, nobody would base their whole strategy on a once in a lifetime lucky shot like this.


what choice do they have, so far every exercise points that the only chance you have against a 5th gen is if you make it to the merge.

So you can bet that everyone's strategy will be focused on increasing their chances to make it there.

Building your strategy around winning the lottery is not a viable solution. Your proposed scenario still makes no sense at all.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2018, 13:30

botsing wrote:The general location is not the same as knowing the exact location and the ability to get a firing solution. The F-35's would detect you long before you would know their specific location and they would make sure to keep the sweetspot of this engagement.


Against a 4th gen no doubt. The problem is we're treating the Su-57 as just another 4th gen. It's not, They claim it is VLO, I doubt that, but at worst I think it is LO. So killing it "LONG BEFORE" it knows you're there may not apply.

botsing wrote:In Red Flag they were killed by aircraft that were respawned, the F-35 just killed those aircraft and they were reactivated, not something that will happen in the real world. The area for Red Flag is also much smaller and confined than real world scenario's.

I've heard that before, but so far there has been no official statements to support that. And who ever said that every single WVR encounter resulted from re-spawned aggressors, maybe some,

In fact if you listen to the actual testimony in youtube, the General said, some of the F-35's were simply caught passing by and shot.

Also, if you re-spawned and killed the aircraft that killed you, doesn't that mean the F-35 killed you in WVR also?

botsing wrote:And why are these F-35's out there without any support?

Zero-one wrote:The whole point of 5th gens is to be able to operate deep inside enemy IADS zones without support.


Where did you get that idea? You are putting out a straw man argument here.


https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/2/
Gen. Mike Hostage wrote:“But in the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door,” Hostage says.


The General was quite clear, in the first week of the war, he's putting 5th gens in there, no support

botsing wrote:
Building your strategy around winning the lottery is not a viable solution. Your proposed scenario still makes no sense at all.


I'm not saying this strategy will work. All I'm saying is this SEEMS to be what they are gunning for? If you are Russia what will you do. Shoot F-22's BVR? Good luck with that.

Your only hope is to make it to the merge. The Su-57, among all Russian fighters give them the best chance to do that.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests