Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Jan 2019, 14:45

zhangmdev wrote: its economy and trade barely a blip in the world stage. So I think there is plenty of human capital (ingenuity) and material wealth (money) around to develop military stuff, if a country wants to, especially when the basic science and technology is known, making it a lot easier.


China has always been a major economy in the world stage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... orical_GDP

they were 6th in the 1960s, which is actually better than where Russia is at now.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2859
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Jan 2019, 15:53

element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:On the one hand, that's absolutely abysmal. Just enough to keep the factory open I suppose, for another 2 years. Also brings their per plane squadron down from 12 to 2, and mission readiness likely down to just 1 airplane. Perhaps even less, but then again you can't get less than 1. Unless they entertain sending half an SU-57 up to do battle?


The RuAF wiki page is claiming 2 Su57 in 2019, and 2 more in 2020.

FRP?


Quite possibly. 2 a year starting this year gives them... 12 in 2024??

At that rate, we could re-start Raptor production and have a full compliment of 350 plus in the same timeframe lol. But even better, there will be how many more F-35's flying in 2024? Almost 1,000??

And they'll keep coming, in larger and larger numbers until the USAF is flush with 1,700+, the USN with 400 and the USMC with a similar number. Then you add in allied jets and... no matter how good the "final" SU-57 is, it'll be no match for one branch of our armed services F-35's. Hell. Japan's buy alone will probably usurp theirs.

A humbling end, to Russia's first "stealth" fighter..
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post07 Jan 2019, 17:29

zero-one wrote:
China has always been a major economy in the world stage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... orical_GDP

they were 6th in the 1960s, which is actually better than where Russia is at now.


Measuring the GDP of a country of total command economy having next to none foreign trade, in USD? How reliable is that?

The 6th biggest economy sounds not bad? What is the quality? By the end of 1970s, the urban population still aspire to own "the big four items": bicycle, wrist watch, sewing maching, radio. The 100 RMB bicycle was a luxury item worth flaunting, because most people made less than 30 RMB a month.

http://www.speakingofchina.com/china-ar ... i-da-jian/

There was shortage of basic stuff like grain, cooking oil, etc. Ration system of those commodity didn't end well into the 1980s. It doesn't feel like an economy right after Italy, does it?

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/757/
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 00:50

mixelflick wrote:But even better, there will be how many more F-35's flying in 2024? Almost 1,000??


If each LOT of FRP equals one year production (big if) the total F-35s at the end of 2023 is ~1,092, give or take about 10.

Game over for another generation.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1795
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 01:10

I always though, think and will always think that measuring a "country" solely by its GDP (nominal, PPP, doesn't matter) is the biggest fallacy of modern times!

Even the biggest and most advanced economy which is by far and undoubtedly the USA has this place not only because of it's GDP (which is first, granted) but also because other very strong indicators such as GDP PER CAPITA and HDI (Human Development Index) which are also very high on the USA (and BTW very low in China).
But here i'm probably getting into subjects such and probably as politics, so I digress...
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

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 01:24

zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote:For a country like Russia which uses indigenous sources in its defence equipment this local buying power GDP list is more appropriate where the list runs as China, US, India, Japan, Germany, Russia. The Russians are not spending any dollars on their defence equipment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... y_GDP_(PPP)


Basically what you're saying is that PPP is a more appropriate barometer for Countries that have self reliant industries while Nominal terms are more appropriate for countries that import most of their equipment.

By the way, a little off topic, but when a country says they use X percent of their GDP in defense, is this always in Nominal terms? Most of the ones I see use Nominal terms.

I personally think Nominal is the more accurate barometer of a country's economic power. China has been on top of the PPP list for some time but lets face it. People don't consider China as the largest economy. Indonesia is #7 in PPP terms, above France, S.Korea, Italy and Canada but I don't think anyone considers Indonesia as a larger economy than the latter ones mentioned.

No offense to Indonesians here, Its massively under rated right now but I think It will be powerhouse soon.
PWC predicts ASEAN will replace some of the EU members in economic terms the coming decades.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/econom ... -2050.html

And until recently, they had no reason to invest in their defense. China's land grabbing in the South China sea changed all that. The QUAD is already in place. Hopefully SEATO gets revived.


I will add that the converting PPP and GDP to military potential power is complicated for many reasons.

PPP is a measure of the exchange ratio of the overall economy. I will use Russia as an example which has an exchange ratio (PPP/GDP) of about 2.4 compared to the US which is...1.

If military potential was all about infantry salaries and producing Kalashnikovs then PPP would apply being fairly average on salaries and low tech production. High tech production and operations with a lot of consumables valued at world market prices is much closer to 1 than 2.4.

Which is why building Su-35 costs (GDP$) $65 million and not $24 million even if the production line has existed like forever, and the Su-57 is in excess of $100 million. The 2.4 factor discount apply less to high tech sectors. Basically because you are competing with the high tech sectors of other countries creating a combat competitive product.

GDP per capita also matters as you can tax high GDP per capita income much more as less is tied up in providing for the basic living conditions of the tax payer, there is just less tax potential to convert into high tech in economies with higher real exchange ratios.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2859
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 16:37

Any idea what an SU-30SM costs?

I ask because it's clear they won't be able to afford many SU-57's - even if they got them to work.

Yet the SU-35 isn't exactly cheap at $65 million. It'd be one thing if you could buy 2 or 3 SU-35's for every SU-57, but that's apparently not the case? Also, it seems to me the SU-30 offers much of the capability an SU-35 does, presumably for much lower cost. Why on earth they poured so much $ into the SU-35 I'll never know. It's not like the SU-30 is some kind of slouch. Has a great radar, thrust vectoring engines, great legs and 2 crew members to share the load when it comes to flying/fighting in it.

Unless they made some sort of near 5th gen breakthrough in pilot/machine interface with the SU-35 (not exactly their strong suit), I'd say buying more SU-30's the more prudent decision...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 18:34

mixelflick wrote:Any idea what an SU-30SM costs?

I ask because it's clear they won't be able to afford many SU-57's - even if they got them to work.

Yet the SU-35 isn't exactly cheap at $65 million. It'd be one thing if you could buy 2 or 3 SU-35's for every SU-57, but that's apparently not the case? Also, it seems to me the SU-30 offers much of the capability an SU-35 does, presumably for much lower cost. Why on earth they poured so much $ into the SU-35 I'll never know. It's not like the SU-30 is some kind of slouch. Has a great radar, thrust vectoring engines, great legs and 2 crew members to share the load when it comes to flying/fighting in it.

Unless they made some sort of near 5th gen breakthrough in pilot/machine interface with the SU-35 (not exactly their strong suit), I'd say buying more SU-30's the more prudent decision...



Su-35 isn't $65 million that is export price. You can find how much Russia paid for each order. Last order was around $35 million dollars per plane. That is why RuAF doesn't want MiG-35, it could cost more then Su-35 and would only have AESA radar as advantage and that is big IF because Su-35 will get AESA upgrade. Low Su-35 price is reason why they cold for Su-57. If Su-57 costs them $100 million that is almost three Su-35! And it is unlikely Su-57 will be cheaper then $100 millions for RuAF.

Su-35 vs Su-30? No contest. Su-35 carry more fuel (2.1tons more, 11.5tons vs 9.4tons), have better T/W ratio, better electronics (sensor fussion, IC maws, much more powerful PESA with much wider scan angle), and RAM and price is similar.

I really don't get why they bother at all with Su-30. Su-35 and Su-34 is all what they need.
Last edited by milosh on 11 Jan 2019, 12:30, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 19:11

Based on the PLAAF experience, Su-35 is a far better fighter jet than Su-30. The russian Su-30SM are I believe based on the su-30mkk series, which are not very effective in this day and age. They are not comparable to su-34 in attack missions and would be outclassed in air superiority missions vs su-35.

It's hard to say what the cost of su-35 is since one can give different numbers depending on what it includes. Russian defensive purchases aren't exactly the most transparent.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1795
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 19:50

Well I guess that another advantage of the Su-35 over the Su-30 could be a somehow lower operational costs when it comes to crewing the aircraft since the Su-30 requires two (2) crewmen while the Su-35 requires only one (1).

But and in the other hand I tend to agree with and believe in mixelflick's reservations about the Russian pilot/machine interface which still has a quite poor track and how the lack of quality in this (Russian pilot/machine interface) will affect the effectiveness of the Su-35 in some/many roles compared to the Su-30, in which the later (Su-30) is able to overcome (Russian) pilot/machine interface limitations by having that second crewman.

Regarding the Su-35 advantages of having better and more powerful engines (and therefore better TWR) and better radar and perhaps overall better electronics compared to the Su-30, all of which is true but I would say that:
- IMO, nothing prevents the Su-30 to be upgraded and equipped with the same engines, radar, etc... that the Su-35 has.
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

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 12:42

ricnunes wrote:Well I guess that another advantage of the Su-35 over the Su-30 could be a somehow lower operational costs when it comes to crewing the aircraft since the Su-30 requires two (2) crewmen while the Su-35 requires only one (1).

But and in the other hand I tend to agree with and believe in mixelflick's reservations about the Russian pilot/machine interface which still has a quite poor track and how the lack of quality in this (Russian pilot/machine interface) will affect the effectiveness of the Su-35 in some/many roles compared to the Su-30, in which the later (Su-30) is able to overcome (Russian) pilot/machine interface limitations by having that second crewman.

Regarding the Su-35 advantages of having better and more powerful engines (and therefore better TWR) and better radar and perhaps overall better electronics compared to the Su-30, all of which is true but I would say that:
- IMO, nothing prevents the Su-30 to be upgraded and equipped with the same engines, radar, etc... that the Su-35 has.


Su-30 is heavier and more draggy. So even with better engines it wouldn't be as good as Su-35. Su-35 cockpit is similar to PAK-FA cockpit and if you read what test pilot said for about biggest difference compared to older Flankers "software, software and software" he mentioned hard work on sensor fusion and man machine interface.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2859
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 13:47

Without knowing more about each machine, it's hard to say. They both carry a lot of gas, have good T2W ratios, have super-maneuverability and able to carry a truckload of AAM's, although in practice they fly with around 6 (in Syria, anyway).

They sure love their Flankers, and have quite the mish mash of them. It did become an outstanding design, but their Trump cards have always been range and maneuverability. Problem for them is, the F-35 has both in spades as well. I just saw part of the 2019 F-35 demo..... WOW. Appears to be doing everything an SU-35 can.... without the thrust vectoring!? And we know it's got great legs.

Are they really on an equal footing there though (range, maneuverability)? It would appear so, but then I wondered if the SU-35 can pull off those airshow stunts loaded up with fuel and weapons. Highly doubt it, at least with full internal fuel. The F-35 is said to be a 9g, mach 1.6 capable aircraft fully loaded - with the VLO switch. The more I learn about what LM engineers created, the more impressed I am.

Which brings us to the SU-57. I firmly believe that IF they get it working as advertised, it'll be a 4.5 gen aircraft in a world dominated by 5th gen fighters, with 6th gens starting to enter service. Unless they get that new engine (and everything else) working pronto, they slip further and further behind.

The F-35 will soundly trounce the SU-57 IMO, and is doing so today (nevermind with up-rated engines, weapons etc).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22297
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 14:18

You said: "...The F-35 is said to be a 9g, mach 1.6 capable aircraft fully loaded..." It is - get used to it. No saying required.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 15:03

I am pretty sure F-35 can out-maneuver all non thrust vectored Flanker variants.

In the horizontal: F-35 can do the herbst (J turn). Non thrust vectored Flankers can only do conventional turns. It has been mathematically proven that J-turn can easily dominate conventional turns in the horizontal (assuming 28deg/sec sustained conventional turns, far exceeds Flanker's capability) : viewtopic.php?f=37&t=54146

In the vertical: I know F-15/16 used to beat the J-turn capable X-31 with vertical maneuvers, however, the flanker family is never a good player in the vertical. A super lightly loaded single seater flanker (18920kg flying weight) could only achieve a climb rate of 310m/s at sea level: https://s14.postimg.org/nkknvh56p/Su_27 ... ration.jpg

F-15C/16C/Mig-29A are top tier vertical players. When lightly loaded their sea level climb rate could reach 350-370m/s. The most brutal one could be a block50 F-16 with GE129 engine which could achieve 365m/s in a 5G ascending turn (let alone straight line climb). There is an article shows the interview from 31 fighter pilots which proves F-35 is as good as F-15C/16C in the vertical.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 19:36

Until they figure out how to carry internally AIM-9X but not in main bay I really don't see what point of dog fighting.

Solution can be quite simple for example modified gun pod.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests