Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 17:35
by archmage10
Pak-fa is said to be able to match the Raptor

The F-35 is inferior to the F-22

Now using that triangular logic, the F-35 is inferior to the PAK-FA, but that's not how it always works

Will the F-35 be able to match both the Pak-fa and even the F-22?

Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 18:12
by JoeSambor
archmage10 wrote:now using that triangular logic,

More like pretzel logic....

Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 21:20
by neurotech
These kind of statements are misguided at best.

A MiG-29 has a better T/W ratio than a F-16, but the F-16 a tighter turn radius, assuming both jets are in A/A configuration. How many MiG-29s have downed a F-16 in combat? Zero confirmed kills. F-16 kills over a MiG-29, at least 3.

I very much doubt the PAK-FA is going to match the Raptor across the board. It *could* have a higher top speed, but doubtful it would have better sustained turn rate than a Raptor in a dogfight. Doubtful it will have a better AESA radar too.

RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 22:34
by neptune
Yes,

IRIS-T; allowing turns of 60 g at a rate of 60°/s.

An airplane is more than a motor; :) Systems :)

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 23:23
by neurotech
neptune wrote:IRIS-T; allowing turns of 60 g at a rate of 60°/s.

An airplane is more than a motor; Systems

Nepture is correct in saying that its more than the engine that makes a fighter. Its the airframe capability, avionics, weapons, and pilot training that makes a difference in capability of a fighter aircraft.

The R-73/AA-11 Archer with a MIG-29A had Helmet Cueing System and the MiG-29C/M/SMT or newer, with more advanced HMDS Cueing is quite a combination close in. When German MiG-29As were first evaluated by the west, they discovered the capability close-in was underestimated.

Because the PAK-FA systems are likely based on the Su-27/30/35 series, its unlikely that any major surprises are in the PAK-FA.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 01:47
by mixelflick
If pak-fa's stealth/radar signature is to be believed, the F-35 gets first look/first shot. The question then comes down to jamming. Can the T-50 jam/otherwise evade the latest AMRAAM's and in turn, detect the F-35 in time to run it down?

That latter point is the most concerning, IMO. Unlike the F-22, it's doubtful the F-35 will be able to run away from a T-50 once detected. The air-air F-35 load out I'm hearing is 6 AMRAAM's at best, and it's not like there are versions which have IR heads like many of the Russian missles. Point being, if you can jam the F-35's AMRAAM - you can jam 100% of its air-to air weapons. Maybe I missed it, but haven't seen any AIM-9x's in the mix - and there's talk of it not having an internal gun?

The latter is madness, IMO. Seems like forgetting that hard learned lesson from Vietnam would be a big mistake...

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 02:41
by spazsinbad
'mixelflick' said: "....and there's talk of it not having an internal gun?" Most of the F-35s built will be F-35As - all will have an internal gun.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 03:26
by alloycowboy
What does the PAK-FA have for avionics, sensors and networking capability?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 04:26
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:'mixelflick' said: "....and there's talk of it not having an internal gun?" Most of the F-35s built will be F-35As - all will have an internal gun.


70%, F-35A w/internal gun = 1,531
30%, F-35B/C w/external gun = 680
100%, w/guns 2,211


It will be unreasonable for the 340 F-35C a/c to leave the deck of the a/c carrier without a gun, when in the role of fleet defense.

The external gun is in a stealth gun pod and has a larger round capacity than the internal gun.

Internal GAU-12 180 rounds of 25mm
External GAU-12 225 rounds of 25mm

F-18 578 rounds 20mm

Bigger bullets and better sights :D or sneak up an shoot them in the "6" (will not need as many rounds????).....whatever :wink:

:)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 05:45
by delvo
mixelflick wrote:Unlike the F-22, it's doubtful the F-35 will be able to run away from a T-50 once detected.
Even if it is slower (and less maneuverable), which I am not convinced is the case, stealth and better sensors would still mean it can watch the other plane and stay where it won't be seen, so there's no chase to worry about, and even if it were to run away, that can often work against a faster chaser anyway, just because closing the distance takes time and the chaser would need to be closer because missiles' effective ranges are lowest against a fleeing target.

mixelflick wrote:The air-air F-35 load out I'm hearing is 6 AMRAAM's at best, and it's not like there are versions which have IR heads like many of the Russian missles... Maybe I missed it, but haven't seen any AIM-9x's in the mix
F-35 can carry Sidewinders. The outermost wing pylons are for Sidewinder rails, and mechanisms are in the works to put them inside as well; the rail would just need to move a bit when the doors open & close to put the missile outside for launch. So even looking at just the 6 internal AMRAAMs, anything from 1 to 4 of them could be replaced by 1 or 2 Sidewinders apiece, depending on exactly how the mechanism is designed. Like the one for carrying two AMRAAMs on one internal air-to-ground hardpoint, the exact design hasn't been released yet, so all we know is that it's being developed.

But really, how many AMRAAMs do you think one target plane can handle?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 06:09
by Conan
mixelflick wrote:If pak-fa's stealth/radar signature is to be believed, the F-35 gets first look/first shot. The question then comes down to jamming. Can the T-50 jam/otherwise evade the latest AMRAAM's and in turn, detect the F-35 in time to run it down?

That latter point is the most concerning, IMO. Unlike the F-22, it's doubtful the F-35 will be able to run away from a T-50 once detected. The air-air F-35 load out I'm hearing is 6 AMRAAM's at best, and it's not like there are versions which have IR heads like many of the Russian missles. Point being, if you can jam the F-35's AMRAAM - you can jam 100% of its air-to air weapons. Maybe I missed it, but haven't seen any AIM-9x's in the mix - and there's talk of it not having an internal gun?


The possibility of it's tiny on-board radar being jammed, is probably why the latest AMRAAM variants are equipped with 2-way datalinks, GPS/INS guidance systems as well as home on jam capability, in addition to their active radar seekers don't you think?

This gives each AMRAAM missile, 3 entirely separate targetting means... That combined with much shorter comparative range, is why the primary air to air missiles in use today are active radar guided missiles and not IR guided missiles.

It is interesting you think IR guided missiles are somehow less susceptible to "jamming" than radar guided missiles. Never heard of DIRCM, have you?

Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 06:51
by cywolf32
archmage10 wrote:Pak-fa is said to be able to match the Raptor

The F-35 is inferior to the F-22

Now using that triangular logic, the F-35 is inferior to the PAK-FA, but that's not how it always works

Will the F-35 be able to match both the Pak-fa and even the F-22?

Based on what scenario? A2A? Strike? Interdiction? SEAD? CAP? Systems engagement? Who's the offensive/defensive team? What other assets are involved? What are the ROE's? How many vs. how many? There are more F-35's flying right now than most air forces even have fighters in inventory, and the PAK-FA doesn't have ONE operational acft at this point. Please excuse the frankness, but there is no true forethought to the question being asked

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 07:12
by XanderCrews
it's doubtful the F-35 will be able to run away from a T-50 once detected.


To quote one of my military friends "Who said anything about running away?" 8)

The latter is madness, IMO. Seems like forgetting that hard learned lesson from Vietnam would be a big mistake...


I love how even though we equip every fighter aircraft with guns, and missiles are vastly improved, and we practice ACM all the time, and the JSF is going to be in service for the next 5 decades, which means we will get another half century of gun equipped fighters in the air, we still get to hear about a war that happened 50 years ago. I also love how guns ALWAYS work in these scenarios. They never jam or miss or anything. There are a lot of "hard lessons" we could take from Air combat in Vietnam, but they don't involve the gun, so the internet doesn't care. For example, Far more American Aircraft were lost to SAMs and ground fire than MiGs by a wide margin.

But back to your example,

So essentially what we have here, is a scenario where the F-35 is detected, its own electronic abilities are overwhelmed, and none of its weapons work. How will it do? Well off the top of my head I would probably say about as well as any other aircraft when nothing that aids in its combat survival works. Let me ask you a question, How do you feel the F-22 would do in the same scenario? Or the PAK-Fa if the situation is reversed? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I bet you the aircraft where nothing works probably has a bad showing (Yes, even with a gun) I would also wonder why an aircraft with so many advantages over its adversary would even get within gun range or a turning battle at all.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 08:49
by KamenRiderBlade
What I want to know is when the PAK-FA will reach th F-35's level of LRIP that it currently is in?

Who has promised to buy the PAK-FA?

Will we even see the PAK-FA ready to fight by the time that the F-35 is fully capable?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 10:00
by hobo
What I want to know is when the PAK-FA will reach th F-35's level of LRIP that it currently is in?


You mean production of ~36 per year? Maybe never. In recent years Russia has produced fighters at only a trickle.

Who has promised to buy the PAK-FA?


Only India is signed up at this point and there are few other potential operators out there. One by one countries that once turned to Russia for arms are shifting to new suppliers.

Will we even see the PAK-FA ready to fight by the time that the F-35 is fully capable?


Fully capable meaning what? Both will see their capabilities grow over the years ... and why does it matter? The F-35 and PAK FA are very different designs with very different missions.

Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 10:53
by sewerrat
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".

Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 19:20
by wrightwing
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.

RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 20:43
by icemaverick
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.

RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 21:29
by haavarla
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..

RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 23:28
by thegroundeffect
- 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.

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 00:26
by neurotech
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 01:32
by icemaverick
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.

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 01:58
by XanderCrews
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?

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 18:45
by sewerrat
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 19:25
by haavarla
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 ;)

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 19:38
by haavarla
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 19:50
by count_to_10
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 19:51
by spazsinbad
'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."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 22:26
by alloycowboy
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)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 22:43
by haavarla
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 23:11
by neurotech
haavarla wrote: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.

Compare the YF-17 for the USAF, with the F/A-18A for the Navy. The F/A-18 not that much different overall.

The shape of the F-35 is dictated by the large single engine, and the need for good subsonic/transonic performance, as opposed to jets like the F-104 which has supersonic optimized intakes. Remember the F-16 "big mouth" upgrade for the Block 30. The original intake wasn't optimized for higher thrust engines. The F-35 intake design gives the engines superb thrust from subsonic to transonic to supersonic.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 23:15
by spazsinbad
This link works: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf

This link works as well: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA399988 [previous same link over page had a 'space' in URL causing it to NOT function - since corrected]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 23:36
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:Its the hand it was dealt when the designers got the Requirements from both USAF, USN and USM.


Russia doesn't have this problem as they are still struggling just to reequip their air force.

haavarla wrote:
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.


So In other words, exactly what I said? And yes you are starting behind F-22 reached operational service in 2005. Does the PAKFA have a time machine? Or is the F-22 so superior that the PAKFA is only considered in the same class with the F-35?

haavarla wrote: They wanted to do a much cheaper jet that would cost a tad more than the latest F-16 variant.
Sorry to say, something went wrong..

If the Russians have a comparative blueprint for how to create an affordable 21st century fighter in the thousands i'd love to hear about it.

When is the last time the Russians produced more than even 100 fighter class aircraft a year?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 00:04
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: They wanted to do a much cheaper jet that would cost a tad more than the latest F-16 variant.
Sorry to say, something went wrong..

If the Russians have a comparative blueprint for how to create an affordable 21st century fighter in the thousands i'd love to hear about it.

They're sending North Korean spies south to stealth a F/A-50 prototype from the South Koreans, give it a stealth coating, and the latest avionics... the prototype is designated designated "F/A-50 Firefox" with a top speed of Mach 2.5+.

Maybe that should be the next thread. Sukhoi T-50 vs KAI/Lockheed T-50.. which one is more maneuverable in a WVR dogfight.

In all seriousness, a F/A-50 class 5th Gen fighter could be a possibility, or even the KAI C100 concept, if it was produced in the 1000+ numbers. If its only going to be 50-100 jets, a F-35 has a cheaper Program Unit Cost.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 00:18
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: They wanted to do a much cheaper jet that would cost a tad more than the latest F-16 variant.
Sorry to say, something went wrong..

If the Russians have a comparative blueprint for how to create an affordable 21st century fighter in the thousands i'd love to hear about it.

They're sending North Korean spies south to stealth a F/A-50 prototype from the South Koreans, give it a stealth coating, and the latest avionics... the prototype is designated designated "F/A-50 Firefox" with a top speed of Mach 2.5+.

Maybe that should be the next thread. Sukhoi T-50 vs KAI/Lockheed T-50.. which one is more maneuverable in a WVR dogfight.

In all seriousness, a F/A-50 class 5th Gen fighter could be a possibility, or even the KAI C100 concept, if it was produced in the 1000+ numbers. If its only going to be 50-100 jets, a F-35 has a cheaper Program Unit Cost.


I'd be happy to see Russia produce anything that wasn't originally designed during the Brezhnev Era. (and no, a Duck Billed Flanker doesn't count)

If you think the F-35 is expensive haalvara, wait until you are paying even more for a PAKFA that isn't nearly as good. :wink:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 00:52
by haavarla
Why all the rush of blood to compair whatever the VVS rearmament plan has do with the F-35 program. Does it has any similarity, nope.
Does the VVS and USAF, USN and USM have the same priorities and requirements or roles for that matter, nope.

And why mention it at all in this thread, i though we all agreed that the compairing "my countries jet to yours" post was not very productive, right?

About the PF, nobody knows when it will reach IOC.
But why must it somehow be now or at the same time as F-22??
Wtf, are you guys serious.. you know the Russians will do their work at their leasure and timetable, and both F-22 and F-35 will not change anything about this.

Seems i struck a nerve or something..

Posting stuff like "We got the F--22 waay back in 2005" just make you guys sound imature and silly. It does not have anything to do with the F-35 and PF.

Enough OT, lets talk about the F-35 for a change.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 01:04
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: They wanted to do a much cheaper jet that would cost a tad more than the latest F-16 variant.
Sorry to say, something went wrong..

If the Russians have a comparative blueprint for how to create an affordable 21st century fighter in the thousands i'd love to hear about it.

They're sending North Korean spies south to stealth a F/A-50 prototype from the South Koreans, give it a stealth coating, and the latest avionics... the prototype is designated designated "F/A-50 Firefox" with a top speed of Mach 2.5+.

Maybe that should be the next thread. Sukhoi T-50 vs KAI/Lockheed T-50.. which one is more maneuverable in a WVR dogfight.

In all seriousness, a F/A-50 class 5th Gen fighter could be a possibility, or even the KAI C100 concept, if it was produced in the 1000+ numbers. If its only going to be 50-100 jets, a F-35 has a cheaper Program Unit Cost.


I'd be happy to see Russia produce anything that wasn't originally designed during the Brezhnev Era. (and no, a Duck Billed Flanker doesn't count)

If you think the F-35 is expensive haalvara, wait until you are paying even more for a PAKFA that isn't nearly as good. :wink:


So sure about that are we?
You might have to eat your own words.
By any standards, all jets produced in Russia comes far cheaper than Western produced jets. Its a fact of life.

So the F-35 is much better than PF now.. in what way?
i'm pretty sure your list of performance and specs will crumble pretty fast once we get to see more info on PF.
What a retarded claim.. They have different roles and are not even in the same class. Two different birds all together.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 01:19
by popcorn
Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA?
Sorry, but No.. can't match the latter's larger RCS and IR signature.. also a smaller gunnery target.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 03:05
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote: fat bumpy F-35


haavarla wrote: just make you guys sound imature and silly.


haavarla wrote:And why mention it at all in this thread, i though we all agreed that the compairing "my countries jet to yours" post was not very productive, right?



haavarla wrote:By any standards, all jets produced in Russia comes far cheaper than Western produced jets. Its a fact of life.



So just to review my logic:

The F-35 will have better LO because it doesn't fail at the basics (I cant see engine faces) Russia is already talking about redesigns on the PAKFA. The US has been operating stealth aircraft since the 1980's, this will be Russia's first. In fact the US is so far ahead (see my definition of ahead below) that Neuro will probably be more than happy to explain that he feels that the F-18E/F is already well ahead of the PAKFA in current form, and his logic in why he feels this way.

The US is well ahead of Russia-- The F-22 was here first. Russia is catching up. When I said that the US is ahead of Russia, I mean that the US has put forth a fifth generation aircraft before Russia. The reason I mentioned the F-22, is because:

A. The F-22 is the worlds best aircraft
B. I was under the impressions that the PAKFA was meant as the F-22 counterpart

The reason I mention Russian aircraft industry/VVS is because Russia is not the USSR. this is going to be a few "firsts" for Russia. First new built fighter aircraft post USSR, First fifth generation aircraft, next generation engines, etc. A lot of this is new territory, even the old stuff like large scale serial production (can russia produce cheaply and effiecently and not lose quality?) Russian aircraft have an excellent reputation for ruggedness, but 5 generation aircraft rely on extreme precision. Is Russia capable of that? fifth generation aircraft are very expensive can russia not only produce an aircraft equal or better to the F-22/F-35 but also somehow make it cheaper?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 04:38
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:So just to review my logic:

The F-35 will have better LO because it doesn't fail at the basics (I cant see engine faces) Russia is already talking about redesigns on the PAKFA. The US has been operating stealth aircraft since the 1980's, this will be Russia's first. In fact the US is so far ahead (see my definition of ahead below) that Neuro will probably be more than happy to explain that he feels that the F-18E/F is already well ahead of the PAKFA in current form, and his logic in why he feels this way.

Just in case you weren't joking..

The F/A-18E/F has operational APG-79 AESA, that is a mature design, and is being migrated into the F-15C/D/E as the APG-82. The Irbis-E radar is not operational yet and neither is the Su-35 that uses it.

The FBW on the F/A-18E/F is also more advanced and has been extensively tested. I would even say that a clean F/A-18E/F jet probably has a lower frontal RCS than a PAK-FA. Exposed fans on a PAK-FA.

At risk of stating the obvious, the F/A-18E/F Block II is an operational jet in service with the USN and RAAF, the PAK-FA isn't.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 05:09
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So just to review my logic:

The F-35 will have better LO because it doesn't fail at the basics (I cant see engine faces) Russia is already talking about redesigns on the PAKFA. The US has been operating stealth aircraft since the 1980's, this will be Russia's first. In fact the US is so far ahead (see my definition of ahead below) that Neuro will probably be more than happy to explain that he feels that the F-18E/F is already well ahead of the PAKFA in current form, and his logic in why he feels this way.

Just in case you weren't joking..

The F/A-18E/F has operational APG-79 AESA, that is a mature design, and is being migrated into the F-15C/D/E as the APG-82. The Irbis-E radar is not operational yet and neither is the Su-35 that uses it.

The FBW on the F/A-18E/F is also more advanced and has been extensively tested. I would even say that a clean F/A-18E/F jet probably has a lower frontal RCS than a PAK-FA. Exposed fans on a PAK-FA.

At risk of stating the obvious, the F/A-18E/F Block II is an operational jet in service with the USN and RAAF, the PAK-FA isn't.


F-16.net has a really great search function, last week I searched for PAKFA stuff and was fascinated by your insight. Things I had not even considered. (sorry I can't find the post) So thanks!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 11:48
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So just to review my logic:

The F-35 will have better LO because it doesn't fail at the basics (I cant see engine faces) Russia is already talking about redesigns on the PAKFA. The US has been operating stealth aircraft since the 1980's, this will be Russia's first. In fact the US is so far ahead (see my definition of ahead below) that Neuro will probably be more than happy to explain that he feels that the F-18E/F is already well ahead of the PAKFA in current form, and his logic in why he feels this way.

Just in case you weren't joking..

The F/A-18E/F has operational APG-79 AESA, that is a mature design, and is being migrated into the F-15C/D/E as the APG-82. The Irbis-E radar is not operational yet and neither is the Su-35 that uses it.

The FBW on the F/A-18E/F is also more advanced and has been extensively tested. I would even say that a clean F/A-18E/F jet probably has a lower frontal RCS than a PAK-FA. Exposed fans on a PAK-FA.

At risk of stating the obvious, the F/A-18E/F Block II is an operational jet in service with the USN and RAAF, the PAK-FA isn't.


Yet another wild claim..

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5037

The Su-35 and its Irbis-E radar is operational.
Just because the State trials on Su-35 hasn't finnished yet, does not mean its not operational.
Its primerly weapons trials that is the last hurdle, due to several new ordinance being tested.

To compair, the very same thing happend with Su-34, it was in State Trials for years, but still it was operational with a full Sq.
It has to do with new weapons and the software to follow. Its the last that phase of every State trials.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 17:11
by firstimpulse
haavarla wrote:
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So just to review my logic:

The F-35 will have better LO because it doesn't fail at the basics (I cant see engine faces) Russia is already talking about redesigns on the PAKFA. The US has been operating stealth aircraft since the 1980's, this will be Russia's first. In fact the US is so far ahead (see my definition of ahead below) that Neuro will probably be more than happy to explain that he feels that the F-18E/F is already well ahead of the PAKFA in current form, and his logic in why he feels this way.

Just in case you weren't joking..

The F/A-18E/F has operational APG-79 AESA, that is a mature design, and is being migrated into the F-15C/D/E as the APG-82. The Irbis-E radar is not operational yet and neither is the Su-35 that uses it.

The FBW on the F/A-18E/F is also more advanced and has been extensively tested. I would even say that a clean F/A-18E/F jet probably has a lower frontal RCS than a PAK-FA. Exposed fans on a PAK-FA.

At risk of stating the obvious, the F/A-18E/F Block II is an operational jet in service with the USN and RAAF, the PAK-FA isn't.


Yet another wild claim..

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5037

The Su-35 and its Irbis-E radar is operational.
Just because the State trials on Su-35 hasn't finnished yet, does not mean its not operational.
Its primerly weapons trials that is the last hurdle, due to several new ordinance being tested.

To compair, the very same thing happend with Su-34, it was in State Trials for years, but still it was operational with a full Sq.
It has to do with new weapons and the software to follow. Its the last that phase of every State trials.


Sounds kinda like the F-35 going on its first deployment in 2017, even though some variants of it won't be out of testing.
Gotta say neurotech, the statement that the PAKFA has a higher frontal RCS than the Hornent doesn't seem to hold much water. Yes, it looks like the fans on the PAKFA are visible, but aren't the SH's as well? The nose and leading edges of the T-50 all seem pretty well stealthed to me. Well, minus those IRST humps.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 18:10
by marksengineer
From Wiki: "The F/A-18E/F's radar cross section was reduced greatly from some aspects, mainly the front and rear. The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft's frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades."

The radar blockers in the inlets have been known in the aviation press for years.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 18:20
by spazsinbad
NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)

Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 19:03
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:The Su-35 and its Irbis-E radar is operational.
Just because the State trials on Su-35 hasn't finnished yet, does not mean its not operational.
Its primerly weapons trials that is the last hurdle, due to several new ordinance being tested.

To compair, the very same thing happend with Su-34, it was in State Trials for years, but still it was operational with a full Sq.
It has to do with new weapons and the software to follow. Its the last that phase of every State trials.


By this dentition the F-35 is Operational as well 8) In which case "speculation" about the F-35 is no longer speculation. Just a thought.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 19:03
by neurotech
@haavarla: I don't think that reference suggests the Su-35 is operational. A F-35 translation would be "4 non-SDD jets were delivered to the USAF and flown to Eglin AFB for Operatonal Test & Evaluation". Your reference also doesn't mention Irbis-E radar, and evaluations could be flown without the radar fully functional. Another interpretation could be "Su-35 handed over to Russian Air Force test pilots, folllowing flight testing by Sukhoi's test pilots."

No, the F/A-18E/F turbofan faces are not visible from the front (only on earlier F/A-18A/B/C/D models) That is my basis of the claim about the PAK-FA which does have visible engines. The F/A-18E/F uses serpentine intakes.

When going under the 1m2 RCS range (Which the F/A-18F clean jet is), things like IRST sticking out, instead of low profile housings make a big difference. Seen the EOTS on a F-35?
Image

@Spazsinbad. Thanks for the reference, its obviously quite accurate. They usually put accurate information in the NATOPS to the level the pilot requires.

I try and be balanced to the strengths/weaknesses of the various jets, based on known and/or public information. Oops, there goes my job offer from APA :D

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 19:48
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote: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.


"Have to do" does not inspire confidence, especially as the PAK FAs rivals, have vastly improved engines (and no I am not talking about just American Aircraft)

I have no doubt that Russia can produce engines that produce a lot of power (thats never been an issue) I wonder about their reliability, their responsiveness, their fuel efficiency, their ability to withstand damage when run at extremes, and their ease of maintenance.

Like the Tomcat, the PAKFA may never reach its potential until newer engines are introduced.

The The B-2, F-22, F-35... If this is a football match Russia is down 3 goals to nil, in the 65th minute. theoretically they can still tie and even win, but I don't feel they have the players to do it, nor the time.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 19:53
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:@haavarla: I don't think that reference suggests the Su-35 is operational. A F-35 translation would be "4 non-SDD jets were delivered to the USAF and flown to Eglin AFB for Operatonal Test & Evaluation". Your reference also doesn't mention Irbis-E radar, and evaluations could be flown without the radar fully functional. Another interpretation could be "Su-35 handed over to Russian Air Force test pilots, folllowing flight testing by Sukhoi's test pilots."


I'm pretty sure there are three, perhaps four serial produced Su-35S based at Chakalovosk 6967th Air Base. It where the state trials are under going.

The rest of the total ten Su-35S is deployd to Khotilovo 6968th Air Base.
This Airbase will see a full Sq. It is not certain where the next base will be, alltough some report indicate it will be in Sentral or South district Russia.

On the Irbis-E, radar and Su-35S operational status, read this:

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/8/28/1170/

"Su-35 is being tested for tactical employment.

The latest multi-role Su-35 fighter is being tested for tactical employment in the network of its state testing, RIA Novosti reports with reference to the official representative of Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD RF), Air Forces, Colonel Vladimir Drik.

The state testing of multi-role super-maneuverable Su-35 fighter is underway in State Proving Flying Center (SPFC) of MoD RF named after Chkalov. Over 650 flights have already been performed in the network of the flight test program. "The flight testing of Su-35 with real tactical employment is currently being performed", - Drik said.

The pilots of SPFC(factory testing) have earlier performed flights aimed at assessment of aircraft performance, durability, stability and aircraft sensitivity, the work of its powerplant and avionics.

Important ground and flight tests for functional checking of command information system, communication system, navigation and radar system have also been completed. "The testing of this vehicle is being carried out in accordance with the program of state testing. Following the results of the completed stage of Su-35’s state joint testing it is planned to obtain the customer’s preliminary advice in October, which allows delivering the jets to flying units in accordance with plans for 2012", - Drik said.

Su-35 will become the prime fighter of the air forces, he added. Russian air forces will acquire the first six Su-35s in 2012. The Ministry of Defense intends to purchase about 90 Su-35 fighters by 2020."

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 20:08
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.


"Have to do" does not inspire confidence, especially as the PAK FAs rivals, have vastly improved engines (and no I am not talking about just American Aircraft)

I have no doubt that Russia can produce engines that produce a lot of power (thats never been an issue) I wonder about their reliability, their responsiveness, their fuel efficiency, their ability to withstand damage when run at extremes, and their ease of maintenance.


Have to do for now. Thought it being obvious..

Engine Responsivness is clearly seen in a multiple vids. Why would this be a problem?
The 117S enignes works just fine, so why wouldn't the 117 engines do the same?
It got a good Fuel consumption if you where to compair it with similar size and thrust output engines.

Most Russian Engine are run hot, sometimes even hotter than western Engines, one of the reasons for shorter TBO figures.. They like to max em more for performance.

Engines like the AL-31F series is well known for its easy maintanance. No need for complex overhaul factories. Its done at the Air Base.

Readup on engines here:

http://www.eaa.org/warbirdsbriefing/art ... lanker.asp

The The B-2, F-22, F-35... If this is a football match Russia is down 3 goals to nil, in the 65th minute. theoretically they can still tie and even win, but I don't feel they have the players to do it, nor the time.


Wow. What a deep and thourogh analyse. Absolutly fab! How did you come to such conclusion?
Wait, don't tell me.. cause Everybody knows, there are no AF in the world that can match USAF.

Kinda put your post in a very moot point. But i think people like you, get off when posting this time and time again.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 20:52
by neurotech
Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 21:01
by XanderCrews


from the article:

John T. Greenwood wrote in his book, The Designers: Their Design Bureaux and Their Aircraft, that the “Sukhoi’s Su-27 [and] variants demonstrates the wisdom of evolutionary design and design heredity, and component commonality - no great technological leaps are risked, production is not seriously interrupted for retooling and retraining, and service requirements are met.”

So Russia is going to best the leaders in the industry by not taking any technological leaps?

The PAKFA paradox is this:

It is either a safe, design without technical risk to keep it cheap and easy, using older proven capabilities (heredity design)

or:

It is going to be an expensive, highly researched aircraft with new everything in order to compete with the west. (technological leaps)

It can't be both. You aren't going to have these amazing new engines that don't cost anything, just like you won't have multiple AESA radars that won't add to cost and complexity.

Not to mention that Inflation is hurting the russian defense industry funding.

As for the engines I'm sure they can be fixed, but I am not so simple as to think the airplane can fly without them while they are being fixed (fixed easily, but fixed often) and it will have two of them that most be fixed often, though easily. It can't fly with one. This also means that Russia and its customers must be provided with extra engines in order not to lose flight time. So its an extra consideration in the price, or you have to be ok with the aircraft being down often. Not only that but I have read that Russian engines must still be overhauled.

The The B-2, F-22, F-35... If this is a football match Russia is down 3 goals to nil, in the 65th minute. theoretically they can still tie and even win, but I don't feel they have the players to do it, nor the time.


Wow. What a deep and thourogh analyse. Absolutly fab! How did you come to such conclusion?


Its probably because the US has retired/scrapped more stealth aircraft than Russia has ever produced. You think that Russia isn't desperately trying to catch up even thought the PAKFAs first flight was a full 20 years after the YF-22s? You don't think the whole USSR collapsing and a shaky economy might have set them back a tad?

Kinda put your post in a very moot point. But i think people like you, get off when posting this time and time again.


Maybe people keep mentioning the same things because its reality, and these are major considerations. I didn't think it was news that Russia has been having a rough time lately funding its military and R&D for new equipment and that carries weight.

haavalra I might be able to take you more seriously if you said things like "Russian Aerospace/VVS is hurting, but I believe the PAKFA can overcome that and be competitive with western designs" instead its "No Russia is even/equal with the west" and I'm sorry but the west has a head start, and an incredible amount of funds.

You talk about the good old days of the USSR designs without acknowledging that those minds and the institutions that developed them know reside in other nations. You seem unable to acknowledge that russia is even behind, let alone that its a rocky/challenging path ahead.

For as much as you bash the price of the F-35, the west can still afford them. It can afford to spends billions in research as well. the US just agreed to spend half of what Russia made in arm exports last year --just on the LRIP F-35s for 2013. If Russia attempts something of this scope and scale we will be able to accurately compare price.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 22:09
by haavarla
Why would i need to explain what everybody knows, namly that Russia had a broken back back in mid 90s. This is comon knowledge man.. and i have not anywhere implied otherwise.
Anyway this is history, and we now see a vitalization at both NAPO, KnAAPO and IAPO when it comes to aircraft production line and its tooling.
Back in the days USSR had their part of brilliant people working in Aviation sector, no doubt they still have such people. Meaning they can develop effective and better products today than just 10 years ago.
The main cheddar to take away from this is that jets like Su-35S, Su-34 and Pak-Fa will be more than enough for VVS and Russia to hold their position in Air power, which i think is a comfortly second place.


Bah, why do i get drawn into these sideroads when dabating here.. my point is i don't need to post what me, you and everybody else allready know.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 22:40
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.


I agree. But i think its a safe bet that the AESA radar that come with the PF will exell radars like the AN/APG-63(V)2 and perhaps even the (v3) too. They wont have to re-invent the wheel here.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 23:09
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:
neurotech wrote:Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.


I agree. But i think its a safe bet that the AESA radar that come with the PF will exell radars like the AN/APG-63(V)2 and perhaps even the (v3) too. They wont have to re-invent the wheel here.

The APG-82 is a superior radar to the APG-63v3 on the F-15SG, and will be retrofitted to the F-15C/D/E in USAF service. The APG-82 is based on the APG-79 radar, but with the APG-63v3 AESA antenna up front.

The APG-81 is considered the leading radar, and the technology has been back-ported to the APG-77 radar. As for the capability of the Irbis-E, "We shall see..."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 23:31
by firstimpulse
spazsinbad wrote:NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)

Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction


*whistles*
Well. I've been schooled. :oops:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 05:29
by hobo
It is either a safe, design without technical risk to keep it cheap and easy, using older proven capabilities (heredity design)

or:

It is going to be an expensive, highly researched aircraft with new everything in order to compete with the west. (technological leaps)

It can't be both. You aren't going to have these amazing new engines that don't cost anything, just like you won't have multiple AESA radars that won't add to cost and complexity.


Ding ding ding...

Some things are cheaper in the developing world, particularly unskilled labor, but the costs of a high performance aircraft are not driven primarily by labor...

Labor intensive or environmentally destructive industries thrive in low cost areas, but when you start talking about high-tech/aerospace, the industry is utterly dominated by the US, Germany, France, UK, etc.

With all that said, Russia is subject to the same fundamental constraints as everyone else. The PAK FA can be quick and cheap, but only if it makes major sacrifices. If the PAK FA is going to be competitive with something like an F-22 then its costs will be similar as well. (while dwarfing those of the F-35)

If Russia could simply decide to build a heavy-weight twin engined fighter for a fraction of what the competition can achieve... why aren't they building airliners, business jets, etc with that same pixie dust?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 10:51
by sewerrat
More and more, it's becoming apparent to myself that the PF is just an engineering exercise to keep the Russian aerospace industry viable and to produce *somethig* more afvanced than the Flankers and Fulcrums of the world, and to give them a viable plane to export such that they get a pieve of the pie so that the the American (Woo hoo for my country!) -35 doesn;t dominate the export market for the nexy 30 years. YEah the PF will be deadly against our aluminum, vintage, legacy fleet but its still going to be outnumered 4:1 or 5:1 against the legacy fighters -- not including AWACS support. I'm really grateful for the -35 program being, what is it, 10 years ahead of the PF and for being more advanced in every category execpt, probably, cruise speed and dash speed (thee later of which also consume hugh volumes of internal fuel, and who's effectiveness against the new -120 and Cuda is uesless if within range - no one can outrun an AAM, let alone 2-3 AAMS, And as far as cruise speed of the PF, how long can it cruise supersonically given the fact that now 100% of the time will it have 100% of its internal fuel load.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 10:54
by sewerrat
sewerrat wrote:More and more, it's becoming apparent to myself that the PF is just an engineering exercise to keep the Russian aerospace industry viable and to produce *somethig* more afvanced than the Flankers and Fulcrums of the world, and to give them a viable plane to export such that they get a piece of the pie so that the the American (Woo hoo for my country!) -35 doesn;t dominate the export market for the nexy 30 years. YEah the PF will be deadly against our aluminum, vintage, legacy fleet but its still going to be outnumered 4:1 or 5:1 against the legacy fighters -- not including AWACS support. I'm really grateful for the -35 program being, what is it, 10 years ahead of the PF and for being more advanced in every category execpt, probably, cruise speed and dash speed (thee later of which also consume hugh volumes of internal fuel, and who's effectiveness against the new -120 and Cuda is uesless if within range - no one can outrun an AAM, let alone 2-3 AAMS, And as far as cruise speed of the PF, how long can it cruise supersonically given the fact that now]t 100% of the time will it have 100% of its internal fuel load.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 14:50
by munny
haavarla wrote:I agree. But i think its a safe bet that the AESA radar that come with the PF will exell radars like the AN/APG-63(V)2 and perhaps even the (v3) too. They wont have to re-invent the wheel here.


Can we really safely say that? It may have more power, maybe even double and that will only give less than an 18% advantage in range. What's its figures for gain, internal attenuation losses, mds...etc? How's the cooling and subsequently APO?

Then also factor in that against any western aircraft, the western nation is also likely to be backed up by USA's huge mass of jamming assets, so the radar will likely be operating in areas with a very high noise floor, severely reducing range.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match t

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 16:23
by haavarla
More power will give 18% advantage in range??
How on earth did you calculate this?
Do you know how which areal the PF Array will have, do you know how many transmitters it will have and do you know how much power it will have?

Pls do share.

I do not put up any figures cause its doomed to be wrong, but on this forum there are litterly 5 top engineers working for Sukhoi whom can shedd some light on everything regarding PF. Amazing!!

The AN/APG-63(V)2 and (V)3 is not exactly cutting edge radar development, but merly an upgrade in which they use back end from another radar.
One question, how big is the AN/APG-63(V)2 array?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 18:43
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote:
The AN/APG-63(V)2 and (V)3 is not exactly cutting edge radar development, but merly an upgrade in which they use back end from another radar.
One question, how big is the AN/APG-63(V)2 array?


The (v)2 isn't the latest technology, but please list one adversary flying with a more capable radar. The (v)3 is even more capable, and the -82 more capable still.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 20:31
by thegroundeffect
neurotech wrote:Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.


Neurotech, how does this Russian/Chinease aproch differ from the western AESA radars?

Not trying to sollicitate for secrets, i'm just curious about why they would chose this design if there are other options, like you are implaying.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 21:12
by neurotech
thegroundeffect wrote:
neurotech wrote:Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.


Neurotech, how does this Russian/Chinease aproch differ from the western AESA radars?

Not trying to sollicitate for secrets, i'm just curious about why they would chose this design if there are other options, like you are implaying.

The signal processing system in a AESA isn't much different than a PESA radar. Where the big change occurs is the how the radar is driven. AESA uses multiple smaller transmitters instead of one big power amp driving the array.

As for specifics on the Russian/Chinese approach.. I'm not sure there are major differences in "approach". I don't know much about the Russian radars except that they seem to be larger and heavier than the US ones, for the range/performance. The Russians/Chinese try and minimize technical risk, whereas the top US radars such as the APG-81 are more integrated to mission systems than previous versions. Older radars, like the APG-79 are practically a drop-in replacement for the APG-73 without major changes to avionics architecture.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 21:38
by thegroundeffect
neurotech wrote:
thegroundeffect wrote:
neurotech wrote:Lets just skip over the semantics of Su-35 is operational status. The point is that the F-22/APG-77 & F/A-18/APG-79 combo has been operational for a long longer than the maybe less than 12 months the Su-35 has been in operational evaluation. Russia doesn't have a mature AESA design.

Since I'm trying to be fair and balanced, I'm going to release a little "secret" piece of information here. The semiconductor GaAS MMICs used in AESA radar are available as "dual use" technology as they are used in Mobile telecom and microwave relay stations. In some cases, they are even made in China. What the Chinese/Russian are working on is the R&D on how to combine 100s or 1000s of these things in an array, and keep it cool and reliable, including RF stability. They also probably don't have the same level of signal processors and the code to drive them.


Neurotech, how does this Russian/Chinease aproch differ from the western AESA radars?

Not trying to sollicitate for secrets, i'm just curious about why they would chose this design if there are other options, like you are implaying.

The signal processing system in a AESA isn't much different than a PESA radar. Where the big change occurs is the how the radar is driven. AESA uses multiple smaller transmitters instead of one big power amp driving the array.

As for specifics on the Russian/Chinese approach.. I'm not sure there are major differences in "approach". I don't know much about the Russian radars except that they seem to be larger and heavier than the US ones, for the range/performance. The Russians/Chinese try and minimize technical risk, whereas the top US radars such as the APG-81 are more integrated to mission systems than previous versions. Older radars, like the APG-79 are practically a drop-in replacement for the APG-73 without major changes to avionics architecture.


Oke, so if I understand correctly, the Russians/Chinese are basicaly trying to do the same as the US. The difference is that they haven't reached the same level op technology yet.

Thanks for your quick aswer!


Cheers.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 21:50
by neurotech
thegroundeffect wrote:
neurotech wrote:As for specifics on the Russian/Chinese approach.. I'm not sure there are major differences in "approach". I don't know much about the Russian radars except that they seem to be larger and heavier than the US ones, for the range/performance. The Russians/Chinese try and minimize technical risk, whereas the top US radars such as the APG-81 are more integrated to mission systems than previous versions. Older radars, like the APG-79 are practically a drop-in replacement for the APG-73 without major changes to avionics architecture.


Oke, so if I understand correctly, the Russians/Chinese are basicaly trying to do the same as the US. The difference is that they haven't reached the same level op technology yet.

Pretty much, that is the impression I'm under. What I was suggesting about the MMIC details was that there isn't some huge technical brickwall to the Russians/Chinese developing AESA radar, but it takes time and R&D expenditure.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 23:31
by sorrydog
haavarla wrote:More power will give 18% advantage in range??
How on earth did you calculate this?
Do you know how which areal the PF Array will have, do you know how many transmitters it will have and do you know how much power it will have?



It's really not possible to make a fixed estimate like this as signal loss is a function of many inputs in addition to distance and power. But I think the basic point is that doubling power will not mean doubled range, and my wild guess is that 18mi may be a best case scenario that somebody did with assumption of common values on the rest of the eqautions.

The formula(s) to guess signal loss are usually expressed in dBm which is an exponential measure and signal loss is combination of signal propagating in the shape of a sphere (1/distance^2) and the effects of attenuation by things like scattering of signal through a medium (air, water vapor, etc.) and wavelength effects on an antenna. In the case of radar the distance variable in the formula must be multiplied by 2 for the return trip and formula for reflection off the object given different wavelengths.

Given these multiple signal loss factors, I can easily see where doubling power only nets a gains of 10% or less of additional distance, however this no doubt will vary widely from factors like humidity, antenna/return angles, etc.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 23:33
by megasun
alloycowboy wrote:
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)


High volume and low drag, subsonically, right?
I hope any of you can elaborate on this low drag topic.
I can see similar proportion on high volume design of A-6 intruder. But for supersonic focused aircraft designs, like F-22, I still see stretching out longitudinally, rather than stretching cross-section.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 02:10
by munny
haavarla wrote:More power will give 18% advantage in range??
How on earth did you calculate this?
Do you know how which areal the PF Array will have, do you know how many transmitters it will have and do you know how much power it will have?


rough % advantage = ((power of stronger radar / power of weaker radar) ^ (1/4)-1)*100

I'm sure you've been made aware of the fact that a radar requires 16 times more power just to double it's range from power alone. This comes about because the 4th root of all radar parameters and target RCS are used in the max range equation (power, transmit gain, receive gain, MDS...etc).
The square root of wavelength is used (much of the reason why it impacts a lot on detection range)

So, if you have a radar with all other parameters being equal, but it has double the power, the actual advantage is less than the 4th root of 2. The reason it is less is due to increased losses arising from greater base range, higher internal temperature, atmospheric conditions...and a whole lot more.

All this is why attention to detail with stealth is a better path to follow than advancements in radar. Its damn difficult doubling your radar power, but relatively much more easy to halve your RCS to gain an advantage over a threat. Eg. The PAK FA may have double the radar power and larger aperture than an F-35, but if the F-35 has 1/10th the frontal RCS (and some public comments suggest it may actually be more like 1/200th in x-band), it will still have the detection range advantage.

The US has done the right thing in their no compromise approach to frontal aspect stealth (and much less compromised approach to side stealth than the PAK FA) with a moderately sized/powered aperture (aperture size and angle affects RCS too).

You really have to appreciate the way US designers are exploiting radar equations to get maximum advantage for money.

- They tackled RCS first because RCS reduction provides very good effectiveness for money/time to mature technologies.
- With GaN on Diamond coming soon they simultaneously improve power + minimum discernible signal all at once (as opposed to just boosting power alone)

What's next? I say high gain L-band mounted on very large, stealthy airframes.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 06:04
by megasun
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.

Compare the YF-17 for the USAF, with the F/A-18A for the Navy. The F/A-18 not that much different overall.

The shape of the F-35 is dictated by the large single engine, and the need for good subsonic/transonic performance, as opposed to jets like the F-104 which has supersonic optimized intakes. Remember the F-16 "big mouth" upgrade for the Block 30. The original intake wasn't optimized for higher thrust engines. The F-35 intake design gives the engines superb thrust from subsonic to transonic to supersonic.


In regards to transonic performance, I remember F-35 is described as: "acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec", not an impressive number, comparing to F-16 / F-18 acceleration from 0.8 to 1.2 with 2 IR 2 AMRAAM.
Although F-35 is also described as aerodynamical performance comparable to F-16 / F-18 clean, thus supposed to be better than F-16 / F-18 with load.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 06:29
by spazsinbad
'megasun': here is the reference for your remembered claim? "..In regards to transonic performance, I remember F-35 is described as: "acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec",...".

F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed Aviation Week's DTI | Andy Nativi | March 06, 2009 This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

Which article ends with this disclaimer: "...It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft."
_______________

A forum discussion here c.July 2010: BF-02 Supersonic

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 06:31
by haavarla
wrightwing wrote:
haavarla wrote:
The AN/APG-63(V)2 and (V)3 is not exactly cutting edge radar development, but merly an upgrade in which they use back end from another radar.
One question, how big is the AN/APG-63(V)2 array?


The (v)2 isn't the latest technology, but please list one adversary flying with a more capable radar. The (v)3 is even more capable, and the -82 more capable still.


Compaired to the (V)2?
The obvious first then, Zalson-M, Second most likely an upgraded BARS being fittet on Su-30SM. And the Irbis-E radar.

Its pretty certain the AESA on the PF will out perform the (V)2 radar.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 09:02
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:Its pretty certain the AESA on the PF will out perform the (V)2 radar.

How do you figure that? And be "pretty certain" about it? We don't have performance data on the Irbis-E radar to objectively compare the performance to that of a the APG-63(V)2. One of the key requirements of a 4.5th Gen fighter radar is to resist jamming. Another factor is how well it filters background clutter and noise. A 4.5th Gen fighter radar shouldn't be measuring range at 1m2 RCS, as the the real question would be what its range at 0.1m2 RCS, any ideas? Considering the F-35 EODAS can detect a fighter at over 40 miles, I doubt the Irbis-E can detect a F-35 at that range.

More importantly, its kind of a moot point as the USAF is getting APG-82s into the F-15s before the PAK-FA or even Su-35(Irbis-E) is available for operational combat deployment - if you consider state "operational testing" as operational.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 10:46
by sewerrat
megasun wrote:
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.

Compare the YF-17 for the USAF, with the F/A-18A for the Navy. The F/A-18 not that much different overall.

The shape of the F-35 is dictated by the large single engine, and the need for good subsonic/transonic performance, as opposed to jets like the F-104 which has supersonic optimized intakes. Remember the F-16 "big mouth" upgrade for the Block 30. The original intake wasn't optimized for higher thrust engines. The F-35 intake design gives the engines superb thrust from subsonic to transonic to supersonic.


In regards to transonic performance, I remember F-35 is described as: "acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec", not an impressive number, comparing to F-16 / F-18 acceleration from 0.8 to 1.2 with 2 IR 2 AMRAAM.
Although F-35 is also described as aerodynamical performance comparable to F-16 / F-18 clean, thus supposed to be better than F-16 / F-18 with load.


I can't speak one way or another about this, but I do know with its massive thrust and high fuel fraction that is a turning engagement the -35 WILL not spiral down down the telephone pole of bleeding away energy and altitude to the same extent as a legacy fighter. This certainly is much more important than winning a drag race. After all, I do know not a single aircraft flying today can accellerate from M.8 to any speed at all which will put it out of range of ANY AAM when trying to end a turning engagement and bug out to safety - PF included. Better than accellerating by a whole whopping .4M is having LO to NOT be rageted by an AAM. And remember the -35 will numerical sueriority of at least 5x which means the PF will be overhwhelmed by a salvo of -35s with a large salvo of AAMs. I'm certainly not losing any sleep because a single -35 might or would lose a drag race to a single PF.
(and how fast is a -35 from M.8 to M1.2? Is it 5s slower? 7s slower? In other words irrelevent in a real combat situation)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 14:38
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote:Its pretty certain the AESA on the PF will out perform the (V)2 radar.

How do you figure that? And be "pretty certain" about it? We don't have performance data on the Irbis-E radar to objectively compare the performance to that of a the APG-63(V)2. One of the key requirements of a 4.5th Gen fighter radar is to resist jamming. Another factor is how well it filters background clutter and noise. A 4.5th Gen fighter radar shouldn't be measuring range at 1m2 RCS, as the the real question would be what its range at 0.1m2 RCS, any ideas? Considering the F-35 EODAS can detect a fighter at over 40 miles, I doubt the Irbis-E can detect a F-35 at that range.

More importantly, its kind of a moot point as the USAF is getting APG-82s into the F-15s before the PAK-FA or even Su-35(Irbis-E) is available for operational combat deployment - if you consider state "operational testing" as operational.


My guess is as good as yours, About Radars performance. But AESA is not immune against Jammers and noise enviroment.

About the APG-82s. That would be the F-15E.

Lets not get ahead of our self now..

"The APG-82 is currently in the System Development and Demonstration phase, though low-rate production has begun. Flight tests began in 2010, and Boeing expects to achieve Initial Operational Capability during FY 2014."

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2170

"Raytheon is scheduled to begin delivery of the LRIP-2 radar systems in February 2014. Final delivery of the initial LRIP lot of six APG-82(V)1 radars is scheduled to be completed by that date"

Pls stop these wild claims about ANG-82 being operational before the Irbis-E.
Pls do some research before posting.

"Irbis-E development started in 2004 and the first radar prototype entered flight tests on board an Su-30M2 aircraft acting as a test bed in early 2007. The resulting radar system provides air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground (ground mapping, Doppler beam sharpening and Synthetic Aperture Radar modes) modes with improved performance in intense clutter environments compared to its predecessor, the Bars system. In addition, Irbis has been designed to detect low and super-low observable/stealth airborne threats"

The Irbis-E is operational, the APG-82 is not.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 19:08
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:My guess is as good as yours, About Radars performance. But AESA is not immune against Jammers and noise enviroment.

About the APG-82s. That would be the F-15E right? and just how many have been installed right now?

Chances are, the F-15Cs will get the new radar first, as they are tasked as interceptors/CAP jets and most likely to see a dogfight in actual combat, F-15Ds are used more for combat support and training, but are largely common with the F-15C, so they would be done at the same time, or next. The F-15E lags in radar capability as some are not even using (V)1 radar, only the original APG-63, but could definitely use the APG-82 radar.

AESA isn't 100% jam resistant, but its an order of magnitude harder to jam that older PESA radar, especially with a fighter/interceptor self-protection jammer. Ground-Based or hypothetical EC-40 (737), EC-47(767) or EC-25(747). The E-4B, EC-130 & EC-135 have different roles than stand-off jamming of radar. The EB-52H has been cancelled twice, although I think the idea of a larger jet than a EA-18 has merit.

The Russians/Chinese don't seem to have any major airborne escort jammers in service. I would assume that a relatively low-tech but powerful jammer in a IL-76 is practical, and quite possible. The famous F-117 incident did not involve radar jamming, more EMCON techniques to avoid being destroyed.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 19:43
by haavarla
The Su-34 can haul a huge stand-off Jammer package.
It has been sighted numerous times with these jammer pods.

And Su-30SM and Su-35S can also carry Jammer pods.

"The SAP-518 is an advanced jamming pod intended for heavy strike fighters such as Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30MK, and Su-32/34 and Indian Air Force Su-30MKI. Its primary mission is to jam advanced air defenses during ground attack missions imitating electronic signatures of various aircraft while generating false targets within enemy sensors. The SAP-518 covers NATO surface-to-air and air-to-air threats in the G-J bands and is deployed in two underwing or wingtip pods.
Installed on a single aircraft along with the SAP-14 jamming pod is considered similar to the United States ALQ-99 jamming system installed on the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The electronic warfare system has been developed and manufactured by the Kaluzhsky Scientific Research Radio-Technical Institute (KNIRTI). Its existence was revealed at the MAKS 2009 airshow."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 20:35
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:The Su-34 can haul a huge stand-off Jammer package.
It has been sighted numerous times with these jammer pods.

And Su-30SM and Su-35S can also carry Jammer pods.

So maybe they have some jamming capability in the escort role. What the SAP-518 capability is, we can't be certain, but a quick check mentioned 500W @ 2.4KVA for output. The ALQ-99 can be carried in a set of 4 units on an EA-18. Can a Sukhoi carry 2+ pods without straining the electrical system. The ALQ-99 has a Ram Air Turbine for powering the pods in a EA-18.

I would also comment that their is a reason the EA-6B has 4 seats in it, and the very much more advanced EA-18 has two. We also don't know what the SAP-518 integration with mission systems is capable of. If they are "bolting it on" then its more of a high-power self protection jammer.

The overarching thing point of all this is that it takes a total package to make a combat effective jet. We know almost nothing about the PAK-FA avionics/mission systems other than its based on a Su-35.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 21:17
by haavarla
True. They share lots of stuff.. But again lots of new stuff as well. The N050 AESA radar looks hot.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -aesa.html

I'm so looking forward to MAKS 2013 Airshow. I'm totaly going over there. There should be lots of news and updates around.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 21:43
by neurotech
They might also retrofit the PAK-FA AESA onto the Su-35... It currently has a passive electronically scanned array installed.

So it looks like the Su-35 doesn't have the Irbis-E AESA yet. That suggests they don't have an operational AESA fighter radar currently. PESA is not AESA.

Edit: They being the Russians/Chinese, who don't have operational AESA radar yet. The APG-82 is not a huge leap from the APG-79 radar, and relatively mature technology.

Edit: APG-82 IOC during 2014 probably a realistic schedule.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 22:56
by south
@ NT and Haavarla

F-15E's are scheduled to be all swapped over to the APG-82 though I havent seen written what the timeline is for IOC/FOC...

They have been flying with that radar on the jets for a couple of years now.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123239542

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 23:51
by haavarla
South.. why don't you read your own link before posting here..
Its says exactly the same as the link i posted.
Hell just read from official site over at Raytheon i you want.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg82v1/

The NPG-82 are installed on a few F-15E, but they are very mych in the test phase of things. It will not be completed until sometime in 2014.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 23:54
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
They might also retrofit the PAK-FA AESA onto the Su-35... It currently has a passive electronically scanned array installed.

So it looks like the Su-35 doesn't have the Irbis-E AESA yet. That suggests they don't have an operational AESA fighter radar currently. PESA is not AESA.


What!?
Who said anything about the N035 being an AESA radar??

The N035 Irbis-E is a PESA Radar(Su-35S), it is a further develop from the N011M BARS radar PESA(Su-30MKI).

The N050 is a AESA radar and will come on the PF.

What's the confusion here?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2013, 00:12
by neurotech
@haavaria: Some references say that there is an Irbis-E version that is in fact AESA. This is because a large amount of commonality between newer PESA and early AESA radar. e.g APG-63(V)1 vs APG-63(V)2.

So back to the point of all this; Russia does not have an operational AESA

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2013, 06:24
by haavarla
I'm not sure about the AESA on the Mig-35, but i think its an proto type as well.

The AESA on the T-50-3 is the first experemental AESA radar of its kind.
On the T-50-4 there is a AESA radar that is much closer to serial production specs.

My guess is that on the next T-50-5 on so on, there will be a standard serial production AESA radar, but they still will have to pass tha State trial, no guessing how long this will take though.

So back to the point, no Russia do not have any operational AESA radar as of now.

Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2013, 15:11
by milosh
What about DIRCM in those two planes?

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 05:56
by nawcadabe
If I recall, the mig-31 was the first operational AESA radar in the world that has the capability to scan such a vast area. As a matter of fact the plane was built around that radar. So if you think that the Russians do not have a good radar going into their 5th gen fighter then you need to check yourself to the fact that Russia knows what they are going against in the F-22 and bet your ars they are going to have some impressive goodies in their new fighter. Now everyone knows how the f-35 has networking and sensors and a software package that IF it ever pans out by the time all 2,000 f-35's are off the assembly line, what good is it going to do against another STEALTH fighter? You think that the Russians have not come up with ways to spot a stealth fighter such as an f-22? Either way the f-35 will be the bulk of our frontline fighters, there will be HOBS missies in the pak-fa, the us 5th gen aircraft do not have this. And don't say f-35 because if you mount a missile under the wing there is no point in having a stealth fighter in the air. Don't forget the F-35 is not exactly invisible to radar, it may be harder to detect at distance for some radar systems but its design is flawed to the point of not being able to retain the stealth of an f-22. I truly think Russia will be operating its pak-fa well before any f-35 is fit for combat. We shall see.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 06:34
by KamenRiderBlade
Not denying that the Russians will probably shove the best AESA radar they can make into the PAK-FA, there's no reason not to given that the PAK-FA will be their new super star plane.

That being said, Stealth vs Stealth, our forces will have the advantage of DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) in F-35 vs F-22 for a stealth vs stealth battle.

All because PAK-FA will probably have HOBS missile, don't think we won't have our HOBS capability with the AIM-120D and AIM-9X fully integrated, tested, and operational for quite a few years by then.

Don't forget we have LOAL for all our missiles too, so it's not like we're giving up our stealth profile when we fight them.

Both sides will be packing weapons in their internal weapons bay, I don't get where you're thinking we would mount weapons on the external hard points in a inital Stealth vs Stealth battle.

Don't forget that the PAK-FA isn't designed with stealth as it's highest priority, they intentionally designed it with agility and manueverability advantages at the cost of certain obvious stealth aspects to their aircraft. It's not a big deal IMO, they choose manueverability over stealth, that's fine, that's a design choice.

I honestly think the F-35 will be fully operational LONG before the PAK-FA even hits LRIP on their end.

They're barely in the first few prototypes still testing out alot of systems.

RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 06:36
by KamenRiderBlade
Don't forget, we have plenty of analyst, spies, and engineers trying to figure out the PAK-FA's stealth profile and ways to detect all 5th gen fighters that will be coming out.

You assume that we're going to sit idly by and let the rest of the world just magically catch up and surpass us.

The US DOD and the rest of the US military will be figuring out every advantage we can take when going up against potential enemy aircraft.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 07:49
by geogen
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 09:18
by joost
Not to mention training level, tactical doctrine, developed teamwork, ground support/Awacs support, EW support, missile reliabilty and so on.

That is the whole point of warfare: it is not about the performance of one plane against the others. The developed tactics and supporting assets are as important as the aircraft itself.

One mistake often made by some countries is only investing in jets and tanks and completely ignoring the important logistic and support functions.

So I think those x against Y discussions are pointless: its like trying to compare the kill ratio of a M-16 to a AK-47, without taking into account any circumstances. While in reality the guy with the AK-47 is nowhere when in real combat he is confronted with a Spectre. And so it is with air combat. Singling out a asset and try to find out which is best is pointless, because duals without any influencing circumstances or assets will not happen. The Red flag excersises are there to give training value, and the actual proof is in real combat.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 19:41
by XanderCrews
nawcadabe wrote: I truly think Russia will be operating its pak-fa well before any f-35 is fit for combat.


That would be pretty amazing. the Marines are planning to deploy F-35Bs to Japan by 2017, so the PAKFA has 4 years...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2013, 20:48
by SpudmanWP
F-35B IOC is with Blk2B... in less than two years or so.

What's the Pak-Fa's IOC plans again?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2013, 14:03
by hornetfinn
nawcadabe wrote:If I recall, the mig-31 was the first operational AESA radar in the world that has the capability to scan such a vast area. As a matter of fact the plane was built around that radar. So if you think that the Russians do not have a good radar going into their 5th gen fighter then you need to check yourself to the fact that Russia knows what they are going against in the F-22 and bet your ars they are going to have some impressive goodies in their new fighter. Now everyone knows how the f-35 has networking and sensors and a software package that IF it ever pans out by the time all 2,000 f-35's are off the assembly line, what good is it going to do against another STEALTH fighter? You think that the Russians have not come up with ways to spot a stealth fighter such as an f-22? Either way the f-35 will be the bulk of our frontline fighters, there will be HOBS missies in the pak-fa, the us 5th gen aircraft do not have this. And don't say f-35 because if you mount a missile under the wing there is no point in having a stealth fighter in the air. Don't forget the F-35 is not exactly invisible to radar, it may be harder to detect at distance for some radar systems but its design is flawed to the point of not being able to retain the stealth of an f-22. I truly think Russia will be operating its pak-fa well before any f-35 is fit for combat. We shall see.


MiG-31 doesn't have AESA radar, but rather has a PESA radar. It did have first such radar in any fighter aircraft, but the original radar was not that impressive (except in size and power). Detection range and multiple target capability was not that good for such a huge and powerful radar. Similar and better capabilities were achieved in western radars that were fraction the size.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 02:22
by zealousmule
Let's remember that the F-35 is from the JFS program. What does JSF stand for? Joint STRIKE Fighter. The F-35 is a strike fighter, it may be able to execute A to A combat but it obviously won't be very effective as that's not what it is meant to do. So as a Strike Fighter F-35 > PAK FA, and for A to A combat F-35 < PAK FA.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 07:26
by hornetfinn
zealousmule wrote:Let's remember that the F-35 is from the JFS program. What does JSF stand for? Joint STRIKE Fighter. The F-35 is a strike fighter, it may be able to execute A to A combat but it obviously won't be very effective as that's not what it is meant to do. So as a Strike Fighter F-35 > PAK FA, and for A to A combat F-35 < PAK FA.


Well, there are a lot of Strike Fighters that can more than hold their own in A/A combat. Fighters like F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18 are Strike Fighters and both are rather good in air to air combat. A lot of modern aircraft are multirole aircraft with rather good capabilities in both A/G and A/A. F-16 was first designed as light day fighter and ended up being mostly ground attack aircraft (with considerable air to air combat capability, though) and could be described as a strike fighter. It's also not given that an aircraft designed only for certain role will be superior in that role. For example Su-27 is a pure interceptor and F-15E is a strike fighter and they are pretty much contemporaries. F-15E is definitely a superior air to air platform also, mostly due to having much superior avionics and sensors.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 14:56
by cywolf32
Hey newboy, even the F-22 is a "strike fighter" since you missed the fact that it can also carry bombs and at one point was going to be classified as the F/A-22 because of it. The days of single type platforms is over buddy. Think phone vs. smartphone. Which would you choose?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 00:11
by zealousmule
I am full aware that the F-22 can carry 2 JDAM's or 8 GBU-39 small bombs, ,much like how the standard F-15 has a largely unused ground attack option. However both are classified as and will mostly be air superiority fighters, much like the F-35 will most likely be used mostly for strike operations. I did also note the F-35 can carry out air to Air missions, but against something as new and maneuverable as a PAK FA? come on, there's no comparison. Despite both being claimed as "multi-role fighters" which would you rather have for air to air and which would you rather have for a strike mission. they may be able to carry out several different operations, but there is one each excels at. Comparing the f-35 and PAK FA is like comparing a bowling ball and a basket ball. Can you toss a bowling ball into a basket ball hoop? Sure you can, you can just toss a basket ball better, or can you roll a basket ball into bowling pins? Of course, but a bowling ball will get the job done easier.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 02:06
by count_to_10
If by "no comparison", you mean that the F-35 will be shooting down the PAK FA before even being detected by it's target.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 02:30
by JetTest
Every now and then I cannot fight the compulsion to comment: If all you know about any of the current development programs, Russian and Chinese included, is what you read on the Internet or hear on radio and tv, even from "official" sources, you are extremely deluded to even imagine to be able to draw conclusions as to superiority of one over the other in a given role. Public releases barely scratch the surface. Dream on....

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 04:20
by delvo
zealousmule wrote:I did also note the F-35 can carry out air to Air missions, but against something as new and maneuverable as a PAK FA? come on, there's no comparison. Despite both being claimed as "multi-role fighters" which would you rather have for air to air and which would you rather have for a strike mission. they may be able to carry out several different operations, but there is one each excels at.
The designers' intention to specialize for one job more than another is only one factor here. Another is the technological resources available to the designers.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 10:20
by spazsinbad
Australia heaps praise on F-35, says rivals years behind 16 May 2013 Rob Taylor
"CANBERRA, May 16 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp is well on the way to fixing the F-35s performance and helmet problems, Australian military chiefs said on Thursday, rejecting criticism the troubled jet will be overmatched by newer Russian and Chinese aircraft.

In testimony to parliament on the F-35, for which Australia is one of the largest international buyers with plans for up to 100, Australia's air force chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown said rivals were years behind the Lightning II's development.

Critics of the F-35 have predicted the aircraft, for which many performance data are classified, will be outflown by emerging aircraft like Russia's Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA and China's J-20, as well as existing fighters like the Su-35, citing computer modelling of known abilities.

"Let me tell you, I don't think that they have the level of stealth that's available in U.S. fifth generation aircraft, and it's by a significant factor," Air Marshal Brown told lawmakers.

"Both PAK FA, J-20 and J-31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10-12 years ago in their development time frames, so all those aeroplanes have still got a long, long way to go," Brown said...."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100741760

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 14:16
by zealousmule
Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. I'm just going to accept defeat and say F-35 wins, you guys have more than proved me wrong.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2013, 05:12
by indochina
SAP-14 = Su-35S

SAP-518 = Su-30MK

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2013, 09:42
by wrightwing
zealousmule wrote:Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. I'm just going to accept defeat and say F-35 wins, you guys have more than proved me wrong.


You seem to disregard the fact that the intent with the F-35, is that in A2A it was to be second only to the F-22, in addition to its superior A2G capabilities. Don't confuse names, with capabilities. That leads to poor assumptions.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2013, 13:42
by haavarla
JetTest wrote:Every now and then I cannot fight the compulsion to comment: If all you know about any of the current development programs, Russian and Chinese included, is what you read on the Internet or hear on radio and tv, even from "official" sources, you are extremely deluded to even imagine to be able to draw conclusions as to superiority of one over the other in a given role. Public releases barely scratch the surface. Dream on....


Hear hear.
Such simulation can only take us so far(which is not far at all!) in terms of performance. And should be regarded as such.

There are countless aspects which they simply can't even fill into these "simulation"

For starters; Which mission profile? Which support profile? Which altitude and speed?
Yes it makes a difference for each jet. Even if a jet has one or two engines, type of engines, fuel weight at engagements etc etc.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match t

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 14:53
by munny
Added some information at the link below on F-35 vs PAK FA as well...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-30.html

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 13:40
by hornetfinn
I love how Carlo Kopp likes to change the rules to suit his agenda. For example in his F-35 fuselage modeling without RAM and considering only beam and tail aspect, an RCS of anything worse than -30 dBsm is considered very bad. In T-50 with RAM, a frontal RCS of between about-5 - -25 dBsm and beam aspect RCS of between abou is considered "a strong VLO performance".

It seems like he picks the worst case scenario for F-35 and even then can't get quite the results he would've liked. Next step is to move the goalposts to get to the conclusions he wants. He uses the tactics of providing a lot of garbled data with equally garbled conclusions to make uninformed people think F-35 (or anything else he doesn't like) is not good and anything else is much better. From what I've read there are a lot of people who parrot his agenda without understanding the matter or the data even Carlo Kopp himself has presented.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 18:39
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:I love how Carlo Kopp likes to change the rules to suit his agenda. For example in his F-35 fuselage modeling without RAM and considering only beam and tail aspect, an RCS of anything worse than -30 dBsm is considered very bad. In T-50 with RAM, a frontal RCS of between about-5 - -25 dBsm and beam aspect RCS of between abou is considered "a strong VLO performance".

It seems like he picks the worst case scenario for F-35 and even then can't get quite the results he would've liked. Next step is to move the goalposts to get to the conclusions he wants. He uses the tactics of providing a lot of garbled data with equally garbled conclusions to make uninformed people think F-35 (or anything else he doesn't like) is not good and anything else is much better. From what I've read there are a lot of people who parrot his agenda without understanding the matter or the data even Carlo Kopp himself has presented.


luckily for us these obvious loonies would never be qouted by credible Aviation Journalists like Bill Sweetman Amiright?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 04:13
by phantasm
geogen wrote: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.


So this is a interesting conundrum - the JSF's with their APG 81 and EODAS, having to run and abort the ?BVR fight? because their EODAS and radar's won't necesessairly outrange the PAK-FA's radar, it's L-band, and it's own IRST system to find the JSFs and RAptors and be stealthy enough to rival them. - and with the maneuverability in WVR to chew up JSF's for breakfast, and then to have an even easier time with the Eagles.

While Golden Eagles with their AESA's are attempting to find the PAK-FA's with their radars, and getting outranged, and without the stealth to help against incoming AIMs - and in WVR, nothing to aid them against the Pak-Fa's(I suppose if they were carrying FLIR pods/IRST pods to go with their APG 82, making them the eyes of the gang)

and Raptors with their APG-77's attempting to fight PAK-FA's which BVR wise is ...sketchy because the Pk is going to be up in the air with the VLO platforms running around, and WVR - where maneuverability is a tossup against the PAK-FA (although once you add more numbers for both sides, I suppose the AOA = king argument-idea starts to get a little reduced when there's a partner to shoot the guy who made you eject , because he pulled 120 AOA and bled his Kinetic energy just to get a leg up in combination with his HOBS after the furball starts in earnest if the PAK-FA's can close and get to that point.) , and weapons system wise, the Raptors will be wishing they had the JSF's HOBS capabilities. .

Looking at that particular scenario involving all of that, I'd say all the Russians could add to that is to add R-33's and develop some extreme BVR weapons for their PAK-FA, and they'd be set( except for needing to still improve the VLO characteristics of the PAK-FA,).

- in effect, the name of the game I think that really needs to be focused on is that the less compromises, the better off for a platform, which you can then start to bulk in numbers.


- and while no country's going to produce a Mach 3- Raptor-RCS, Phoenix-missile-equivalent wielding(120+ mile range) (with modern radars and arrays on the missile), AOA-delimiting(not tying it to the G-limiter like some early and possibly modern Flankers fatally have on their systems), thrust vectoring, high TW ratio, 120,000ft combat ceiling capable, HOBS capable, L -band radar chock full , fighter plane with AESA LPI-geared flank and hull-arrays covering the entire craft , and a EODAS/IRST system with full coverage and limited multi-spectral capabilities - oh, and a functional data link ...

..the PAK-FA is attempting to address it all in one go, with the stealth capability coming up short and geared towards being JSF level rather than F-22 level as the only design compromise for the increased maneuverability.

For us to send out JSF's (EODAS and some VLO, [eyes] ) - with F-15's wielding the same radar [eyes] , and F-22's there[wvr, the VLO needed here] in packs(no pun intended) against PAKs ....
and reliant on the data link to achieve the same thing - once the crap hits the fan , having a system where the pieces need to work together generally to achieve what the others can achieve with less co-dependence - starts to hurt. I don't see how it wouldn't unless those F-15's started packing L-band raders, which would then make the capabilities a bit more even and start to allow a somewhat...similar BVR engagement shooting gallery, perhaps.


I mean, all the Russians have to do is toss a Foxhound or two near the PAK-FAs and sling a mass of R-33's from maximum range(at the eagles- they won't see the F-22's or even the JSF's from that range) - and the Eagles in that little trio on the US side are forced to attempt to evade immediately, since they can't return fire with the latest AMRAAMs still not having the range.- and there goes one piece. (And i expect the JSF's and F-22's would take evasive action as well- although their stealth characteristics would possibly let them mostly not worry about a phoenix-esque missile screaming at them at high speed from over a hundred miles away)
And we're already on the defensive with PAK-FA's closing in.

And to tweak that ^, the PAK'FA's have medium BVR missiles , so they don't need the Foxhounds since they are VLO platforms.- they can shoot their medium range missiles , and the Eagles will still be forced to do the same and run, but they aren't returning fire on what they won't see. The Raptors and the JSF's will have a bearing to go off of(some high speed submarine combat essentially)..but that's it.

And Raptors and JSF's against the PAK-FA's - a hi-lo mix against a hi squad- ...i don't think has ever happened before. The Raptors would probably take home the cake while the JSF's serve (in effect, not intentionally) as fodder to get out-EODAS'd, out-ranged, outmanuevered,outrun, and end up being the bait (initially)- or at least the first focus of the PAK-Fa's , as they'd see them first.(if they knew the Raptors were out there, they'd be best off hunting them first)

Seems it'd be better to ensure the upgrades for the F-22 are serious enough that it can compete with the PAK-FA in more categories, as those capabilities would come into handy during non- Air on air situations also.
Then, let the Raptors go hunt the PAK-FA's hunting them, and it'd be a "match"
-

As it stands, it's APG 81 + EODAS vs PAK's radar, the L-band radars presumably, and the IRST.

Who sees who first? If the RCS is even, then it's up to the PAK's L-band radars to try to get the first look- and after that, it's a Mid-infrared -vision spotting contest with the IRST and EODAS systems - but once they get close enough it's visual- - it'd...be the JSF's HOBS against the maneuverability that the PAK-FA brings. I think that ends up being Angle-Of -Attack vs Helmet-off-boresight-systems , and I'm thinking the manueverability wins(although the AOA hurts when the guy who got wrecked has a buddy to now prey on you)
while the JSF's attempting to look and shoot at multiple targets-... that'd be rough presumably.

Then it's weapons tracking planes, and the stealthier planes having better survivability against radar and even yes, IR missiles.
Oh, and guns....which is more reliant on pure-maneuverability

And if for some reason the PAK'FA's try to run away- they'll have better odds of not being missile food or getting run-down in a chase than if the JSF's try to run


, a massive advantage for us would be that we'd have pitted raptors against JSF's a lot, and our pilots would know the hell of fighting stealth on stealth in large amounts- That would help a bit- it wouldn't be the end-all, though.


(this is a little off-topic, but
This reminds me of submarine warfare a lot- except this would be like 688's(for the F-15's) + Seawolfs + Virginias against a group of Akula-II's or more accurately for this comparison a Yasen.

except the Virgina's don't have that sort of sensor advantage over their bigger brother, (the Photonic mast , isn't significantly a advantage, but it could be put on a Seawolf and is more likely to happen faster than the F-22 will get it's EODAS and side AESA arrays, from the looks of it) , the Seawolf's not out-stealthed , and there's not as much foot-dragging in keeping the few differences up to date with the Virginia.

Where what happens is unless they go looking for each other at periscope depth and ignore everything else(where a virginia's infrared optics on the photonic mast might do better in a periscope-looking-for periscope fight) , the Seawolf class has the fewest compromises, from it's HY-100(they dive deeper than the rest of the US subs out there since we don't use titanium /haven't used higher-yield steel yet) , to it's power plant and speed, sensor detection capabilities... there's no major difference -except the Seawolf is further along for those. And it'd not suffer any disadvantage that another US sub could counter for, against the upcoming Russian Yasens , and has the sensor capabilities to go toe to toe(especially sonar wise) with them, and in general perform better than the Virginia class..(Unless we're getting into a periscope contest , again)

Naturally, the Seawolfs are built to take on enemy subs in deep waters, not the virginias- and for what it's worth, the virginia's are formidable at the job of ASW with no doubt- but compromises can cost you against a opponent who attempts to beat you at your own game.
)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 04:27
by KamenRiderBlade
You talk as if we don't have missiles better than the Phoenix?

Yet our AIM-120D can go 180 km / 111.847 miles at appropriate altitude at Mach 4

Missing a few facts there phantasm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 04:57
by phantasm
kamenriderblade wrote:You talk as if we don't have missiles better than the Phoenix?

Yet our AIM-120D can go 180 km / 111.847 miles at appropriate altitude at Mach 4

Missing a few facts there phantasm
I might be missing a few facts, perhaps- although
Regarding the 54 , i've seen references which pin it at higher than even that ,before, such as
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match t

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 10:02
by haavarla
These X vs Y match-up are total unrealistic.
With the tomorrow high Tech up in the air, the Battle sphere will be filled With Next gen Jammers, Next gen Decoys and a Whole range of other support assets.
My bet is onThe AF With the most effective force multiplier, and here US wins hand Down, so in the end it does not change the outcome if Russia can R&D and produce a fighter With higher performance vs F-35 etc etc.

Besides, US will never face anyone on a one-on-one figure, it will be 2-1 or even higher Air superiority. Even With US facing cuts and all, Russia faces similar Axe and cuts within their AF as well.

Anyway, i think its more likely US will face VVS in Red Flag then in any Real conflict.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 13:28
by hornetfinn
F-35 won't get out-EO/DAS'd as USA has a huge lead in thermal imaging technology, especially compared to Russia or China. The latest OLS-35 (used in Su-35S) is several (at least four) generations behind EOTS and EO/DAS in technology and performance. Russia has produced very small number of basic thermal imaging systems and the best systems use thermal imaging cores imported from France as Russia doesn't have capability of producing such cores by themselves. Even those are far from what USA already has operational. US armed forces already has 16 Megapixel systems operational, while latest French systems are slightly over 1 Megapixel (with 4 Megapixel systems coming in the relatively near future) and latest Russian systems (with French built cores) have less than a third of a Megapixel resolution.

I find it highly unlikely that PAK-FA or J-20 will have anywhere near the capabilities of DAS or EOTS. Only the USA has the technology now and only very few countries (definitely not Russia and very probably not China) have any possibility of producing similar systems in the next 10 or maybe even 20 years. It isn't very likely that anybody is going to have superior EO technology to F-35 very soon. It's also very unlikely that F-35 EO system won't be upgraded when technology advances. As it is, it's likely that DAS system has at least equal (probably superior, depending on what kind of detector it has) range to OLS-35M even though it's a true omnidirectional system. EOTS definitely has far superior capabilities to OLS-35 and certainly also any new system (OLS-50) they could possibly field in the next 15 years.

PAK-FA might have L-band radar system to complement the main radar which will definitely be X-band radar. This is simply because L-band radar would not have required accuracy for effective fire control radar. If the main radar would be L-band radar, it would have horrible angular resolution (about ten times worse than X-band) and not very good range resolution (compared to X-band radar). This would mean it would have rather bad ability to discriminate closely (or even less than closely) separated targets and would give very imprecise targeting data to missiles lowering their hit probabilities a lot. The possibility of having a wing leading edge L-band radar is of course there, but it would be only 2D-radar (not giving any indication of height) as there would be no possibility of scanning in elevation. It would require several T/R modules stacked and there simply wouldn't be space for that in wing leading edges. It would also still have poor resolution and discrimination capabilities due to relatively long wavelength and small antenna area for that wavelength.

I very much doubt that PAK-FA will have superior radar to F-35 as Russia doesn't have capability to manufacture very high power T/R modules. It's solid state technology and USA and some other western countries have huge lead in that. Russia seems to be at the level where US technology was about 20 years ago. I'd be really surprised if they can make a radar for PAK-FA that is competitive with, let alone much superior to AN/APG-81.

I don't get where this idea that PAK-FA will have superior technology to F-35 comes from. Russia doesn't have capability to produce nearly comparable, let alone superior equipment, be it EO, radar, stealth or computer hardware related. PAK-FA might have superior speed (both maximum and dry thrust) and T/W ratio. It might also have superior range, although F-35 itself has a very long range, so the advantage might not be meaningful. In most other aspects I think F-35 will most likely be superior.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 13:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
not to mention that all publicly announced figures of the Pak-FA RCS have been .5-.1m^2, several orders of magnitude larger than the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 20:53
by haavarla
Perhaps one should wait and see how the final Product looks like. Atleast two more prototypes are due before switching to Pre-Serial/Serial Production according to Sukhoi.

B.t.w. was those RCS figures before or after any RAM coating being Applied?

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 21:11
by vilters
We do not have to be concerned about the few Russian or Chinese new planes.

For one they are behind on all accounts.
For 2 : from where they are now to "mass" production, say a few hundred, we will have the next Gen-6 flying.

Low numbers versus low numbers, we do not have to worry.

Start to worry, when someone builds a 1.000 or more F-5's.
That would be another story.

For one, the F-5 is small and nimble by nature.
For 2 : We can not cope with the sheer volume any more.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 21:17
by haavarla
And how do you figure F-5 will fair With its crappy range and poor armament? Small fighter With external pay load = huge drag and even Shorter range..

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 21:38
by vilters
Oh, I took the F-5 as an example at hand.

Feel free to replace "F-5" with any other easy to fabricate small fighter.
"Easy to fabricate and small are the keywords."

Just maintain the 1.000 plus numbers.

The volume numbers are important, the type of fighter plane is not.

Any country starting to build "anything" in hi volume numbers is problematic, as we simply can not cope with hi volume any more..

And range? If they want / need to get there, they will get there.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 22:01
by bigjku
Vilters this is pretty much how that would go.

Your hypothetical air force decides to overwhelm a US base with a squadron of F-22's and two squadrons of F-35's and sends 300 fighters after them. They use their planes with marginal radar, no RCS reductions and weak ECM equipment and try to swamp the opponent.

They are seen a long way away. Hell, it is probably known they are massing well before they take off because the US has recon capabilities of its own and staging 300 fighters takes a massive coordination effort. Planes have to be loaded and fueled across numerous airbases. That means you have to talk. Planes have to be armed. All this can been seen or heard. However it happens you are probably not going to stage a large scale surprise attack excepting at the outset of a war. In most cases your strike is likely attacked at their base with cruise missiles and standoff weapons well before you can actually mass that many aircraft.

Your light fighters go in for their first attack and they likely lose 1/3 or more of their numbers against a couple of squadrons of much more advanced fighters. In all reality the remaining pilots drop their ordinance and escape because they are piloted by people who are not looking to commit suicide. They probably never see their opponent.

You really think they are going to be wanting to go back up for day 2? Even if they get through the loss rate for those type of aircraft against 5th generation aircraft is going to be enormous. Moral is simply not going to hold up. PIlots are not zerglings that can be tossed at the enemy like human bullets.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 22:52
by zero-one
Good hypothesis Bigjku, Well lets have a little fun at that scenario.

I'd like to add a little more realism to it, lets say a big air force with lots and lots of obsolete albeit upgraded fighters and a decent number of relatively high end fighters and support aircraft,

Sounds familiar?

It should, theres an actual country like that...ahem ahem China...

The US is faced with defending an allied nation under threat (i.e. Philippines)

the Aggressor nation has the proximity advantage, along with a possible numerical advantage.

And too add a little more excitement, lets say that the US. in an effort to not esscalate the issue further, is tasked with a purely defensive role, ROE is not to shoot down bandits unless they are within Phl airspace.

The PLAAF and PLANAF can use air stripps on the spratley islands to serve as FOBs and refuel/rearm their air assets quickly. These air strips are not within Phl teritory anymore so they cannot be destroyed, you'll have to deal with fighters once they're in the air and inside Phl teritory.


Can anyone cookup how the F-22/35 combo will play in this scenario? timeline is somewhere in the 2016-18 time frame probably

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 00:03
by vilters
Why is it so hard to think outside of the box????

Drop the box, and try to stay 2 feet on the ground.

We have what????
F-22? Some 190 build, about half of that servicable and combat ready at any given time?

Ok, give or take a few: You have some 20 servicable to defend or attack a "certain" area.
You do not want to put them all in one single spot right?

Ach, never mind.

It is that "Impossible to think outside of the box" mentality that will get to you "again" sooner or later.

Do not count Irak, do not count Libanon. Neither had an air force to talk about.

Technology is good, technology is the future, but technology will get you nowhere against mass numbers attacks.


I like the new Russian Pak, and the new Chinese fighter efforts.
Ik keeps them busy.

And while they do that, they forget to build something simple in mass production..

And that is our luck.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 00:28
by bigjku
zero-one wrote:Good hypothesis Bigjku, Well lets have a little fun at that scenario.

I'd like to add a little more realism to it, lets say a big air force with lots and lots of obsolete albeit upgraded fighters and a decent number of relatively high end fighters and support aircraft,

Sounds familiar?

It should, theres an actual country like that...ahem ahem China...

The US is faced with defending an allied nation under threat (i.e. Philippines)

the Aggressor nation has the proximity advantage, along with a possible numerical advantage.

And too add a little more excitement, lets say that the US. in an effort to not esscalate the issue further, is tasked with a purely defensive role, ROE is not to shoot down bandits unless they are within Phl airspace.

The PLAAF and PLANAF can use air stripps on the spratley islands to serve as FOBs and refuel/rearm their air assets quickly. These air strips are not within Phl teritory anymore so they cannot be destroyed, you'll have to deal with fighters once they're in the air and inside Phl teritory.


Can anyone cookup how the F-22/35 combo will play in this scenario? timeline is somewhere in the 2016-18 time frame probably


I don't really care if they are Flankers or upgraded Mig-29's or Eurofighters for that matter. In most full up combat scenarios I believe it will be flat suicide to charge at a 5th generation fighter force with non low observable aircraft. I mean you can conjure up all sorts of bat-crap crazy scenarios where the advantage is minimized (like the US deciding to swap shots with China but only over a set of islands and not over the wide open ocean because...well who knows) but the fact of the matter is that in the end unless you had total dominance of pretty much the whole electronic spectrum with jamming aircraft and AWACS then you are in big trouble.

And if you haven't noticed the people with the most jamming aircraft and the most AWACS and the most of all those force multipliers are the same ones that are getting the 5th generation aircraft.

The overall equation is real simple in a 4th vs 5th generation aircraft. Either I find a way to make them be unable to engage me before I can detect them (jamming or otherwise) or I am in a huge amount of trouble. Can the more advanced power make a mistake and get in trouble? Sure. But overall the balance is going to be decidedly in their favor. Testing with the F-22 has borne this out. Testing with the F-35 will show this as well.

My overall point earlier is that no Air Force in history has really employed a swarm tactic with success. Pilots are too valuable and take too long to train to throw them away like one would infantry in WWI.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 00:46
by newmanfrigan
PLAAF will still have not have the requisite offensive capability for at the very least a decade. I would say more. They have extremely limited AWACS, tanker support and large cargo capacity to support expeditionary operations. An attack on Taiwan could be repulsed in the near term by a single carrier battle group and would not look like an American air campaign anyway, for the reasons I mentioned, as well as for the fact that the large number of fighters possessed by China would first have to be moved into position before striking. This build up would require time and would be noted quickly by NRO and other govt agencies. This would allow the US, with it's massive logistical, technological, naval, basing and yes, numerical advantages to concentrate their own forces and coordinate a defensive response. Also, the Chinese would have to strip Ooresources (ie fighters, AWACs) from areas of their large coastline, making themselves more vulnerable to punishing deep penetration B2 raids and standoff munition strikes against command and control and other high value targets. Likely, for the near term, a Chinese offensive against their neighbors would be conducted with less air power and more by missile barrages. An attack on the other disputed territories would likely draw in the advanced Naval powers of allied nations. The Japanese and Korean air forces and Navies on their own can likely dissuade an attack for the time being. China has a ways to go before they can steam roll anyone. Still, conflict could break out from political miscalculation in Beijing, Tokyo, Washington, Manilla...etc. I believe the Chinese should be taken seriously, but at least for now they are containable. War would also be a disaster for the World economy, with China being especially vulnerable. J20 and 31 are not there in numbers and we don't know when they will be, or what capability they offer. It will be years after IOC, which itself is years away, before they can really leverage assets like these. The US was the same way with its Raptors. By that future date, you will have F35s in many variants in the hands of the potential foes of the Chinese. ..and they will be ready for war, with the proper support in place.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 08:01
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Ach, never mind.
.


Did you start to realize how idiotic your idea was as you thought about it and decided to not even bother trying to justify something that dumb?

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 13:17
by hornetfinn
Given the state of technology, I see operational PAK-FA having the following:

- No EO/DAS kind of system. Best it could have is IR MAWS, similar in function and capability to DDM in Dassault Rafale. That is not too bad, but a far cry from EO/DAS capability. There has not been any indication such a system is even being developed. Most likely it will use UV based systems Russia currently has and is developing. My bet is that F-35 will be the only fighter jet with full EO/DAS situational awareness capability for a rather long time.

- OLS-50 will not be as capable as PIRATE or FSO, let alone EOTS, which probably has far superior sensitivity and resolution. This means EOTS can most likely detect same targets much farther away. This is based on the fact that US IR sensor technology is significantly more advanced than what other countries have. European countries (France especially) can compete in low- and mid-range systems, but high-end is owned by USA. Russia and China make some low-end systems and some lower mid-range systems using imported components (from France mostly). Thus, my bet is that F-35 would likely detect PAK-FA at much longer distances than PAK-FA could detect F-35.

- AESA radar of PAK-FA will be larger and have larger antenna than AN/APG-81 and most likely also AN/APG-77. It will most likely have much inferior power output because Russia most likely can't produce similar high power T/R modules as western countries. Current technology demonstrators and prototypes have used similar technology US had about 20 years ago. I think PAK-FA will use the powerful and relatively mature Irbis-E PESA for some time until Russian AESA and T/R module technology matures to offer real improvement in performance and reliability. I think it could well be year 2030 before that happens though. That is not that bad as Irbis-E is definitely a powerful and effective radar system.However, it's entirely possible that AN/APG-81 will have at least comparable detection ranges and will definitely be more versatile radar system.

- I really doubt even a fully developed production standard PAK-FA will match the stealth qualities of F-35 or F-22. I also think that F-35 will not be that far behind F-22 in stealth. I think it's very possible that PAK-FA at least matches or possibly even exceeds stealth qualities of clean Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale while carrying air to air weapons and large amount of internal fuel for long range. This would make it very dangerous against anything short of F-35 and F-22. F-35 and F-22 will most likely have clear advantage however.

- Kinematically it will most likely be excellent aircraft with large amount of thrust and advanced aerodynamics. It could be superior to F-35 and maybe even F-22 at least in some areas. It could have clear advantage in supercruise capabilities to F-35. Range should be comparable to F-35 as PAK-FA probably has more internal fuel, but this is balanced with larger and heavier airframe and more powerful and thirsty (due to supercruise requirements) engines. Supersonic range could be superior to F-35 though.

- F-35 is clearly the best multirole aircraft with by far most capabilities in air-to-ground, reconnaissance, EW etc.

I think F-35 has a lot of advantages against PAK-FA. It most likely has clearly superior stealth features, avionics, sensors, sensor fusion and communication systems. PAK-FA probably has some kinematic advantages (mainly speed). I think F-35 will have the overall advantage even if it was unrealistic 1-on-1 fight. Anything more complex and F-35 will have most advantages due to having superior SA.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2013, 20:32
by haavarla
Grab Your beer and popcorn folks :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYs_-zuq9w

Here is the most detailed vid of Pak-Fa so far. We can see Re-fuel in flight. Some point of view on RCS and signal reduction design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... grmDDMI2-A

Lots of interesting stuff.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2013, 20:45
by flighthawk128
hornetfinn definitely has got the right idea for the match-up, and with wartime ROEs, F-35 will beat the PAK-FA.

Now, as for vilters and his "zergling" pilots, someone else raised that idea too (somewhere on this website... can't remember which thread). Anyways, we took that scenario and played it out; result is that they should be able to shoot down most of the fighters BVR provided it's at a long enough distance and the detection is early enough. The remainder is shot down WVR, though USAF losses would be very high. And this scenario details static base defenses (AAA guns, SAMs). So, without static base defenses, i would say your swarm MIGHT work (actually very very plausible), but otherwise, provided detection is early enough, the USAF fighters with base defenses should be able to fend them off (unless the defenders screw up).

Bigiku, the mindset of the Japanese allowed them to kamikaze and sink several USN ships in WWII. vilter's aggressor pilots (thinking of China) may have that very same mindset, so you can't simply disregard the remaining force in the hopes that they will turn tail and run. Not only that, vilter specifically mentioned 1000 aircraft, not 300.

And, to contribute to the overall discussion, which newmanfrigan mentioned, if it were near the PRC, NATO allies would aid in defeating Chinese aircraft (Japan and South Korea have F-15 and F-16 airframes and quite a few of them; Japan has ~200 F-15s, ~100 F-16s; idunno about Korea). This would help mitigate the PRC's advantage of nearby FOBs in favour of NATO.

And, to destroy the overall discussion, also which newmanfrigan mentioned, China cannot withstand the amount of economic backlash a major conflict would create. So, in other words, they can't afford a large scale conflict, even if it's just invading Taiwan. :D

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2013, 23:12
by bigjku
flighthawk128 wrote:hornetfinn definitely has got the right idea for the match-up, and with wartime ROEs, F-35 will beat the PAK-FA.

Now, as for vilters and his "zergling" pilots, someone else raised that idea too (somewhere on this website... can't remember which thread). Anyways, we took that scenario and played it out; result is that they should be able to shoot down most of the fighters BVR provided it's at a long enough distance and the detection is early enough. The remainder is shot down WVR, though USAF losses would be very high. And this scenario details static base defenses (AAA guns, SAMs). So, without static base defenses, i would say your swarm MIGHT work (actually very very plausible), but otherwise, provided detection is early enough, the USAF fighters with base defenses should be able to fend them off (unless the defenders screw up).

Bigiku, the mindset of the Japanese allowed them to kamikaze and sink several USN ships in WWII. vilter's aggressor pilots (thinking of China) may have that very same mindset, so you can't simply disregard the remaining force in the hopes that they will turn tail and run. Not only that, vilter specifically mentioned 1000 aircraft, not 300.

And, to contribute to the overall discussion, which newmanfrigan mentioned, if it were near the PRC, NATO allies would aid in defeating Chinese aircraft (Japan and South Korea have F-15 and F-16 airframes and quite a few of them; Japan has ~200 F-15s, ~100 F-16s; idunno about Korea). This would help mitigate the PRC's advantage of nearby FOBs in favour of NATO.

And, to destroy the overall discussion, also which newmanfrigan mentioned, China cannot withstand the amount of economic backlash a major conflict would create. So, in other words, they can't afford a large scale conflict, even if it's just invading Taiwan. :D


I have to ask...other than the fact they are both Asian is there any reason to compare China and Japan culturally at any point really? They are very different. Particularly comparing 1945 Japanese to modern Chinese. I mean I just don't see it. You can't put someone up with less than 100 hours in the type and expect them to accomplish anything in the way you could with a prop aircraft.

Viters can mention 10,000 aircraft. Neither it nor 1,000 are a realistic number to put in the sky to create a swarm that overwhelms people. The more aircraft you are getting together the worse your chances of actually achieving surprise is. Keep in mind just how long it took to plan the Coalition air strikes for the 1st Gulf War. They did about 1,000 sorties a day. A 1,000 aircraft surge has you putting aircraft in the air at an incredible pace. The logistical effort alone would be huge.

I still contend there are three huge problems with the whole concept. The first is it is almost impossible to organize without getting detected and probably attacked first. The second is that the level of planning to accomplish something useful would take days just to ensure you don't have your aircraft running over and shooting at each other. You can't just select all and click attack. Finally I think the moral and material cost issue prevents this from continually being done. No one has that huge of a numbers advantage to do it. Anything you could afford to build in those numbers could not do enough damage to make it worth it in the end. You need load carrying capability and targeting capability to bring it all together once you get to the target. That means relatively expensive aircraft that you can't replace in the numbers you are likely to lose them.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 03:01
by count_to_10
If anything, WWII showed that massive bombing runs by aircraft without advanced targeting capability aren't that effective. You need precision weapon systems and the ability to find your targets, neither of which come cheep.
If you want to swarm a target, you may be better off with a large number of unarmed expendable decoys, provided you could make them indistinguishable from your real attack craft.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 11:22
by KamenRiderBlade
Given mainland Chinese mentality, I wouldn't be surprised if they do the "Zergling" rush and Kamikaze using older aircraft and less experienced pilots as a opening gambit.

1) Help clear out excessive population
2) Do massive damage
3) Show how far you are willing to go in a fight

Imagine 1000's of suicide aircraft while, all being older 3.5-4th gen aircraft, it would be devastating.

Granted it would be a logistical nightmare to get that all going, but if we can get Desert Storm going, I'm sure they can plan something that crazy and make it work.

You just have to be willing to make hard choices, and Mainland China sacrificing noob pilots isn't a hard choice for them.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 11:28
by count_to_10
There is a load of difference between "charge this hill, we expect few of you to survive" and "crash you plane and kill yourself".

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 11:32
by wrightwing
I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 22:15
by castlebravo
If we are going to consider the absurd possibility of kamikaze pilots, I have to point out that the US has something like 200,000 aircraft registered with the FAA; our Cessnas will blot out the sun.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 22:31
by haavarla
Back to topic.

Looks like VVS is cuting some corners!
First Serial T-50 will be delivered to VVS in 2014.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/2013081 ... -2020.html

Also, the final engine will enter the fray in 2015.. allthough i think it will only be on Prototypes T-50 for several years before emerging on Serial Production T-50.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 22:23
by haavarla
side looking N036B-1-01L/ -01B NIIP AESA will be shown at MAKS

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 22:41
by SpudmanWP
371 T&R modules

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 23:45
by haavarla
Not a Whole lot, but does it need to be?
The tricky part will be to get all these arrays to co-op by the Central prossessors.. Open Architect solution, but damn it must be some serious debugging work ahead for NIIP, all that software munching

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 00:51
by count_to_10
castlebravo wrote:If we are going to consider the absurd possibility of kamikaze pilots, I have to point out that the US has something like 200,000 aircraft registered with the FAA; our Cessnas will blot out the sun.
:lmao:
This! Is! America!

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 13:09
by munny
SpudmanWP wrote:371 T&R modules


Yep that's about what I counted. If you wanted to estimate it's range based on its expected power aperture product compared to the front Irbis-E-like radar, assuming the TR modules are the same, it's range would be roughly half, without jamming.

Roughly 10-25km range against an inbound F-35. If the PAK FA detects an F-35 approaching its side within these ranges, it will no doubt detect the incoming missiles too.

This feature would be useful against legacy aircraft, not so much against VLO.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 13:21
by haavarla
Side AESA array will be usefull in any situation, from BVR to WVR and in ground mapping, SAR mode, you name it.

Working in coherent With the L band Wing Array, the overall coverage will be second to none, if we isolate fighter from AWACS support.

10-25km sound quite wishfull,, would that be the "head on detection profile"?

Why do you think the front main array would be a PESA radar while the side Array being AESA radar?

It will most likely be a fixed frontal AESA array, and not the mechanical gimbal array seen on IRBIS-E radar.
This in turn means even larger Array in size and higher number of T/R modul as well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 18:47
by rkap
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote:Its pretty certain the AESA on the PF will out perform the (V)2 radar.

How do you figure that? etc.etc.

A marathon but you will not see me for another month or two. Sorry to pick on you "neurotech" but someone has to give "haavarla" a bit of a hand on this site. A CIA and LM combined "disinformation site" could not do a much better job than most who post here.
Where to start?
On Engines - all the figures have been released for the Pak Fa 5th generation interim engine.
To start with it is at least about 400kg lighter than the F119. [2x 400=800 kg per airframe]. It also does not have the losses associated with the F22 nozzles. Russian engineers have looked at using similar nozzles to those on the F22 but refuse to do so until they can do it without the substantial thrust loss the F22 suffers. [they can build them easy enough]. I think from memory they said they have got it down to about a 9-10% loss. Still not good enough in there mind to justify better rear end stealth. They are trying to reduce the rear end IR signature in other ways including cool air flow around the engine - a well known concept. They claim to have other ideas as well and to have had reasonable success. Of course they are not going to give details of the other ideas. There secret. In there mind the F22 type nozzles weigh too much and cost too much in terms of thrust and fuel economy. On engine technology there was a short ducumentary recently on TV in Australia about how the Russians have perfected a turbine blade and tested it that has a ceramic coating to handle the increased heat they will have in there ultimate Pak Fa engine design. This turbine blade is now proven up and could be used on other engines also. Articles on the net about it also. It will help in terms of stealth also. Ceramic does not reflect like Titanium alloys. That has been covered may times on this forum anyway. There are many ways to stop the engine turbine blades reflecting other than using an S duct that also reduces engine thrust etc. Covered in many other publications also. The Russians will be using one of them or a combination of them or have a solution of there own. Too easy to solve not to do it on a new aircraft.
OK lets look at there new ultimate engine. There chief designer has said it will push the PHYSICS of conventional engine design to its limit. It will be more like a 6th gen engine. The only future improvements that can be made will be in minor areas. They don't give details. To counter those like we have on this site he said "many will say both of our 5th and 5++ gen engines are not true 5th gen engines because we have not gone about it the same way as the USA and European engine manufacturers but we don't care, we think we have a better way, all that matters in the end is we keep them light and fuel efficient and achieve maximum specific thrust and fuel economy". He also said the next generation of engines is going to have to go to different design concepts altogether to produce more specific thrust. The laws of Physices say we are getting close to the limit with conventional engine design.They are confident this new ultimate engine will weigh about 30% less than the existing one at about 1400kg [say 1000kg or less]. It will produce thrust similar to the F135 with a weight of only about half as much or a bit over. OK - all the knockers of Russian technology can have a win on engine life. He said both new engines will be easier and cheaper to maintain than present Russian engines but the engine life will still be about 4,000hours. They also say they are confident they can produce this new ultimate engine even cheaper than the present 5th gen engine they are using. [It certainly must be different?] Lower engine life has been part of USSR and Russian philosophy for decades. I can understand there reasoning in this area. Why build an expensive, heavy engine that will do say 6/8,000 hours when odds are very few will ever do those hours before needing to be pulled out for a major rebuild or thrown away because of some other major problem. The USAF released operational figures on that not that long ago. I can't remember the figures but the average installed engine very rarely ever gets to the end of its engine life before getting half wrecked by a bird strike or some other major problem. It was under 3,000 hours on average is all I can remember. [Sure an odd one does survive to 8,000 hours but not many.]
The Russian idea seems to be along the line it is cheaper to accept you are going to have to buy two cheaper and lighter engines on average whatever. For example the SU35 is designed to have an airframe life of about 6,000hours. Why try to build a 6,000 hour heavier and more expensive engine when the odds say it will be wrecked in some other way before it gets there or you may want to do a half life engine upgrade.

OK thrust and performance and accelerations of the engines. The designers say the present engine is superior in all areas to previous engines. That says in all areas. That surely means they should maintain the edge most Russian aircraft have had in the area of response and acceleration and agility they have had in the past.

Airframe. They have not released a weight as far as I know. The 18.5 ton is just a guess. Odds on it could be a lot lighter than we think it will be for a Large Fighter/Interceptor. All they have said is the SU35 is much lighter than previous Flankers and the Pak-Fa will be lighter in construction again. The SU35 was virtually a new airframe using new titanium alloys and a small amount of composite. It just looks like an old Flanker. In other words nothing is going to match the Pak Fa in the area of range and payload. Light engines, lighter construction, smaller vertical stabs etc. [Russia is the leader in Titanium alloy design and production - something like 17/18ton of Titanium components for the A380 are made in Russia. ] If its engines and airframe and the ability to refuel it safely were suspect Sukoi would not have risked flying an early prototype on a 7,000km delivery flight to Moscow. How long before we see a F35 do the same? These things all speak for themselves. The present engine I understand has been around since about 2006 or 2007.
Plenty of time to prove it up.
USSR Radars in the past like the Zaslon Radar on the Mig 31 and its avionics etc. have been accepted by the experts as one of the best in the world at the time. Russia built the first mechanically steered PESA radars also. They may not have had the money to spend on actually building new Radars etc. for about 10/15 years from 1990 on but research did not stop in Russia during that period. Also since 1990 they have had more and more access to Western electronics to help them catch up in that area. Also the Russian Duma did not put a ban on exporting there latest Avionics and Systems about three years ago for no reason. That in itself points to Russia considering there latest is better than anything else that can be bought in the West off the USA or French or Israel or Britain etc. Like every other nation they like to make money with exports unless they have a secret they want to keep to themselves. I myself am not sure about there new ASEA Radar and nobody can be. Considering its size and the fact it is going to use the well developed back end of the Irbus I think it will be very good. It in reality is simply a continuing development of the Irbus. A very power-full and well developed radar. The L Band? Who knows? They are not on there for no reason and it is something neither the F22 or F35 will have whatever it can do. Break-though? or of only moderate value nobody knows. . Probably they will be good enough to maybe pick up the F35 at longer range than the ASEA. Especially if they are data linked with each other and in some way can more or less act as a larger antenna. Guidance - mid course guidance maybe on a longer range missile they are developing? They claim to be able to do that with there ground based SAMS. Use L Band in the VHF area to provide mid course guidance to missiles. They probably will be able to cue the ASEA to pick up the F35 according to some experts. Who knows for sure. There secret. Data link Jamming ability! Passive detection! With the size of there ASEA and the power it will be able to produce in a big airframe with plenty of cooling it may have the ability to jam other smaller less power-full radars. Similar to the Zaslon on the MIg31.
There avionics etc. certainly have advanced if the Pak Fa can return to base and land itself in the case of a disabled pilot as stated by there Test Pilot. Nothing they have claimed since day one has been proven to be false. I see no reason not to believe most of what they do release. Not like LM who have continually claimed the ultimate only to disappoint us when DOD reports come out or Congress demands a realistic report.

Putin and the Duma would not tolerate that. Any company in Russia knows if they try that they will quickly suffer a penalty. After all it is the Russian Government who is paying most of the bill. He also obviously understands if the Russian aircraft industry is ever going to grow and survive in a competitive world they have to rebuild there reputation by being more transparent overall than Western companies and better in some area. This is obvious in the Domestic field. Russian airlines are still free to buy any aircraft they want to. Putin and his Duma are very tough in that way. They are forcing there industries to compete. He knows to rebuild there markets they have to be the just equal but better in many ways. He understands they are still up against a Western media also that stays with a lot of the old Cold War dogma. Especially the USA and British media. Other Western media tends to be a lot more balanced.

Actual stealth - who knows - on the surface it looks less stealthy than the F35 but we know nothing about there new Nano Coatings or there composites. They claim they are a great advance but I don't think they will really know unless they have managed to find out how good the ones on the F35 are?
To me it is obvious when designing the Pak Fa they considered that by say 2025 Stealth counter measures would probably have advanced enough to make Stealth less valuable.
We will not know the truth of that for at least 10+ years and not until Stealth aircraft take on a near peer opponent. Just owning a few S300 or S400 or S500's is not going to be a real problem. With the massive number of aircraft and other systems the USA can bring into play they I am sure would never risk a F22 or F35 until they knew all the S400's were taken out by Missiles or other means. That in many ways tends to prove the contention that Stealth is probably becoming less and less relevant. None of this has anything to do with the original question. The original question asked that the aircraft be compared. Not who has the mightiest military.
Situational awareness. Probably about equal. The Pak Fa has enough sensors to give it good situational awareness - 6 Radar antennas and probably at least 2 IR sensors. The question is how well they will be able to reliably get all the info to the Pilot. Personally I think thay will probably do it well. Just as with engine technology they may do it a different way but that does not matter. There data fusin system fro all we know will be better. Just like they were the first to have an effective HUD system. Often like many Russian systems it may not be as complicated but so long as it works well is all that counts. To me in a war machine making it too complicated is often a negative in a true War machine if you can achieve the same thing in a simpler way. Just look at the problems developing software for the F35.

The question overall question that I think that should be asked is: Would the USA in say 2025 take in there F35's and F22's as First Strike weapons against an opponent such as Iraq if they had say 50-100 [$75m each to-days price] mobile S300,S400 and some S500 units protecting major assets along with hundreds of radar sighted guns and smaller close in defense SAMS. The very thing they did in the two Gulf wars. I very much doubt they would. It would be too dangerous to send in F35's and F22's to try and hunt down those mobile SAM units with F35's or F22's protected by short range Missile units etc. as well.
In many ways I think the answer to that question asked in the original question.
No - the F35 will not be good enough to do that by 2025. So why build it? Maybe something like the SU34 would have a better chance of getting in there by going in low and fast. The Russians obviously think so. They are not ordering more for no reason with the Pak Fa well on the way and the SU35 going operational.
There is nothing though like a stubborn fool who makes a decision in a bout 1990 who refuses to admit he got it wrong for the period 2025 onwards. Actually one US leading designer of the 1960's and 1970's has said the F35 concept was something they were looking at in about 1979. Something they had on the wish list to be operational in the 1990's - 1990 though is not 2025.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 11:55
by hornetfinn
rkap wrote:
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote:Its pretty certain the AESA on the PF will out perform the (V)2 radar.

How do you figure that? etc.etc.

A marathon but you will not see me for another month or two. Sorry to pick on you "neurotech" but someone has to give "haavarla" a bit of a hand on this site. A CIA and LM combined "disinformation site" could not do a much better job than most who post here.


Feel free to answer when you get back. It seems like you have taken the Air Power Australia approach to how Western and Eastern/Russian military development goes on: Everything in West will fail and is done stupidly and everything in East will develop smoothly and they have access to much higher technology than West has in every area (even in areas that there is no significant developments in Russia).

rkap wrote:On Engines


How do you figure what the weight of F119 engine is? No official figures have been released and any guesses can be very wrong. It seems you are using the weight stated in Wikipedia which comes from RAND report from about 10 years ago. Those figures seem very suspect as it makes F119 somewhat heavier than F135 despite being quite a bit smaller in all dimensions. PW has stated that F135 uses basically the same core as F119 with new low-pressure spool. It's quite likely that F119 has somewhat higher thrust than the stated 35,000 lbf (F135 is stated to be 40,000 lbf even if we know that it has higher thrust) and weight should be not more than F135 even if F135 uses even higher tech.

How do you know how much losses there really are in F119 engines. Just because Russians have been unable to get an adequate solution doesn't mean it doesn't exist in F119 and F-22. USAF seems to be very pleased with the performance of F119 and there doesn't seem to be any deficiency in thrust output in F-22.

Yes, later Russian (and Soviet) engines have been relatively good (although not exceptional) on T/W ratio, fuel consumption and handling characteristics. They have had pretty poor service life until very recently. Nowadays they have pretty similar characteristics to western engines developed in the 90's. Btw, are you comparing the 117 engine to F119? Yes, it's probably about 300 kg lighter but also has lower AB thrust by about 1000-2000 kgf depending on how much thrust there really is in F119. And we don't know anything how comparable dry thrust is. Russian engines have tended to have somewhat higher thrust in AB than in dry thrust compared to Western engines.

Besides, you're making it sound like ceramic coatings in turbine blades is some kind of totally new concept that only Russians have. Before those 6th generation jet engines Russia should first try to get 5th generation engines to operational service or even those 4.5 generation engines to service in meaningful numbers.

rkap wrote:Airframe.


It's highly unlikely PAK-FA will be significantly lighter than F-22 while being slightly larger in all dimensions (length, wingspan, height). You say composites and alloys? Yes, that will make it lighter as F-22 has no composites or alloys... Published figures say that PAK-FA has almost identical numbers of composites and alloys to F-22. Yes, PAK-FA has somewhat different shape than F-22, but I can't find a way to get it significantly lighter. Of course it could have much less avionics and RAM, but then it would be at serious disadvantage with much inferior capabilities. Of course you could strip F-22 from much of the avionics leading to much lighter aircraft, but with much inferior capabilities to what it actually has. PAK-FA is supposed to have side-looking radar and L-band radar in the wings, artificial intelligence (indicating a lot of computing power), new datalinks, new ESM/EW equipment, Things like these are not weightless even if produced in Russia.

Yes, Russia has very advanced titanium production there is no question about it. That doesn't mean they can achieve miracles in weight reductions.

rkap wrote:USSR Radars in the past like the Zaslon Radar on the Mig 31 and its avionics etc. have been accepted by the experts as one of the best in the world at the time. Russia built the first mechanically steered PESA radars also.


Yes, original Zaslon radar had some pretty unique capabilities like engaging 4 targets simultaneously with semi-active missiles and having very quick scan capability. The datalinking capability was also pretty new. It was also by far the largest (two to three time the size of anything else) fighter radar ever designed and had some rather mediocre (for the size) capabilities like having ability to track 10 targets simultaneously or detect a bomber at low probability 200 km away. Those capabilities were achieved with much smaller radars in the western countries at the time.

Still in many radar technology areas Soviet Union was quite advanced. In some other areas (like computing technology) they were rather backwards and was the reason for some rather poor performance figures in radar systems. They have caught up in some areas somewhat, but are still well behind in many areas. For example they can't produce powerful T/R modules and have achieved only the level where western development was about 20 years ago. Same with producing high speed microprocessors. With current tech difference AN/APG-81 will outrange the
larger but significantly less powerful AESA in PAK-FA while having much better overall capabilities.

rkap wrote:Actual stealth - who knows - on the surface it looks less stealthy than the F35 but we know nothing about there new Nano Coatings or there composites. They claim they are a great advance but I don't think they will really know unless they have managed to find out how good the ones on the F35 are?


Western countries and USA especially has the advantage of having much better technology base and resources in the area of stealth technology. Russia has very advanced titanium production, but their composite production technology is nowhere near western capabilities. Same with RAM materials, it's very unlikely they can produce materials with similar properties to what F-35 uses for example. USA has the huge advantage of having developed and actually fielded several generations of radar absorbing materials. It'd be very tough to get anywhere near that level with only scientific study.

rkap wrote:Situational awareness. Probably about equal. The Pak Fa has enough sensors to give it good situational awareness - 6 Radar antennas and probably at least 2 IR sensors. The question is how well they will be able to reliably get all the info to the Pilot. Personally I think thay will probably do it well. Just as with engine technology they may do it a different way but that does not matter. There data fusin system fro all we know will be better. Just like they were the first to have an effective HUD system. Often like many Russian systems it may not be as complicated but so long as it works well is all that counts. To me in a war machine making it too complicated is often a negative in a true War machine if you can achieve the same thing in a simpler way. Just look at the problems developing software for the F35.


There is nothing indicating SA capabilities are anywhere near the same. Russia can't produce IR sensors anywhere near the capabilities of what F-35 has. Data fusion requires a lot of computing power and very high speed networking and this will be the biggest problem for Russian industry to overcome.

rkap wrote:The question overall question that I think that should be asked is: Would the USA in say 2025 take in there F35's and F22's as First Strike weapons against an opponent such as Iraq if they had say 50-100 [$75m each to-days price] mobile S300,S400 and some S500 units protecting major assets along with hundreds of radar sighted guns and smaller close in defense SAMS. The very thing they did in the two Gulf wars. I very much doubt they would. It would be too dangerous to send in F35's and F22's to try and hunt down those mobile SAM units with F35's or F22's protected by short range Missile units etc. as well.
In many ways I think the answer to that question asked in the original question.
No - the F35 will not be good enough to do that by 2025. So why build it? Maybe something like the SU34 would have a better chance of getting in there by going in low and fast. The Russians obviously think so. They are not ordering more for no reason with the Pak Fa well on the way and the SU35 going operational.


Su-34 does the same what was done by Tornado IDS, F-111 and F-15E decades earlier. That didn't work that greatly against Iraq in 1991 as there were quite a lot of losses from mostly relatively primitive (V)SHORAD systems. How is that more relevant to warfare in the future than what F-35 is doing?

US services would definitely take their F-22s and F-35s to take out your fantasy IADS. It would be very tough to do with Su-34 and Su-35 and stealth fighters would have much better chance in succeeding.

Don't get me wrong, I respect Russian aircraft industry a lot. They're just constrained with low level budgets and some serious technological handicaps.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:15
by Lieven
:offtopic:
haavarla wrote:Why do you sink Down to his Level then.. just ignore him. You guys just make more mess for the mods to clean up. I already reported growlerdude.

f-18growler = flyman2009 = banned

Thanks for reporting, it's the smart thing to do! Cleanup has been initiated.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ~George Carlin


Also:
"Never argue with a fool; [moderators] may not be able to tell the difference." ~Mark Twain

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:43
by lookieloo
@hornetfinn

No point in responding to rkap as he is quite obviously some staff-member's sock puppet. Tis the only way to explain why his incoherent rants haven't seen him out.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 13:58
by haavarla
There has been some confirmation about what kind of A2G missile the Pak-Fa will get.
It was reveiled at MAKS 2013:


"Interestingly, the closest that the T-50 (so far) is confirmed to be getting to an all-new weapon is a highly modified version of an existing anti-radar missile, the folding-wing Kh-58UShE. .....
......
This is all interesting to say the least, because since Day One of stealth in the US a guiding principle has been that stealth gets you close enough to use precise, short-range, low-cost weapons. And here come the Russians, equipping their first stealth fighter -- already fast and high-flying -- with a 1,400-pound ARM that can run out to 245 km at up to Mach 4, and an 1,125-pound, 200-kilometer range AAM".



http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 0b5b37e15c

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 15:49
by castlebravo
Makes sense to me. Didn't the Russians say they weren't trying for true VLO with the T-50?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 15:56
by SpudmanWP
Looks like someone does not have much faith in their RCS treatments being able to keep them alive :)

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 16:29
by Scorpion82
Or it looks like someone knows that the current level of VLO won't last forever as sensor technolgy evolves. :-p

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 17:01
by SpudmanWP
Eventually, yes.

But to swing the pendulum so far in the other direction is telling.

If the PakFa is on par with the F-22 then a smaller ARM and the ability to carry more of them would seem to be more appropriate.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 17:44
by haavarla
castlebravo wrote:Makes sense to me. Didn't the Russians say they weren't trying for true VLO with the T-50?


So what you are saying is, if the F-35 did have Space for such long range ordinance, it can't have true VLO capability.. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 18:03
by SpudmanWP
Developing a new weapon (or modifying an existing one) means that weapon is needed for the IOC mission.

Look at the JDRADM delay for example. It is obviously a great idea but it was not needed to counter the threats in the foreseeable future. The AMRAAM/Sidewinder/JAGM/SDB/JDAM were deem enough for the time being because the F-35 can get close enough to use them.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 18:37
by castlebravo
I don't think it is a matter of standoff range so much as being able to close to a distance where the F-35's sensors allow it to target IADS assets directly rather than just suppressing and possibly destroying radars with ARMs. Once you are that close a glide bomb like SDB is much more efficient than a supersonic missile. Looks like PAK-FA might be stuck with the old SEAD method of just suppressing radars though.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 09:30
by hornetfinn
Kh-58USHKE is not that new as it was first revealed in MAKS 2007, IIRC. I think it has been originally designed for use in recessed carriage of weapons like in MiG-31. They might have thought about T-50 also, but this weapon is also advertised as being used in Su-35S. Data from the manufacturer: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/

Of course F-35 could carry AARGM externally, but it would be too big for internal carriage. As a weapon Kh-58USHKE doesn't seem nearly as flexible as AARGM as it doesn't have anywhere near similar counter-emitter shutdown capability (no MMW radar or even GPS/Glonass to my understanding). As a SEAD/DEAD platform I'd think F-35 is still generally better and much more flexible with the use of SDB II and JSOW weapons. F-35 will (at least initially) lack the capability to attack radar targets at long range with fast weapons like this in VLO mode though. Maybe develop a modern version of Shrike sized weapon for that with much longer range and higher speed? Might not be worth the cost though as there are many other means to do the same thing.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 16:00
by Scorpion82
Ofcourse it is possible to interprete the integration of a dedicated ARM on the T-50 as an indirect acknowledgement of the Russians that this aircraft isn't stealthy enough to deal with opposing airdefences at shorter ranges. But while there is some rational behind this assumption, it's not the only possible explaination. It is basically understood that the Russians are lagging behint in RWR/ESM technology and it might be that the L402 slatted for the T-50 isn't accurate enough to geo-locate emitter with sufficient quality to produce target coordinates that are required to target weapons in the JSOW, JDAM or SDB class. Ofcourse this could be mitigated by adding a seeker to such a weapon, in addition to the INS/GLONASS guidance kit, however I'm not aware of any weapon of that kind in the RuAFs inventory and details about the, supposedly dual-mode capable, KAB-250 aren't known yet. It might be an interim solution as long as no adequate weapons and/or ESM/RWR are available to the T-50. In the medium term it's certainly viable to increase the stand-off range as sensor technology and sensor networking is advancing at fast pace and what might be classified as VLO today against the current generation of sensors might just be LO in the future against future generations of sensors. As such the ability to carry dedicated ARMs like the Kh-31 or Kh-58 is certainly more flexible and farsighted than relying on small weapons. There is another advantage of such a long range, high speed ARM, reaction time. An unpowered glide weapon is only as fast as the launch platform that drops and its speed will gradually decline. The range is limited and more heavily dependent on launch altitude as well. If you want to take out a distant EWR or stationary long range SAM a long range, high speed ARM is certainly a better option. The other way round a glide bomb a la SDB II is certainly cheaper and much more flexible as it can be deployed against a wider range of targets, as it might be targeted by different means and as it can destroy airdefences even if they are inactive.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 01:02
by count_to_10
Trying to build aircraft to dodge missiles is a losing game. The missiles are going to advance faster -- and that isn't even including the possibility of "exotic" weapons and warheads that may not need to get very close to score a kill.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 09:56
by haavarla
Simplistic said.
The Pak-Fa aerodynamic layout is about dogging other jets.
In the prossess ,the ability dodging incoming missile becomes a side Product. Can't be a compromise as such..

Missile might be fast. Design and build fast missiles, and the agility suffer.

A missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
-Robert L Shaw


Just because the F-35A is Limited Within the x3 F-35 program and ended up being a "Jabba The Hut" jet due to the over all F-35 design, doesn't mean other Manufactor can't do Things in a completly different approach and thus produce an effective user end Product.

Strange.. Years back on these forums, when the F-22 was about to enter IOC, the forum here was soaked With post like the "outstanding Kinematics" of F-22, supercruise and the Whole LM pie.

Now that the F-35 emerge and its kinematic performance start to unveil, these Kinematic performance is all of a sudden not important anymore..

Seeing the road map on the Flanker series(and the proposed F-15SE!), the future road map of Pak-Fa will be quite interesting both in weapon, system and hardware such as engines, radar, etc etc.

There is a possibility that the Pak-Fa will face the same kind of Block increment as F-35 due to unmature systems and software, doesn't mean Sukhoi cannot make this work.

Look at the difficult road of T-10 up to T-10M, For all intent and purpose, Sukhoi reached their goal With the Flanker, which mean they could repeat the ordeal With Pak-Fa as well.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 18:50
by SpudmanWP
Ask yourself, "What is the main purpose of maneuverability in the A2A arena"?

Answer, "To be able to point your weapons at the enemy and launch before he does".

You are forgetting the MAIN difference between the A2A capabilities of the F-22 and the F-35..... EODAS.

With it, the F-35 can detect, track, and fire on enemies long before a F-22 could in the same situation.

Does this make maneuverability "irrelevant"? Absolutely NOT. It just becomes LESS important.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 21:45
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
Strange.. Years back on these forums, when the F-22 was about to enter IOC, the forum here was soaked With post like the "outstanding Kinematics" of F-22, supercruise and the Whole LM pie.

Now that the F-35 emerge and its kinematic performance start to unveil, these Kinematic performance is all of a sudden not important anymore..


Nice try, but saying that the F-22 has outstanding kinematics is pretty much a fact, how valuable those kinematics are, is a matter of opinion. Do you see the difference?

Now on top of that, the F-22 also has great avionics and VLO. So the F-22 seems to acknowledge that there are other factors to combat effectiveness, beyond kinematics?

An example:

If the F-35 is not as maneuverable as a PAKFA, but is far less detectable, and the PAKFA stands out like a signal flare at midnight, the F-35 may well be more effective as it gets shots first.

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 16:59
by haavarla
In this article, it says the 117 engines on Pak-Fa produce 15.000kgf wet thrust and 9.500kgf on dry Thrust.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113636888/Mla ... sue-8-2012

It might fit well if we look at the 117S engines used on Su-35S.
It has 14.500kgf wet thrust and 8.800kgf dry Thrust.

So there, fact not opinion.

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 17:04
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote:
Strange.. Years back on these forums, when the F-22 was about to enter IOC, the forum here was soaked With post like the "outstanding Kinematics" of F-22, supercruise and the Whole LM pie.

Now that the F-35 emerge and its kinematic performance start to unveil, these Kinematic performance is all of a sudden not important anymore..


Nice try, but saying that the F-22 has outstanding kinematics is pretty much a fact, how valuable those kinematics are, is a matter of opinion. Do you see the difference?

If the F-35 is not as maneuverable as a PAKFA, but is far less detectable, and the PAKFA stands out like a signal flare at midnight, the F-35 may well be more effective as it gets shots first.


Source pls.. or is this also a matter of opinion..?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 17:55
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote:
Strange.. Years back on these forums, when the F-22 was about to enter IOC, the forum here was soaked With post like the "outstanding Kinematics" of F-22, supercruise and the Whole LM pie.

Now that the F-35 emerge and its kinematic performance start to unveil, these Kinematic performance is all of a sudden not important anymore..


Nice try, but saying that the F-22 has outstanding kinematics is pretty much a fact, how valuable those kinematics are, is a matter of opinion. Do you see the difference?

If the F-35 is not as maneuverable as a PAKFA, but is far less detectable, and the PAKFA stands out like a signal flare at midnight, the F-35 may well be more effective as it gets shots first.


Source pls.. or is this also a matter of opinion..?


I gave an example (you will that word in the original post) a theoretical demonstration-- you may notice the word "IF" in there.

Relax.

Now take a deep breath and prepare yourself for yet another theoretical example:

Lets say we divided aircraft into 3 major categories: Kinematics, Avionics, and RCS.

The F-35 might theoretically, have the edge in avionics, and RCS, but lag in kinematics to the PAKFA

The Pak Fa might theoretically lag in avionics and RCS but be the most kinematically impressive aircraft ever.

As of this moment, the F-22 is the leader in a balance of all three, but the F-35 has the edge on it with avionics.

Depending on the situation one aircraft may have a huge advantage over the other. However, nothing guarantees success and too much compromise, or not enough in the right areas could skew the odds in favor of one side.

All aircraft are compromises. I'm sorry I have to tell you that.

Brace yourself. But there is an outside chance, that the PAKFA may not dominate in every category. It may do well in some categories and poorly in others as they decided to emphasize other areas they considered more important. So yes, the PAKFA may not be as stealthy as an F-35. If Sweetman is to be believed, the Russian's don't care if it is or not, so long as its more maneuverable.

Is that a sound strategy? I don't know. The Russians have their ideas about strategy and the Americans have theirs.

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 18:07
by 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?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 18:22
by XanderCrews
Here is another fact.

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

Pak-Fa doing some crazy airshow stuff from Maks 2013.


"crazy airshow stuff" is a "fact"?

Of what?

:lol:


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?


ahh nothing like the joy of comparative youtube airshow demo analysis, to "prove" things

:roll:

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 08:49
by haavarla
So Your Fact is waay better than my Fact.. how childish.
At least i'm posting Sources and something that we all can eyeball and make some asumption and vauge metric compairison on.
Feel free to contribute at any time.

Airshow has been one of the best cornerstone for the Public(you can put intel in here as well) since they started, when it comes to Kinematic performance compairison. How is that for fact?
And yes, Airshow in general is quite enjoyable.


I must say F414, Your "one liners" has improved over time, they have materilized into two liners(barely).
Great, but keep working and you might be able to produce something Worth Reading.

Edit:
As a little side note.
All four T-50 has now flown on MAKS 1013. The 51, 52 and 54 was seen in formation a few days ago. And 53 flew in pairs yesterday.
That means they are operative, which is Nice. Of course this tells us very little about how much Down time Sukhoi really have on these birds now.

From earlier there have been downtime for several months due to some Cracks and improvent work on the airframe on the two first protoypes.
But it seems they fly more regulary these days.
According to Sukhoi, they have developed Flightsim labs from which it significally reduce test flight hours. I think this is mainly Avionics related and for software work though.

And just like the F-35 program has their flying labs, Sukhoi have atleast one Flanker Su-27UB for Engine test and one Su-30 for Avionics testing. On top of this All those Su-35S is pretty much "testing systems" and helps maturing systems targeted for Pak-Fa.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 11:43
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 15:11
by 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.

Image

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.

Image

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 16:08
by 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?

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 16:28
by 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?

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 17:52
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 21:04
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote: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?

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 10:13
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote: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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 12:02
by haavarla
disconnectedradical wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 12:20
by haavarla
disconnectedradical wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 12:50
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote: 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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 13:13
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
haavarla wrote: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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 14:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
when full open, yes.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 14:36
by disconnectedradical
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 14:44
by rkap
geogen wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 16:00
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 16:21
by hb_pencil
hornetfinn wrote:
haavarla wrote: 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.


Just a question... Didn't the F-14 have the under nose AN/ALR-23 IRST (later supplemented by the AXX-1) system? Presumably EOTS FOV would only need to be effective up until a target reached DAS range, and then it would not matter. It would be interesting to see how that FOV works at low altitude

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 16:38
by cantaz
How much does the backdrop (sky vs ground) affect detection against aircraft? If it's harder to pick out an aircraft against the terrain behind/under it, then it'd makes more sense to point the better sensor low to deal with the more challenging detection scenarios (if you can only choose one position).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 17:26
by haavarla
"XanderCrews"] 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.


In the game of assuming, then i would give that a more than 50% yes.
It Depends on weather, jamming eniroment and detection rang ofcourse.

The 77YA6-DM Voronezh-DM is a low frequency radar operating in the UHF (Ultra High Frequency) section of the spectrum. The reported range of the radar is circa 4,200 kilometres (2,267 nautical miles).

Here is a little readup for Our uninformed posters:

http://chainhomehigh.wordpress.com/2013 ... s-in-2013/


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.


Defensive fighter.. what's that?
Never heard of such classification or role
Try good old "Multirole fighter".
or all the manufactor advs crap like Omni-role fighter, deep penetration fighter, uber stealth fighter... wait!
On second thought, Multirole fighter Works just fine.

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.


Just wanna remind you'll that there exist a six flying prototypes signed contract between Russian MoD and Sukhoi.
The T-50-55 will be out.. well out this year.
No point in setting an actual date, cause Sukhoi have never bothered giving some, or stick to any particulary schedule it seems..
Here in the west i believe we Call it delay, in Sukhoi world they Go: - Delay!? Whats that?

Anyway, my point is, there is the Clear & present danger of some modification, small details that we haven't seen before.

Tell you what! Let's wait until all six Prototypes T-50 has been delivered before claiming anything.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-f

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 19:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
that UHF radar would be the first target in a major offensive. And I have a question that doesn't seem to be addressed. Supersonic flight causes an increase in tempurature, doesn't this INCREASE the distance at which a Supercruiser can be passively detected by an IRST? There are also no indications that the Russians have an LPI radar, not from an external source anyway. So ANY broadcasting done to detect/track a flight of F-35s can be detected, data shared, and firing solution data generated therefrom. Not to mention jamming. The combined RF systems on the F-35 are the only system known thus far to detect, and much more so jam, an F-22s transmissions.

Now as to the difference between T-50 protypes and production models, I have never seem a claim by Sukhoi OR Russian press claiming an RCS of better than 0.1m^2 for the production model. Su-35 number I see quoted is between 2.0 and 0.5.

Both these Sukhois are to be taken seriously in a conflict to be sure, but the F-35 is NOT a joke.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the p

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 21:12
by haavarla
sprstdlyscottsmn"]that UHF radar would be the first target in a major offensive. And I have a question that doesn't seem to be addressed. Supersonic flight causes an increase in tempurature, doesn't this INCREASE the distance at which a Supercruiser can be passively detected by an IRST?


Quite possible.
But lets say the Pak-Fa zooms at SuperSonic speed at 19.000m altitude.
Wouldn't the low air temperature up there also have an inpact on how much IR sensores can spot from distance?
Never mind other weather conditions like overcast, rain, snow Wind etc?
And which type of IR sensors would look up at these altitude in the first Place in such scenarios?

Yes no doubt the Radar stations all over Russia would be sweet targets. But wouldn't they also be vitals Object, meaning they will be heavily defended by a Whole range of assets?
Its not like they are positioned at the very borders of Russia eighter.

It would mean a Cruise missle strike no doubt at first.

Anyway, i just posted this Source about the Voronezh-DM radar to prove a certain point about detection.

If someone try to put those Radar station out. One would think Russia would get an Clear Picture whom did this in the first Place, and then why stop there.. it goes all the way to nukes Hollocoust. At least that is a possibility.

There are also no indications that the Russians have an LPI radar, not from an external source anyway. So ANY broadcasting done to detect/track a flight of F-35s can be detected, data shared, and firing solution data generated therefrom. Not to mention jamming. The combined RF systems on the F-35 are the only system known thus far to detect, and much more so jam, an F-22s transmissions.


There has been several post by other members on this forum on this LPI issue.

Many modern PESA radar has LPI function, it is not something that is only linked to AESA radars.

It is basicly a combination on several tuning and adustment of the Radars. Its pre-set by different mode.
For example, PESA radars like IRBIS-E has four independeble input/output channels, they can operate in coherence to aid the signal prossessor to gain the type of Transmition like LPI have.
Broadband is also an important ability.

LPI mode, explained in a simple fashion is a low Power output transmition, and the radar in LPI mode need much more time to prossess the Return signal, something that can be a tricky thing on many given situation. Some situation does not even give the Radar in LPI any advantage, like in a Heavy noise enviroment.

What's the point for the Radar try prossess only noise over time in the first Place.

There are other posters on this forum that is more knowledgeble than me on these matters and can chip in.


Now as to the difference between T-50 protypes and production models, I have never seem a claim by Sukhoi OR Russian press claiming an RCS of better than 0.1m^2 for the production model. Su-35 number I see quoted is between 2.0 and 0.5.

Both these Sukhois are to be taken seriously in a conflict to be sure, but the F-35 is NOT a joke.


Yes, i think it was the Sukhoi Chairman Mikhail Aslanovich Pogosyan whom said that in an Interview. So it can't get more official in that regard.

However, in that interview, the reporter which are most likely clueless to such matter and have no real interest on the subject at hand asked a very simple question about the Pak-Fa RCS. And got a very simple reply. There was only two question about Pak-Fa, RCS and Engines if i recall correctly. All the other questions was about civil jets like SSJ-100, etc.

There are many unanswered holes in his RCS reply. Pogo did not mention of the 0.5 figure was from shape, material or even With or without RAM coating.
I mean have the Public domain even seen an T-50 prototype With RAM coating or even one on the ground stance? Can you make these kind of measurments on a RC model With all the skin surface quality, material and RAM coating in the first Place?
He didn't even mention stuff like is that figure the overall RCS signatur or just some certain aspect, like frontal view..
On any jet, the RCS is not something that is a constant anyway.

And is the measurements of such RCS signal done the exact same way by Sukhoi and other Manufactors engineers?

B.t.w. those figures that are floating around on F22 RCS signature, it was something like 0.0000 etc Is this an Official LM figure?
Is that an all aspect figure or an frontal aspect figure.

Has there been any official figures on F-35 RCS signal yet?

I have never said the F-35 is a joke b.t.w..

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match t

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 22:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Official numbers for the LM jets are classified. public numbers are 0.0001 for the F-22 and .005 for F-35. the 0.005 number however was a target and when testing was done this was "exceeded" and was also to represent the RCS of the aircraft after a 8,000hr life. I don't think 0.001 is out of reach. All numbers are the frontal (no plane has true ALL aspect stealth, there are always spikes).
You are right that I have seen people on this forum claim PESA LPI, but I specified an outside source. I have never seen one. It may very well be, but I haven’t seen one so I maintain skepticism.

While you may not have said F-35 is a joke you often seem to miss several facts.

A plane flying even 40,000ft ABOVE the F-35 can be as close as 57nm and still be seen by EOTS if, and I emphasize IF, it can only look 5 degrees up and IF they are directly ahead. If they are ten degrees left or right then vertical view likely increases drastically (need to still be able to guide the munitions when rolling away from and back to the target) this is also assuming the F-35 is flying at 0 aoa, increase it to 2 degrees and the range drops to 40nm.

Colder air by 20 degrees means little when the skin surfaces are being heated by 400-700 degrees. As for weather conditions, rain and snow at those altitudes? The occasional towering cumulonimbus works both ways. Overcast? The F-35 will be above these things as well.

The F-35 will no more have to abandon its mission than a Su-35 would. The Pak-Fa is in my opinion the greatest fighter jet ever built outside of the U.S. It completely outclasses all 4.5 gen aircraft. I would even worry about the IR blind F-22 having to go head to head, but I believe the F-35 has the finest sensor suite ever assembled in one aircraft.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 22:46
by haavarla
"sprstdlyscottsmn"]Official numbers for the LM jets are classified. public numbers are 0.0001 for the F-22 and .005 for F-35. the 0.005 number however was a target and when testing was done this was "exceeded" and was also to represent the RCS of the aircraft after a 8,000hr life. I don't think 0.001 is out of reach. All numbers are the frontal (no plane has true ALL aspect stealth, there are always spikes).


So in essence, Pogo have officialy given more info on RCS than LM has ever don over all these years.. a little weird i think. What is the Secret behind Pogos 0.5 RCS figure.. the Gap from 0.005 or even F-22 are suspectelbe huge.. Some does not smell right on all these figures.


You are right that I have seen people on this forum claim PESA LPI, but I specified an outside source. I have never seen one. It may very well be, but I haven’t seen one so I maintain skepticism.


I just wanna point out that the Whole LPI term, orignate from Rayteon if i'm not mistaken.
BEVARE of the Power of Advs!! ;)
Other radar manufactors does or at least did not have a name or Term for this.
I Guess since Rayteon was the first one out. only they can sport it and nobody else..

Ok, that was me joking.
Other manufactors most likely called the LPI term something completelty else, but i think the LPI function has set hold as a New standard term of most Manufactors world wide. I'm not sure but i think..

While you may not have said F-35 is a joke you often seem to miss several facts.


We can't have Norway AF flying around in jets that are called Joke. They get laughed at by other jet pilots upon sight. We can't have that. :D


Colder air by 20 degrees means little when the skin surfaces are being heated by 400-700 degrees. As for weather conditions, rain and snow at those altitudes? The occasional towering cumulonimbus works both ways. Overcast? The F-35 will be above these things as well.


You misunderstood my point here.
I meant over distance at altitude. Between the IR sensor and the Target jet.
Surly there can be all sorts of Atmospheric conditions there.
Aren't there such conditions at 15-20.000 feet?

The F-35 flying on a A2G mission would not likely be at any higher altitude i think..
Well i could, but what about the weather condition between the F-35 and the ground then? this is even more cruicial from the mission point of view.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 22:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
There have been several images showing that the gaps between the control surfaces and the supporting bodies on the T-50 are MASSIVE compared to the F-35. That is in my opinion the biggest difference in the RCS advancements. each -10dB costs exponentially more money. And as for atmospheric conditions, in an A2G mission the F-35 will likely fly at 25-35,000 ft, what ever is best for fuel economy. That is above most heavy cloud types, which is why I reference the cumulonimbus. high alt clouds are generally thin and whispy as there isn't enough air density to hold much moisture. Overcast is generally within 10Kft from the ground, usually much lower than that as well in my experience.

As to LPI, you may very well have a point there. I don't understand then why EVERYONE doesn't broadcast this discrete search function. Why is it only in relation to the APG-77, APG-81, and as a possibility on the Eurofighter?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 23:25
by haavarla
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:There have been several images showing that the gaps between the control surfaces and the supporting bodies on the T-50 are MASSIVE compared to the F-35. That is in my opinion the biggest difference in the RCS advancements. each -10dB costs exponentially more money.


I agree.
The skin quality of those T-50 prototypes are in fact terrible. They remind me for the older in service Mig-29 and Legacy Flanker seen in VVS.
tThe Skin surface looking Real torn from years of service tear n wear and imperfections from aircraft manufactors.

As i allready have stated, the New Su-35S and Su-30SM Serial jets like like shiny Diamonds in compair on the skin quality on some of the T-50, especiall to first two..

It makes you Wonder about my point of these protoypes being used for Engine and flight caracteristic, different flight regimes, different speed regimes. tested for the stress from tear and wear under the Whole range of G-load flight. Important stuff like the support bars struts inside the Aircraft as well as the outside skin surface.

And still you guys continue to make assumtions on the RCS of these T-50 prototypes.. good Luck With that though..




As to LPI, you may very well have a point there. I don't understand then why EVERYONE doesn't broadcast this discrete search function. Why is it only in relation to the APG-77, APG-81, and as a possibility on the Eurofighter?


Well, i think maybe they are. But as soon as the jets RWR picks up any crazy signal that may come from a jamming Source, the radar instrumentation warns the pilot or WOS of this.. or hell it might even happen completly automatically for all that i know.

In my line of work, civilian offshore, fisheries and Our national guard(Navy), from which i currently serve, the modern radars today, just outclass older radar that are 5-6 years old by a magnitude you would not believe. Especially the auto filter and when operating in bad weather.
I practiaclly do not need to touch one singel switch. everything stays so Clear and free of noise, it is amazing. Older radars that was 5-10 years old, you would have to adjust them quite often, even if they also had some auto tuning as well.

Edit:
Look.. About the LPI term function. Try not to look at it as some magical see all hear all ability.

Simplistic said, even With the prossessing speed of modern radars, the rescivers would still have to listen over time, its a very complex signal prossessing work, and i do not have a Clue on the signal of radars.
Imagine all that software.. well one does not need imagine i Guess. Look at F-35 avionics.. its quite telling.
But it goes something like this; the less transmit Power/longer time recieving. You can Call this LPI mode.

On full or high Power transmiting/less time recieveing. You can Call this screaming crismas tree mode. For that is pretty much how it would look on a modern RWR and radar system today.
Again, the phrase; there is no free lunch.

There are absolutly a bunch of other stuff to take into account. There are pretty open Sources on Public domain. Once you understand this, you have basic understanding on that i'm trying to say.
Hell, you might come back and educate me after a few hours of Research.
Personaly, i think its dead boring material, so i don't bother..
I find radar interesting to the point where i can operate them. My shiny bling bling. But beyond that..

Edit:
The stuff about LPI not working so great under Heavy noise enviroment. Ofcourse this is all relative upon how much distortion you would recieve.

But if the signal get distorted over a certain degree, the incoming signal feed that was very usefull for the pilot a minute ago, is now all distorted and messed up. No supercomputer in the world can patch together the damage incoming signal. The noise is just too great. So then you need to pump up the transmiting signal power. and then its bye bye to LPI ability right there.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 23:47
by disconnectedradical
By the way, the T-50's radar is N036, not N050.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 23:53
by haavarla
disconnectedradical wrote:By the way, the T-50's radar is N036, not N050.


Perhaps.
It might in the first 14 pre-Production T-50, slated for deliveries. it may not. Nobody knows yet in here.
But what is known, is the work on AESA radars. And the T-50-53 and 54 has an AESA radar installed for test purpose.

It is a little unclear yet, but i think they are test Version of N050 AESA radars.
Ofcorse, it could also be IRBIS-E backend With a New ARRAY and some other minor modifications.. i don't know and neighter do anyone of you.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 23:58
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:By the way, the T-50's radar is N036, not N050.


Perhaps.
It might in the first 14 pre-Production T-50, slated for deliveries. it may not. Nobody knows yet in here.
But what is known, is the work on AESA radars. And the T-50-53 and 54 has an AESA radar installed for test purpose.


My point is that N036 is the AESA radar for the T-50. The aircraft's Sh121 complex is made up of N036-1-1 on the nose, two N036-1-2 on the cheek, 2 L-band on leading edge slats.

Irbis-E is N035.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 00:09
by haavarla
I did not know this. What is the two side faced AESA arrays called then? N-036-3?

This is confusing.. ah never mind. i thought you said the N035..
Yes you are right. The T-50 New radar is called N036.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 03:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
my understanding of LPI is that it is AESA Specific as each T/R module (or clusters for longer range) operates on a different frequency and this frequency changes over a thousand times a second. thus without the actual algorithm used it cannot be detected by a RWR as the pulse (duration and/or power) is basically indistinguishable from noise. The reason PESA cannot do this is because it entire array operates on one frequency at a time (even if this can be modulated rapidly, it is still 1600 T/R modules at 1 frequency instead of say 16 T/R modules at 100 frequencies. Based on what you mentioned above the Irbis-E has 4 channels meaning 400 T/R modules at 4 frequencies. That is the way I understand it.

As for skin finish, the Su-35S as seen lately looks smooth and shiny like you said. I was not just referring to skin itself, but the joints. This is about design and manufacturing tolerances and cannot be overcome without further R&D. This is why I said the last -10dB cost so much money.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 04:21
by munny
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:A plane flying even 40,000ft ABOVE the F-35 can be as close as 57nm and still be seen by EOTS if, and I emphasize IF, it can only look 5 degrees up and IF they are directly ahead


Found this interesting so I worked out the position of EOTS reflector within the unit and came up with this.

Image

Based on EODAS having a detection range of an aircraft sized vehicle of around 20km (saw this in a document by the manufacturer once), EOTS will lose LOS of its target at 26km, giving a possible gap in IR detection of around 6km directly from the front. If EODAS has a longer range (range against a large SAM launch is known and confirmed at 70km+) then there'd be no gap.

Assumed 35kft for F-35, 60kft for adversary.

Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 04:24
by sprstdlyscottsmn
what source did you see for detection range, I have never seen any range figures for EODAS? Not saying you are wrong I just want to educate myself.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 09:30
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:
"XanderCrews"] 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.


In the game of assuming, then i would give that a more than 50% yes.
It Depends on weather, jamming eniroment and detection rang ofcourse.

The 77YA6-DM Voronezh-DM is a low frequency radar operating in the UHF (Ultra High Frequency) section of the spectrum. The reported range of the radar is circa 4,200 kilometres (2,267 nautical miles).


Voronezh-DM is an early warning radar for detecting and tracking ballistic missiles. I fail to see how it's relevant in this discussion. While impressive sounding, it most probably couldn't even see B-52, 0 let alone F-35. This is because it's a dedicated for ballistic missile detection and tracking with very long range and this means it's not well suited (or actually at all) for detecting relatively low and slow flying fighter jets. Basically these radars have so large minimum range and minimum elevation that the fighter jet would almost always fly well below the radar horizon or within the radars blind range.

There are a lot of radars in Russian service that would be much better at detecting and tracking F-35. All these still need F-35 to come very close to them before it can be tracked even if it had no RAM/RAS that works in the wavelength (which is unlikely) and without any jamming interference . Those same radars could see your average 4th generation fighters at many times the range.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 10:46
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote: Look.. About the LPI term function. Try not to look at it as some magical see all hear all ability.

Simplistic said, even With the prossessing speed of modern radars, the rescivers would still have to listen over time, its a very complex signal prossessing work, and i do not have a Clue on the signal of radars.
Imagine all that software.. well one does not need imagine i Guess. Look at F-35 avionics.. its quite telling.
But it goes something like this; the less transmit Power/longer time recieving. You can Call this LPI mode.

On full or high Power transmiting/less time recieveing. You can Call this screaming crismas tree mode. For that is pretty much how it would look on a modern RWR and radar system today.
Again, the phrase; there is no free lunch.

The stuff about LPI not working so great under Heavy noise enviroment. Ofcourse this is all relative upon how much distortion you would recieve.

But if the signal get distorted over a certain degree, the incoming signal feed that was very usefull for the pilot a minute ago, is now all distorted and messed up. No supercomputer in the world can patch together the damage incoming signal. The noise is just too great. So then you need to pump up the transmiting signal power. and then its bye bye to LPI ability right there.


You do realize that power output isn't the key feature of LPI. The key elements of LPI are signal and waveform agility, narrow beams, scan duration, etc... in order to make it difficult for an enemy to distinguish the radar signal from background noise. Power output is but one element, but not nearly as important as these other techniques, of masking the signal. Even when operating in LPI modes, the radars of the F-35/22 can still detect targets at great distances (i.e. >100nm for a 1m^2 target), which will cover the majority of targets for at least several decades. As for using high power noise jamming, that's just asking for a passive missile shot,without having to emit at all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 11:14
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: my understanding of LPI is that it is AESA Specific as each T/R module (or clusters for longer range) operates on a different frequency and this frequency changes over a thousand times a second. thus without the actual algorithm used it cannot be detected by a RWR as the pulse (duration and/or power) is basically indistinguishable from noise. The reason PESA cannot do this is because it entire array operates on one frequency at a time (even if this can be modulated rapidly, it is still 1600 T/R modules at 1 frequency instead of say 16 T/R modules at 100 frequencies. Based on what you mentioned above the Irbis-E has 4 channels meaning 400 T/R modules at 4 frequencies. That is the way I understand it.

As for skin finish, the Su-35S as seen lately looks smooth and shiny like you said. I was not just referring to skin itself, but the joints. This is about design and manufacturing tolerances and cannot be overcome without further R&D. This is why I said the last -10dB cost so much money.



As for the pic of the PAK FA- not only is there a gap in all of the control surfaces, but with the engine nacelles, the exposed fan, the spherical IRST, etc... all of which increase RCS.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 11:30
by hornetfinn
cantaz wrote:How much does the backdrop (sky vs ground) affect detection against aircraft? If it's harder to pick out an aircraft against the terrain behind/under it, then it'd makes more sense to point the better sensor low to deal with the more challenging detection scenarios (if you can only choose one position).


Backdrop definitely affects detection and tracking of IR sensors and clear sky is the best as it's quite uniform in temperature and relatively cold, so warm/hot bodies are easily detected and tracked. Ground and water are not nearly as uniform in temperature and also usually have a lot of heat sources (especially land). For human eye it's easier to detect and track targets against sky background than ground background. For automatic image handling and target recognition the difference is probably not very big, especially with fully staring array like DAS system. I think the EOTS is positioned as it is because of the need to have full A/G targeting capability along with decent positioning for A/A. Without DAS it would have the drawback of not seeing targets that are close but above the F-35. With DAS this doesn't matter much and the positioning gives a lot of advantages as well in A/A. EOTS seems to have very large field of regard in all other directions but above the aircraft.. This means the overall field of regard is probably 2-3 times larger than in OLS-type sensor in PAK-FA.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 11:45
by munny
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:what source did you see for detection range, I have never seen any range figures for EODAS? Not saying you are wrong I just want to educate myself.


It was ages ago and not sure if I posted it here or not. I found somewhere the names of the two sub-contractors who NG engaged for building DAS. Pretty sure one was FLIR systems, just can't think of the other, and can't find the article that mentioned its name.

Anyhoo, I browsed through the product list and found a camera looking similar to the ones shown of eodas with same specs as those publicly known.

The spec sheet showed a bunch of detection and identification ranges. I'm not sure if it was miles or km, but pretty certain aircraft detection was 20(miles or km) and identification range was 7.

I have looked all over FLIR's site and its not there. Wish I could find the original article.

The 70km launch detection range can be confirmed by this video and a map of the launch site.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF29GBSpRF4

Image

Interesting that it detected a burnt out piece of debris from the 2nd rocket from quite a long way.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 14:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I remember that test.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 18:22
by Scorpion82
haavarla wrote:I did not know this. What is the two side faced AESA arrays called then? N-036-3?

This is confusing.. ah never mind. i thought you said the N035..
Yes you are right. The T-50 New radar is called N036.


There is obviously a lot that you don't know and understand. N-036 is the universal designation of the T-50's radar complex. The processors are designated N-036-01 and N-036-02 respectively. The nose radar is just called N-036 featuring a 900 mm x 700 mm array with a 15* inclination. And 1522 GaA based TRMs. The side arrays with (according the counters) 371 TRMs are designated N-036B and the leading edge arrays are designated N-036L. The later are for IFF (interrogation) and reportedly not for anything else. The Sh-121 MIRES (Multifunction Integrated Radio Electronic System) comprises both the NIIP designed N-036 radar complex as described above as well as the KNIRTI designed L402 ESM system. The later may include an active ECM capability or provisions for it. It's claimed that the N-036 will incorporate an EA capability. Whether it will be the sole active RF jamming capability of that aircraft or not remains to be seen. It's also evident that there is an active rearwards transmission array, whether it is just an unreported rearwards aperture as part of the N-036 is not know, but likely given the size of the radome.

Btw what makes you sure the N-036 will outperform the N-035? Just by its virtue of being newer and employing AESA technology? You surely need to learn quite some things!

Concerning LPI it's just a generalised term describing techniques that are emplyoed to lower probability of detection. Adaption of transmission power to the needs is one way to do it, random frequency hoping over a broad frequency range or limiting transmissions into areas of interest are others to mention the most prominent techniques. AESA technology is particularly well suited for this due to multi beam forming capabilities, however this requires a suitable multichannel receiver and when I say multichannel I'm not talking about just 3 or 4, but many more channels. Only this permits simultaneous processing of several beam returns. LPI as such is merely a question of software i.e. search volume and track management. That the makers of the US 5th gens are particularly vocal about it is primarily owed to the general nature of LO technology and it certainly matters even more on a dedicated LO design (I call it LO as a generality here) than on other platforms. Even M-Scan radars can offer LPI capabilities, but the physical limitation of the technology sets more stringent limits and certain techniques such as multi target tracking while searching with dedicated beams or at least rapid transition through near instantaneous high precision beam pointing with adapted time sharing and tailored dwell times.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 18:38
by Scorpion82
Concerning IR systems their range is dependent on many factors including targets actual IR signature not least dependent on airspeed and thrust setting, aspect angle, ambient conditions and backgrounds. Different wavelengths are differently well suited for varying conditions common are either long wave for IRSTs and mid wave for FLIRs. The Russians have nonetheless settled for medium wavelengths on their IRSTs and EOTS does so as well, mainly as it is a FLIR in the first place (a development of the Sniper TGP). The range figures floating around the public are mostly theoretical best case figures that are rarely achieved, mostly not even approached in reality. Thepractical values are often enough just about 1/4 to 1/3 of the published best case figures.

Goncerning BVR combat between LO designs such as the T-50 and F-35 for example a cruical factor commonly ignored here is the POI of ARH guided AAMs emplyoed by these types such as the AIM-120C7/D or RVV-SD. Statistically radar guided AAMs have a miserable PK. While it has been growing constantly, the last figures from OAF for the AIM-120B/C show a somewhat above 50% PK against a hopefully outmatched opponent. While the PK may have risen further viz a viz the same threat level, it's rather questionable that the PK is even remotely a good as often assumed in exercises or by the internet crowd.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 04:00
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: The F-35 will no more have to abandon its mission than a Su-35 would. The Pak-Fa is in my opinion the greatest fighter jet ever built outside of the U.S. It completely outclasses all 4.5 gen aircraft. I would even worry about the IR blind F-22 having to go head to head, but I believe the F-35 has the finest sensor suite ever assembled in one aircraft.


Just to add to this, probably the reason why the F-22 seems to have no plans to get IR sensors and seems to concentrate more on data sharing technologies is because the F-22 & F-35 are designed to work together.

The sensor packed F-35s will provide the inteligence to compliment the SA of the kinemtaically superior Raptors who can go toe to toe with the T-50.

In a hypothetical air war against Russia, the F-35 will be the brain and the F-22 will be the brawn.

The top 5 most dangerous fighters in the 2020 arena (in my oppinion) would be
1. F-22
2.PAK-FA
3.F-35
4.Su-35BM
5.Typhoon
P.S.
I'm not de emphasizing the superior capability of the Raptor to collect intelligence on its own as I believe the APG-77 is the worlds best A/A radar, but it would need the F-35s help if it wants IR intel and more SA on ground threats as well as 360 coverage

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 10:50
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:Concerning LPI it's just a generalised term describing techniques that are emplyoed to lower probability of detection. Adaption of transmission power to the needs is one way to do it, random frequency hoping over a broad frequency range or limiting transmissions into areas of interest are others to mention the most prominent techniques. AESA technology is particularly well suited for this due to multi beam forming capabilities, however this requires a suitable multichannel receiver and when I say multichannel I'm not talking about just 3 or 4, but many more channels. Only this permits simultaneous processing of several beam returns. LPI as such is merely a question of software i.e. search volume and track management. That the makers of the US 5th gens are particularly vocal about it is primarily owed to the general nature of LO technology and it certainly matters even more on a dedicated LO design (I call it LO as a generality here) than on other platforms. Even M-Scan radars can offer LPI capabilities, but the physical limitation of the technology sets more stringent limits and certain techniques such as multi target tracking while searching with dedicated beams or at least rapid transition through near instantaneous high precision beam pointing with adapted time sharing and tailored dwell times.


This is all true. There are MSA and PESA radars with pretty decent LPI capability. Examples are original ALQ-181 radar for B-2 which was PESA and Saab Pilot radar which was MSA. They are all rather low powered and relatively short ranged and their technology would not be good for a fighter radar. While MSA and PESA fighter radars can have some LPI properties, it'd be pretty impossible to have anywhere near the LPI capabilities possible with AESA technology. I'd say it's similar difference than aircraft having some stealth properties (like EF Typhoon or Dassault Rafale) and true stealth aircraft (like F-22 or F-35). AESA also offers way more development potential than any other radar technology. I'd say that if T-50 uses PESA radar, it'd be at severe disadvantage in RF stealth even if it had F-22 like stealth capabilities against other radars.

For example a conventional 5-20 kW (fighter sized) radar without any LPI features can be detected by average ESM from several hundreds of kilometers away and high-end ESM can detect it thousands of kilometers away. A radar with similar capabilities and some LPI features can be detected by the same ESM receiver at half or maybe third or even quarter of that range and might be also harder to identify and accurately locate, thus giving it a nice advantage compared to non-LPI radar but still detectable at relatively long distances and being still easily detectable by high-end ESM receivers. A true LPI radar might be detected at ranges only fraction of the radar with only some LPI characteristics and would likely be totally undetectable by older ESM receivers. They'd also be much more difficult to identify and track as AESA LPI radars can change their transmission parameters so widely. Basically you have to detect it again and again to be able to track it and that'd be very difficult even with very high end ESM systems.

I think it's pretty safe to say that AN/APG-81 will be much more advanced radar than any potential AESA radar installed on PAK-FA. This is because Russia cannot produce very advanced T/R modules and their designs seem to be very similar now what US had about 20 years ago. Russia simply doesn't currently have the technology base or production capabilities to produce more advanced modules. I think it's pretty sure that T/R module and AESA development in general has not stood still and APG-81 will probably have more advanced features. I would not be surprised if it actually had longer detection and tracking distances compared to N-036 radar.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 14:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
On the note of advance T/R modules, isn't that why the -77 was upgraded with the T/R modules of the -81?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 19:44
by Scorpion82
zero-one wrote:Just to add to this, probably the reason why the F-22 seems to have no plans to get IR sensors and seems to concentrate more on data sharing technologies is because the F-22 & F-35 are designed to work together.

The sensor packed F-35s will provide the inteligence to compliment the SA of the kinemtaically superior Raptors who can go toe to toe with the T-50.

In a hypothetical air war against Russia, the F-35 will be the brain and the F-22 will be the brawn.
I'm not de emphasizing the superior capability of the Raptor to collect intelligence on its own as I believe the APG-77 is the worlds best A/A radar, but it would need the F-35s help if it wants IR intel and more SA on ground threats as well as 360 coverage


The F-35's CONOPS was certainly designed with the F-22 in mind, but the same isn't true the other way round. The ATF was conceived more than a decade earlier and the F-22 was already well in the EMD phase when the JSF programme was launched. Development wasn't completed thus there was room for amendments, but if you look at the F-22 as it is today there is no serious interoperability with the F-35. Ofcourse the USAF will develop operational concepts to make best use of both systems and draw up tactics that ensure that both designs will complement each other, However there are several limitations. The idea that the F-35 would be the F-22's brain is flawed. Why? Because the F-35's RF systems are unlikely to outperform that of the F-22 and its IR systems won't be useful enough for the scenario you envisage! How is it supposed to work when the F-22 is supercruising at high altitude to counter possible threats, while the F-35 is operating at 15-20k ft lower altitudes and subsonic speed? The ranges at which the F-35 would detect a T-50 with its EOTS will be limited (the same is true the other way round) and if the F-22 should have a chance to intercept it can be no means fly much slower and lower as it would set it at a disadvantegeous position. The F-22 would thus likely be closer to the T-50 than the F-35 and the range performance is rather unlikely to be significant enough to give a timely warning to obtain a real edge.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 20:02
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:This is all true. There are MSA and PESA radars with pretty decent LPI capability. Examples are original ALQ-181 radar for B-2 which was PESA and Saab Pilot radar which was MSA. They are all rather low powered and relatively short ranged and their technology would not be good for a fighter radar. While MSA and PESA fighter radars can have some LPI properties, it'd be pretty impossible to have anywhere near the LPI capabilities possible with AESA technology. I'd say it's similar difference than aircraft having some stealth properties (like EF Typhoon or Dassault Rafale) and true stealth aircraft (like F-22 or F-35). AESA also offers way more development potential than any other radar technology. I'd say that if T-50 uses PESA radar, it'd be at severe disadvantage in RF stealth even if it had F-22 like stealth capabilities against other radars.


AESA offers a much greater potential in this area, as well as others, as I have outlined above already. Your analogy between reduced RCS vs VLO doesn't fit however. An AESA radar isn't automatically superior by the virtue of being AESA, but it definitely offers a much greater potential so it's potentially (and factually in several cases) an overall superior sensor. That MSA or PESA radars employing LPI techniques are performance limited and unsuitable for AA ops is nonsense, however, as there is more about LPI as I have outlined above and there is more you can do even with a MSA or PESA design. The AESA offers more potential in that area and if exploited it will yield better results.

For example a conventional 5-20 kW (fighter sized) radar without any LPI features can be detected by average ESM from several hundreds of kilometers away and high-end ESM can detect it thousands of kilometers away. A radar with similar capabilities and some LPI features can be detected by the same ESM receiver at half or maybe third or even quarter of that range and might be also harder to identify and accurately locate, thus giving it a nice advantage compared to non-LPI radar but still detectable at relatively long distances and being still easily detectable by high-end ESM receivers. A true LPI radar might be detected at ranges only fraction of the radar with only some LPI characteristics and would likely be totally undetectable by older ESM receivers. They'd also be much more difficult to identify and track as AESA LPI radars can change their transmission parameters so widely.


What people commonly ignore or are simply not aware of that the same physical principles apply to RWR/ESM as to radars. Antenna orientation wrt the emissions DOA, gain impacted by antenna technology, processing capability etc. as well as aperture size are all important factors. That a ESM/RWR will by default detect radar emissions at "several hundred km" or several times the distance the radar could detect its carrier is nonsense. It can be, but that's something that needs to be examined on a case by case basis. A "true" LPI radar will be detected early enough by a contemporary ESM. The nature of emissions is that they can be detected, you can only try to limit and minimise emissions which will reduce the chance for detection, identification etc.

Basically you have to detect it again and again to be able to track it and that'd be very difficult even with very high end ESM systems.


That's how tracking actually works in the first place! Tracking is nothing else than the correlation of sucessive detections!

I think it's pretty safe to say that AN/APG-81 will be much more advanced radar than any potential AESA radar installed on PAK-FA. This is because Russia cannot produce very advanced T/R modules and their designs seem to be very similar now what US had about 20 years ago. Russia simply doesn't currently have the technology base or production capabilities to produce more advanced modules. I think it's pretty sure that T/R module and AESA development in general has not stood still and APG-81 will probably have more advanced features. I would not be surprised if it actually had longer detection and tracking distances compared to N-036 radar.


That the US has a lead in that field is hardly disputable, but that Russia is where the US was 20 years ago is a gross exaggeration and hardly a sustainable argument! 20 years ago is 1993, how many AESA airborne fire control radars did the US even test at that time? The first AESA fire control radars hit the scene in 2000 (AN/APG-63V2) which was merely a technology demonstrator for operational evaluation. The AN/APG-77 was being flight tested somewhere around that time and entered service a bit later. It's TRMs had a power output of 4 W it's said, that of the Zhuk-MAE in 2007 had a power output of reportedly 6 W and we have 2013. Latest US TRMs offer a power output of ~20 W and more. The Russians are likely lagging behint here, the Europeans may as well, albeit not to the same extend. However the antenna itself is just one part of the radar. The Russians have decades long experience with operational E-Scan radars, albeit "just" PESA this experience is valuable as far as mode development for such a radar is concerned. The US did effectively start at null as far as fighter ESA radars are concerned. The Russians have a robust baseline. The US meanwhile has plenty of experience and I have no doubt that the AN/APG-81 will be the overall more capable radar, but the significance might not be as large as you imagine and that the radar will effectively outperform the one to be found on the (production) T-50 as far as raw range performance is concerned is for sure not a given. [/quote]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 mat

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 03:51
by zero-one
Scorpion82 wrote:The F-35's CONOPS was certainly designed with the F-22 in mind, but the same isn't true the other way round. The ATF was conceived more than a decade earlier and the F-22 was already well in the EMD phase when the JSF programme was launched. Development wasn't completed thus there was room for amendments, but if you look at the F-22 as it is today there is no serious interoperability with the F-35. Ofcourse the USAF will develop operational concepts to make best use of both systems and draw up tactics that ensure that both designs will complement each other, However there are several limitations. The idea that the F-35 would be the F-22's brain is flawed. Why? Because the F-35's RF systems are unlikely to outperform that of the F-22 and its IR systems won't be useful enough for the scenario you envisage! How is it supposed to work when the F-22 is supercruising at high altitude to counter possible threats, while the F-35 is operating at 15-20k ft lower altitudes and subsonic speed? The ranges at which the F-35 would detect a T-50 with its EOTS will be limited (the same is true the other way round) and if the F-22 should have a chance to intercept it can be no means fly much slower and lower as it would set it at a disadvantegeous position. The F-22 would thus likely be closer to the T-50 than the F-35 and the range performance is rather unlikely to be significant enough to give a timely warning to obtain a real edge.


True, if you had a very limited number of F-35s operating in an area, they wont be much help to the patrolling Raptors.

But the way I see it, a future air campaign would have multiple Lightnings from the AF, Navy and Marines all sharing info feeding the limited number of Raptors with vital SA information, both of air and ground threats.

Once a potential threat is detected, the Raptors can quickly get to the area and support the Lightnings if they are at a disadvantage.

Thus eliminating the need for unstealthy and vulnerable AWACS, J-Stars and other support aircraft

In effect The F-35s will act as radar and IR sensor extensions of the Raptors in the Battle space

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 08:17
by haavarla
In the real world. Both F-35 and F-22 will have a force multiplier support from AWACS, ELINT and every other possible intel assets on any mission.
You can Count in the Growler and other fighters like F-15 as well.
So its not only F-35 and F-22 that will search for bandit's.

The kind of scenarios you Draw here, sounds like the F-35 will do its mission seperated from F-22, and when the F-35 is detected and engaged or even being chased. The F-22 will engage the Warp drive and a within a few minutes materilize along side the F-35.

No, it can't be.
In modern Air Battle, With fast fliers like F-ak-Fa, Mig-31BM and Su-**. The F-22 would practical have be on the tail in the F-35 or even better, Ahead of the F-35 if trouble happens. No point being late in this game.

Even With Tanker capabilities, the mission range and mission duration won't be longer then 3-4 hours on average.
There will also be much less jets in the air now than we saw at DS, which mean F-35 and F-22 would have operate in larger airspace With even fewer units aviable.

The ranges of missiles are often misquoted or miscalculated in BVR. and if two jets intercept each other head on, the aviable time to react and Call in re-enforcement becomes painfully small.

This makes it even more important that the F-35 and F-22 work together an a compact mission flight plan.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 13:34
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:This is all true. There are MSA and PESA radars with pretty decent LPI capability. Examples are original ALQ-181 radar for B-2 which was PESA and Saab Pilot radar which was MSA. They are all rather low powered and relatively short ranged and their technology would not be good for a fighter radar. While MSA and PESA fighter radars can have some LPI properties, it'd be pretty impossible to have anywhere near the LPI capabilities possible with AESA technology. I'd say it's similar difference than aircraft having some stealth properties (like EF Typhoon or Dassault Rafale) and true stealth aircraft (like F-22 or F-35). AESA also offers way more development potential than any other radar technology. I'd say that if T-50 uses PESA radar, it'd be at severe disadvantage in RF stealth even if it had F-22 like stealth capabilities against other radars.


AESA offers a much greater potential in this area, as well as others, as I have outlined above already. Your analogy between reduced RCS vs VLO doesn't fit however. An AESA radar isn't automatically superior by the virtue of being AESA, but it definitely offers a much greater potential so it's potentially (and factually in several cases) an overall superior sensor. That MSA or PESA radars employing LPI techniques are performance limited and unsuitable for AA ops is nonsense, however, as there is more about LPI as I have outlined above and there is more you can do even with a MSA or PESA design. The AESA offers more potential in that area and if exploited it will yield better results.


True that AESA or any other technology doesn't automatically make radar better or worse. I wasn't clear enough on that. It's still highly likely that if two radars are being designed with LPI features at the same time that AESA radar will most likely be superior (even vastly so) to radar using MSA or PESA technology) in LPI capabilities. I'd say that all current fighter radars be they AESA; PESA or MSA have at least some LPI features.

What I meant with VLO/LO analogy was that most radars have LPI capabilities but would not be considered LPI radars. Same that many currently built fighters have some stealth features, but are not considered VLO fighters. They might not even be considered LO, even though they have many stealth features.

I was referring to the original APQ-181 (not ALQ-181, which was a typo) and Saab Pilot radar in that many LPI technologies used in them aren't (directly) well suited for fighter radar applications.

Scorpion82 wrote:
Basically you have to detect it again and again to be able to track it and that'd be very difficult even with very high end ESM systems.


That's how tracking actually works in the first place! Tracking is nothing else than the correlation of sucessive detections!


True to some degree. I was again not precise and clear enough. If you detect a radar that doesn't change the transmission parameters it's really easy to detect again (track) after initial detection is made as the ESM receiver can just tune to those transmission parameters. In this case the tracking would be possible pretty much at similar ranges as detection is. If the radar does change some of the transmission parameters (like frequency), this becomes more problematic as the ESM receiver can't just tune to those parameters but has to listen to wider bandwidth to catch the radar emissions again. This means lesser sensitivity for the ESM receiver and lessens the range the radar can be detected. With PESA and MSA radars this frequency range is much smaller (with current tech levels, usually 4-10 times smaller) than in AESA radars except in low powered solutions (which is why PESA and MSA LPI radars are low powered). So in this case the radar might be detected once in a while, but successful tracking would be possible only at significantly shorter ranges.

If the radar has more advanced LPI characteristics (let's call it LPI radar) and changes also other parameters (like modulation, waveform and radiated power) , the ESM receiver has even more difficult time as it cannot tune to any of those parameters. This would lead to still reduced detection, identification and tracking ranges. Also tracking could be broken much more easily even at short ranges.

Scorpion82 wrote:
I think it's pretty safe to say that AN/APG-81 will be much more advanced radar than any potential AESA radar installed on PAK-FA. This is because Russia cannot produce very advanced T/R modules and their designs seem to be very similar now what US had about 20 years ago. Russia simply doesn't currently have the technology base or production capabilities to produce more advanced modules. I think it's pretty sure that T/R module and AESA development in general has not stood still and APG-81 will probably have more advanced features. I would not be surprised if it actually had longer detection and tracking distances compared to N-036 radar.


That the US has a lead in that field is hardly disputable, but that Russia is where the US was 20 years ago is a gross exaggeration and hardly a sustainable argument! 20 years ago is 1993, how many AESA airborne fire control radars did the US even test at that time? The first AESA fire control radars hit the scene in 2000 (AN/APG-63V2) which was merely a technology demonstrator for operational evaluation. The AN/APG-77 was being flight tested somewhere around that time and entered service a bit later. It's TRMs had a power output of 4 W it's said, that of the Zhuk-MAE in 2007 had a power output of reportedly 6 W and we have 2013. Latest US TRMs offer a power output of ~20 W and more. The Russians are likely lagging behint here, the Europeans may as well, albeit not to the same extend. However the antenna itself is just one part of the radar. The Russians have decades long experience with operational E-Scan radars, albeit "just" PESA this experience is valuable as far as mode development for such a radar is concerned. The US did effectively start at null as far as fighter ESA radars are concerned. The Russians have a robust baseline. The US meanwhile has plenty of experience and I have no doubt that the AN/APG-81 will be the overall more capable radar, but the significance might not be as large as you imagine and that the radar will effectively outperform the one to be found on the (production) T-50 as far as raw range performance is concerned is for sure not a given.


By 1993 US had tested prototypes for AESA fighter control radars, for the YF-22 and YF-23. Of course they were prototypes, but current Russian AESA designs doesn't seem to be any more than that. First operational US AESA radars did hit the scene 13 years ago, but there are currently no operational Russian AESA radars at all and it might well be year 2020 before that happens. Current versions of Zhuk-AE have T/R modules with 5W peak output power. I've not seen any news about them having higher output power to date. O

Yes, it's not given that APG-81 will outperform the radar in PAK-FA, but the reverse is also true. It doesn't have that much bigger antenna (APG-81 antenna is not exactly small) and as you noted, T/R module design and production capabilities are way behind US and also European producers. While Russia has very nice experience producing radars and PESA radars, they also have some rather serious constraints in producing AESA radars. They'd have to make very significant leaps in technology to be able to match let alone exceed the likely raw performance of APG-81. Of course at some point they will, but then again it's likely that APG-81 have been upgraded by then.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 13:53
by bigjku
A huge portion of what makes AESA radars so useful is really the programing behind them. And to me that is where new players will suffer. As an instrument they are inherently flexible instruments and can be programed to do their various jobs in a huge variety of ways. The US lead is in part in the technology used for the array but also is very large in the back end programming of the units. They can build off a couple generations and lots of practical use with programing the radar's functionality.

This is one of the issues I had with the Eurofighter AESA as well. Just putting the front end into the plane is great. But the F-35 is building off F-22, F-15 and F-18 experience with such units where Eurofighter is starting from scratch. What modes of operation will be ready and when? How effective will they be?

The PAK-FA will suffer from many similar issues I would think.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 14:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Thanks to everyone here for their input on LPI, T/R Modules, etc. This has been a far more interesting discussion and I am learning more about radar abilities and limitations.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2013, 14:25
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:True that AESA or any other technology doesn't automatically make radar better or worse. I wasn't clear enough on that. It's still highly likely that if two radars are being designed with LPI features at the same time that AESA radar will most likely be superior (even vastly so) to radar using MSA or PESA technology) in LPI capabilities. I'd say that all current fighter radars be they AESA; PESA or MSA have at least some LPI features.


Fully agree on this, albeit it has little to do with what I was talking about.

What I meant with VLO/LO analogy was that most radars have LPI capabilities but would not be considered LPI radars. Same that many currently built fighters have some stealth features, but are not considered VLO fighters. They might not even be considered LO, even though they have many stealth features.


Ok.

I was referring to the original APQ-181 (not ALQ-181, which was a typo) and Saab Pilot radar in that many LPI technologies used in them aren't (directly) well suited for fighter radar applications.


Depends on the techniques employed. The APQ-181 was designed as an AG radar anyway. The Saab Pilot radar that you are talking about is unknown to me.

True to some degree. I was again not precise and clear enough. If you detect a radar that doesn't change the transmission parameters it's really easy to detect again (track) after initial detection is made as the ESM receiver can just tune to those transmission parameters. In this case the tracking would be possible pretty much at similar ranges as detection is. If the radar does change some of the transmission parameters (like frequency), this becomes more problematic as the ESM receiver can't just tune to those parameters but has to listen to wider bandwidth to catch the radar emissions again. This means lesser sensitivity for the ESM receiver and lessens the range the radar can be detected.


I agree with the general conclusions you draw here. But ESM receiver "tuning" is relative. ESM systems are designed to cover a broad frequency range, any possible tuning is limited by this requirement alone. You may assign some more slots listening to a specific frequency band, but you won't listen at one only. What's more important here is that the frequency bandwidth used by fire control radars is considerably smaller than that of the ESM receiver. The idea that you can evade detection of a contemporary ESM receiver is by thus questionable at best. Tracking and identification will become more difficult, especially the latter. The former can be dealt with relatively easily, albeit not immediately as it is possible against emitters that are operating with a narrow set of repeating parameters.

With PESA and MSA radars this frequency range is much smaller (with current tech levels, usually 4-10 times smaller) than in AESA radars except in low powered solutions (which is why PESA and MSA LPI radars are low powered). So in this case the radar might be detected once in a while, but successful tracking would be possible only at significantly shorter ranges.


That modern AESA radars usually offer a much greater frequency coverage than earlier MSA radars has more to do with the advances made in technology in the meantime. It's not the AESA technology in itself that widens the frequency range.

If the radar has more advanced LPI characteristics (let's call it LPI radar) and changes also other parameters (like modulation, waveform and radiated power) , the ESM receiver has even more difficult time as it cannot tune to any of those parameters. This would lead to still reduced detection, identification and tracking ranges. Also tracking could be broken much more easily even at short ranges.


Generally true, but it must be kept in mind that there are restrictions in varying these parameters as radar performance will suffer as well, albeit detectability might become lesser. The waveforms are typically adapted to cater for different target geometries and backgrounds. The transmission power is adapted to be "as weak as possible, but as strong as necessary". The range within those parameters can be adjusted is limited, unless you accept a stark performance degradation.

By 1993 US had tested prototypes for AESA fighter control radars, for the YF-22 and YF-23. Of course they were prototypes, but current Russian AESA designs doesn't seem to be any more than that. First operational US AESA radars did hit the scene 13 years ago, but there are currently no operational Russian AESA radars at all and it might well be year 2020 before that happens. Current versions of Zhuk-AE have T/R modules with 5W peak output power. I've not seen any news about them having higher output power to date. O


That's rather questionable. Flight testing of the AN/APG-77 began somewhere around 1997 aboard the Boeing 757 avionics testbed for the F-22. That's at best ten years earlier than the Russians who started flight testing of the Zhuk-MAE onboard the MiG-35 demonstrator in early 2007. The reported power output for the TRMs was 6W afaik and that's from the original demonstrator IIRC. That's 6 years. As said that the Russians are lagging behint is known and not disputed by me, but you appear to overexaggerate this massively.

Yes, it's not given that APG-81 will outperform the radar in PAK-FA, but the reverse is also true. It doesn't have that much bigger antenna (APG-81 antenna is not exactly small) and as you noted, T/R module design and production capabilities are way behind US and also European producers. While Russia has very nice experience producing radars and PESA radars, they also have some rather serious constraints in producing AESA radars. They'd have to make very significant leaps in technology to be able to match let alone exceed the likely raw performance of APG-81. Of course at some point they will, but then again it's likely that APG-81 have been upgraded by then.


I don't know what the dimensions of the APG-81's aperture are or how many TRMs are populating it, but it's pretty save to say that the much larger T-50 will sport a larger aperture, which means a potentially greater performance as far as potential power output and antenna gain through aperture size is concerned. But raw range performance alone does not define overall radar performance and capability. Bigjku put up a very important point, software. The hardware is just the enabler, it will also set the limits, but the best hardware is useless without appropriate software to exploit its potential. It is this area where the US has a clear lead due to 13 years of operational experience with several different designs. That the Russians have a long and more thourough experience with PESA designs (I know that both the B-1B and B-2 were fitted with such radars, but no fighters) is of relevance in thus far that the beam agility capabilities are known by the Russians and already exploited by their respective designs and the step from PESA to AESA is easier in this respect than the step from MSA to AESA. The former has been chosen by Russian and French, the later by the Americans, Sweds, British etc.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2013, 17:02
by haavarla
Look at that deflection on right LEVCON!!

http://russianplanes.net/id118924

Probably at lower speed, but still, impressive.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 08:27
by munny
Confirmation there is no joint treatment on the trailing edge on top of the lerx. Looks like they have some issues to resolve with surface discontinuity scattering. I wonder at what point it goes from LO to merely "reduced signature" ala-super hornet?

From a scientific perspective, why is it impressive?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 11:45
by haavarla
munny wrote:Confirmation there is no joint treatment on the trailing edge on top of the lerx. Looks like they have some issues to resolve with surface discontinuity scattering. I wonder at what point it goes from LO to merely "reduced signature" ala-super hornet?

From a scientific perspective, why is it impressive?


Quoting the last first:
It is impressive cause the LEVCON is quite large on its Control surface area.
Extra Control surfaces gives far better Pros than Cons for a Whole number of reasons.
Hense its impressive on a Aerodynamical perspective, wouldn't you agree?

Again, too early to say anything about Skin quality.
Besides, when the LEVCONS deflect this much, i'd say the Pak-Fa is very much engaged in WVR.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 11:55
by count_to_10
munny wrote:Confirmation there is no joint treatment on the trailing edge on top of the lerx. Looks like they have some issues to resolve with surface discontinuity scattering. I wonder at what point it goes from LO to merely "reduced signature" ala-super hornet?

From a scientific perspective, why is it impressive?

:?:
I thought the best case scenario for the PAK-FA was that it would just about match a clean super hornet.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 13:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
but UNLIKE a Super Hornet, it can go to war with that RCS and would have loads of gas.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 14:29
by munny
Interesting angle re: the earlier discussion on F-35 EOTS FOR. Like the signs we get on trucks here "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". Looks like the camera could go a bit higher without losing LOS of EOTS' internal reflector too.

Image

Not a blunt leading edge to be seen either, lovely to look at the attention to detail and stealth design maturity.

Image

This, not so much.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 14:29
by munny
....

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 14:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
wow, nice shot. And about the T-50... yeah, they would need to completely re-design their entire manufacturing line and production methods in order to achieve the level of LO required to threaten the F-35. A threat to 4th Gen planes? sure!

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 17:52
by tacf-x
I love how the T-50 uses rivets and other outdated methods of fabrication. Those rivets can't be good for the boundary layer for obvious reasons.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 18:22
by haavarla
tacf-x wrote:I love how the T-50 uses rivets and other outdated methods of fabrication. Those rivets can't be good for the boundary layer for obvious reasons.


About that Picture Munny posted above. The T-50 was out on its Primer coating. Which is the way Sukhoi makes the first test flight. After it passes those test flight it get a Paint work done.

Fail..
It would be like the F-22 in its Primer coating, and goes:
oh look, Buckets of Rivets, it must be outdated methods of fabrication for sure.. :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 18:31
by Scorpion82
count_to_10 wrote: :?:
I thought the best case scenario for the PAK-FA was that it would just about match a clean super hornet.


And who comes up with such nonsense? Seriously do some of you chaps ever use your brains?

+1 with Haavarla's last post.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 18:46
by sferrin
haavarla wrote:
tacf-x wrote:I love how the T-50 uses rivets and other outdated methods of fabrication. Those rivets can't be good for the boundary layer for obvious reasons.


About that Picture Munny posted above. The T-50 was out on its Primer coating. Which is the way Sukhoi makes the first test flight. After it passes those test flight it get a Paint work done.


And you think slapping a coat of paint on it is going to change the geometry? :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 19:09
by haavarla
sferrin wrote:
haavarla wrote:
tacf-x wrote:I love how the T-50 uses rivets and other outdated methods of fabrication. Those rivets can't be good for the boundary layer for obvious reasons.


About that Picture Munny posted above. The T-50 was out on its Primer coating. Which is the way Sukhoi makes the first test flight. After it passes those test flight it get a Paint work done.


And you think slapping a coat of paint on it is going to change the geometry? :lol:


apparently not..

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 894#224894

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... b-bf-4.jpg



Looking closly on those Hi-res, which sadly aren't even good for Close-up pics, but it would have to prove my point once again..

Oh look! I can spot more rivets than i can Count!
And what's that in the side of the cockpit? a Pitot tube as well!
Oh look, the "Jabba the Hut " shows its geometry belly!

The Fabrication Methods must be freakin ancient .. :roll:

Seriously People..

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 00:17
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote: :?:
I thought the best case scenario for the PAK-FA was that it would just about match a clean super hornet.


And who comes up with such nonsense? Seriously do some of you chaps ever use your brains?



Neurotech who is basically encyclopedia super hornet here, in another PAK-FA thread made a solid case as to why the Pak-FA has some RCS issues. Even Carlo Kopp who tried to endow the PAK-FA with super abilities admitted its lacking in RCS and needs redesign. There have been rumors that the Russians are unhappy with the frontal RCS. They may not have the funding to improve the design though. Its also in there best interests to ensure that isn't mentioned for obvious reasons if they can't afford to improve it.

haavarla wrote:
Oh look! I can spot more rivets than i can Count!
And what's that in the side of the cockpit? a Pitot tube as well!
Oh look, the "Jabba the Hut " shows its geometry belly!



Resorting to name calling?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 00:28
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:Resorting to name calling?


Pretty much all he's got in this case. :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 01:26
by count_to_10
So, aren't they both billed as having a .1 m^2 RCS?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 03:04
by sprstdlyscottsmn
so a carefully area ruled carriage of 2000#class internal weapons makes it geometry belly? cross section would have been bigger if they made it flush ala F-22

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 09:14
by haavarla
XanderCrews"]
Scorpion82 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote: :?:
I thought the best case scenario for the PAK-FA was that it would just about match a clean super hornet.


And who comes up with such nonsense? Seriously do some of you chaps ever use your brains?



Neurotech who is basically encyclopedia super hornet here, in another PAK-FA thread made a solid case as to why the Pak-FA has some RCS issues. Even Carlo Kopp who tried to endow the PAK-FA with super abilities admitted its lacking in RCS and needs redesign. There have been rumors that the Russians are unhappy with the frontal RCS. They may not have the funding to improve the design though. Its also in there best interests to ensure that isn't mentioned for obvious reasons if they can't afford to improve it.


How convenient. You guys allways take a crap at Carlo Kopp. But when he Points out something thats doesn't involve the F-35, but other jets its suddenly gospel truth!

Double standards anyone?

Pls show me this rumors, i could use a good laugh by now.

[haavarla"]

Oh look! I can spot more rivets than i can Count!
And what's that in the side of the cockpit? a Pitot tube as well!
Oh look, the "Jabba the Hut " shows its geometry belly!




Resorting to name calling?


Didn't mean to insult the F-35.. my bad :)

Seriously, my point still stand. You guys have as little knowledge about RCS signal managment as my 9 year old daughter. Atleast i'm not bothering posting any retarded eyeballing claims about these subject.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 11:28
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:I don't know what the dimensions of the APG-81's aperture are or how many TRMs are populating it, but it's pretty save to say that the much larger T-50 will sport a larger aperture, which means a potentially greater performance as far as potential power output and antenna gain through aperture size is concerned. But raw range performance alone does not define overall radar performance and capability. Bigjku put up a very important point, software. The hardware is just the enabler, it will also set the limits, but the best hardware is useless without appropriate software to exploit its potential. It is this area where the US has a clear lead due to 13 years of operational experience with several different designs. That the Russians have a long and more thourough experience with PESA designs (I know that both the B-1B and B-2 were fitted with such radars, but no fighters) is of relevance in thus far that the beam agility capabilities are known by the Russians and already exploited by their respective designs and the step from PESA to AESA is easier in this respect than the step from MSA to AESA. The former has been chosen by Russian and French, the later by the Americans, Sweds, British etc.


Software is definitely extremely important thing in radars (and military systems in general) and other very important thing is the hardware that crunches the data inside and outside the radar. I think these are the areas where system like APG-81 (and F-35 in general) excels. US generally has by far the best resources (personnel, money, equipment) for developing both software and hardware and as such usually does things way ahead of everyone else.

It's true that PAK-FA is much bigger aircraft than F-35 and as such most likely has larger radar aperture. Most info gives PAK-FA N036 radar the same antenna size as in APG-77 in about 900 mm. Most info also gives APG-81 antenna size of about 800 mm. Other public info also seems to fit quite well (such as T/R module count). If all other things are equal (power, sensitivity, antenna gain, frequency etc.), this would give about 25 percent higher power aperture product for N036 radar. On the other hand APG-81 could match the raw power performance by just having 25 percent more powerful T/R modules. This is not far fetched as US T/R module design and production capabilities are far ahead of Russian capabilities. If for example N036 has T/R modules with 10W output power, APG-81 would match the power aperture product simply by having 12.5W T/R modules. Of course more advanced T/R modules also tend to have superior sensitivity and gain figures. Given current and foreseeable state of T/R module development, it's rather likely that APG-81 will have at least comparable range performance and most likely will be more flexible and have more features. This doesn't mean that N036 radar is bad at all. It definitely will be an improvement in many important areas to existing Russian radars. It just won't automatically be longer ranged or even more powerful by being larger radar system. than APG-81.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 16:06
by XanderCrews
How convenient. You guys allways take a crap at Carlo Kopp. But when he Points out something thats doesn't involve the F-35, but other jets its suddenly gospel truth!


umm no. Thats not what I said. I was only making the point that even with Kopp trying to tell the world that the PAK-FA is the worlds greatest super fighter short of the F-22, there were things on it that were so glaring he couldn't ignore them, and actually mentioned them regarding RCS.

Double standards anyone?


Coming from the same person who says LM is lying every time it opens its mouth, even on things that it didn't build, while constantly linking to Sukhoi as "proof"?

Pls show me this rumors, i could use a good laugh by now.


How can I show you a rumor? its a rumor.

Didn't mean to insult the F-35.. my bad :)


of course you didn't. I mean you being a grown up, and a father of 9 year old you wouldn't reduce yourself to such childish remarks, right?

I have a really hard time pinning down your tone. When you make pokes at the F-35 I can't tell if its "all in good fun", honest criticism, or reactionary to something that was said about Russia/russian fighter. It would be nice to know. because sometimes it looks like any kind of valid criticism is met with spewing about evil LM and the F-35...

I'm just curious. Are we trying to get to learn and look from an unbiased perspective or is it all about whipping it out and measuring it in Arshins?

Seriously, my point still stand. You guys have as little knowledge about RCS signal managment as my 9 year old daughter. Atleast i'm not bothering posting any retarded eyeballing claims about these subject.


aren't you the same guy who was trying to convince me that the SU-35S had a vastly reduced RCS thanks to it not having an air brake, smooth paint, and "RAM in all the right places"

??

Or is my memory fuzzy?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2013, 19:09
by Scorpion82
XanderCrews wrote:Neurotech who is basically encyclopedia super hornet here, in another PAK-FA thread made a solid case as to why the Pak-FA has some RCS issues. Even Carlo Kopp who tried to endow the PAK-FA with super abilities admitted its lacking in RCS and needs redesign. There have been rumors that the Russians are unhappy with the frontal RCS. They may not have the funding to improve the design though. Its also in there best interests to ensure that isn't mentioned for obvious reasons if they can't afford to improve it.


That the Russians didn't opt for the highest level of all aspect VLO performance is neither a secret, nor news. But that's not the point here. The claim that advanced 4th generation designs will match the T-50's frontal aspect RCS is somewhat dubious to say the least. Sure the T-50 has not the ideal shape and it is surely less stealthy than its American counterparts (F-22 & F-35), but to suggest it's barely as stealthy as clean F/A-18E/F is a bold claim. From a shaping perspective the T-50 is definitely more compliant with low RCS requirements than any 4th gen design out there. The smoothness of the surface finish requires some attention to optimise the attainable results, but that's something we'll see when production aircraft are rolling of the line. The current prototypes serve different purposes and the attempt to moan about the "rivets" was the worst joke of all (I know it wasn't you to come up with it). The Russians could surely have come up with something else, but they obviously aren't willed to pay the price for it. Whether the aircraft matches or falls short of the RuAF requirements at this aspect isn't known to me, but their requirement certainly wasn't to match the F-22 or F-35 in this area.

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 09:15
by hornetfinn
I think PAK-FA will be quite good aircraft for Russia. It will give them experience with 5th generation technology and aircraft. It will give them aircraft that most likely has rather good edge against 4th generation jets, even the latest ones, due to potentially better stealth (if properly developed), potentially better sensor capability and higher raw performance in combat configuration due to internal weapons carriage and powerful engines. It could also have the edge against the Chinese 5th generation jets, especially given the troubles the Chinese are having with the suitable engines. It probably has rather considerable range on internal fuel, which is always good for vast Russian territory. It will also definitely be more of a threat against F-22 and F-35 than any previous Russian fighter.

I think both F-22 and F-35 will have the edge against PAK-FA due tot them most likely having better and more mature stealth qualities, sensors and sensor fusion. It seems as if history repeats itself pretty much like with F-15 and Su-27. Compared to F-22, PAK-FA will enter service about 15 years later, probably has roughly equal kinematic performance, likely has significantly larger internal fuel volume, likely has less advanced radar to F-22, but has IRST and helmet mounted sight which F-22 lacks. This seems very much like what happened with F-15 and Su-27. Of course the big difference is the stealth (RF and IR) features. It's likely that F-22 has superior IR stealth and of course currently also RF stealth as PAK-FA is nowhere near fully developed in that area. How far PAK-FA signature reduction efforts will go remains to be seen and of course a lot of things are impossible to compare like RAM and RAS performance or radar blocking features in intakes. I think at worst it can be very comparable to Eurocanards in RF signature. At best my guess is that it can have frontal RF signature somewhere between F-35 and clean Super Hornet with about equal or somewhat better side and rear aspect signature to clean SH (unless there are really radical design changes).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 13:02
by munny
Scorpion82 wrote:The claim that advanced 4th generation designs will match the T-50's frontal aspect RCS is somewhat dubious to say the least.


I don't see too much issue with the statement that a T-50 has a similar frontal RCS to a clean F/A-18F?

T-50 has the same number but larger leading edges than the rhino
T-50 has rounded leading edges (the actual subject of my earlier attached image), especially on the wings while the rhino has sharpened edges (except for the intake).
T-50's wings are more swept, while the F-18's lerxes are more swept.
T-50 has a rounded IRST mounted on the front which also forms a dihedral corner reflector with the nose cone
T-50 has a larger nose cone cross section
Both have an exposed canopy frame (surface discontinuity scattering)
Both have canted, intake leading edges
Both have cavities between the intake and airframe that are not ideal (resonance)
Both have numerous pitots, probes...etc
Both use a moderate level of surface edge serrations to reduce travelling waves reflecting back to the source
Both use a partially serpentine intake tunnel with radar blocker. T-50's blocker is more exposed and larger (hence greater total leading edge length)

Image

Image

From the side, of course the T-50 is better but with the issue with its inconsistent and some almost vertical surface angles, even with modern RAM the difference between the two aircraft is academic. Both would be seen at maximum range from ground radar. The T-50 will typically operate at higher altitude which exacerbates this stealth design flaw.

Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 14:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
the Pak Fa's advantage been it has a "go to war" RCS of an "airshow" SHornet. I agree with what hornetfinn said above, it is an excellent aircraft for the Russians and is a HUGE step forward and after several iterations the T-50 will be almost unrecognizable from what we see today. Just look at the Su-35S/Su-33/Su-34 compared to the T-10. RuAF has shown a tendency to get a plane out in service and then upgrade the baseline as time goes on, while the US gets a plane out in service and then makes a few upgrades (F-16 notwithstanding) while planning the next airframe. Of course I am referring to fighter aircraft here.

Basically I would not be surprised if in 20 years the T-50 line is a MAJOR threat to F-22 and F-35. But by then the US will be fielding F/A-XX

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 16:35
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:. Sure the T-50 has not the ideal shape and it is surely less stealthy than its American counterparts (F-22 & F-35), but to suggest it's barely as stealthy as clean F/A-18E/F is a bold claim. From a shaping perspective the T-50 is definitely more compliant with low RCS requirements than any 4th gen design out there.


How so?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 16:58
by XanderCrews
Just look at the Su-35S/Su-33/Su-34 compared to the T-10.


I think it would make more sense to compare them not to the T-10 which lead to the Su-27 that then lead to the aircraft you mention above. :wink:

RuAF has shown a tendency to get a plane out in service and then upgrade the baseline as time goes on, while the US gets a plane out in service and then makes a few upgrades (F-16 notwithstanding) while planning the next airframe. Of course I am referring to fighter aircraft here.


Big picture, Russia with its myriad of Flanker Upgrades has a lot more to do with trying to create exportable aircraft to generate currency, and the fact that they didn't have the money to develop something previously. I'm sure if the F-22 got binned you would see a lot of new F-15 variants. The Flankers though impressive are born more out of necessity than preference of awesome upgrades. One could also make the case that Western fighter "get it right the first time" and don't require big upgrades to keep them in the game. Its also been a problem because as awesome as the new flankers are, Russia hasn't the cash to buy more than the occasional hand fulls of them. Being able to upgrade your fleet with new versions is a brilliant plan, providing you can afford the upgrades of course and the logistics don't become a problem. This is also an industry coming from the bad days of the USSR and command economy, with an emphasis on numbers rather than quality. The West never prescribed to those theories. Money and procurement differences created different solutions.

I'm not trying to take away from Russia, I'm just trying to say a lot of this is born out of necessity (mother of invention after all) rather than a brilliant plan to upgrade Flankers to the Su-35S back in the days of T-10 test flights 40 years ago.

Basically I would not be surprised if in 20 years the T-50 line is a MAJOR threat to F-22 and F-35. But by then the US will be fielding F/A-XX


I would be. Its going to require major upgrades and these won't be as simple as the Flankers as Stealth Shaping is a big deal and is hard to alter. That intake has been mentioned before, and thats more than just adding bigger fins like Flanker.

I don't think its as clearly defined as a "MAJOR threat" honestly. Its a threat of course but no more than a Flanker was to an Eagle or a Viper and a Fulcrum. They will all have advantages in certain areas. The only question is if those advantages are in the right places.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 19:27
by Scorpion82
XanderCrews wrote:How so?


That's pretty much visible, canted front fuselage section, alignment of leading and trailing edges of the control surfaces, front fuse, front inlets and fins. More ideal angles plus internal weapons carriage. No 4th gen design provides this on such a scale. People are often looking at the rounded intakes and exposed engines and they are right on this, but these are some areas mainly affecting rear and bottom aspect RCS. Overall the T-50's shaping is more compliant with low RCS requirements.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 00:05
by munny
Scorpion82 wrote:That's pretty much visible, canted front fuselage section, alignment of leading and trailing edges of the control surfaces, front fuse, front inlets and fins. More ideal angles plus internal weapons carriage. No 4th gen design provides this on such a scale. People are often looking at the rounded intakes and exposed engines and they are right on this, but these are some areas mainly affecting rear and bottom aspect RCS. Overall the T-50's shaping is more compliant with low RCS requirements.


That refers to all aspect LO though, not specifically front aspect, eg. fuselage canting only impacts side rcs.
Edge alignment is for reducing RCS hotspots to predictable angles and doesn't improve the RCS of the individual edges themselves.

Engine blocker exposure is very much a front aspect issue. Rounded nacelles become an issue when one part of their side surface is angled almost vertically (85 degrees) as with the T-50.

If we compare to havaarla's "jabba the hut" F-35, every surface of its rounded lumps and bumps is angled to never exceed the 65 degrees that is consistent with the F-35's side surfaces.... therefore to a radar, if the F-35 is Jabba, the PAKFA is the giant space slug.

I wish POFacets had decent bistatic simulation ability because I believe the F-35's fuselage underside is actually a preferable design to prevent long range detection by bistatic radar than the F-22's. Will not be surprised if we don't see a flat bottom surface on future designs.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 17:07
by Scorpion82
munny wrote:That refers to all aspect LO though, not specifically front aspect, eg. fuselage canting only impacts side rcs.
Edge alignment is for reducing RCS hotspots to predictable angles and doesn't improve the RCS of the individual edges themselves.

Engine blocker exposure is very much a front aspect issue. Rounded nacelles become an issue when one part of their side surface is angled almost vertically (85 degrees) as with the T-50.

If we compare to havaarla's "jabba the hut" F-35, every surface of its rounded lumps and bumps is angled to never exceed the 65 degrees that is consistent with the F-35's side surfaces.... therefore to a radar, if the F-35 is Jabba, the PAKFA is the giant space slug.

I wish POFacets had decent bistatic simulation ability because I believe the F-35's fuselage underside is actually a preferable design to prevent long range detection by bistatic radar than the F-22's. Will not be surprised if we don't see a flat bottom surface on future designs.


The recent excursion was about the T-50's RCS in comparison to advanced 4th gen designs...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 19:54
by haavarla
munny wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:That's pretty much visible, canted front fuselage section, alignment of leading and trailing edges of the control surfaces, front fuse, front inlets and fins. More ideal angles plus internal weapons carriage. No 4th gen design provides this on such a scale. People are often looking at the rounded intakes and exposed engines and they are right on this, but these are some areas mainly affecting rear and bottom aspect RCS. Overall the T-50's shaping is more compliant with low RCS requirements.


That refers to all aspect LO though, not specifically front aspect, eg. fuselage canting only impacts side rcs.
Edge alignment is for reducing RCS hotspots to predictable angles and doesn't improve the RCS of the individual edges themselves.


In that case the top side of Pak-Fa have better LO vs F-35.
The T-50 has a much more flat topside by design, while the F-35is more curvy by design.

Engine blocker exposure is very much a front aspect issue. Rounded nacelles become an issue when one part of their side surface is angled almost vertically (85 degrees) as with the T-50.

If we compare to havaarla's "jabba the hut" F-35, every surface of its rounded lumps and bumps is angled to never exceed the 65 degrees that is consistent with the F-35's side surfaces.... therefore to a radar, if the F-35 is Jabba, the PAKFA is the giant space slug.


T-50 have a very slim side aspect, much better than the F-35. So now its a Giant Space slug..?
The T-50 has a smaller side aspect vs both SH and F-35.
The SH does not even have a Chinned cockpit section.
The All moving rudder on T-50 is smaller and have a better impact on LO and drag Level.
B.t.w. you forgot to mention the allmoving rudder on you list back there Munny ;)

I wish POFacets had decent bistatic simulation ability because I believe the F-35's fuselage underside is actually a preferable design to prevent long range detection by bistatic radar than the F-22's. Will not be surprised if we don't see a flat bottom surface on future designs.


This is very interesting. This is a completly New approach by you LM folks..
For years i've been Reading that anything else than an absolutly Flatt surface under the belly of a jet was a big RCS spoiler..
But wait! Now that the F-35 is up, the "flatt belly" suddenly does not matter.. WHAT?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 00:40
by XanderCrews
In that case the top side of Pak-Fa have better LO vs F-35


Great, fly it upside down.

T-50 have a very slim side aspect, much better than the F-35. So now its a Giant Space slug..?


Is this like when you looked at F-35 Afterburner plumes and you were suddenly able to measure IR signature based on what you saw in pictures? That was hilarious.

The T-50 has a smaller side aspect vs both SH and F-35.


??

The All moving rudder on T-50 is smaller and have a better impact on LO and drag Level.
B.t.w. you forgot to mention the allmoving rudder on you list back there Munny ;)


I heard for years that Big moving Control surfaces affected RCS in a negative way. Glad we can agree on that.

This is very interesting. This is a completly New approach by you LM folks..
For years i've been Reading that anything else than an absolutly Flatt surface under the belly of a jet was a big RCS spoiler..
But wait! Now that the F-35 is up, the "flatt belly" suddenly does not matter.. WHAT?


Completely flat? How does a B-2 fly? Or is it not stealthy?

Also you can drop the "LM folks" there. Plenty of Boeing people are questioning the RCS of the PAKFA using an older Boeing product as an example. I bet, if this site wasn't so fighter-centric we could get Northrop folks to weigh in on the PAKFA's RCS. It almost like the PAKFA has questionable RCS from all the "LM folks" all the way to Carlo Kopp. A very broad spectrum of people have their doubts. But I'm glad you could lump everyone into a convenient group. Who knew Carlo Kopp was such an F-35 fanboy?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 07:20
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
In that case the top side of Pak-Fa have better LO vs F-35


Great, fly it upside down.


The T-50 Field a more flat profile on the top aspect view, and the F-35 has a lot more curved top aspect view.
So you Concur about this. Good.

T-50 have a very slim side aspect, much better than the F-35. So now its a Giant Space slug..?


Is this like when you looked at F-35 Afterburner plumes and you were suddenly able to measure IR signature based on what you saw in pictures? That was hilarious.


My Guess is just as good as Yours on IR Spectrum, but Nice try there.
My point still stand on the side aspect.

The T-50 has a smaller side aspect vs both SH and F-35.


??


Care to put those Q into an actual reply, so that we can have a meaningfull debate here?

The All moving rudder on T-50 is smaller and have a better impact on LO and drag Level.
B.t.w. you forgot to mention the allmoving rudder on you list back there Munny ;)


I heard for years that Big moving Control surfaces affected RCS in a negative way. Glad we can agree on that.


You heard this, where? Don't tell me this is one of Your Rumors which seems to materilize out of thin air(you cannot give a singel Source).
It has been widly accepted that all moving Verticals Stabz are better for LO and drag Level.
Simply explained, you get fewer angled surfaces.
If you disagree, then why don't you try to refute my post instead of the normal, "Rumor" and what "you heard"..

This is very interesting. This is a completly New approach by you LM folks..
For years i've been Reading that anything else than an absolutly Flatt surface under the belly of a jet was a big RCS spoiler..
But wait! Now that the F-35 is up, the "flatt belly" suddenly does not matter.. WHAT?


Completely flat? How does a B-2 fly? Or is it not stealthy?


The "Flat belly" comes from the F-22 and has stuck for years as an absolutly cheddar issue on LO standpoint.

I' don't know how long you been around on Aviation forums. But you better do some history Research then.
B-2? Not sure what you mean by the B-2.

Also you can drop the "LM folks" there. Plenty of Boeing people are questioning the RCS of the PAKFA using an older Boeing product as an example. I bet, if this site wasn't so fighter-centric we could get Northrop folks to weigh in on the PAKFA's RCS. It almost like the PAKFA has questionable RCS from all the "LM folks" all the way to Carlo Kopp. A very broad spectrum of people have their doubts. But I'm glad you could lump everyone into a convenient group. Who knew Carlo Kopp was such an F-35 fanboy?


Why must People like you and Munny keep draging Kopp into every second post of Yours?
Don't see How it can possible prove any point of Yours.
We arent debateing the Boeing YF-23 or F-32 are we..
Lets keep this between F-35 and Pak-Fa.
Stop derailing this thread.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 07:49
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:I love how even though we equip every fighter aircraft with guns, and missiles are vastly improved, and we practice ACM all the time, and the JSF is going to be in service for the next 5 decades, which means we will get another half century of gun equipped fighters in the air, we still get to hear about a war that happened 50 years ago. I also love how guns ALWAYS work in these scenarios. They never jam or miss or anything. There are a lot of "hard lessons" we could take from Air combat in Vietnam, but they don't involve the gun, so the internet doesn't care. For example, Far more American Aircraft were lost to SAMs and ground fire than MiGs by a wide margin.


Easy :D, people are just concerned of how history sometimes repeats itself.

The US has always led the way in revolutionizing warfare, but a con of that is that they are practically going through uncharted territory, No one can tell if the new technology will actually work as in theory.

Consider how effectively the F-86s were during the Korean war, but after that, instead of developing new and better dogfighters, the US went on the opposite direction, developing big heavy interceptors with mediocre maneuvering requirements

the general consensus was, long range missiles would make close-in fighting obsolete, well it didn’t.
In the end, proper training, retrofits and upgrades saved the day.

Today, people are afraid of that history repeating itself, which is why the maneuvering characteristics of the F-35 are so closely monitored,

In my opinion, the Americans have learned their lesson well, and all fighters being developed today are equipped to fight in ALL TYPES OF SCENARIOS, be it close in, BVR, low and slow, high and fast.

This is epitomized in the F-22, but the F-35 also brings strong A-A characteristics to the table.

In an A-A fight the F-35s strengths are
-Situational awareness
-Stealth
-Weapons data link
-Subsonic acceleration
-Maneuverability

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 08:04
by haavarla
Pretty much agree on that Zero-one.

But the last point about -Maneuverability is debateble as a strenght on the F-35, if we were to compair it to other jets.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 12:37
by zero-one
Thanks Haavarla,

In regards to maneuverability, well thats why I put it last on my list, for now preatty much the only proof we have about the F-35s maneuverability is that it can point its nose 50 degrees AOA which is preatty high,

and Doc Nelson's statement that he can point the nose up or down and side to side after passing the stall point,

To me thats "post stall charactaristics" and according to Wikipedia, thats a trait of Supermaneuverable aircraft,

so that means, atleast in the post stall regeime, the F-35 may be considered supermaneuverable.

But I want to see more, turn radius, sustained and ist turn rates, for me to put it up there on my list with the Supermaneuverable club

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: can the f-35 match the pak-fa

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 13:22
by haavarla
The F-35ABC will Maneuver well enough. I'm not saying its a poor Air superiority jet.
But i'm not so sure we can Call its Maneuverbility a strenght eighter.

Agains the EF and Rafale loaded With four or six A2A missile, the F-35 would be in a tricky spot, trying to getg on their six.
We'll just have to wait for some future Red Flag a Guess..

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 13:37
by hornetfinn
I agree with zero-one. I think F-35 really doesn't have much true weaknesses (when fully operational), although like all aircraft it has it's own design compromises. It offers extremely good capabilities for both A/G and A/G combat.

I think compared to PAK-FA, F-35 will be superior in the following:
- Stealth (RF and IR)
- Situational Awareness (due to likely better sensors, sensor fusion and datalinking)
- A/G capabiltiites
- ISR capabilities
- EA capabilities
- Weapons and weapons inventory

I think PAK-FA will be superior in the following:
- Max. speed
- Supercruise speed
- Supersonic acceleration
- Supersonic range
- Maneuverability (in some regions)

I think they will be close to equal in the following:
- Subsonic range
- Subsonic/transonic acceleration
- Maneuverability (in most regions)
- Overall weapons load

Of course these are just my speculations and some may disagree with for example transonic acceleration. I think it's pretty certain that PAK-FA will be faster and have some maneuvering advantages due to TVC. I think it's also certain that F-35 will have superior stealth qualities, situational awareness capabilities and is a much better multirole aircraft. Of course there are a lot of things we don't know about either of these aircraft, but I'm just thinking about most likely capabilities of the aircraft.

I the unlikely event that F-35 and PAK-FA were to face each other in air to air combat, I see how F-35 would create huge problems for PAK-FA due to likely much better stealth, situational awareness and EA capabilities. Even in close combat F-35 sensor suite would mean much better SA fot the pilot, especially in situations any more complex than 1-on-1 during daytime. In BVR F-35 should detect and track PAK-FA much further away. Even with equal radar technology (which is unlikely) and having somewhat larger radar, PAK-FA would be at serious disadvantage given the likely large difference in RCS. Higher speed or acceleration would not be particularly useful in this scenario unless PAK-FA somehow gets rather good quality targeting info about the F-35s. Much lower RCS of the F-35 would mean that any jamming done by it would be more effective and more difficult to detect due to very low power levels needed. It would also mean more problems for enemy radar guided missiles to try to lock into F-35 and keep the lock lowering their pK by quite a bit. I see the engagements strongly favor the F-35 even if PAK-FA has some stronger performance figures.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 15:32
by XanderCrews
Agains the EF and Rafale loaded With four or six A2A missile, the F-35 would be in a tricky spot, trying to getg on their six.


In a dogfight? maybe. Any other time its not difficult for the aircraft that can't be seen to get on the six of the aircraft that can be seen. does a 6' o clock shot from miles out still count?

The T-50 Field a more flat profile on the top aspect view, and the F-35 has a lot more curved top aspect view.
So you Concur about this. Good.


That one is flatter on top than the other? Yes. Does that instantly make the Flatter plane harder to detect? no. If you think that though, maybe the pakfa should fly upside down to avoid detection.

My Guess is just as good as Yours on IR Spectrum,


No your guess was embarrassingly bad actually.,, unless you see in IR through a computer screen? (I didn't guess at all if you recall, I was questioning your methods)

but Nice try there.
My point still stand on the side aspect.


When you say "side aspect" are you talking about what Haavalra sees with his eyeballs on the computer, or what a radar sees? Because an F-5 has a "slim side aspect," to the human eye, but shows up just fine to radar. an F-117 has a bigger "side aspect" and doesn't show up nearly as easily. Which is why I wrote the question marks you see here:

The T-50 has a smaller side aspect vs both SH and F-35.


??


Care to put those Q into an actual reply, so that we can have a meaningfull debate here?


A meaningful debate? Coming from you that is rich. How is guessing about detection methods you don't understand meaningful debate? tell me about the side aspect.

You heard this, where? Don't tell me this is one of Your Rumors which seems to materilize out of thin air(you cannot give a singel Source).


I said it was rumor, relax. Did I ever boldly claim it was a fact based on my fanboy analysis of pictures? no.

It has been widly accepted that all moving Verticals Stabz are better for LO and drag Level.
Simply explained, you get fewer angled surfaces.


one veteran Super Hornet test pilot with thousands of hours in that aircraft. "These claims are technically inaccurate from my point of view as a professional test pilot," he says. "An aircraft with small control surfaces intended for stealth cannot produce such fantastical results in maneuverability; a little wing cannot produce a lot of lift period."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... net-382078

Boeing has also mentioned this before, trying to get digs at the F-35. That stealth aircraft need smaller control surfaces.

If you disagree, then why don't you try to refute my post instead of the normal, "Rumor" and what "you heard"..


Coming from the same guy who looks at pictures of afterburners and jumps to wild conclusions about IR detection? Or who exams "side aspects"? Now you complain about sources? wow. I wouldn't mind seeing more sources from you myself.

Haavalra, you seem to have the hardest time applying equal standards. This isn't key pubs, I'm going to call you on it.

This is very interesting. This is a completly New approach by you LM folks..
For years i've been Reading that anything else than an absolutly Flatt surface under the belly of a jet was a big RCS spoiler..
But wait! Now that the F-35 is up, the "flatt belly" suddenly does not matter.. WHAT?


Completely flat? How does a B-2 fly? Or is it not stealthy?


The "Flat belly" comes from the F-22 and has stuck for years as an absolutly cheddar issue on LO standpoint.

I' don't know how long you been around on Aviation forums. But you better do some history Research then.


"research" aviation forums history? Do I have to explain why what is said on aviation forums by fanboys based on misinterpretation doesn't help? Where should I start?

B-2? Not sure what you mean by the B-2.


does the B-2 have a completely "flat bottom"?

Stop derailing this thread.


You brought up the F-22. you even brought up other aviation forum claims up to try and prove... I have no idea. you assigned a stereotype based on things said years ago elsewhere by other people, and now you are concerned about others "derailing the thread"?

Lets just try having "an equal standard of evidence" from now on. So if you want to post Sukhoi company claims that is fine, but no whining about "LM claims". If you want to make big guesses about detectibility but demand proof of other conjecture, thats also a double standard. If you want meaningful debate, stop "opening the door" to other forms of evidence. If you want to talk about what was claimed years ago by the F-22 fans, people may also mention the F-22, or even other aircraft to prove what was said about the F-22. If you can make claims about VLO, Avionics, etc, while complaining about rumors, and denying what one company officially claims, while promoting another as solid truth no wonder the thread gets derailed. Don't be surprised when saying things like "you LM folks" quickly kills debate. And don't surprised that when you mention other aircraft, other people will mention other aircraft too.

tell ya what. How about you make some "ground rules" since you post in this thread often about what is allowed and what isn't? and we can have a meaningful debate. (Its not really about having a meaningful debate though. If it was you wouldn't be dragging what other people said years ago into it, or freaking out over a Rumor that was claimed to be a Rumor.)

Look I understand I can be abrasive, but one of my pet peeves is double standards. And bold conclusions being drawn from them. If you really care about an honest debate I look forward to that debate, if its about accusations and then playing the victim don't surprised at what happens in the debate. I am all for meaningful debate, I can argue my case like an adult instead of flipping out at any perceived injustice.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 15:40
by haavarla
hornetfinn wrote:I agree with zero-one. I think F-35 really doesn't have much true weaknesses (when fully operational), although like all aircraft it has it's own design compromises. It offers extremely good capabilities for both A/G and A/G combat.

I think compared to PAK-FA, F-35 will be superior in the following:
- Stealth (RF and IR)
- Situational Awareness (due to likely better sensors, sensor fusion and datalinking)
- A/G capabiltiites
- ISR capabilities
- EA capabilities
- Weapons and weapons inventory

I think PAK-FA will be superior in the following:
- Max. speed
- Supercruise speed
- Supersonic acceleration
- Supersonic range
- Maneuverability (in some regions)

I think they will be close to equal in the following:
- Subsonic range
- Subsonic/transonic acceleration
- Maneuverability (in most regions)
- Overall weapons load

Of course these are just my speculations and some may disagree with for example transonic acceleration. I think it's pretty certain that PAK-FA will be faster and have some maneuvering advantages due to TVC. I think it's also certain that F-35 will have superior stealth qualities, situational awareness capabilities and is a much better multirole aircraft. Of course there are a lot of things we don't know about either of these aircraft, but I'm just thinking about most likely capabilities of the aircraft.

I the unlikely event that F-35 and PAK-FA were to face each other in air to air combat, I see how F-35 would create huge problems for PAK-FA due to likely much better stealth, situational awareness and EA capabilities. Even in close combat F-35 sensor suite would mean much better SA fot the pilot, especially in situations any more complex than 1-on-1 during daytime. In BVR F-35 should detect and track PAK-FA much further away. Even with equal radar technology (which is unlikely) and having somewhat larger radar, PAK-FA would be at serious disadvantage given the likely large difference in RCS. Higher speed or acceleration would not be particularly useful in this scenario unless PAK-FA somehow gets rather good quality targeting info about the F-35s. Much lower RCS of the F-35 would mean that any jamming done by it would be more effective and more difficult to detect due to very low power levels needed. It would also mean more problems for enemy radar guided missiles to try to lock into F-35 and keep the lock lowering their pK by quite a bit. I see the engagements strongly favor the F-35 even if PAK-FA has some stronger performance figures.


If its an 1 vs 1 engagement, how can the F-35 Jam anyting without having an NGJ pod slung under the jet?

How can you seriously say Higher speed and Acceleration is not useful??
In this game, Speed is life! Ask any fighter pilot. It still hold water and will in the future too.

Your claim is wrong from start to end. Empty claim about radar performance, LO and every other specs you know nothing about.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 15:51
by XanderCrews
If its an 1 vs 1 engagement, how can the F-35 Jam anyting without having an NGJ pod slung under the jet?


Because it has jamming built in? the CMC claimed the F-35B had 85 percent of the capability of the Prowler, without any pod.

The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.


http://breakingdefense.com/2013/04/29/b ... -and-carr/

Your claim is wrong from start to end. Empty claim about radar performance, LO and every other specs you know nothing about.


great meaningful debate claim supported by evidence there, Haav. My favorite part is when you attacked him the individual, and claimed he "knew nothing." Even better as he seems to know more about the jamming...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 16:30
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
Just look at the Su-35S/Su-33/Su-34 compared to the T-10.


I think it would make more sense to compare them not to the T-10 which lead to the Su-27 that then lead to the aircraft you mention above. :wink:


That is not entirly correct.
First out was the T-10, which turned out to be an failure in terms of required performance.
After some major redesigning, came the T-10S, which turned into Su-27S/SK.

Then Came the T-10M, after a slow and painfull road, turned into the Su-35S.

The Su-27IB, after a very slow and painful road, turned into Su-34.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 17:19
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
Agains the EF and Rafale loaded With four or six A2A missile, the F-35 would be in a tricky spot, trying to getg on their six.


In a dogfight? maybe. Any other time its not difficult for the aircraft that can't be seen to get on the six of the aircraft that can be seen. does a 6' o clock shot from miles out still count?


The debated question was about Maneuverebility.

The T-50 Field a more flat profile on the top aspect view, and the F-35 has a lot more curved top aspect view.
So you Concur about this. Good.


That one is flatter on top than the other? Yes. Does that instantly make the Flatter plane harder to detect? no. If you think that though, maybe the pakfa should fly upside down to avoid detection.


So all the claims about flat angled surface(F-22 belly, F-117) was rubbish after all. I knew that, but its Nice hearing it from you.

This means that Curved surface aren't so bad for LO reduction after all.. you know sins F-35 is festered With curve shapes all around the airframe. :)

My Guess is just as good as Yours on IR Spectrum,


No your guess was embarrassingly bad actually.,, unless you see in IR through a computer screen? (I didn't guess at all if you recall, I was questioning your methods)


I said, when i posted it, that IT was just a silly claim as People eating LM pie about F135 Engine and Nozzle produce so little IR signature for no other explenation what so ever. Go back and reread what i posted.


but Nice try there.
My point still stand on the side aspect.


When you say "side aspect" are you talking about what Haavalra sees with his eyeballs on the computer, or what a radar sees? Because an F-5 has a "slim side aspect," to the human eye, but shows up just fine to radar. an F-117 has a bigger "side aspect" and doesn't show up nearly as easily. Which is why I wrote the question marks you see here:


I would say, both SH and F-5 shows up on radar due to the fact they have a dirty airframe(ext ordinance).

The T-50 however does have much of the same edge alignment as any other 5 Genjet out there. Only that the ruling area of F-35 is larger(fatter) vs T-50. We are talking about side aspect/profile now.


A meaningful debate? Coming from you that is rich. How is guessing about detection methods you don't understand meaningful debate? tell me about the side aspect.


Just did above. But i could again mention other stuff like All moving Verticals stabz which are smaller in size and deflect(angeled) more vs F-35


It has been widly accepted that all moving Verticals Stabz are better for LO and drag Level.
Simply explained, you get fewer angled surfaces.


one veteran Super Hornet test pilot with thousands of hours in that aircraft. "These claims are technically inaccurate from my point of view as a professional test pilot," he says. "An aircraft with small control surfaces intended for stealth cannot produce such fantastical results in maneuverability; a little wing cannot produce a lot of lift period."


Nice of you to produce a Source then. I read through it.
And you totaly misunderstud it. The smaller Horisontal Stabz on Pak-Fa deflects very little compaird to ordinary rudder Control surface.(unless it is at very slow speed)

Rudders like on F-35, which is also on SH b.t.w... have more angled surface(the stabz + the Control surface). The Pak-Fa has only one(the Whole rudder is the surface and it deflects very little for the same effect).

Particular from an side aspect is where such allmoving rudder gives away less RCS signature vs ordinary Rudder.


Boeing has also mentioned this before, trying to get digs at the F-35. That stealth aircraft need smaller control surfaces.


Again, see reply above.




You brought up the F-22. you even brought up other aviation forum claims up to try and prove... I have no idea. you assigned a stereotype based on things said years ago elsewhere by other people, and now you are concerned about others "derailing the thread"?


Just like you bringing up B-2, and Boeings YF-23 and F-32?

Lets just try having "an equal standard of evidence" from now on. So if you want to post Sukhoi company claims that is fine, but no whining about "LM claims". If you want to make big guesses about detectibility but demand proof of other conjecture, thats also a double standard. If you want meaningful debate, stop "opening the door" to other forms of evidence. If you want to talk about what was claimed years ago by the F-22 fans, people may also mention the F-22, or even other aircraft to prove what was said about the F-22. If you can make claims about VLO, Avionics, etc, while complaining about rumors, and denying what one company officially claims, while promoting another as solid truth no wonder the thread gets derailed. Don't be surprised when saying things like "you LM folks" quickly kills debate. And don't surprised that when you mention other aircraft, other people will mention other aircraft too.


I have no trouble With admiting Sukhoi's advs contain much of the same BS.
(That goes for all aviation manufactors).
But you see, i'm not the one posting Wild claims from Sukhoi. However others here are posting widely unchecked claims from LM.. you know, LM = Thruth!
What i do is refute those claims of Yours.

tell ya what. How about you make some "ground rules" since you post in this thread often about what is allowed and what isn't? and we can have a meaningful debate. (Its not really about having a meaningful debate though. If it was you wouldn't be dragging what other people said years ago into it, or freaking out over a Rumor that was claimed to be a Rumor.)


Forget it. If you can't produce any evidence to support(even some minor once) then you are only threading here on unbolstered claims. Hense no credibility.

This is not my style. You do not like my question every LM claims, sorry. Live With it.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 18:08
by Scorpion82
It's almost always better to start at 1+1 before you try out more complex equations and that's what's hampering most of these forum discussions, people like to debate complex subjects when they don't even understand the fundamental basics.

Maybe some of you chaps should try some simple experiments to get a better understanding on how things actually work.

Let's start with some simple basics about aerodynamics, lift, drag, thrust, weight the four most basic factors for any aircraft. If you want to understand how lift, drag and thrust works do the following. If you are the the fellow passenger in a car stick your hand out of the window and rotate it at a proper speed. You'll notice that if your hand is flat and aligned to the airstream (simulated 0° AoA condition) the drag is relatively low. Cant your hand so that the front of it goes upwards, you'll notice that your hand will go upwards (positive AoA) and that you'll need to apply more force to keep it in position. This will show you the important things: the greater the AoA the greater the lift and the greater the AoA the greater the drag. You'll also notice at sufficient speeds that if the AoA becomes to high it will become more difficult to keep your hand in position, not only due to drag, but because the air starts to separate and becomes more turbulant at your hand back, you'll likely notice your hand moving in a somewhat more unpredictable, uncontrolable fashion. What it will also show you is that the greater the speed the more force is required to keep your hand in position i.e. drag rises with speed. If you take something heavier in your hand while sticking the arm out of the window you'll quickly notice that more you'll need more force to keep your arm up (simulated lift/mass condition). The one or other will certainly know this, but I'm of the impression that quite a couple do not really understand this and this small experiment may help to get a better understanding.

Another simple experiment can be done to basically study the impact of surfaces on radar reflections. Take a rubber ball and throw it against different surface with different forms (plain surface, curved surfaces, bumpy surfaces etc.) do this from different directions and look in which direction the ball bounces of. You can also use multiple balls to get a better understanding of scattering effects.

Maybe the one or other should try out such relatively simple experiments to get a better understanding and then apply the lessons learned to the discussions. Simply repeating what the one or other has said or what the "majority" says is a pretty poor way of trying to debate something complex where an actual understanding of the subject is a must to in order to be able to draw any remotely relevant conclusions.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 19:19
by haavarla
I appreciate you input Scorp.

Your example about the hand out the vindow of a car is a very fitting one, if we look at the Vertical rudder of Pak-Fa and compair it vs F-35, SH or any other jet With the ordinary Rudder design layout.

You would have to bend(in a unatural way) Your palm/hand quite a bit to mimmic the Rudder of F-35.

With the Pak-Fa Rudders, you simply twist/rotate//deflect it, but you do not have to deflect it by much to get the same results as the Whole palm(rudder) function like an Control surface.

One drawback is ofcource that the Pak-Fa has two of them. Other jets have only one. There are pros and cons about having two rudder vs one rudder. But eighter way, they are smaller vs F-35's rudders, hense smaller Rudders, less drag and ruling area and less deflection on Control surface. And they are angled more vs F-35 Rudders.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 20:08
by Scorpion82
One problem with twin fins on modern fighters is that the vortices produced by the chins, LERX plus wings are very strong. That produces a lot of lift and increase rudder authority at low speeds and high AoAs. The drawback is the extra stress that the fin steuctures have to cope with. However better directional stability and yaw authority at very high speeds as well as low speeds and high AoAs are the benefits so it might well be worth the trade off viz a viz a single fin. A single fin is usually lighter and poses a lower front aspect RCS but from side aspect angles the straight fin is a huge reflector. The same is not true for canted fins where side aspect RCS is lower. From certain lower or higher side aspect angles canted fins may in fact have a greater RCS as the canted angle is a 90* angle from certain aspects as well. The rational, however, are those angles that are most relevant as they are the most likely ones to be exposed in combat. Hence the focus on frontal aspect reduction. Wrt all moving fins vs fixed fins with inset rudders, the former can achieve a similar yaw force at smaller size and/or with less deflections. Smaller size in turn cuts weight, drag and RCS. The greater RCS for the all moving fins applies in limited conditions only, primarily in conditons that are of little to no relevance where reduced signatures matters i.e. in dogfights where large deflections are required to provide yaw control at low speeds.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 20:17
by XanderCrews
The debated question was about Maneuverebility.


In that case you don't need to get on the six to fire a missile

So all the claims about flat angled surface(F-22 belly, F-117) was rubbish after all. I knew that, but its Nice hearing it from you.


child, please. stop trying to misquote me. I was never a part of the "flat only" crowd in the first place, so stop desperately trying to connect the dots and assign a position I never held , or reversing a position I never claimed in the first place to make me "look bad".

I said, when i posted it, that IT was just a silly claim as People eating LM pie about F135 Engine and Nozzle produce so little IR signature for no other explenation what so ever. Go back and reread what i posted.


I also pointed out that P&W makes the engine and they make the claims that LM sources, but I know details are hard.

I would say, both SH and F-5 shows up on radar due to the fact they have a dirty airframe(ext ordinance).
The T-50 however does have much of the same edge alignment as any other 5 Genjet out there. Only that the ruling area of F-35 is larger(fatter) vs T-50. We are talking about side aspect/profile now.


Ahh sorry. I must have missed it along with all the sources you provided for the above.

A meaningful debate? Coming from you that is rich. How is guessing about detection methods you don't understand meaningful debate? tell me about the side aspect.


Just did above. But i could again mention other stuff like All moving Verticals stabz which are smaller in size and deflect(angeled) more vs F-35


Allow me to respond to this in your chosen style:

So we are in agreement you don't understand detection methods? Great. nice to hear that from you.

It has been widly accepted that all moving Verticals Stabz are better for LO and drag Level.
Simply explained, you get fewer angled surfaces.


Nice of you to produce a Source then. I read through it.
And you totaly misunderstud it. The smaller Horisontal Stabz on Pak-Fa deflects very little compaird to ordinary rudder Control surface.(unless it is at very slow speed)


All moving Horizontal stabs on Mach capable aircraft are standard. If you can find any super sonic fighter with a rudder on the horizontal stab, rather than an all moving surface I would love to see it Are you confusing vertical for horizontal?


Just like you bringing up B-2, and Boeings YF-23 and F-32?


Northrop made the YF-23 BTW. IF you want to talk RCS and curved surfaces a B-2 is a perfect example of how "flat" isn't the only way to go. If you want to keep trying to claim that, well good luck.

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/B-2-505.jpg

In the mean time, you may want to respond to the person who gave you an intemized list of the things wrong with the PAK FA Re: RCS

I have no trouble With admiting Sukhoi's advs contain much of the same BS.
But you see, i'm not the one posting Wild claims from Sukhoi. However others here are posting widely unchecked claims from LM.. you know, LM = Thruth!
What i do is refute those claims of Yours.


I am not LM. You seem to conveniently group anyone who disagrees with you into LM. Try discerning the difference in the future.

Forget it. If you can't produce any evidence to support(even some minor once) then you are only threading here on unbolstered claims. Hense no credibility.


Excellent, so if you don't have a source there is no credibility? This will work wonders for you-- Aren't you the one who just said this:

If its an 1 vs 1 engagement, how can the F-35 Jam anyting without having an NGJ pod slung under the jet?

How can you seriously say Higher speed and Acceleration is not useful??
In this game, Speed is life! Ask any fighter pilot. It still hold water and will in the future too.

Your claim is wrong from start to end. Empty claim about radar performance, LO and every other specs you know nothing about.


with zero sources, you completely dismissed him out of hand, So by your own measure you have no credibility, as you provided zero evidence...and told him he was "wrong from start to end" which turned out to be false. yikes.

(Just to nip this in the bud General Amos does not work for LM)

This is not my style. You do not like my question every LM claims, sorry. Live With it.


I would tell you to grow up but I know you will then tattle to a moderator. I am all for a source based debate. I relish the opportunity, I just don't think you can not emotionally separate yourself to actually argue the merits of your case with anything approaching evidence.

You miss basic things like the F-35s built in electronic warfare capability, while claiming you want an honest evidence based debate. Its pretty comical. And when you get trapped you try to create a fall guy (LM) and then assign everyone who disagrees with you as in league with that fall guy. You can pick on LM all you want, again I am not LM. But picking on LM doesn't make the case about PAK FA. :wink:

I apologize for asking you to follow the same standards you ask of others. Speaking of Apologies, you owe hornetfinn one. You dismissed him with no sources or evidence on grounds that turned out to be false.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 21:31
by Scorpion82
Wrt the flat belly argument. Think about it guys! From all horizontal angle i.e. Opposing radar is at the same altitude the late angle is perfect as it means virtually 0 RCS, any lump and bump is going to produce a surface that caused reflections, but as is the case with upper fuselage structures keeping the angles flat should ensure minimum reflections back to the DOA. From low aspect angles the flat surface will cause relatively uniform reflections that, at specific aspects will become a huge reflector! At any other angles the flat surface will produce better results! So the "rumours" or "claims" are true, many people just don't understand why and just blindly repeat. There is no ideal shape overall as it's always a trade between requirements. The T-50's intakes do compromise the RCS as they produce reflection corners. Entirely aligned outwards canted intake walls would be a fair deal more effective, the YF-23 approach would have been suitable for the T-50.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 05:07
by zero-one
Easy guys, personal attacks and ridicule will do absoloutly nothing to help this site,

The F-35s RCS was designed to be second to the Raptors, I'm not 100% sure but I believe it has a smaller RCS than the B2,

Although, The B-2s signature is easier to manage as it doesnt have any maneuvering RCS reductions to worry about,


XanderCrews wrote:
In that case you don't need to get on the six to fire a missile



This is true, with all aspect IR missiles, you can fire on an aircraft from virtually any angle, even head on.

But, remember, firing from the traditional 6o'cklock offers the highest Pk for an IR seeker head, and also the added benefit of the bandit not being able to lock on you.

So yeah, I'd say getting to the traditional 6 is still useful,

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 06:13
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' said above: "...firing from the traditional 6o'cklock offers the highest Pk for an IR seeker head, and also the added benefit of the bandit not being able to lock on you. So yeah, I'd say getting to the traditional 6 is still useful,..."

Notwithstanding the F-35 ability to target and fire missiles at bogies in rear quadrant via HMDS.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 06:58
by haavarla
Question:
How much must a F-35 pilot twist his head backwards and to the side to see the rear hemisphere and be able to target bandids With the HMDS?

I imagine the software makes it easier for the pilot, not have to crank his head around all the time..

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 07:03
by haavarla
spazsinbad wrote:'zero-one' said above: "...firing from the traditional 6o'cklock offers the highest Pk for an IR seeker head, and also the added benefit of the bandit not being able to lock on you. So yeah, I'd say getting to the traditional 6 is still useful,..."

Notwithstanding the F-35 ability to target and fire missiles at bogies in rear quadrant via HMDS.


Likewise, If the F-35 have to do a over the shoulder shot, you can be damn sure the bandid allready has a Lock-on and most likely has fired a few missile too..

The HMDS is a Nice tool, but it does not change the disadvantage on missile Pk and Law on physics. Hense why i wrote, "Speed is life". Get around Your oponent and get the shot from a best possible position.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 07:21
by spazsinbad
'haavarla' asked above:
"Question:
How much must a F-35 pilot twist his head backwards and to the side to see the rear hemisphere and be able to target bandids With the HMDS?..."

Not just the software but the hardware allows the F-35 HMDS equipped pilot to select the rear vHUD [virtual HUD] view to see bogey and target it via the symbology shown to the pilot. The wide screen display will show same view or other views also if the pilot wants to use the widescreen LCD display in front of the pilot. Other threads have the view seen by the pilot when looking behind. Scroll down this page and look in this thread for more info:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-180.html

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35hmd ... s2_801.gif
&
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35hmd ... om_202.gif

Image
Image

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 08:01
by lookieloo
archmage10 wrote:Pak-fa is said to be able to match the Raptor

The F-35 is inferior to the F-22

Now using that triangular logic, the F-35 is inferior to the PAK-FA, but that's not how it always works

Will the F-35 be able to match both the Pak-fa and even the F-22?
I do enjoy the 11 year-old-level of reasoning from this banned troll, but the more relevant questions would be:

-Which aircraft is more useful in the overall battlespace?

-Can the PAK-FA prevent the F-35 from accomplishing its missions?

I get an impression that the PAK is a "scared" design. The Russians have festooned the thing with radar systems (likely to provide little more than basic warning vs F-35s/F-22s) and installed maneuvering capabilities that were discarded as redundant years ago in the West. One can only assume that they've completely given up on controlling engagements, but at least it looks the $hit.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 08:15
by haavarla
Ok, so if i understand this correctly, the out of Field bandid will allways be in the edge of view inside the HDMS. So the pilot does not need to move his head at all.
That is impressive. If they can make it work. what are the main problems now, Software, Hardware or both?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 08:38
by haavarla
lookieloo wrote:
archmage10 wrote:Pak-fa is said to be able to match the Raptor

The F-35 is inferior to the F-22

Now using that triangular logic, the F-35 is inferior to the PAK-FA, but that's not how it always works

Will the F-35 be able to match both the Pak-fa and even the F-22?
I do enjoy the 11 year-old-level of reasoning from this banned troll, but the more relevant questions would be:

-Which aircraft is more useful in the overall battlespace?

-Can the PAK-FA prevent the F-35 from accomplishing its missions?

I get an impression that the PAK is a "scared" design. The Russians have festooned the thing with radar systems (likely to provide little more than basic warning vs F-35s/F-22s) and installed maneuvering capabilities that were discarded as redundant years ago in the West. One can only assume that they've completely given up on controlling engagements, but at least it looks the $hit.


Again.. you guys need to know the exact effectiveness in real situation With the HDMS of F-35 to be able to give such claims.
Come back to me when the systems of F-35 is tested against Rafale and EF in Red Flag. It should give us ample Clue of how effective it is. IMO will it make up for all the other weakness of F-35.
Side radar is not ineffective, if that is what you are getting at. The problem With F-35, is shortage of aviable Space. They can't do it if they wanted to.
If the Russian get the Software right on the Pak-Fa, they should be able to have a targeting system that is not far off the F-35.
The pilot of Pak-Fa will be able to detect, targeting enemy at high bore-off vector, and he does not need to cranck his head eighter. The information will be displayed on the large MFD. Its not like they are flying With stone age Tech which leave the Pak-Fa hopless behind.

Which is the impression i get by several posters here.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 08:39
by spazsinbad
Did you read the forum thread? That is always worthwhile along with links to several sources including the PDF explaining what the pilot sees in the graphics. The F-35 pilot is able to switch vHUD views as required no matter where the pilot is actually looking. Because the F-35 pilot is not in an 'Exorcist movie possessed' the pilot is not able to swivel his/her head around but perhaps he/she will spew green bile if the threat is indeed on his/her six. :D

Again if you read the thread starting from the last page and working backwards you will see a lot of information about how various former issues with HMDS have been fixed or will be fixed with a new version HMDS III.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 09:37
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:If its an 1 vs 1 engagement, how can the F-35 Jam anyting without having an NGJ pod slung under the jet?

How can you seriously say Higher speed and Acceleration is not useful??
In this game, Speed is life! Ask any fighter pilot. It still hold water and will in the future too.

Your claim is wrong from start to end. Empty claim about radar performance, LO and every other specs you know nothing about.


XanderCrews already answered the jamming thing, but F-35 has quite a lot of jamming capability without NGJ. Ever heard of AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda? Or APG-81 jamming features? Both of which benefits from the very low RCS of the aircraft itself, because it directly means very low jamming power required to achieve successful jamming against enemy radar. Required jamming power for self protection just happens to be directly proportional to RCS of the aircraft itself. So, if RCS is ten times lower, also the jamming power required for successful noise jamming is ten times lower (and equally harder to recognize the jamming as jamming and just not noise)

Higher speed and acceleration are definitely useful if you can use it intelligently and know where the enemy aircraft are. Just blasting through the combat zone with high speed will get you killed quickly. If PAK-FA and F-35 would see each other equally, then I'd agree that the higher speed and acceleration would be useful, although not necessarily decisive. I don't think that is true and there are many indications that PAK-FA has much higher RCS (details already covered earlier) and less capable radar (and other sensors). Russia is way behind in designing and especially producing iMMICs (higher end production of Russian designed MMICs is done in France, Germany or Taiwan) and has far less experience with AESA radars. While PAK-FA has somewhat larger radar, it won't detect F-35 sooner unless it has RCS very close to it, which I don't think is possible with the PAK-FA design even if RAM/RAS technology was equal.

I did not claim anything. I just expressed an opinion (which I clearly stated) about what the strengths of each aircraft is. Nobody in the world knows the specs of both of these aircraft (not even LM or Sukhoi), so any comparison done by anyone is only speculation and opinions. My opinion of radar performance and stealth technology come from years of real life experience with different kinds of radar systems (from small fire control radars to surveillance radars) and associated theoretical education. I wonder what your knowledge about radars is?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 10:30
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
So all the claims about flat angled surface(F-22 belly, F-117) was rubbish after all. I knew that, but its Nice hearing it from you.


child, please. stop trying to misquote me. I was never a part of the "flat only" crowd in the first place, so stop desperately trying to connect the dots and assign a position I never held , or reversing a position I never claimed in the first place to make me "look bad".


First of all, keep up Your personal insults, and you will get reported yet again, its becoming an habit by now.

Back to Flat surface. So how can i read post by you, Munny and Hornetfin, where you use Words like the F-35 LO signature is WASTLY superior or it have an MASSIVE LO advantage over the T-50! When we can all see how the F-35 Airframe design layout goes. IMO its pretty curved all over. On many different aspect the T-50 design have a smaller ruling area, and cleaner(less Cures/humps) surface?

This is something you guys allways fall short on explaining, then you go on making wishfull post about Rivets on a jet that just made first flight without any coating Applied what so ever.
The F-35 has several less ideal spots on the airframe. The DAS HOUSING under neath sticks out. There are tubes on the F-35 too, and lastly.. there are visible Rivets on the F-35 even when all the coating ARE Applied. And still you guys just goes on about the same crap; LM F-35 Rules cause all the Advs says so..



I said, when i posted it, that IT was just a silly claim as People eating LM pie about F135 Engine and Nozzle produce so little IR signature for no other explenation what so ever. Go back and reread what i posted.


I also pointed out that P&W makes the engine and they make the claims that LM sources, but I know details are hard.


Fair enough. I just want to say, the Advs coming from “NPO” Saturn” and ” UMPO ” (Ufa Engine Production Association) about the New Engine(type 30) has much of the same claims about IR signature, weight, thrust, fuel consumption and service life.

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.no/2011/05/n ... chief.html

But i do not bother posting such Advs nonsens claim here, other than the VVS has their set of requirements, and on several Points the engine allready exeeds those requirements.


It has been widly accepted that all moving Verticals Stabz are better for LO and drag Level.
Simply explained, you get fewer angled surfaces.


Nice of you to produce a Source then. I read through it.
And you totaly misunderstud it. The smaller Horisontal Stabz on Pak-Fa deflects very little compaird to ordinary rudder Control surface.(unless it is at very slow speed)


All moving Horizontal stabs on Mach capable aircraft are standard. If you can find any super sonic fighter with a rudder on the horizontal stab, rather than an all moving surface I would love to see it Are you confusing vertical for horizontal?


Ohh.. you got me good there.. :shock:
Seriously, you know i was talking about Vertical Stabz


Northrop made the YF-23 BTW. IF you want to talk RCS and curved surfaces a B-2 is a perfect example of how "flat" isn't the only way to go. If you want to keep trying to claim that, well good luck.


Lets get back to the F-35 then. How much compromise is the Design layout of F-35 vs F-22 in terms of LO?
I'd say a lot.
You guys says, it is pretty much the same due to improved RAM and manufactor quality..
Give me a break..
I am not LM. You seem to conveniently group anyone who disagrees with you into LM. Try discerning the difference in the future.

Forget it. If you can't produce any evidence to support(even some minor once) then you are only threading here on unbolstered claims. Hense no credibility.


I know you are not working for LM, cause then you would not be here at all.
But you sure eat all that LM pie without any form of reflections whats behind those Advs.

Excellent, so if you don't have a source there is no credibility? This will work wonders for you-- Aren't you the one who just said this:


So give me an good example on any claims i did without any Source??

When you guys put up claims, you have to support them.. but With what! thats Your problem.
Its not my job to prove you wrong if there are no credible Sources aviable. its all on you.
Or are you saying if i can't refute those LM claims without Sources, they stand true.. this is getting painstaking Tedious.. :(


If its an 1 vs 1 engagement, how can the F-35 Jam anyting without having an NGJ pod slung under the jet?

How can you seriously say Higher speed and Acceleration is not useful??
In this game, Speed is life! Ask any fighter pilot. It still hold water and will in the future too.

Your claim is wrong from start to end. Empty claim about radar performance, LO and every other specs you know nothing about.


with zero sources, you completely dismissed him out of hand, So by your own measure you have no credibility, as you provided zero evidence...and told him he was "wrong from start to end" which turned out to be false. yikes.


Judging by Your posting style.. and you Call me a child..
This thread is sinking by the post.
There are Fighter Jocks world over, whom will tell you that "Speed(energy) is Life" when they are at their everyday work. Anyway, its not that complicated to understand. Must i break this Down further for you guys to understand this?

I do put up figures that is known to us, like thrust parameter, We have a chief Test pilot saying the Pak-Fa have better Fuel Fraction over the Flankers(we pretty mych know all of Su-35S parameters). Which include the Pak-Fa has a good deal less drag going. i put up pics to prove my point about the compairison on F-35 and T-50 when it comes to different area of the airframe. And we can clearly see the T-50 has less Area ruling surface, and on top of that a more LO friendly surface RCS deflection.. you just dismiss it right out of hand.. "-It can't be, cause the F-35 is produce by LM, hense it rules" type of nonsens.

At least i'm trying to make a point With some degree of material. and i try to explain the rationality behind them. What i do not do, is putting up list and cram LM butter all over it.

Anyway.. ofcourse i'm the joker around here, cause i'm not dining With you on LM Products and eating their Advs..



This is not my style. You do not like my question every LM claims, sorry. Live With it.


I would tell you to grow up but I know you will then tattle to a moderator. I am all for a source based debate. I relish the opportunity, I just don't think you can not emotionally separate yourself to actually argue the merits of your case with anything approaching evidence.


Keep it to the debated subject at hand. and not the person. I've allready told you this several times. Damn right i will report you whenever you step over the line. I wont take any abuse from anybody, end of story.

You miss basic things like the F-35s built in electronic warfare capability, while claiming you want an honest evidence based debate. Its pretty comical. And when you get trapped you try to create a fall guy (LM) and then assign everyone who disagrees with you as in league with that fall guy. You can pick on LM all you want, again I am not LM. But picking on LM doesn't make the case about PAK FA. :wink:


So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?
Newsflash, it require an stand alone Jammer, IMO a pod With its own generator for Power supply.
Pls post something solid(anyting) on the F-35 internal self pretction systems). Do it have something similar to the SAP 518?

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protecti ... 73001.aspx

I apologize for asking you to follow the same standards you ask of others. Speaking of Apologies, you owe hornetfinn one. You dismissed him with no sources or evidence on grounds that turned out to be false.


You mean from his selective list of his which only point out unchecked claims without any sources?

No. I said its wrong cause he can't explain or give me any Sources proving anything.
Like i said above. If you put out any claim, then back them up.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 13:31
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:Again.. you guys need to know the exact effectiveness in real situation With the HDMS of F-35 to be able to give such claims.
Come back to me when the systems of F-35 is tested against Rafale and EF in Red Flag. It should give us ample Clue of how effective it is. IMO will it make up for all the other weakness of F-35.
Side radar is not ineffective, if that is what you are getting at. The problem With F-35, is shortage of aviable Space. They can't do it if they wanted to.
If the Russian get the Software right on the Pak-Fa, they should be able to have a targeting system that is not far off the F-35.
The pilot of Pak-Fa will be able to detect, targeting enemy at high bore-off vector, and he does not need to cranck his head eighter. The information will be displayed on the large MFD. Its not like they are flying With stone age Tech which leave the Pak-Fa hopless behind.

Which is the impression i get by several posters here.


Side-looking radar system is somewhat of a necessity as Russia doesn't have the capability to make a system similar to EODAS. Of course radar system has some advantages as it works also in bad weather and provide target range, speed and heading information. The downside is that radar systems are larger, heavier and use a lot of power (creating heat) in comparison. They are also much more limited in what kinds (and how many) of targets they can detect and track. You can't make a radar for a fighter that has the ability to detect large rocket launched at over 1300 km away or detect/classify ground fire like already demonstrated by EODAS. While radar systems have some advantages, I don't see any real need for F-35 to have a side looking radar. I think even F-22 would be better served with updating AN/AAR-56 to EODAS capability than with adding side looking radars. I think for PAK-FA the side looking radar was a good choice as EODAS capability was out of reach.

Nobody is saying PAK-FA is using Stone Age technology, but that there are lots of limitations in the design of the aircraft and Russian industry that affect its effectiveness against F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 13:57
by haavarla
spazsinbad wrote:Did you read the forum thread? That is always worthwhile along with links to several sources including the PDF explaining what the pilot sees in the graphics. The F-35 pilot is able to switch vHUD views as required no matter where the pilot is actually looking. Because the F-35 pilot is not in an 'Exorcist movie possessed' the pilot is not able to swivel his/her head around but perhaps he/she will spew green bile if the threat is indeed on his/her six. :D

Again if you read the thread starting from the last page and working backwards you will see a lot of information about how various former issues with HMDS have been fixed or will be fixed with a new version HMDS III.


I was aware that the HMDS had issues With its software, but not entirely sure what exactly.
I did read some of it. Need more time to read it all.
Thx for the link anyway.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 14:03
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:Back to Flat surface. So how can i read post by you, Munny and Hornetfin, where you use Words like the F-35 LO signature is WASTLY superior or it have an MASSIVE LO advantage over the T-50! When we can all see how the F-35 Airframe design layout goes. IMO its pretty curved all over. On many different aspect the T-50 design have a smaller ruling area, and cleaner(less Cures/humps) surface?

This is something you guys allways fall short on explaining, then you go on making wishfull post about Rivets on a jet that just made first flight without any coating Applied what so ever.
The F-35 has several less ideal spots on the airframe. The DAS HOUSING under neath sticks out. There are tubes on the F-35 too, and lastly.. there are visible Rivets on the F-35 even when all the coating ARE Applied. And still you guys just goes on about the same crap; LM F-35 Rules cause all the ADVS says so..
.


You should really study some radar technology books first. Curved doesn't automatically mean bad radar signature. The trick is to have continuous curves with precisely calculated radii and radii changes. This is how B-2 advanced from F-117 design. It features a lot of curved and rounded surfaces that are designed so that they do not reflect the radar beams back to the radar. Rounded surfaces are just much more difficult to calculate.

Do you mean EOTS housing? It should create noticeable radar returns from only extremely small viewing angles when the flat side is orthogonal to the radar and have extremely small returns from any other angle. Where are there tubes sticking out of production F-35s?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 14:30
by haavarla
hornetfinn wrote:
haavarla wrote:Again.. you guys need to know the exact effectiveness in real situation With the HDMS of F-35 to be able to give such claims.
Come back to me when the systems of F-35 is tested against Rafale and EF in Red Flag. It should give us ample Clue of how effective it is. IMO will it make up for all the other weakness of F-35.
Side radar is not ineffective, if that is what you are getting at. The problem With F-35, is shortage of aviable Space. They can't do it if they wanted to.
If the Russian get the Software right on the Pak-Fa, they should be able to have a targeting system that is not far off the F-35.
The pilot of Pak-Fa will be able to detect, targeting enemy at high bore-off vector, and he does not need to cranck his head eighter. The information will be displayed on the large MFD. Its not like they are flying With stone age Tech which leave the Pak-Fa hopless behind.

Which is the impression i get by several posters here.


Side-looking radar system is somewhat of a necessity as Russia doesn't have the capability to make a system similar to EODAS. Of course radar system has some advantages as it works also in bad weather and provide target range, speed and heading information. The downside is that radar systems are larger, heavier and use a lot of power (creating heat) in comparison. They are also much more limited in what kinds (and how many) of targets they can detect and track. You can't make a radar for a fighter that has the ability to detect large rocket launched at over 1300 km away or detect/classify ground fire like already demonstrated by EODAS. While radar systems have some advantages, I don't see any real need for F-35 to have a side looking radar. I think even F-22 would be better served with updating AN/AAR-56 to EODAS capability than with adding side looking radars. I think for PAK-FA the side looking radar was a good choice as EODAS capability was out of reach.

Nobody is saying PAK-FA is using Stone Age technology, but that there are lots of limitations in the design of the aircraft and Russian industry that affect its effectiveness against F-35.


Well, the F-35 can't base their entire service doctrine on only operating when the weather is good. So you point about the EODAS being able to detect launches far away is not entirly correct.
On top of that, as we have descussed, the EODAS has some limitation when it comes to hemisphere coverage.

Here is a very interesting readup from Desert Storm about Weather limitations in actual combat mission:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

Limitations in Target Sensors Inhibited Effectiveness
The capabilities of target location and acquisition sensors were critical to
the effectiveness and efficiency of the air campaign. IR sensors allowed
night operations, and although pilots praised many sensor systems, they
also pointed out numerous shortcomings. IR, EO, and laser systems were all
seriously degraded by weather conditions such as clouds, rain, fog, and
even haze and humidity. They were also impeded by dust and smoke. At
high altitudes and even at low altitudes in the presence of high humidity or
other impediments, pilots were unable to discriminate targets effectively.
They reported being unable to discern whether a presumed target was a
tank or a truck and whether it had already been hit by a previous attack.




The Pak-Fa being some 20-21 m long, having a twin engine triplane design layout With its own APU generator, should be able to support those AESA radars and its OEIS (opto-electronic integrated system) 101KS:
Consists of 4 parts 101KC-D: Anti-IR seeker
101KC-B: Quantam optical radar system
101KC-Y: Optical system for issuing HQ to COP-O
101KC-H: Air to ground mode

Like i said we do not know how one or another will perform, both Sukhoi and LM goes two different path.
And the two birds aren't really in the same class eighter. The F-35 is supposed to have limitation vs T-50 on this point alone.
Perhaps the most pressing one would be Mission range. The T-50 has about the same fuel capacity as the Flanker, and it has better Fuel Fraction(Meaning it fly longer on the same amount of fuel) vs F-35.

It will be very interesing to observe how the Pak-Fa program mature.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 15:51
by SpudmanWP
haavarla wrote:Ok, so if i understand this correctly, the out of Field bandid will allways be in the edge of view inside the HDMS. So the pilot does not need to move his head at all.
That is impressive.


The computer tracks the target regardless of whether the helmet is slewed to the right vector using either ESM, EOTS, radar, EODAS, or off-board sensors. At any time the pilot can choose to fire on the target based on the HDD (Heads Down Display, aka Main Tactical Display). The pK is given in the HDD prior to launch.

If they can make it work.


It is, remember that it's the computer tracking the target and the helmet is not needed to take the shot.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 16:54
by XanderCrews
LM F-35 Rules cause all the Advs says so..


Believe it or not, not everything positive about the JSF comes from LM, so you can quit that line of reasoning. its what you complain about whenever you are losing the argument.

Ohh.. you got me good there.. :shock:
Seriously, you know i was talking about Vertical Stabz


I honestly don't know what you are talking about half the time. I have friends that are big Russian fans, and they don't know what you are talking about a lot of the time too. You seem to struggle with details a lot, and paint very broad strokes while lumping people into groups. which is pretty much the opposite of understanding. It seems there are subtle difference out there that you are not yet prepared to comprehend.

Lets get back to the F-35 then. How much compromise is the Design layout of F-35 vs F-22 in terms of LO?
I'd say a lot.
You guys says, it is pretty much the same due to improved RAM and manufactor quality..
Give me a break..


source?

I know you are not working for LM, cause then you would not be here at all.
But you sure eat all that LM pie without any form of reflections whats behind those Advs.


yes that is a completely logical, and mature response

Excellent, so if you don't have a source there is no credibility? This will work wonders for you-- Aren't you the one who just said this:


So give me an good example on any claims i did without any Source??


You have made bold claims all over this forum with no sources, and often without understanding the subject matter, not to mention this thread where people are constantly correcting you on PAKFA details throughout.

When you guys put up claims, you have to support them.. but With what! thats Your problem.
Its not my job to prove you wrong if there are no credible Sources aviable. its all on you.
Or are you saying if i can't refute those LM claims without Sources, they stand true.. this is getting painstaking Tedious.. :(


see below, where the Commandant of the Marine Corps told Congress about the EW capability of the F-35B and you rejected it, because...?

Must i break this Down further for you guys to understand this?


please do.

i put up pics to prove my point about the compairison on F-35 and T-50 when it comes to different area of the airframe. And we can clearly see the T-50 has less Area ruling surface, and on top of that a more LO friendly surface RCS deflection..


so this isn't so much a source as it is you posting pictures and then analyzing them as "proof" while you clearly struggle to understand RCS?

you just dismiss it right out of hand.. "-It can't be, cause the F-35 is produce by LM, hense it rules" type of nonsens.
At least i'm trying to make a point With some degree of material. and i try to explain the rationality behind them. What i do not do, is putting up list and cram LM butter all over it.


again stop trying to paint everyone and everything positive as lockmart propaganda. Its a defensive ploy that will continue to get less traction. You don't "try and explain the rationality behind them" either--You just dismiss them as (wait for it) LM propaganda.

Anyway.. ofcourse i'm the joker around here, cause i'm not dining With you on LM Products and eating their Advs..


Youre the "joker" around here because a lot of people with vastly more knowledge than you have taken you to task on multiple subjects, and rather than learn from it, its only made you more sensitive, and you refuse to learn from it. Neurotech, HB_pencil, John Will, and many others have constantly proved you incorrect on multiple subjects previously, and it has ZERO to with LM and everything to do with you being fast to speak and slow to learn.

If you think that other people don't notice and remember these things, you are being naive, and credibility does not just apply to LM.

If you want to keep blaming LM for that, you are welcome to, but you can stop playing the victim for getting yourself into trouble, and blaming everyone who proves your theories not correct as being LM shills.

People here on this site are actually incredibly patient, and seem more than willing to educate rather than skewer, someone who doesn't know their stuff about aircraft. What have you done with this resource? Think of all the smart people here who know their stuff, and what you could be learning.

I actually thought you might have turned the corner in this thread:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

That maybe you discovered something, but it doesn't look like it stuck. Its a perfect demonstration of you jumping to conclusions, calling everyone a lair, and then learning in the end you were not correct. Its too bad you didn't take more away from that, and I hope you don't report what I just wrote as a "personal attack" Its really more about my disappointment.

So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??


Inside. Ask the Commandant. He is on 8th and I Street Washingon DC, call ahead for an appointment, he is a busy fellow.

Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?
Newsflash, it require an stand alone Jammer, IMO a pod With its own generator for Power supply.
Pls post something solid(anyting) on the F-35 internal self pretction systems).


Lets review:

1. I corrected what you said

2. I provided a source that said the F-35 is capable of providing 85 percent capability of a prowler.

3. You reject it

just to review: I provided the link, i provided the source. you still refuse to believe it.

You mean from his selective list of his which only point out unchecked claims without any sources?
No. I said its wrong cause he can't explain or give me any Sources proving anything.
Like i said above. If you put out any claim, then back them up.


of course I provided the source and you refused to believe it. (see above) And as it turned out, source or not it was (brace yourself) actually true.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 16:54
by Scorpion82
SpudmanWP wrote:The computer tracks the target regardless of whether the helmet is slewed to the right vector using either ESM, EOTS, radar, EODAS, or off-board sensors. At any time the pilot can choose to fire on the target based on the HDD (Heads Down Display, aka Main Tactical Display). The pK is given in the HDD prior to launch.


Albeit it's just a bit of nitpicking, no sensor slews the helmet, it's the otherway round in case of EOTS and APG-81 and the targets are fed into the display processing to display them when their angular position concides with that of the HMDS FoV. Helmet cueing can then be used to designate a track as a target, much like using the cursor on the display(s) to nominate a track as a target.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 16:59
by Scorpion82
@Haavarla
Calm down chap. To dismiss absolutely everything because it comes from the manufacturer is nonsense. By that measure we shouldn't discuss this subject at all, as you can't trust anyone. The art is to differentiate between facts and hoax and that can be done rather satisfactorily with proper comprehension of the subject at hand. If one has doubts then it's perfectly fine, but these doubts should be reasoned based on factual understanding, rather than "I like this more than that". As far as advertises are concerned the way to take is to extract the useful information and ignore the marketing claims that often come with it. There are too many people who waste to much time moaning about the advertisment claims, which are being made for obvious reasons, marketing. That's the same everywhere whether we talk about actual products or services...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 17:03
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:'zero-one' said above: "...firing from the traditional 6o'cklock offers the highest Pk for an IR seeker head, and also the added benefit of the bandit not being able to lock on you. So yeah, I'd say getting to the traditional 6 is still useful,..."

Notwithstanding the F-35 ability to target and fire missiles at bogies in rear quadrant via HMDS.


That's not an F-35 only capability at all. Virtually all modern SRAAM's pose a HOBS/LOAL capability and any modern fighter is fitted with a HMD or HMS. There are certainly more ways then using HMD/S either to perform a LOAL/HOBS shot. But there are also limitations that are often ignored. LOAL shots at extrem angles are similar to LOAL shots at long ranges, without updates the pk shrinks. At short ranges the relative position of the target may change rapidly if it maneuvers and the predictive computations can quickly become obsolete rendering the missile useless. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Maneuverability isn't irrelevant, but it's not as important as it used to be either.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 17:06
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:XanderCrews already answered the jamming thing, but F-35 has quite a lot of jamming capability without NGJ. Ever heard of AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda?


The AN/ASQ-239 is an ESM system. The F-35's jamming capability is provided by its radar which is pretty effective given the enormous output power vs a smaller ECM transmitter. The drawbacks are more limited angular and frequency coverage, though the raw power output may render certain systems useless even when operating in a different frequency band.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 18:01
by SpudmanWP
Scorpion82 wrote:Virtually all modern SRAAM's pose a HOBS/LOAL capability and any modern fighter is fitted with a HMD or HMS.

Scorpion82 wrote:Albeit it's just a bit of nitpicking, no sensor slews the helmet, it's the otherway round in case of EOTS and APG-81 and the targets are fed into the display processing to display them when their angular position concides with that of the HMDS FoV. Helmet cueing can then be used to designate a track as a target, much like using the cursor on the display(s) to nominate a track as a target.


But not all combos are the same, nor are all missiles.

With most systems, the helmet cuing is used to tell the system where to begin looking for a target. If the target is close enough that the pilot can see it (hence the HMD cuing), then the F-35 already knows where it is. The F-35 pilot does not need to use his helmet at all for a HOBS shot as he can just select the track from the display and mark it as a target. Another F-35 can also mark it as a target and that information is shared. Targets can be assigned from one F-35 to another. At that point the systems tells him the pK and he can launch if it’s an acceptable pK.

On the missile front, some are better at HOBS/LOAL than others. Take ASRAAM for instance, it has no datalink. This means that it is fired on a bearing only in LOAL mode. If it locks onto the wrong target, get's distracted by flares, jamming, chaff...oh well.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 19:20
by Scorpion82
And who says that pilots of other aircraft don't know about a target's presence unless it is visual? Firing missiles at head down tracks at off boresight angles isn't F-35 specific either. Btw how exactly is the F-35 going to provide MCG outside radar coverage? Is MADL capable of this or even planned to be capable of this? And how is an ASRAAM "distracted from chaff or jamming"? Even flares are rather ineffective against modern IIR seekers! I don't see the F-35 offering the capability that you insist, feel free to prove me wrong on this.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 19:51
by SpudmanWP
Scorpion82 wrote: Firing missiles at head down tracks at off boresight angles isn't F-35 specific either.

Notice that I said “most systems”, not “all”. What is unique to the F-35 is the ability to self-detect and prosecute a non-emitting target in a 360 sphere around the F-35.

Scorpion82 wrote: Btw how exactly is the F-35 going to provide MCG outside radar overage?

1. EODAS has passive ranging modes
2. EOTS
3. Triangulation of ESM or EODAS tracks
Scorpion82 wrote: Is MADL capable of this or even planned to be capable of this?

If you are thinking of an active EW MAWS mode for MADL, then not that I am aware of.
Scorpion82 wrote: And how is an ASRAAM "distracted from chaff or jamming"? Even flares are rather ineffective against modern IIR seekers!

Notice I also included jamming and chaff which have nothing to do with an IR seeker? I was referring to any missile that does not have a datalink. I was trying to show that not all HOBS/LOAL combos are the same or of similar capabilities.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 21:01
by spazsinbad
'Scorpion82' can you tell me which aircraft and how they are able to fire missiles at targets in their six o'clock please? Thanks.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 21:15
by SpudmanWP
I think he was speaking of HOBS in general, not a 6 o'clock shot.

IIRC Australia demos a HOBS shot with an ASRAAM shot using a Link16 provided track.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 21:57
by spazsinbad
'SWP' thanks for your input. To be picky I was referring to firing a missile at a target in the firing aircraft six o'clock. Yes the RAAF shot had the pilot looking at the target as I understand. His head was not swivelled because the target was off to one side - not six o'clock position.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 22:00
by Scorpion82
Spudman
We were actually talking about MCG aka post launch missile support, an argument that you brought up yourself and now you have lost track of it after a single post!? Neither EODAS, EOTS, nor any other sensor aboard the F-35 is providing MCG other than the radar. I asked whether the MADL is possibly capable of providing MCG.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 22:14
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:'Scorpion82' can you tell me which aircraft and how they are able to fire missiles at targets in their six o'clock please? Thanks.


The Rafale for example has demonstrated that capability back in 2007 firing a MICA EM at a target close to 180* behind it using MIDS. It's SPECTRA can cue sensors and missiles given there is an emitting source. What's from the current perspective unique about the F-35 is the ability to autonomously search and track targets spherically using EODAS, but that system will also provide angular data and at best a rough range estimate only through triangulation. That's perfectly sufficient to cue a missile for a LOAL engagement, the current problem for all aircraft is the inability to provide MCGin the rearward hemisphere. Hence my point that the availability of a datalink on an SRAAM is of no use if you can't provide MCG where it matters. MCG is pretty much pointless for the relatively short lacked AIM-9X block II. It will be useful for the projected block III variant as it is useful for the MICA IR as both pose a significant BVR capability. The ASRAAM or IRIS-T could both need one to improve pk at long range shots as both offer a longer range capability than any existing Sidewinder variant. The K-74M2 slatted for the T-50 features such a DL and the T-50 might be fitted with a rearwards facing radar that can provide both targeting and MCG against rear targets at shorter ranges. Basically all what a missile needs in order to be fired is a vector, but the pk rised considerably the more data are available and the more accurate they are. That's how you can perform over the shoulder launches using the HMD as it provides the vector coordinates that are fed into the missile's INS.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 22:37
by SpudmanWP
Scorpion82 wrote:Spudman
We were actually talking about MCG aka post launch missile support, an argument that you brought up yourself and now you have lost track of it after a single post!? Neither EODAS, EOTS, nor any other sensor aboard the F-35 is providing MCG other than the radar. I asked whether the MADL is possibly capable of providing MCG.


Sorry, I did not know with MCG stood for.

As to whether MADL can do it, that is not publicly known either, that I can easily find.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 22:51
by spazsinbad
'Scorpion82' said: "The Rafale for example has demonstrated that capability back in 2007 firing a MICA EM at a target close to 180* behind it using MIDS...."

What would be the Rafale limits then? My understanding the F-35 has 360 degree coverage.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 23:03
by Scorpion82
Mid-Course-Guidance if it's still unclear. Whether MADL might provide a MCG capability or not will likely depend on the operating band. Missile data links thus far are designed to be compatible with the frequency bandwidth of the radar i.e. X-band. This may change in the future as networking weapons becomes a greater priority, but I can't immediatly think off any particular programme that heads into that direction. To cut it short unless the F-35 is capable to provide MCG spherically extreme HOBS engagements where LOAL is a must as the target moves outside the seekers FoR will be equally constraint as those of any other modern fighter as far as the pk of the AAMs is concerned. The advantage will lie in the initial cueing at such angles where other ac are either blind or reliant on external sources. An interesting prospect IMO is the ability to keep tracking friend and foe in a dogfight through EODAS once the ID has been determined and assigned to a track by other means. Likewise intersting will be MADL's capability at such ranges as it's a highly directional system for LO purposes. The might be detrimental to keep in contact with your wingmen at close ranges in a maneuvering fight. But there is still LINK16 to mitigate the problem and maybe MADL will use greater beamwidths as such ranges.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 23:04
by Scorpion82
Double post

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 10:05
by wrightwing
haavarla wrote:Question:
How much must a F-35 pilot twist his head backwards and to the side to see the rear hemisphere and be able to target bandids With the HMDS?

I imagine the software makes it easier for the pilot, not have to crank his head around all the time..


The F-35 pilot doesn't have to twist his head at all, to fire at targets in the rear quadrant. The targeting information is coming from the rear facing DAS aperture, not the helmet, per se. The same goes with targets at extreme angles beneath, or above the F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 10:18
by wrightwing
Scorpion82 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'zero-one' said above: "...firing from the traditional 6o'cklock offers the highest Pk for an IR seeker head, and also the added benefit of the bandit not being able to lock on you. So yeah, I'd say getting to the traditional 6 is still useful,..."

Notwithstanding the F-35 ability to target and fire missiles at bogies in rear quadrant via HMDS.


That's not an F-35 only capability at all. Virtually all modern SRAAM's pose a HOBS/LOAL capability and any modern fighter is fitted with a HMD or HMS. There are certainly more ways then using HMD/S either to perform a LOAL/HOBS shot. But there are also limitations that are often ignored. LOAL shots at extrem angles are similar to LOAL shots at long ranges, without updates the pk shrinks. At short ranges the relative position of the target may change rapidly if it maneuvers and the predictive computations can quickly become obsolete rendering the missile useless. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Maneuverability isn't irrelevant, but it's not as important as it used to be either.


As long as the target is within DAS range, then the missile is being provided updates until impact.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 10:23
by wrightwing
Scorpion82 wrote:And who says that pilots of other aircraft don't know about a target's presence unless it is visual? Firing missiles at head down tracks at off boresight angles isn't F-35 specific either. Btw how exactly is the F-35 going to provide MCG outside radar coverage? Is MADL capable of this or even planned to be capable of this? And how is an ASRAAM "distracted from chaff or jamming"? Even flares are rather ineffective against modern IIR seekers! I don't see the F-35 offering the capability that you insist, feel free to prove me wrong on this.


MADL provides weapons guidance, in any direction required. It is omni-directional in coverage, and directional in terms of emission.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 12:45
by Scorpion82
Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 13:21
by spazsinbad
Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project 20 Sep 2013 Reuben Johnson | AIN Defense Perspective
"There is no shortage of uncertainty about the future of Russia’s Sukhoi Perspektivniy Aviatsonnoi Kompleks-Frontovoi Aviatsii (PAK-FA)/T-50 fifth-generation fighter project. These doubts are driven by problems with major subsystems, delays with the aircraft’s introduction into service, and plans to defray some of the R&D cost by making India a developmental partner on the aircraft.

Russia’s NIIP radar design bureau, the traditional supplier for Sukhoi-design aircraft, has developed prototype models of the N050 active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set. “The results of the flight-test of the radar installed in one of the four T-50 flight-test aircraft are very impressive,” according to a Russian aerospace analyst familiar with the program. However, the N050 is a hand-assembled product and “currently the industrial base capacity to series produce the N050 does not exist,” said the same analyst. Furthermore, “the PPMs [transmit/receive modules] are produced at the Istok military electronics enterprise on a limited scale, which has made the radar’s cost prohibitive.”

In the same vein, the T-50’s composite panels are also handmade using the same basic technology as the well known Sukhoi range of all-composite aerobatic sports aircraft.

The fifth-generation engine that is to power later versions of the T-50 is still mostly on paper, say Russian industry experts. The flight-test aircraft are powered by the same Saturn 117S engine that is installed in the Su-35, and this will also be the engine for the initial production batches of the T-50.

Above all, without changes to the aircraft it is questionable whether or not the T-50 will actually be a low-observable design. Several aspects of the aircraft as currently configured will produce unacceptably high RCS, as well as IR, signatures, according to U.S. industry experts who spoke to AIN.

Another factor is that the T-50 program was considered to be economically viable only if India stepped up to purchase at least 250 of the aircraft, and also would share in the R&D effort. But India is planning to procure only around half that number of fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Sources in the Indian MoD state they cannot afford both the T-50 and the Dassault Rafale that was selected as the winner in the MRCA competition. If the situation becomes an “either or” proposition the T-50 may be jettisoned in favor of the French fighter so India does not place all of its eggs in the Russian basket."

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 50-project

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 14:34
by XanderCrews
Well, the F-35 can't base their entire service doctrine on only operating when the weather is good. So you point about the EODAS being able to detect launches far away is not entirly correct.


I'm going to remember this the next time someone tries telling me that stealth is obsolete because its easily be detected from miles and miles away by a Russian IRST.

On top of that, as we have descussed, the EODAS has some limitation when it comes to hemisphere coverage.


You mean the chin mounted EOTS? EODAS sees all around the aircraft.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabili ... fault.aspx

Remember earlier when I talked about getting the details correct?

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

Limitations in Target Sensors Inhibited Effectiveness
The capabilities of target location and acquisition sensors were critical to
the effectiveness and efficiency of the air campaign. IR sensors allowed
night operations, and although pilots praised many sensor systems, they
also pointed out numerous shortcomings. IR, EO, and laser systems were all
seriously degraded by weather conditions such as clouds, rain, fog, and
even haze and humidity. They were also impeded by dust and smoke. At
high altitudes and even at low altitudes in the presence of high humidity or
other impediments, pilots were unable to discriminate targets effectively.
They reported being unable to discern whether a presumed target was a
tank or a truck and whether it had already been hit by a previous attack.



A lot has changed since 1991, Things like EOTS/EODAS and the ISR sensors that are now routine on Predator drones that can actually zoom in and identify individual people were science fiction back in 1991. Even targeting systems that are not the latest EOTS/EODAS are still at least a generation ahead of the of the 1991 stuff, and EOTS/EODAS is still a generation ahead of that

The US has embarked on vastly improving all it ISR capability, thanks to the lessons learned above, combined with the last 12 years in the GWoT. Hell even current infantry Night Vision Goggles make the 1991 stuff look primitive by comparison. The tech employed now is literally generations ahead of what was employed in 1991. The atmospheric conditions are not as large a factor as they were back then thanks to the improvement, and of course any atmospheric conditions affecting one plane will affect another as well in which case, (once again) the plane with the better sensors will still detect and "see" better. "in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king"

I would also note that a lot of the targeting talked about in the link you posted reference air to ground targeting. Unless the PAKFA is hugging the deck and flying through smoke and fog and rain, its not quite the same thing.

Simply put, if we are talking about a WVR dogfight, then you are WVR for EOTS/EODAS which is capable of tracking aircraft through multiple spectrums (Infra-red, night etc) If the pilot can see it with his "mark 1 eye ball" EOTS/EODAS can see and track it better and faster and in worse conditions (night, weather, etc)

I can't wait to hear all the frustrated stories from Red Flag Aggressors that try and "kill" F-35s from all angles and altitudes and are in turn "killed" by the F-35s without the pilot so much as having to turn his head, after detecting the aggressors from miles away. You can say what you will about the F-35 aerodynamically, but I don't think anyone is arguing about the F-35 being packed with state of the art avionics and the capabilities that brings. Most of the "arguments" against that are just simply dismissing it, and limply chanting something about Vietnam.

Finally the reason the GAO report exists is to highlight what needs to be improved, and believe me the US has improved dramatically in ISR and Damage Assessment.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 15:15
by bumtish
The GAO report is full of "Wheelerisms" which made me check the list of authors, and quite correctly...

Kwai-Cheung Chan
Winslow T. Wheeler
Jonathan R. Tumin
Jeffrey K. Harris
Carolyn M. Copper

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

Some of the comparisons and criteria are meaningless or has a setup to provide a given answer...Some are outright funny like this one.

Available data report no casualties over the Baghdad area, except for one F/A-18, one GR-1, and the two F-16s cited above.45

Okay... no casualties except for the four that where?! :D

(the report needs to downplay the fact that there were four casualties in the Baghdad area in order to downplay the value of the stealth of the F-117.)

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 15:20
by munny
haavarla wrote:T-50 have a very slim side aspect, much better than the F-35.

Haarvy Haarvy, perhaps before commenting, you should pick up a book or read a site or two so you at least have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Stealth is very little about SIZE and very much about angles. Hence why an aircraft can have an RCS smaller than a bird or why a 900m^2 wall of an anechoic chamber can have an RCS 10,000 times smaller than a small metal marble.

The angle of incidence of a radar beam in relation to a surface is the prime factor that determines the RCS of that surface. Before bothering trying to refute that, perhaps the father of stealth aircraft can explain it terms you might eventually grasp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mADxVXMoN0

In the images below you can see the various ANGLES (you know, those important things) of both aircrafts' side surfaces. The chart at the bottom compares the angles at which the two aircraft expose their worst RCS to ground or low flying radar. Notice the effect the T-50's -5% lobe has when it flies at 65k ft. A whopping 220+ km detectable range just for the main lobe.

Consistency
Image


Dog's Breakfast
Image

Stealth for the F-35 shows maturity. Lumps and bumps have NO impact on side aspect RCS at angles that matter. Sure the aircraft will be detected when it banks past 20 degrees, but that's pretty much the case for every stealth aircraft (F-22 is the least exposed fighter when turning, but only by a 10 degrees). F-35 will also be vulnerable to any surface radar that pops up within 20km of the aircraft when flying at 35kft, but I figure the plan is to have everything within that range destroyed before they become a threat.

The T-50 on the other hand is exposed all the way out to 200+ km when flying straight and level at 60-65kft. This distance has a massive impact on the time it is tracked and the range at which it can be shot from as I've shown in a previous post.

haavarla wrote:This means that Curved surface aren't so bad for LO reduction after all.. you know sins F-35 is festered With curve shapes all around the airframe. Smile

As shown above, curved surfaces mean very little as long as they are always curved AWAY from enemy radar. Not the case for the T-50's nozzle area with an exposed 85 degree surface unfortunately.

As with kinematic performance, there's trade offs. The F-35 design sacrificed its close range RCS (at depression angle below -25 degree from horizontal, for a decent side RCS and possibly some benefit against long range (I am very deliberate with the clause "long range") bistatic systems.

For example, the diagram below shows the path radar would follow off the underside surfaces of the F-35 at very low angles (radars beyond 200km). Due to the high body, shorter wingspan and underside corrugations, much of the signal that would be reflected to a passive, ground based receiver are directed downward, reducing the range receivers would need to be located to capture the reflected signal, and subsequently putting them within detection range of the F-35 numerous sensors. Adversaries would also need a higher density of receivers as well, placed closer together to detect the F-35.

Image

I believe this gives it one benefit over the F-22, J-20 against bistatic systems. T-50 gets the same advantage to a degree, but not quite as much due to its flat body and large wing span (ironically).

haavarla wrote:The T-50 has a smaller side aspect vs both SH and F-35

As you've now hopefully learned, physical side cross section area has little to do with RCS, its all about the angles. I never stated the superhornet had better side RCS, only that there's no reason a clean superhornet would have a worse FRONTAL RCS than the T-50. The superhornet's side RCS will be terrible and seen from max range. Unfortunately the same is said for the T-50. With side RCS in excess of 100msq for a large sector, and 1msq after it gets the proposed engine shroud with a -30dB x-band absorption CNT RAM, it is effectively detected from maximum range by any modern surface to air engagement radar.

Consider that a TPY-2 engagement radar can detect a 0.01m^2 target from 870km. It could detect a 1m^2 target from 2700km ignoring line of sight. SBX and the upcoming GBX would detect many times further still.

haavarla wrote:In that case the top side of Pak-Fa have better LO vs F-35.

Well good, because the only thing that should be painting the top of the PAK FA would be an F-22. 99.999% of threat radars are located under the T-50 where it's RCS is the worst of all LO and VLO fighter designs in drawing board, concept, prototype and operational stages.

haavarla wrote:Particular from an side aspect is where such allmoving rudder gives away less RCS signature vs ordinary Rudder.


Well actually the cant angles are almost identical and the I would say the F-35's tail has the smaller total area. Not that it matters given the 85 degree elephant in the room.

haavarla wrote:The DAS HOUSING under neath sticks out.


Back to shape again. Been there, tested that. The facets and heavily angled panels of EOTS have a roughly 500 times smaller RCS than the OLS by shape alone.

haavarla wrote:So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?


Fortunately given the F-35 is a VLO airframe compared to the hornet, it merely has to produce a tiny fraction (many hundreds of times smaller) of the growler's power output to jam any return signal off itself.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 16:26
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
Well, the F-35 can't base their entire service doctrine on only operating when the weather is good. So you point about the EODAS being able to detect launches far away is not entirly correct.


I'm going to remember this the next time someone tries telling me that stealth is obsolete because its easily be detected from miles and miles away by a Russian IRST.


No need. You can be 1000% VVS does not base their Combat Tactics and Doctrins on doing missions in only good weather.

On top of that, as we have descussed, the EODAS has some limitation when it comes to hemisphere coverage.


You mean the chin mounted EOTS? EODAS sees all around the aircraft.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabili ... fault.aspx


Again, how far is the range and how well does it operate under bad Weather?

B.T.W. Nice NG Advs there.
"The only 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system" ;)


A lot has changed since 1991, Things like EOTS/EODAS and the ISR sensors that are now routine on Predator drones that can actually zoom in and identify individual people were science fiction back in 1991. Even targeting systems that are not the latest EOTS/EODAS are still at least a generation ahead of the of the 1991 stuff, and EOTS/EODAS is still a generation ahead of that

The US has embarked on vastly improving all it ISR capability, thanks to the lessons learned above, combined with the last 12 years in the GWoT. Hell even current infantry Night Vision Goggles make the 1991 stuff look primitive by comparison. The tech employed now is literally generations ahead of what was employed in 1991. The atmospheric conditions are not as large a factor as they were back then thanks to the improvement, and of course any atmospheric conditions affecting one plane will affect another as well in which case, (once again) the plane with the better sensors will still detect and "see" better. "in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king"


Anyone understand this. Optical, IFF and Targeting system has improved. But when those Drone fly in over Overcast bad weather, they are severly hampered in their SA. Simple as that.
Can't see through it. Which was my point.

I would also note that a lot of the targeting talked about in the link you posted reference air to ground targeting. Unless the PAKFA is hugging the deck and flying through smoke and fog and rain, its not quite the same thing.


Your point being?
I was pointing out the limitations on F-35 systems.

Simply put, if we are talking about a WVR dogfight, then you are WVR for EOTS/EODAS which is capable of tracking aircraft through multiple spectrums (Infra-red, night etc) If the pilot can see it with his "mark 1 eye ball" EOTS/EODAS can see and track it better and faster and in worse conditions (night, weather, etc)


It sounds like IR(night Condidtion) is something that is only a EODAS capability..
Is this coming from Your Advs as well.

I can't wait to hear all the frustrated stories from Red Flag Aggressors that try and "kill" F-35s from all angles and altitudes and are in turn "killed" by the F-35s without the pilot so much as having to turn his head, after detecting the aggressors from miles away. You can say what you will about the F-35 aerodynamically, but I don't think anyone is arguing about the F-35 being packed with state of the art avionics and the capabilities that brings. Most of the "arguments" against that are just simply dismissing it, and limply chanting something about Vietnam.


Oh i'm sure you can't wait for such wishfull storys.
Yes, thats the Con of F-35. They packed it so full of systems, its Kinemtaic performance is degraded. There is no free lunch.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 17:16
by wrightwing
Scorpion82 wrote:Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?


"[The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35… and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display… one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope… it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, 'maneuvering is irrelevant'.” -

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 19:10
by Scorpion82
@munny
Is there a comparable chart for the T-50's front aspect and F-35's rear aspect? Comparing front vs rear aspect is apples and oranges and hardly a proper comparison, unless you want to make a biased comparison...

@wrightwing
Doesn't look convincing.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 19:26
by Scorpion82
Image

Spud, I hope you don't mind that I repost that image from your account. What it shows is that MADL operates in the K-band, thus no MCG at least with current DLs fitted to AAMs and the slide does not indicate anything that could be described as MCG, neither text, nor graphics. At this point the MADL providing post launch support claim looks like a myth.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 20:39
by XanderCrews
No need. You can be 1000% VVS does not base their Combat Tactics and Doctrins on doing missions in only good weather.


and the US/NATO/West does? come on man, you have to do better than this. Where did this good weather thing pop up? oh right because you are trying to say the F-35s superior avionics won't work in less than good weather

I can see from all the sources you provided that this isn't just you speculating based on...?

Again, how far is the range and how well does it operate under bad Weather?


You know what would be embarrasing? If you were trying to pretend like the west hasn't been fielding ISR systems that are designed for all weather capability since before the year 2000, and that the technology isn't there:

Anyone understand this. Optical, IFF and Targeting system has improved. But when those Drone fly in over Overcast bad weather, they are severly hampered in their SA. Simple as that.
Can't see through it. Which was my point.


LOL "simple as that"??

UAVs have been able to see through clouds and bad weather for sometime now:

The synthetic aperture radar (SAR) provides Predator with an all-weather, through-the-clouds surveillance capability


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rq1-predator/

Likewise a Watchkeeper assigned to ISTAR soak can monitor normal patterns of foot and vehicle traffic around the clock, through clouds and darkness as required.


http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... ough-cloud

This is getting sad Haavalra. Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I shouldn't have to explain this.

Do they not have Google in Norway?? I also noticed when you made that assertion you didn't provide a source...

Your credibility is fast approaching rock bottom. Especially as I recall a thread here where neurotech and HB pencil tried to explain the US's ISR capabilities.

Your point being?
I was pointing out the limitations on F-35 systems.


What limitations specifically? Any Sources beyond you just declaring it?

It sounds like IR(night Condidtion) is something that is only a EODAS capability..
Is this coming from Your Advs as well.


huh?

I liked how you provided sources in your "counter argument," there as well. No wait, you just complained about it and tried to dismiss it as advertising, instead. "Point" well made my friend.

Again, are you planning on following any of your own rules regarding sources, credibility, etc? You continue to fail at the basics, maybe checking into the capabilities of UAVs and other ISR platforms before trying to bury them?

Oh i'm sure you can't wait for such wishfull storys.
Yes, thats the Con of F-35. They packed it so full of systems, its Kinemtaic performance is degraded. There is no free lunch.


ahh is that the new meme for you this week?? Its too weighed down by superior avionics? The avionics are almost too good

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 20:44
by castlebravo
wrightwing wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?


"[The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35… and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display… one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope… it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, 'maneuvering is irrelevant'.” -


We all understand that DAS can provide targeting information to the equipped aircraft (and everything networked with it). What we are curious about is how that information gets to the missile in flight. Traditionally, it is the aircraft's radar that beams the data to the missile. APG-81 will only be able to send Mid Course Guidance updates to the missile while the missile is still in front of the firing aircraft. So, the question is if MADL is able to provide all-aspect MCG. My guess is that if MADL wasn't designed to be compatible with the existing missiles than the new missiles have been designed to be compatible with it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 20:49
by count_to_10
Unless I'm missing something, if the weather is so bad that DAS isn't working, then everyone is basically flying on instruments only. Spaz has been pretty insistent that you can't really dogfight like that.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 22:08
by wrightwing
Scorpion82 wrote:Image

Spud, I hope you don't mind that I repost that image from your account. What it shows is that MADL operates in the K-band, thus no MCG at least with current DLs fitted to AAMs and the slide does not indicate anything that could be described as MCG, neither text, nor graphics. At this point the MADL providing post launch support claim looks like a myth.


Are you claiming that the F-35 can't provide mid course guidance to weapons? I'm not sure where you're coming up with that claim. That's how LOAL works, by getting updates after the missile is fired. It just takes it a step further than any other fighter, by providing spherical coverage.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 22:13
by wrightwing
castlebravo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?


"[The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35… and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display… one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope… it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, 'maneuvering is irrelevant'.” -


We all understand that DAS can provide targeting information to the equipped aircraft (and everything networked with it). What we are curious about is how that information gets to the missile in flight. Traditionally, it is the aircraft's radar that beams the data to the missile. APG-81 will only be able to send Mid Course Guidance updates to the missile while the missile is still in front of the firing aircraft. So, the question is if MADL is able to provide all-aspect MCG. My guess is that if MADL wasn't designed to be compatible with the existing missiles than the new missiles have been designed to be compatible with it.



That's the whole point of sensor fusion. All of the data, from all of the sensors, is used to form a composite picture around the aircraft, to allow spherical targeting.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 23:54
by castlebravo
wrightwing wrote:
castlebravo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?


"[The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35… and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display… one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope… it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, 'maneuvering is irrelevant'.” -


We all understand that DAS can provide targeting information to the equipped aircraft (and everything networked with it). What we are curious about is how that information gets to the missile in flight. Traditionally, it is the aircraft's radar that beams the data to the missile. APG-81 will only be able to send Mid Course Guidance updates to the missile while the missile is still in front of the firing aircraft. So, the question is if MADL is able to provide all-aspect MCG. My guess is that if MADL wasn't designed to be compatible with the existing missiles than the new missiles have been designed to be compatible with it.



That's the whole point of sensor fusion. All of the data, from all of the sensors, is used to form a composite picture around the aircraft, to allow spherical targeting.


We aren't talking about using MADL to track the target; AFAIK it is not a radar. What we are talking about is using MADL to talk to the missile and send it mid course guidance updates. If the only mid course guidance datalink transmitter on the aircraft is the fire control radar, you can't send the missile any data after it leaves the radar's field of view. That would mean the missile has to go autonomous at launch before it can acquire the target. This leaves open the possibility that the target will maneuver such that it ends up outside the missile's field of view resulting in a miss, or even worse, a fratricide if the missile gets to the predicted intercept point and finds a friendly instead.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 00:04
by maus92
castlebravo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:Any source that confirms MADL providing MCG?


"[The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System] comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35… and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display… one of the DAS’ most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range… covers the within-visual-range envelope… it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution…Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos – who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team – says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, 'maneuvering is irrelevant'.” -


We all understand that DAS can provide targeting information to the equipped aircraft (and everything networked with it). What we are curious about is how that information gets to the missile in flight. Traditionally, it is the aircraft's radar that beams the data to the missile. APG-81 will only be able to send Mid Course Guidance updates to the missile while the missile is still in front of the firing aircraft. So, the question is if MADL is able to provide all-aspect MCG. My guess is that if MADL wasn't designed to be compatible with the existing missiles than the new missiles have been designed to be compatible with it.


Target updates / MCG is not transmitted to the AIM-120 via MADL. MADL is not omni in its current implementation, nor are the AIM-120s equipped with a MADL interface. The MADL net *could* provide target updates to the shooting aircraft, which then uses its radar for MCG.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 03:51
by quicksilver
"So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?"

You clearly don't know diddly about either Growler or APG-81.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 06:51
by lookieloo
quicksilver wrote:"So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?"

You clearly don't know diddly about either Growler or APG-81.
I believe it's already been mentioned that VLO aircraft don't need nearly that power to fake a return. That said, the Israelis have seen fit to begin development of a dedicated EW suite. Not sure how it will be installed, but my understanding is that some space has been left open for such a thing; and of course, there's always the "multi-mission pod" (it's not just for holding a gun on the B and C models).

Image
I'm really looking forward to seeing how this neat little toy could be used years from now. Jamming systems, light PGMs, energy weapons, supplemental ISR equipment, extra radar... just about anything one might want to add in the future without a major redesign of the aircraft itself.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 07:01
by munny
Scorpion82 wrote:@munny
Is there a comparable chart for the T-50's front aspect and F-35's rear aspect? Comparing front vs rear aspect is apples and oranges and hardly a proper comparison, unless you want to make a biased comparison


Huh? I was comparing side aspect if you understood what the images were measuring, neither front nor rear. I used photos from those directions as they showed the worst side aspect angles for both aircraft. The F-35's tail end has more shallow surface angles, hence better RCS than its side surfaces towards the front.

Image

The T-50 front end shot wouldn't provide anything not already shown in the rear picture except for the fuselage front end and nacelles' outer surfaces.

Simple fact is, the F-35 simply has far lower RCS from all significant angles. A few orders of magnitude difference in fact. I'll say it again, T-50 is the least LO of all recent flown LO-esque fighters or drawing board designs, F-22, F-35, J-20, J-31, ATD-X, X-32, YF-23 .... except for maybe that Iranian thing.

Once you gain the knowledge on how stealth shaping works (rather than thinking its some sort of magic as Haarvy does), you really appreciate the elegance of the F-35's design. That back-end shot really shows how thoroughly it was considered. They've really progressed well beyond Ufimtsev's equations with this one.

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 08:19
by munny
Just out of interest....

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 08:36
by lookieloo
munny wrote:Once you gain the knowledge on how stealth shaping works (rather than thinking its some sort of magic as Haarvy does), you really appreciate the elegance of the F-35's design. That back-end shot really shows how thoroughly it was considered. They've really progressed well beyond Ufimtsev's equations with this one.
Has this been posted yet? (I usually mark this thread 'read')
Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 50-project
...Above all, without changes to the aircraft it is questionable whether or not the T-50 will actually be a low-observable design. Several aspects of the aircraft as currently configured will produce unacceptably high RCS, as well as IR, signatures, according to U.S. industry experts who spoke to AIN...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 14:18
by hobo
I have seen that article.

The part about the limited RCS reduction measures in the PAK FA isn't really news. I found the discussion of the manufacturing side of the equation much more interesting. People tend to overlook that amidst all the discussion of spec sheets.

Even if Russia is able to design an extremely capable aircraft, manufacturing it could be another issue entirely. That is the difference between having a relative handful of extremely skilled artisans producing something one copy at a time... and actually running an assembly line that can produce hundreds of aircraft efficiently, with high uniformity, and good quality control.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 14:32
by haavarla
You have seen the article.. but have you read through it?
That Rueben dude fail knowing the real name of the T-50 Radar N050? Its N035.
And the Engines, 117S? Those are mounted on the Su-35S.
T-50 got 117 engines which produce more thrust.

What the hell does he know about India resolve on both MMRCA and FGFA program?
Both Russia and India will sign an intermidiate contract for T-50.
Is it so hard to understand there be follow-up contract.

Russia do this all the time. Look at Su-34, Su-35S orders, look at Mig-35 orders. They sign smaller order, its just how they do these contracts.

That "Defence Expert" seems to be cocking for his home turf Block by the look of the article..

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 15:47
by Scorpion82
wrightwing wrote:Are you claiming that the F-35 can't provide mid course guidance to weapons? I'm not sure where you're coming up with that claim. That's how LOAL works, by getting updates after the missile is fired. It just takes it a step further than any other fighter, by providing spherical coverage.


The F-35 provided MCG within radar coverage as is true for any fighter. My point is that EODAS provided the initial cueing "only" and that the missile must autonomously acquire its target after launch, like any other fighter. Maybe you should read more carefully what's being said!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2013, 17:20
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:That Rueben dude fail knowing the real name of the T-50 Radar N050? Its N035.



haavarla wrote:I did not know this. What is the two side faced AESA arrays called then? N-036-3?

This is confusing.. ah never mind. i thought you said the N035..
Yes you are right. The T-50 New radar is called N036.


haavarla wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:By the way, the T-50's radar is N036, not N050.


Perhaps.
It might in the first 14 pre-Production T-50, slated for deliveries. it may not. Nobody knows yet in here.
But what is known, is the work on AESA radars. And the T-50-53 and 54 has an AESA radar installed for test purpose.

It is a little unclear yet, but i think they are test Version of N050 AESA radars.
Ofcorse, it could also be IRBIS-E backend With a New ARRAY and some other minor modifications.. i don't know and neighter do anyone of you.


Apparently its confusing.

What the hell does he know about India resolve on both MMRCA and FGFA program?
Both Russia and India will sign an intermidiate contract for T-50.
Is it so hard to understand there be follow-up contract.


Source? weren't you the person who said:

haavarla wrote:
When you guys put up claims, you have to support them.. but With what! thats Your problem.
Its not my job to prove you wrong if there are no credible Sources aviable. its all on you.
Or are you saying if i can't refute those LM claims without Sources, they stand true.. this is getting painstaking Tedious.. :(


haavarla wrote:No. I said its wrong cause he can't explain or give me any Sources proving anything.
Like i said above. If you put out any claim, then back them up.


haavarla wrote:
Forget it. If you can't produce any evidence to support(even some minor once) then you are only threading here on unbolstered claims. Hense no credibility.



Russia do this all the time. Look at Su-34, Su-35S orders, look at Mig-35 orders. They sign smaller order, its just how they do these contracts.


Small orders indeed, complete agreement here.

That "Defence Expert" seems to be cocking for his home turf Block by the look of the article..


I agree, he really showed his bias when he went quoting the industry experts on things. What would industry experts know anyway? speaking of bias:

johnwill wrote:By the way, there is something to the argument that you seem to be a fanboy of Russian airplanes. By reading your posts, one gets the impression every Russian airplane is better in every way then every Western airplane. You certainly have every right to speak your opinion, unbalanced as it seems.


haavarla wrote:
I can assure you from a politically point of view i dislike Russia.
But when talking about Aviation, Things stand differently.
Beside, we are not here to debate politics(thank god!)

I'm merely an Aviation entusiasm dude, in general.
But i have done some Research on Russian Aviation, which is quite Rich on Aviation history and i quite liked it.


Surely you wouldn't begrudge him that? :wink:

quicksilver wrote:"So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?"

You clearly don't know diddly about either Growler or APG-81.


He is clearly beyond his depth. my source and evidence for this is this entire thread.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 02:41
by quicksilver
quicksilver wrote:"So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?"

You clearly don't know diddly about either Growler or APG-81.


Let me be more specific -- ASQ-239. Produces J/S that dwarfs that of Growler.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 08:20
by wrightwing
castlebravo wrote: We aren't talking about using MADL to track the target; AFAIK it is not a radar. What we are talking about is using MADL to talk to the missile and send it mid course guidance updates. If the only mid course guidance datalink transmitter on the aircraft is the fire control radar, you can't send the missile any data after it leaves the radar's field of view. That would mean the missile has to go autonomous at launch before it can acquire the target. This leaves open the possibility that the target will maneuver such that it ends up outside the missile's field of view resulting in a miss, or even worse, a fratricide if the missile gets to the predicted intercept point and finds a friendly instead.


I understand what we're talking about. The F-35's systems fuse the spherical sensor coverage, for targeting updates. It doesn't just provide forward hemisphere weapons guidance.
The EODAS system not only tracks every target, but keeps track of who's who, which allows for LOAL launches against rear hemisphere targets, hence the 2 way datalinks on the -120C7/D and -9X Block II and III, for HOBS.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 11:58
by count_to_10
So, do any missiles currently exist that are MADL compatible, or will that have to wait for the next missile update?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 16:28
by SpudmanWP
Not sure.

I know that the 120D has a secondary conformal array but I am not sure of it's frequency capability.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 19:28
by Scorpion82
wrightwing wrote:I understand what we're talking about. The F-35's systems fuse the spherical sensor coverage, for targeting updates. It doesn't just provide forward hemisphere weapons guidance.
The EODAS system not only tracks every target, but keeps track of who's who, which allows for LOAL launches against rear hemisphere targets, hence the 2 way datalinks on the -120C7/D and -9X Block II and III, for HOBS.


Oh please, now explain us how these weapons are being updated by anything other than the radar! No more babbling about spherical coverage of EODAS et all, that gives the targeting coordinates prior launch and that's it. No sensor other than the radar can TRANSMIT the updates. There's absolutely no proof that MADL can transmit updates and the fact that MADL operates in a different frequency band than the radar makes it not simply questionable, but plain impossible unless those missiles are fitted with datalink antennas compatible with both bands! Have they? Once again there is no proof. Bi-directional datalinks aboard the missiles have nothing to do with supporting them in the rear aspect. Two-way DLs can do a lot dependent implementation. In theory they could transmit their seeker status, energy status, possible miss or there own position for trajectory monitoring. Re-targeting or MCG handover are other possible capabilities that could be exploited using two-way links.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 22:35
by haavarla
"XanderCrews"]
haavarla wrote:

What the hell does he know about India resolve on both MMRCA and FGFA program?
Both Russia and India will sign an intermidiate contract for T-50.
Is it so hard to understand there be follow-up contract.

Source? weren't you the person who said:


He does not provide any reason for his thought on the India MMRCA and FGFA procurment.
Where is the rationalilty behind it?
India have a very high rate of defence contracts going. Just look it up. Strangly when it comes to none US Equipment and especial Russian Hardware, there is doubts, loom & gloom all over.
That "Defence Analyst" are post this crap for Janes. If you bother to do some Research on him, you will find out that pretty much all his article about Russia are full of errors. Its amazing Janes still use this guy.

he fail to recognizing economics of scale and that prototypes are always built "by hand.



"haavarla"]

Forget it. If you can't produce any evidence to support(even some minor once) then you are only threading here on unbolstered claims. Hense no credibility.

Russia do this all the time. Look at Su-34, Su-35S orders, look at Mig-35 orders. They sign smaller order, its just how they do these contracts.


Small orders indeed, complete agreement here.


Lol, Nice selective editing there. I said smaller contract in size, but they do follow ups contract, IMO thats like several contract over a time period.
Comeon F414, you can do better than this :)

That "Defence Expert" seems to be cocking for his home turf Block by the look of the article..


I agree, he really showed his bias when he went quoting the industry experts on things. What would industry experts know anyway? speaking of bias:


Like i said, do some Research on this guy.
Seriously, when USAF officers know Jack sh*t about Foreign jet fighters, why should this guy be any better?
Beside its not like he is the only one, there are lots of other defence analyst post nonsens over the Board. Most With their own agenda.



haavarla wrote:
I can assure you from a politically point of view i dislike Russia.
But when talking about Aviation, Things stand differently.
Beside, we are not here to debate politics(thank god!)

I'm merely an Aviation entusiasm dude, in general.
But i have done some Research on Russian Aviation, which is quite Rich on Aviation history and i quite liked it.


Surely you wouldn't begrudge him that? :wink:



Whaat??
Bringing up those politics angle again.
I wont bite, so do us all a favor, just drop it. I told you before.
Keep trolling like this and i'll report you for OT and flaming
Be more constructive pls.

quicksilver wrote:"So where is the Internal jammer on the F-35??
Don't tell me, its the AESA! Do you know what kind of Power it takes to produce the kind of interference that the Growler Jammer put out?"

You clearly don't know diddly about either Growler or APG-81.


He is clearly beyond his depth. my source and evidence for this is this entire thread.


So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 23:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
defensive avionics sounds like jamming to me. just saying.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 00:30
by luke_sandoz
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:defensive avionics sounds like jamming to me. just saying.


And you would sound wrong.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 00:43
by XanderCrews
He does not provide any reason for his thought on the India MMRCA and FGFA procurment.
Where is the rationalilty behind it?
India have a very high rate of defence contracts going. Just look it up. Strangly when it comes to none US Equipment and especial Russian Hardware, there is doubts, loom & gloom all over.
That "Defence Analyst" are post this crap for Janes. If you bother to do some Research on him, you will find out that pretty much all his article about Russia are full of errors. Its amazing Janes still use this guy.

he fail to recognizing economics of scale and that prototypes are always built "by hand.


So I have to provide my own sources as you still won't provide any?

Like i said, do some Research on this guy.
Seriously, when USAF officers know Jack sh*t about Foreign jet fighters, why should this guy be any better?



where is he quoting USAF officers?

Can you please provide a source rather than declaring someone doesn't know jack sh*t without any evidence to prove it?

Whaat??
Bringing up those politics angle again.
I wont bite, so do us all a favor, just drop it. I told you before.
Keep trolling like this and i'll report you for OT and flaming
Be more constructive pls.


You haven't provided a single source in how many posts? please be constructive and provide sources to support your position or you will be reported.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 01:14
by maus92
haavarla wrote:
So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite


The ASQ-239 can function as techniques generator, transmitting via the APG-81

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 01:46
by newmanfrigan
What's the issue? It's been known that the APG-81 jammed the APG-77 at northern edge. I have read that the EODAS can provide a track for 360 degrees, so you can fire on the rear quadrant. Can the 35 send a mid course update backward? I don't know, but another netted asset could do that. Why do we care of MADL does the update, vs the APG-81 in its non-MADL functions? Isn't MADL for communicating with other networked platforms? The APG-81 has other LPI means for this. So, can the 35 send an update to the rear with another system? Via satellite link...would that work?

On the PAKFA, that's a pretty serious task to go from custom built AESAs to full scale. Going to be very expensive indeed. Kind of verifies my observations about the lack of sufficient electronics industrial base in Russia. I would love to see the true unit price of the custom built AESAs.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 03:35
by XanderCrews
newmanfrigan wrote:What's the issue? It's been known that the APG-81 jammed the APG-77 at northern edge. I have read that the EODAS can provide a track for 360 degrees, so you can fire on the rear quadrant. Can the 35 send a mid course update backward? I don't know, but another netted asset could do that. Why do we care of MADL does the update, vs the APG-81 in its non-MADL functions? Isn't MADL for communicating with other networked platforms? The APG-81 has other LPI means for this. So, can the 35 send an update to the rear with another system? Via satellite link...would that work?

On the PAKFA, that's a pretty serious task to go from custom built AESAs to full scale. Going to be very expensive indeed. Kind of verifies my observations about the lack of sufficient electronics industrial base in Russia. I would love to see the true unit price of the custom built AESAs.


well said.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:17
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
He does not provide any reason for his thought on the India MMRCA and FGFA procurment.
Where is the rationalilty behind it?
India have a very high rate of defence contracts going. Just look it up. Strangly when it comes to none US Equipment and especial Russian Hardware, there is doubts, loom & gloom all over.
That "Defence Analyst" are post this crap for Janes. If you bother to do some Research on him, you will find out that pretty much all his article about Russia are full of errors. Its amazing Janes still use this guy.

he fail to recognizing economics of scale and that prototypes are always built "by hand.


So I have to provide my own sources as you still won't provide any?


Google is my friend, it should be Yours too..

http://www.janes.com/article/26453/maks ... n-progress

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... m.asp?pg=1

As you can read, he Wrote about the same mistakes and inaccurat stuff many years ago, and its still the very same crap today.
B.t.w. i started With saying he was cocking for his home turf Readers.
I stand by that, he is indeed Biased enough.

Like i said, do some Research on this guy.
Seriously, when USAF officers know Jack sh*t about Foreign jet fighters, why should this guy be any better?



where is he quoting USAF officers?


He doesn't. And i did not say he did.
But i said, when USAF officers fail to address the simple task of identifying hardware on Foreign fighters. Then a Defence Analyst like this Rueben clovn should come as no surprise.
USAF officer Terrence Fornof anyone? If he was so dead wrong about Russian jets, then Logic dictates, there are more of em ;)

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... logises-t/


Can you please provide a source rather than declaring someone doesn't know jack sh*t without any evidence to prove it?


Yes i can and i just did.
You should try it sometime.

Whaat??
Bringing up those politics angle again.
I wont bite, so do us all a favor, just drop it. I told you before.
Keep trolling like this and i'll report you for OT and flaming
Be more constructive pls.


You haven't provided a single source in how many posts? please be constructive and provide sources to support your position or you will be reported.


Yes i do provide sources. I do it quite often. You do not.
I have trouble keeping up With Your nonsen post..
Let's try and be more spesific here, what Sources did you have in mind? What kind of information are you looking for?
What Claims did i make?

Oh and Again, pls tell me where the Internal Jammer on F-35 is located??

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... m.asp?pg=1

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:21
by haavarla
maus92 wrote:
haavarla wrote:
So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite


The ASQ-239 can function as techniques generator, transmitting via the APG-81


I'm confused..

Some People claim the F-35 has an internal Jammer.
But i don't.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ly-371742/

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:24
by haavarla
newmanfrigan wrote:What's the issue? It's been known that the APG-81 jammed the APG-77 at northern edge. I have read that the EODAS can provide a track for 360 degrees, so you can fire on the rear quadrant. Can the 35 send a mid course update backward? I don't know, but another netted asset could do that. Why do we care of MADL does the update, vs the APG-81 in its non-MADL functions? Isn't MADL for communicating with other networked platforms? The APG-81 has other LPI means for this. So, can the 35 send an update to the rear with another system? Via satellite link...would that work?

On the PAKFA, that's a pretty serious task to go from custom built AESAs to full scale. Going to be very expensive indeed. Kind of verifies my observations about the lack of sufficient electronics industrial base in Russia. I would love to see the true unit price of the custom built AESAs.


The Su-35S? doubtfull. But then again, we aren't debateing the Su-35S here.

It is 100% certain that the MALD cannot give course update once the missile is launched.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:31
by quicksilver
Maus is correct. It (ASQ-239) does techniques generation in addition to a range of other EW functions.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:36
by haavarla
maus92 wrote:
haavarla wrote:
So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite


The ASQ-239 can function as techniques generator, transmitting via the APG-81


Sadly which does not make it a Jammer, not by a far cry.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 11:28
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:
maus92 wrote:
haavarla wrote:
So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite


The ASQ-239 can function as techniques generator, transmitting via the APG-81


Sadly which does not make it a Jammer, not by a far cry.


Actually yes it does. It doesn't make it an escort or standoff jammer, but makes it more of a self protection jammer albeit potentially an extremely powerful one. Legacy self protection jammers are very low powered systems with very wide beamwidth or even omnidirectional antennas resulting in extremely low jamming power in enemy radar (but still enough to protect the individual aircraft in many cases). AESA radar has the potential of having much higher jamming power output and much more focused beam resulting in very high jamming power (or J/S ratio) in radar in comparison.

Of course self protection jammer is not comparable to support/escort jammer. The original question was how F-35 was going to jam PAK-FA radar. For that ASQ-239 using APG-81 as an antenna would likely be very capable. Of course PAK-FA radar could do the same to APG-81, but the situation would strongly favor the aircraft with lower frontal RCS (which would very likely be F-35).

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 14:03
by haavarla
First off, The F-35 would need to located the bandit.
Then if he transmit nouse through a tight beam towards the T-50, Its EW and RWS would pick up the niose and the approx position.
Furthermore a singel F-35 using its radar for such a task is doubtfully effective. The beam in its self is quite narrow, and the area of jamming coverage become narrow.
And while the F-35 do this it cannot Tranmit/receive any usefull signals eighter..
So much compromises.

Anyway, i said the F-35 has no internal Jammer, it was imitiadly called out as BS..

But it seems the BS come from other posters here.

A self protect system is a self protect system, not a jammer.

The AN/ALQ-99 jamming pods are a jammer system.
The SAP 518 is also such Jammer system.

The ASQ-239 is not a jammer system.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 14:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
luke_sandoz wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:defensive avionics sounds like jamming to me. just saying.


And you would sound wrong.


I am not an avionics guy, so it's not skin off my back if I am wrong. I would rather say something wrong, be corrected, and learn from it, then to say nothing at all. Fortunately other posters after you gave better explanations.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:10
by SpudmanWP
haavarla wrote:So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?


The -239 and -81 are connected via fiber and work very closely. I believe the quote was “pulse for pulse”. Little know factoid is that BAE designed the sensor bays (where the -239 is) so active components can be added to the -239 if a customer wants them. Obviously these would not be on par (power wise) with the -99 units on the Growler, but more like a self-protection suite rather than a standoff jammer.

As far as a narrow beam and all, Blk5 is scheduled for “Cooperative EW”, whatever that will include.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:35
by XanderCrews
First off, The F-35 would need to located the bandit.
Then if he transmit nouse through a tight beam towards the T-50, Its EW and RWS would pick up the niose and the approx position.
Furthermore a singel F-35 using its radar for such a task is doubtfully effective.



based on...?

The beam in its self is quite narrow, and the area of jamming coverage become narrow.
And while the F-35 do this it cannot Tranmit/receive any usefull signals eighter..
So much compromises.


Compromises you just made up with no sources? it sure is funny to watch the guy who earlier said the F-35 has no internal jammer now think of scenarios for the jammer it doesn't have not working.

Anyway, i said the F-35 has no internal Jammer, it was imitiadly called out as BS..


you just said it did above

You do realize almost all modern combat aircraft, even some helicopters have jammers? So the question is not if the F-35 has an internal jammer, its how effective it is, but you knew this of course, and wouldn't make such a rookie mistake of trying to say it doesn't have one

But it seems the BS come from other posters here.


I didn't realize the CMC posted here. This could not at all be about you learning something and not liking what you learned.

The ASQ-239 is not a jammer system.


Oh? please enlighten us then. And remember, all modern aircraft have internal jammers of some variety or another. I would love to know why the F-35 would be the first without one. and before you guess "stealth" B-2s and F-22 have them too

I wonder why the Commandant of the US Marines would tell Congress that is is 85 percent as effective then? (I provided a source for this earlier)

Just because you don't believe it exists, does not mean it does not exist. You make a big deal of calling out LM well, I'm calling you out on this. The CMC said it, its up to you to disprove it using facts evidence and sources not guess about how EW systems you claim the F-35 doesn't have don't work. I trust the CMC who has access to the F-35 first hand, rather than you. The onus is on you to prove yourself-- Not the Marine in uniform with decades of service in aviation, testifying to the House Armed Services Committee.

A lot of the avionics (those same avionics you said earlier were so vast in the F-35 that it actually affected the way it flew) are classified. so asking "where, where" and not believing what you hear isn't helpful. Its your word against the Commandant of the Marine Corps. good luck with that. The CMC specifically mentioned internal as well so he is wrong or lying or what? Its also does not take a genious to figure out that with the F-35 relying on VLO, that other than the big time NJG pod, they wouldn't be able to add an external self protection jammer without affecting RCS.

So just to summarize:

the CMC says the F-35 has an internal jammer, you think it doesn't, and blame posters here for saying it.

the CMC says it will be 85 percent as effective as the prowler. you say it doesn't have one... but if it does its not effective, then you shared the specifics of why it wouldn't work, while claiming it doesn't have one?

Am I the only one confused on this?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:42
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:
haavarla wrote:
maus92 wrote:
haavarla wrote:
So where is the internal Jammer on F-35?
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite


The ASQ-239 can function as techniques generator, transmitting via the APG-81


Sadly which does not make it a Jammer, not by a far cry.


Actually yes it does. It doesn't make it an escort or standoff jammer, but makes it more of a self protection jammer albeit potentially an extremely powerful one. Legacy self protection jammers are very low powered systems with very wide beamwidth or even omnidirectional antennas resulting in extremely low jamming power in enemy radar (but still enough to protect the individual aircraft in many cases). AESA radar has the potential of having much higher jamming power output and much more focused beam resulting in very high jamming power (or J/S ratio) in radar in comparison.

Of course self protection jammer is not comparable to support/escort jammer. The original question was how F-35 was going to jam PAK-FA radar. For that ASQ-239 using APG-81 as an antenna would likely be very capable. Of course PAK-FA radar could do the same to APG-81, but the situation would strongly favor the aircraft with lower frontal RCS (which would very likely be F-35).


^This ^

it even covers the two major advantages the F-35 is likely to have over PAKFA: Avionics and lower RCS.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:38
by disconnectedradical
lookieloo wrote:
munny wrote:Once you gain the knowledge on how stealth shaping works (rather than thinking its some sort of magic as Haarvy does), you really appreciate the elegance of the F-35's design. That back-end shot really shows how thoroughly it was considered. They've really progressed well beyond Ufimtsev's equations with this one.
Has this been posted yet? (I usually mark this thread 'read')
Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 50-project
...Above all, without changes to the aircraft it is questionable whether or not the T-50 will actually be a low-observable design. Several aspects of the aircraft as currently configured will produce unacceptably high RCS, as well as IR, signatures, according to U.S. industry experts who spoke to AIN...


This is a pretty bad article, and it makes quite a few factual errors. The radar is N036, not N050. Also, T-50 uses the 117 engine, not the 117S of the Su-35S.

The article kinda singles out the T-50 for problems that all 5th generation programs are facing. Of course the 2016 IOC date for T-50 is still hopelessly optimistic and likely impossible.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:53
by lookieloo
disconnectedradical wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
munny wrote:Once you gain the knowledge on how stealth shaping works (rather than thinking its some sort of magic as Haarvy does), you really appreciate the elegance of the F-35's design. That back-end shot really shows how thoroughly it was considered. They've really progressed well beyond Ufimtsev's equations with this one.
Has this been posted yet? (I usually mark this thread 'read')
Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 50-project
...Above all, without changes to the aircraft it is questionable whether or not the T-50 will actually be a low-observable design. Several aspects of the aircraft as currently configured will produce unacceptably high RCS, as well as IR, signatures, according to U.S. industry experts who spoke to AIN...
This is a pretty bad article, and it makes quite a few factual errors. The radar is N036, not N050. Also, T-50 uses the 117 engine, not the 117S of the Su-35S.

The article kinda singles out the T-50 for problems that all 5th generation programs are facing. Of course the 2016 IOC date for T-50 is still hopelessly optimistic and likely impossible.
It's hard to get any real news on the T-50 outside official sources; but if you visit some of the Indian boards, you will find lots of nice closeups revealing a fundamental problem: VLO technology requires a level of manufacturing-quality/attention-to-detail that the Russians simply aren't known for, and it shows.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 02:57
by quicksilver
All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.

And we haven't even talked about the HMDS, DAS, EOTS, the fusion engine, data links, or all-aspect LO...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 11:29
by disconnectedradical
Maybe TEG can help me out here, but since the T-50 employs a radar blocker for the intake, could it be that T-50 inlet ramps are meant to reduce potential engine performance losses incurred by such blockers?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 11:52
by hornetfinn
quicksilver wrote:All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.


Very true. APG-81 is a fifth generation AESA radar and third generation operational fighter AESA radar. It's also the first fighter radar which has been designed for electronic attack from the beginning. Of course APG-77 and APG-79 have got or will get some EA capabilities, but the are more of an afterthought than designed in from the beginning. Also much of the EA capability comes from ASQ-239 and their integration together which requires a lot of computing and networking capability. I agree that it most likely has far superior capabilities compared to legacy self protection jammers or even many support/escort jammers due to very concentrated jamming beams resulting in a very high jamming power on radar even with low powered beams.

I haven't heard anything about electronic attack capabilities even being considered for PAK-FA radar system, but I find it highly unlikely it will any such capabilities soon. This is their first AESA generation and there would be a lot of work to do to just get the radar part working correctly. It seems like EW capabilities require quite a lot from radar design and construction along with the networking and computing infrastructure of the aircraft. I seriously doubt PAK-FA will have any of these at sufficient level as only the latest Russian aircraft (at least MIG-35, Su-30MKK) have just started to use MIL-STD 1553B which would not be nearly enough for the task.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 14:37
by maus92
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.


Very true. APG-81 is a fifth generation AESA radar and third generation operational fighter AESA radar. It's also the first fighter radar which has been designed for electronic attack from the beginning. Of course APG-77 and APG-79 have got or will get some EA capabilities, but the are more of an afterthought than designed in from the beginning. Also much of the EA capability comes from ASQ-239 and their integration together which requires a lot of computing and networking capability. I agree that it most likely has far superior capabilities compared to legacy self protection jammers or even many support/escort jammers due to very concentrated jamming beams resulting in a very high jamming power on radar even with low powered beams.


And yet there is a need for a dedicated EA aircraft - which is why the Growler exists, and the NGJ system is being integrated on this airframe. Even if the CMC insists that F-35 can accomplish "85%" of the mission (presumably using an additional podded comms jammer,) the Navy is standing up two additional VAQ squadrons to offset the loss of VMAQs when the Prowler retires. The F-35 EW suite does not have the wide band frequency flexibility and power required for comprehensive EA. It does however have the X band covered - where aircraft/missile/fire control radars live.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 18:19
by wrightwing
maus92 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.


Very true. APG-81 is a fifth generation AESA radar and third generation operational fighter AESA radar. It's also the first fighter radar which has been designed for electronic attack from the beginning. Of course APG-77 and APG-79 have got or will get some EA capabilities, but the are more of an afterthought than designed in from the beginning. Also much of the EA capability comes from ASQ-239 and their integration together which requires a lot of computing and networking capability. I agree that it most likely has far superior capabilities compared to legacy self protection jammers or even many support/escort jammers due to very concentrated jamming beams resulting in a very high jamming power on radar even with low powered beams.


And yet there is a need for a dedicated EA aircraft - which is why the Growler exists, and the NGJ system is being integrated on this airframe. Even if the CMC insists that F-35 can accomplish "85%" of the mission (presumably using an additional podded comms jammer,) the Navy is standing up two additional VAQ squadrons to offset the loss of VMAQs when the Prowler retires. The F-35 EW suite does not have the wide band frequency flexibility and power required for comprehensive EA. It does however have the X band covered - where aircraft/missile/fire control radars live.


Legacy aircraft will be operating till ~2040.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 19:29
by Scorpion82
quicksilver wrote:All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.

And we haven't even talked about the HMDS, DAS, EOTS, the fusion engine, data links, or all-aspect LO...


Such claims always sound great, but can you actually bolster this any credible evidence or is it once again just fanboy bluster? Honestly I don't see what "unmatched" capabilities it poses vs existing EA capabilities on the F-22 for example. The Super Hornet might be more constraint with a less capable RWR. Jamming is very much a software game, the hardware base must be right, but else it's software and mission data.

hornetfinn wrote:Very true. APG-81 is a fifth generation AESA radar and third generation operational fighter AESA radar. It's also the first fighter radar which has been designed for electronic attack from the beginning. Of course APG-77 and APG-79 have got or will get some EA capabilities, but the are more of an afterthought than designed in from the beginning. Also much of the EA capability comes from ASQ-239 and their integration together which requires a lot of computing and networking capability. I agree that it most likely has far superior capabilities compared to legacy self protection jammers or even many support/escort jammers due to very concentrated jamming beams resulting in a very high jamming power on radar even with low powered beams.


A more powerful beam viz a viz a dedicated self protection jammer is certainly a given, but the radar just acts as the tranmission device in this instance. The back end processing and doing is all conventional as for other ECM systems. The sole difference here is dedicated ECM transmitter vs using the radar aperture as transmitter. Many modern dedicated ECM transmitters use AESA technology, which is obviously unheard of by many here. The computing and networking shouldn't be such a big issue these days anymore. It's not like you need some sort of super computer to do the job.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 19:33
by Scorpion82
disconnectedradical wrote:Maybe TEG can help me out here, but since the T-50 employs a radar blocker for the intake, could it be that T-50 inlet ramps are meant to reduce potential engine performance losses incurred by such blockers?


I'm not too sure whether there will be any blockers at all. The Russians have been working on RAM coats that can be fitted to the 1st compressor stage to mitigate the issue. The inlet ramps are needed to achieve the required M 2+ performance, though the MAch requirement as far as max Mach is concerned may have been reduced.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 12:15
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:A more powerful beam viz a viz a dedicated self protection jammer is certainly a given, but the radar just acts as the tranmission device in this instance. The back end processing and doing is all conventional as for other ECM systems. The sole difference here is dedicated ECM transmitter vs using the radar aperture as transmitter. Many modern dedicated ECM transmitters use AESA technology, which is obviously unheard of by many here. The computing and networking shouldn't be such a big issue these days anymore. It's not like you need some sort of super computer to do the job.


I don't think it's that simple, because the radar has to work as a radar also and is not a dedicated antenna for ASQ-239. It also acts as a receiver for the EW system, so there is a lot of information that needs to be transferred from it to ASQ-239. Of course they definitely also need a lot of co-ordination for efficient operation as there are a lot of other things the APG-81 does, besides being an EW transmit antenna. Current and future complex radar wave forms and wider bandwidths will require much more networking and computing power to be successfully detected, analyzed and jammed. It's easier with jamming pods which contain all the required elements within the pod.

Computing and especially network capacity seems to be rather limited in all other jets besides F-35 and F-22. Latest operational Russian aircraft use MIL-STD 1553B data bus which is very slow in comparison. EF, Rafale and Block 2 Super Hornets use fiber optic data buses which are much faster than 1553B, but nowhere near the capacity of IEEE-1394B data bus used in F-22 and F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 12:34
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:All AESAs are not created equal.
ASQ-239 provides a range of passive and active EW capabilities far beyond 'self protect.'
The combination of ASQ-239 and APG-81 together provide capabilities unmatched by any other fighter aircraft in the world - bar none.


Very true. APG-81 is a fifth generation AESA radar and third generation operational fighter AESA radar. It's also the first fighter radar which has been designed for electronic attack from the beginning. Of course APG-77 and APG-79 have got or will get some EA capabilities, but the are more of an afterthought than designed in from the beginning. Also much of the EA capability comes from ASQ-239 and their integration together which requires a lot of computing and networking capability. I agree that it most likely has far superior capabilities compared to legacy self protection jammers or even many support/escort jammers due to very concentrated jamming beams resulting in a very high jamming power on radar even with low powered beams.


And yet there is a need for a dedicated EA aircraft - which is why the Growler exists, and the NGJ system is being integrated on this airframe. Even if the CMC insists that F-35 can accomplish "85%" of the mission (presumably using an additional podded comms jammer,) the Navy is standing up two additional VAQ squadrons to offset the loss of VMAQs when the Prowler retires. The F-35 EW suite does not have the wide band frequency flexibility and power required for comprehensive EA. It does however have the X band covered - where aircraft/missile/fire control radars live.


Everyone benefits from wide band applications of EA. However, unlike F-35, Super Hornet (which will be the preponderance, if not the whole of Navy TACAIR for a long time) cannot live in A2AD scenarios without dedicated EA. You can even put some more special lipstick on SH and it will still need lotsa EA to live.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 13:22
by spazsinbad
There is an old but good overview of some of the F-35 capabilities here:

F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection April 1, 2006 Ron Sherman
"The F-35 will combine radar warning, signals collection and analysis, passive emitter location and countermeasures functions in an integrated electronic warfare suite deeply linked to radar and imaging sensors. The design aims to bootstrap pilot situational awareness...."

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... n_845.html

Same article also mentioned here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... man#250923
&
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... man#167288

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 19:11
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:There is an old but good overview of some of the F-35 capabilities here:

F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection April 1, 2006 Ron Sherman
"The F-35 will combine radar warning, signals collection and analysis, passive emitter location and countermeasures functions in an integrated electronic warfare suite deeply linked to radar and imaging sensors. The design aims to bootstrap pilot situational awareness...."

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... n_845.html

Same article also mentioned here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... man#250923
&
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... man#167288


The linked article can't be referred to often enough. One of the most frustrating things about the F-35 is having to explain how a fully-integrated avionics system can't be discussed along the lines of legacy aircraft systems. Functionality is centrally controlled but spread among many subcomponents and subsystems. People like to put capabilities in neat little boxes and it is tough to get their minds wrapped around the idea they can't do that with the F-35.
Example: the only thing you could call a real 'radio' in the F-35 are the backup ARC-210. The main voice (and other) comm is via "software defined radios" which are a subset of the CNI suite: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... asheet.pdf
Similarly, when the pilot sees his situation in the HMD, he isn't seeing a DAS, EOTS, EW, or Radar picture. He's seeing a fusion (there's that word) of information sorted, processed, collated, integrated and filtered down to what he needs to see and cares about.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 20:35
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think it's that simple, because the radar has to work as a radar also and is not a dedicated antenna for ASQ-239. It also acts as a receiver for the EW system, so there is a lot of information that needs to be transferred from it to ASQ-239. Of course they definitely also need a lot of co-ordination for efficient operation as there are a lot of other things the APG-81 does, besides being an EW transmit antenna. Current and future complex radar wave forms and wider bandwidths will require much more networking and computing power to be successfully detected, analyzed and jammed. It's easier with jamming pods which contain all the required elements within the pod.

Computing and especially network capacity seems to be rather limited in all other jets besides F-35 and F-22. Latest operational Russian aircraft use MIL-STD 1553B data bus which is very slow in comparison. EF, Rafale and Block 2 Super Hornets use fiber optic data buses which are much faster than 1553B, but nowhere near the capacity of IEEE-1394B data bus used in F-22 and F-35.


That's what's relevant for all modern fighters, concurrent operations of ESM, ECM, radar and other RF systems as well as EO systems. People here grossly underestimate the capabilities of types they aren't familar with. That doesn't mean that the F-35 may enjoy no advantages in this or that area, but much of what's being discussed is 1) based on what people mean to know about the F-35, but what they don't know about other types and 2) what they don't really comprehend from a technical pov.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 22:11
by sferrin
lookieloo wrote:The article kinda singles out the T-50 for problems that all 5th generation programs are facing. Of course the 2016 IOC date for T-50 is still hopelessly optimistic and likely impossible.It's hard to get any real news on the T-50 outside official sources; but if you visit some of the Indian boards, you will find lots of nice closeups revealing a fundamental problem: VLO technology requires a level of manufacturing-quality/attention-to-detail that the Russians simply aren't known for, and it shows.


Exactly. There was an article in one of the composites trades where they went into quite a lot of detail about how LM uses laser radars to precisely measure the contours of the skin post cure to see where additional plies need to be laid up in a second cure cycle to get a much more accurate part.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 00:41
by lookieloo
sferrin wrote:
lookieloo wrote:The article kinda singles out the T-50 for problems that all 5th generation programs are facing. Of course the 2016 IOC date for T-50 is still hopelessly optimistic and likely impossible.It's hard to get any real news on the T-50 outside official sources; but if you visit some of the Indian boards, you will find lots of nice closeups revealing a fundamental problem: VLO technology requires a level of manufacturing-quality/attention-to-detail that the Russians simply aren't known for, and it shows.
Exactly. There was an article in one of the composites trades where they went into quite a lot of detail about how LM uses laser radars to precisely measure the contours of the skin post cure to see where additional plies need to be laid up in a second cure cycle to get a much more accurate part.
First two lines of the above quote aren't mine. For my part, 2016-17 seems possible given the following.

-The PAK-FA represents a bone-simple approach. Raid the top-shelf of Flanker's parts-shed and wrap a new airframe around the items selected. As long as it features internal-stores and looks the part, who's to say it isn't stealthy without putting it in a quiet room?

-The Russians can declare IOC whenever the hell they want in any case. So long as they can put a 4-ship flight in the air for parades and photo-ops, there's simply no way for outsiders to know if they're really operational or not.

The only fly in Sukhoi's ointment is India, which has loud and skeptical media outlets aplenty. They aren't planning to go operational until the 2020s, which is what I would consider the plane's true IOC deadline. If the Russians can't deliver by then, that's when the real embarrassment will start.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 02:23
by quicksilver
Scorpion82 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think it's that simple, because the radar has to work as a radar also and is not a dedicated antenna for ASQ-239. It also acts as a receiver for the EW system, so there is a lot of information that needs to be transferred from it to ASQ-239. Of course they definitely also need a lot of co-ordination for efficient operation as there are a lot of other things the APG-81 does, besides being an EW transmit antenna. Current and future complex radar wave forms and wider bandwidths will require much more networking and computing power to be successfully detected, analyzed and jammed. It's easier with jamming pods which contain all the required elements within the pod.

Computing and especially network capacity seems to be rather limited in all other jets besides F-35 and F-22. Latest operational Russian aircraft use MIL-STD 1553B data bus which is very slow in comparison. EF, Rafale and Block 2 Super Hornets use fiber optic data buses which are much faster than 1553B, but nowhere near the capacity of IEEE-1394B data bus used in F-22 and F-35.


That's what's relevant for all modern fighters, concurrent operations of ESM, ECM, radar and other RF systems as well as EO systems. People here grossly underestimate the capabilities of types they aren't familar with. That doesn't mean that the F-35 may enjoy no advantages in this or that area, but much of what's being discussed is 1) based on what people mean to know about the F-35, but what they don't know about other types and 2) what they don't really comprehend from a technical pov.


"People here grossly underestimate the capabilities of types they aren't familar with."

Hoist by his own petard. I rest my case. 8)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 10:40
by BELA
Does anyone know the actual length of the pakfa? seems awfully large when compared with the f-35. Ive seen quotes for 20.4 meters and 19.4 meters, not sure which is correct. could be miscalculation based on pitot length?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 13:07
by Scorpion82
quicksilver wrote:
Hoist by his own petard. I rest my case. 8)


Feel free to elaborate how I alledgedly houst my self with my own petard!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 13:40
by shingen
Scorpion82 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
Hoist by his own petard. I rest my case. 8)


Feel free to elaborate how I alledgedly houst my self with my own petard!



Please explain how physics allows a coating suitable for a fan blade to lower RCS enough to allow the elimination of inlet blockers without compromising signature.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 21:32
by Scorpion82
It will certainly depend on the RAMs ability to absorb the RF waves, possible RAM mats within the intakes and partially LOS blocking by the intake/engine arrangment will help to minimise returns. Curved inlets with greater curvature and complete or almost complete compressor stage masking plus the above mentioned measures would yield the best results with no serious lose of thrust performance. The same can not be said about a radar blocker which is a structure that adsorbs the RF waves and prevents them from "hitting" the fan to a large extend.

I didn't say there are no compromises though.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 21:40
by Scorpion82
lookieloo wrote:The only fly in Sukhoi's ointment is India, which has loud and skeptical media outlets aplenty. They aren't planning to go operational until the 2020s, which is what I would consider the plane's true IOC deadline. If the Russians can't deliver by then, that's when the real embarrassment will start.


It certainly depends on how you define operational. I'm of the impression that the Russians are talking about entry into service around 2017. That means the RuAF will receive first full rate production aircraft that will be assigned to the training centre at Lipetsk. It'll certainly take some years to train enough pilots, develope proper operational procedures and start equipping front line units. IOC won't be achieved much before 2020 if then at all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 01:03
by shingen
Scorpion82 wrote:It will certainly depend on the RAMs ability to absorb the RF waves, possible RAM mats within the intakes and partially LOS blocking by the intake/engine arrangment will help to minimise returns. Curved inlets with greater curvature and complete or almost complete compressor stage masking plus the above mentioned measures would yield the best results with no serious lose of thrust performance. The same can not be said about a radar blocker which is a structure that adsorbs the RF waves and prevents them from "hitting" the fan to a large extend.

I didn't say there are no compromises though.


That's not what I asked and you know it.

It's ok if you don't want to answer the question and want to keep the goalposts wherever you want them. We can see what happened here.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 06:49
by Scorpion82
shingen wrote:That's not what I asked and you know it.

It's ok if you don't want to answer the question and want to keep the goalposts wherever you want them. We can see what happened here.


You ask a question that insists I have claimed something, that I haven't and now you want me to prove this claim that I never made in the first place?

Edit:
Admitedly my statement you probably refer to was unlucky in that it was kept too brief and unspecific leaving too much room for interpretation. Let me clarify the rational behind that statement to avoid possible confusion.

The Russians have developed a RAM coat applicable to the 1st compressor stages weakening reflections from partially or fully exposed compressor faces. I raise question marks over the addition of radar blockers on the production examples as it would render this RAM coats superfluous. A blocker is more effective at minimising radar reflections by combining RAM treatments with a strucutre that death traps the RF waves blocking the direct LOS of an otherwise exposed compressor face. The drawback of that solution are thrust loses entailed to airflow interruptions caused by the blocker. The Russian approach emphasis uncompromised engine performance, while trading RCS reduction in comparison to the blocker approach. If my statement came across as "the RAM treated fan is minimisig returns to the same extend as a proper designed radar blocker" then sorry, that wasn't the intention behind this statement. I hope I could clarify any possible confusion this statement may have caused.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 13:14
by milosh
sferrin wrote:Exactly. There was an article in one of the composites trades where they went into quite a lot of detail about how LM uses laser radars to precisely measure the contours of the skin post cure to see where additional plies need to be laid up in a second cure cycle to get a much more accurate part.


Do they used that method when they producted F-22, or they start using it with F-35 production?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 13:33
by spazsinbad
Here are some of my stealth notes - rather than endlessly pointing to material on this forum on the subject - which is usually in the 4.4GB PDF online but.... whatever.... IF you find them difficult to read then there is only one reason. Stelf.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 20:09
by spazsinbad
Longish article about T-50 development issues/cost etc. Best read at source:

The 5th Generation Is Cursed 04 Oct 2013

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 31004.aspx

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2013, 22:24
by jetnerd
I saw that too, Spazs. Projected IOC 2019, 14 years after the F-22, according to the article, wow. I had thought the Russians were getting better at engine development and were in fact done with PAK-FA's engine, at least according to this article (whatevere it's worth):

http://indrus.in/economics/2013/06/29/t ... 26603.html

I find it much easier to believe the Strategypage article, that PAK-FA engine development is really stalled. So with Chinese J-30 turning out to be a failure (admitted by the Chinese to be a cheap export now) , and no evidence for the J-20 being any closer to success, and the T-50 being the "closest" to any kind of operational status, we're looking at maybe a decade or so before the F-35 could ever face a manned stealth aircraft force.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 01:22
by Scorpion82
You chaps moan about people refering to Kopp's gibberish, but you cite strategypage?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 07:51
by linkomart
BELA wrote:Does anyone know the actual length of the pakfa? seems awfully large when compared with the f-35. Ive seen quotes for 20.4 meters and 19.4 meters, not sure which is correct. could be miscalculation based on pitot length?

It could be depending on wich individual you are talking about. In this picture two of the Aircrafts has pitot tube, one have not. (MAKS 2013)

But as to the correct length of the T-50, sorry don't know.

Regards

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 09:00
by lookieloo
Scorpion82 wrote:You chaps moan about people refering to Kopp's gibberish, but you cite strategypage?
So why don't you tell us why they're wrong? Not that it matters; Strategypage doesn't take itself near so seriously as APA does.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 14:19
by Scorpion82
lookieloo wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:You chaps moan about people refering to Kopp's gibberish, but you cite strategypage?
So why don't you tell us why they're wrong? Not that it matters; Strategypage doesn't take itself near so seriously as APA does.


It doesn't matter whether strategy page takes itself as serious as APA or not. Fact is that the news section of this site is complete crap. They rehash old news, add their unqualified nonsense and release this as "news".

What's wrong with that article?

1.) They fail to properly distinguish between the T-50's stage 1 & 2 engines. They call the stage 2 engine AL-41 (117S), which is completely false as the Article 117S aka AL-41F1S is the one powering the Su-35S. The T-50's stage 1 engine is designated AL-41F1 aka Article 117, which is an upgraded variant of the AL-41F1S aka Article 117S which powers the Su-35. The original AL-41F was a clean sheet design developed for the MFI, some of its technology was leveraged for the AL-41F1(S), but otherwise these engines are unrelated. Furthermore it's not Sukhoi which develops the engine and the delays of the stage 2 engine are owed to the fact that a contractor has not been selected until much later. The new engine that is currently under development is designated Type 30 and is a collaborative effort between Saturn, Salyut and Klimov. It is this engine that won't be available for production much before 2020. The AL-41F1 stage 1 engine is powering the T-50 prototypes already and is an almost finished product.

2.) The claims wrt overly expensive RAM, electronics etc. and their "problems" are based on what exactly?

3.) They claim slipages in the programme schedule and justfiy this with the Indian timelines which is nonsense as India will receive a customised version that has yet to be developed. That the Indian time scales are different to those of the Russians is subsequently not surprising.

4.) The cost figures they are throwing around (120 mln USD) appear to be grapped out of the air as well and they fail to mention that if they include a share of development costs this share will vary grossly depending on the number actually build.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 18:17
by lookieloo
Scorpion82 wrote:The claims wrt overly expensive RAM, electronics etc. and their "problems" are based on what exactly?
Well, I tend to assume that bears $hit in the woods as well, yet strictly speaking, I have no immediate basis for that claim either.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 22:28
by haavarla
First off, The F-35 would need to located the bandit.
Then if he transmit nouse through a tight beam towards the T-50, Its EW and RWS would pick up the niose and the approx position.
Furthermore a singel F-35 using its radar for such a task is doubtfully effective.

based on...?

Cause the Self protection system of F-35 is nowhere near a dedicated stand off jammer in term of performance.
If you can't tell the difference, do Your homework and read up.. you know.. Google.

The beam in its self is quite narrow, and the area of jamming coverage become narrow. And while the F-35 do this it cannot Tranmit/receive any usefull signals eighter.. So much compromises.

Compromises you just made up with no sources? it sure is funny to watch the guy who earlier said the F-35 has no internal jammer now think of scenarios for the jammer it doesn't have not working.

I've allready posted some of the compromises using the Radar as an effective Jammer. It cant transmit noise and at the same time get usefull Tr/Rc signal back. The Field of coverage will be severly Limited( it can only operate in the frontal hemisphere!) and at the same time the area picked for Jamming will be Limited by performance alone. It can only transmit in X band signal afaik. If anyone can prove me wrong pls contribute..

The ASQ-239 is not a jammer system.

Oh? please enlighten us then. And remember, all modern aircraft have internal jammers of some variety or another. I would love to know why the F-35 would be the first without one. and before you guess "stealth" B-2s and F-22 have them too

I wonder why the Commandant of the US Marines would tell Congress that is is 85 percent as effective then? (I provided a source for this earlier)

omg.. seems i need to enlighten only you here.. ? see above.

Whatever he tell the congress, is hot air in fear of pissing of the senators in their defence committees.. The F-35 have enough problems as it is.. beats me why you try to Connect any jammer With the F-35..? There is none.

Balance of Surviability
"NGJ is a part of the Navy's overall Balance of surviability which focus on stand-off jamming, defensive jammers, signature reduction and speed.

Look at what the Navy has done With the SH and Growler, in terms of cost and focus survivability features, it creates an platform that is very well balanced and it doesn't drive you in the Extremes in any one area. A very credible, stand-off mod escort jammer, like the NGJ, is a huge part of that Balance of survivability towards the increasing double digit SAM system that only cost a fraction of Air wings.
And we believe it Works Beyond the bounds of the Navy. We know that we will continue to be used as a joint asset, as the Analouge ALQ-99 jammer is today. Anytime a strike package has to og over the Beach, weather that's the Navy, AF or USMC, it's protected by the ALQ-99. The NGJ will continue that."

Courtesy of Capt John Green Airborn Attack Program Manager With PMA-234.


Once again the ASQ-239 is not a jammer. Get over it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 00:08
by hobo
spazsinbad wrote:'Scorpion82' said:
"...Any remotely intelligent aviation enthusiast shouldn't resort to posting their crap as "news" or a "source"...."

I'll remember that.


Strategypage really is garbage.

From a couple of their recent articles:

The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force have also had disputes over how much each new F-35 fighter will cost. The air force insists that it is $65 million each, while the Department of Defense says when all costs are included it will be more like $111 million each. Another number being debated is how many F-35s will actually be produced. The air force assumes 3,162, but the Department of Defense is not so sure that many will eventually be built. Total development cost is now put at $65 billion, which comes to over $20 million per aircraft if 3,162 are built. Development costs for the new U.S. F-35 fighter-bomber has grown by more than a third over the last few years. The additional development costs are accompanied by additional delays. Current estimates are that the F-35 will enter service in another 3-4 years. The Department of Defense believes production and development costs will continue to rise and that the number to be built will decline. Both trends increase the average aircraft cost. Based on past experience, the higher Department of Defense estimates are more likely to be accurate.

Like the F-22, which had production capped at less than 200 aircraft, the capabilities, as superior as they are, may not justify the much higher costs. The F-35, at least for the navy, is headed in the same direction. The navy can go ahead with the more recent F-18E and keep refurbishing, or even building, the AV-8. The navy recently began examining the possibility of buying fewer F-35s, in the long run, and replacing them with combat UAVs, like the X-47B. Politics, and lobbying by the F-35 manufacturer, will probably keep the F-35 headed for fleet service, no matter what the cost.

The 31 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs) plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons.

Like the F-22 fighter, the F-35 is stealthy and is stuffed with a lot of new technology. Most (about 60 percent) of the F-35s built will be used by foreign nations. The rising cost of the F-35 brings with it reluctance to buy as many aircraft as currently planned. The success of smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan has also made it clear that fewer aircraft will be needed in the future. In any event, it's likely that F-35s will end up costing more than $100 million each.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130417.aspx?comments=Y#startofcomments


or...


January 26, 2013: With continued delays in the arrival of the F-35 fighter, the U.S. Air Force is spending nearly $6 billion to upgrade and refurbish its F-15s. Most of this money is going into upgrades for its 220 F-15E fighter bombers. Between 2008 and 2017, some $3 billion will be spent on the F-15Es, mainly for new electronics.

Most of the remaining money is being spent on 400 older F-15s, some of which have flown over 10,000 hour so far. The F-15 was originally designed to last only 8,000 hours. But since it was introduced over 30 years ago, there have been many improvements to the air frame and the air force is hoping to get 18,000 hours out of most of the older F-15s.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130126.aspx?comments=Y#startofcomments

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 00:30
by spazsinbad
There are plenty of 'news' online sites that report their opinion as news and just whatever they decide to make up at the time. This aspect is commented upon all the time here. Nothing new in that respect. I could probably count to less than a few 'strategypage' posts I have personally posted here. Usually I do not read it along with a bunch of other online blogs/news outlets or whatever. Funny that 'strategypage' gets so much vitriol. So be it.

Personally I like having the wheat sorted from the chaff. If someone wants to confuse what I post with my personal opinions then they are mistaken. Do I need to parse/refute every single post? No I do not. If others wish to do that I find it very helpful for my own purposes. As a long time reader of all the opinions (with very few verifiable sources often when 'facts' given here) I find it odd. So be it. Doesn't bother me in the slightest though. Perhaps I will start quoting APA? Who are the gatekeepers/librarians of knowledge on this forum? All of us are - in our own ways.

I'll remind people (this has been my strategy on the page a few times now) that I'm only interested in facts - as much as can be known in a public forum - about the F-35. Other aircraft are here to provide context to these facts so to speak. I care less about other aircraft in the sense I'm only interested in the F-35 and what it is able to do (as much as that can be known I stress again). If someone else has other knowledge then well and good. You may be interested to know that the cost of this or that interests me not in the slightest except if that 'cost' may affect the outcome of the program (especially for Australia).

A reasonable collection of 'facts' about the F-35 (it is never going to be definitive) is online at the two short URLs always at the end of all my posts here. Every now and then these PDFs are updated but hopefully not too much because 'facts' should not change too much once development of those 'facts' is achieved. Probably only a fond hope though.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 00:59
by hobo
That wasn't directed at you personally.

Strategypage's articles are essentially forum posts and are typically riddled with factual errors, and consist mostly of a whole bunch of unsourced and unsupported claims. Even by blog standards they rank near the bottom of the list.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 01:21
by count_to_10
hobo wrote:That wasn't directed at you personally.

Strategypage's articles are essentially forum posts and are typically riddled with factual errors, and consist mostly of a whole bunch of unsourced and unsupported claims. Even by blog standards they rank near the bottom of the list.

So, like David Axe, then?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 02:24
by BELA
linkomart wrote:
BELA wrote:Does anyone know the actual length of the pakfa? seems awfully large when compared with the f-35. Ive seen quotes for 20.4 meters and 19.4 meters, not sure which is correct. could be miscalculation based on pitot length?

It could be depending on wich individual you are talking about. In this picture two of the Aircrafts has pitot tube, one have not. (MAKS 2013)

But as to the correct length of the T-50, sorry don't know.

Regards


I was able to get some good info from Parlalay. I appreciate your attempts to help Linkomart, Many thanks.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 07:49
by lookieloo
One of those rare seepages of non-Sukhoi information regarding the T-50. Don't know much about this Tribune, but they at least have a source to cite. Also not sure how long the link will lead directly to the article, so I'm posting the whole thing.
Differences crop up with Russia over fighter jet deal
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service


New Delhi October 5
Difference of opinion has cropped up between long-term partners India and Russia over the prestigious project to jointly develop and produce the next generation fighter planes.

The two countries had agreed in 2010 to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), which at $ 30 billion USD would be the biggest defence deal ever in the world.

The preliminary design contract (PDC) phase costing $ 295 million was completed on June 19. However, New Delhi and Moscow will take at least an year more to take the next step -- that is signing of the final design Research and Development (R&D) contract worth $ 11 billion. The draft contracts for the proposed R&D were exchanged in mid-2012. India’s share is $ 5.5 billion.

Since then, developments have lost pace. Sources said India wants access to technical data and be a contributor in the R&D as that will enable its teams to get experience. Also, India is seeking a ban on the sale of the plane to other countries. Indian planners accept in private is that Russia, or any other country, would never part with engine design specifications and metallurgy. “India is looking to be more than a monetary contributor in the deal”, said the source.

The IAF Chief, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, confirmed yesterday that brakes had been put on the FGFA project, at least for now. “We are still working on the R&D contract. It will take one more year. Technical discussions are on. Till we get technical details, which we need to know, we cannot even get to the issue of discussing financial terms and conditions”, the IAF Chief said.

The first hint of delay was when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Delhi in December last year but the R&D contract was not signed.

The first induction was planned for 2022, but the assessment within the MoD is that it will be delayed. Four prototypes of the code-named ‘PAK-FA’ are already flying in Russia.

The plane has stealth features enabling it to be somewhat masked from enemy radars. It will have advanced features such as super-cruise, ultra-manoeuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons (that is under-carriage weapons will not be visible) and network centric warfare capabilities.

Only when the R&D contract is signed, the FGFA prototypes will be available in India. The first is slated in 2014. It will be flight-tested by Indian pilots and monitored by Indian engineers. Two more prototypes will follow in 2017 and 2019. The last will be the final version on which the FGFA will be based.

What India wants

Access to technical data and be a contributor in the research & development
This will enable its teams to get vital experience.
Ban on the sale of the plane to other countries.
The two countries had agreed in 2010 to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA)
At $30 billion, it was the biggest defence deal ever in the world

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131006/nation.htm#1
It's unclear what (if any) implications delaying the FGFA would have for the PAK-FA; they are supposed to be separate programs (according to supporters anyways), but the Indian demand for equal control over foreign-sales would indicate a degree of codependency.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 08:18
by KamenRiderBlade
So is the FGFA a different airplane all together than the PAK-FA, or a variant of the PAK-FA?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 09:25
by lookieloo
kamenriderblade wrote:So is the FGFA a different airplane all together than the PAK-FA, or a variant of the PAK-FA?
According to what the Indians tell me, FGFA is supposed to use almost entirely different avionics, some even claim it will have a much better signature as well. Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to get a straight answer on the specifics due to the project being rather opaque. I'm not even sure if the Indians running this program actually know for certain what they're buying. India is just a canary in the mine; it won't tell you exactly what the problem is, but it will let you know there's a problem of some kind.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 14:01
by Scorpion82
The FGFA was originally supposed to be a twin seat variant to be developed under the lead of HAL. In addition to the second seat the aircraft was expected to feature a number of domestic avionic systems. It looks like the twin seat variant has been abandoned altogether as the priority has shifted towards completing the single seat variant. The FGFA will thus be a single seat variant with some unspecified domestic avionics. The pending finalcontract for joint development of what is called the PMF is somewhat confusing as there was some talking about a joint variant. As of today it looks like the Russian version will feature no Indian content, while the Indian version will be merely a customized version of the Russian variant.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 01:00
by haavarla
Sukhoi is only playing the Pak-Fa program safe and is reducing risk. Hense only the singel seater for now.
Who is to blame Sukhoi for such approach.. reduce risk = Reduce cost.

Both India and HAL is only in the singel seater FGFA jet for a pep show as Things stand right now.
They haven't contribute With anything at all.

Surly some of that article is not up to speed on current Development.
IMO it seems out of touch With reality.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 03:19
by Corsair1963
haavarla wrote:Sukhoi is only playing the Pak-Fa program safe and is reducing risk. Hense only the singel seater for now.
Who is to blame Sukhoi for such approach.. reduce risk = Reduce cost.

Both India and HAL is only in the singel seater FGFA jet for a pep show as Things stand right now.
They haven't contribute With anything at all.

Surly some of that article is not up to speed on current Development.
IMO it seems out of touch With reality.


India would spend a great deal to join the PAK-FA Program. Yet, what is it really getting. As the 2-Seater (FGFA) has been put off and much of the basic design of the PAK-FA completed. So, honestly what is India gaining by joining the program.....

May as well just produce them under license in India.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 05:44
by popcorn
It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 06:29
by Corsair1963
Sounds like a lot of spin to me...............

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 07:05
by haavarla
I don't know why India and HAL didn't get on the Train much earlier, i mean like in 2008-10 period..
Maybe they though: "-Lets wait and see how this play out, its too early"

But afa i can see, they have missed a lot of Trains by now and will consiquently be very late into the FGFA program since Sukhoi have completed its design, picked the engine, radar and what not.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 10:37
by popcorn
It remains to be seen how much India will benefit from FGFA participation that will appreciably contribute toward it's indigenous 5Gen AMCA initiative.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 12:42
by madrat
AMCA is good as still born. Don't waste too much time thinking it will ever come to anything more than a pipe dream.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 15:11
by cantaz
haavarla wrote:I don't know why India and HAL didn't get on the Train much earlier, i mean like in 2008-10 period..
Maybe they though: "-Lets wait and see how this play out, its too early"


Maybe they know something we don't. The Russians have to have disclosed a lot more actual info, whether it be about specification, progress, cost or logistics, to the Indians versus the heresay floating around in the public domain. Maybe the Indians are skeptical of the program, hence their lukewarm response to it.

We're the ones groping around in the dark here, not the Indian government.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 16:17
by haavarla
Yep, could be.
It could also be that JSC figured they come so far With the Pak-Fa program that they want to keep all the Cheddar Tech for them self and are only interested in giving India the same deal as With the Irkut-HAL deal on MKI.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 17:17
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:
hobo wrote:That wasn't directed at you personally.

Strategypage's articles are essentially forum posts and are typically riddled with factual errors, and consist mostly of a whole bunch of unsourced and unsupported claims. Even by blog standards they rank near the bottom of the list.

So, like David Axe, then?


LOL! This is the guy who referred to the B-2 as a "twin-engine bomber" in an article he wrote last week. :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 17:30
by linkomart
BELA, on the subject of length, notice the different tail stinger length on prototype no 1 (top) and the others (MAKS 2013)

I found a fairly well made 3-view drawing of PAK-FA on the internet, saying the length is 20.4 m, and as all things pulled of the internet it is the truth the whole truth and noting but.... Well, use with judgement.

Best Regards

.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 19:21
by Scorpion82
linkomart wrote:BELA, on the subject of length, notice the different tail stinger length on prototype no 1 (top) and the others (MAKS 2013)

I found a fairly well made 3-view drawing of PAK-FA on the internet, saying the length is 20.4 m, and as all things pulled of the internet it is the truth the whole truth and noting but.... Well, use with judgement.

Best Regards

.


The first prototype is used for flight envelope expansion. The tail sting was modified during its lay up phase from August 2011 to September 2012 to accomodate a spin recovery chute.

Most sources suggest the length is 19.7-19.8 m, height 4.6-4.8 m and wing span 14-14,2 m. You can arrive at relatively accurate figures by proper image analyis vs reference objects of known size. I haven't done this myself, but it sounds about right.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 19:26
by Scorpion82
popcorn wrote:It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece


And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Because the Indians claim that the FGFA will be lighter, stealthier and more powerful? They even struggle with their Tejas LCA, yet they claim they can do it better than the Russians? That's a pretty big joke if you ask me, let alone that composites make up 70-80% of the T-50's airframe surface, according to the Russians. The "all-metal" airframe claim of the Indians is a bad joke as is the "more powerful engines". These engines are developed by the Russians and should be available by the time the FGFA is finally produced, it will also be fitted to the Russian aircraft. Unless the Indians alter the design, much increase the manufacturing accuracy and surface treatment I don't buy the "stealthier" claim either.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 20:59
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece


And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Because the Indians claim that the FGFA will be lighter, stealthier and more powerful? They even struggle with their Tejas LCA, yet they claim they can do it better than the Russians? That's a pretty big joke if you ask me, let alone that composites make up 70-80% of the T-50's airframe surface, according to the Russians. The "all-metal" airframe claim of the Indians is a bad joke as is the "more powerful engines". These engines are developed by the Russians and should be available by the time the FGFA is finally produced, it will also be fitted to the Russian aircraft. Unless the Indians alter the design, much increase the manufacturing accuracy and surface treatment I don't buy the "stealthier" claim either.


I don't see how the Indian claims have been any less ... lets say "dramatic and sweeping" as some of the Russian Claims. Aren't some posters on this topic catching flack for pointing out that the Russians have a poor history with a lot of the things required to make a 5th generation aircraft, then in the next breath we are ok to point out the indians have had a poor history as well? I suppose its all relative, but it is kind of funny to see the "where do these guys get off making such bold claims when their aviation history indicates otherwise? " complaints. Are the Indians overselling the already oversold Russians? Did a magical avaition ferry suddenly visit these countries and give them skills and knowledge they didn't previously possess that suddenly makes them equal or better than countries with decades worth of a head start on them? Russia is behind the US, India is behind Russia. Yet both are claiming they are equal or better than the next leader.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 21:49
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece


And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Because the Indians claim that the FGFA will be lighter, stealthier and more powerful? They even struggle with their Tejas LCA, yet they claim they can do it better than the Russians? That's a pretty big joke if you ask me, let alone that composites make up 70-80% of the T-50's airframe surface, according to the Russians. The "all-metal" airframe claim of the Indians is a bad joke as is the "more powerful engines". These engines are developed by the Russians and should be available by the time the FGFA is finally produced, it will also be fitted to the Russian aircraft. Unless the Indians alter the design, much increase the manufacturing accuracy and surface treatment I don't buy the "stealthier" claim either.


I don't see how the Indian claims have been any less ... lets say "dramatic and sweeping" as some of the Russian Claims. Aren't some posters on this topic catching flack for pointing out that the Russians have a poor history with a lot of the things required to make a 5th generation aircraft, then in the next breath we are ok to point out the indians have had a poor history as well? I suppose its all relative, but it is kind of funny to see the "where do these guys get off making such bold claims when their aviation history indicates otherwise? " complaints. Are the Indians overselling the already oversold Russians? Did a magical avaition ferry suddenly visit these countries and give them skills and knowledge they didn't previously possess that suddenly makes them equal or better than countries with decades worth of a head start on them? Russia is behind the US, India is behind Russia. Yet both are claiming they are equal or better than the next leader.


Huh??
Who mention US?
Not the Article.. neighter did Scorp..
And what poor history are you refering to?
Details pls.

For all intent and purpose the Irkut-HAL Cooperation is a very successfull history.
IAPO recieved a ambisious set of requirement from IAF back in the late 1990.
Thx to hard cash flow from India, the MKI was borne. India and Irkut funded the Development of the MKI.
Russia did indeed have the right "know how" at the time. India did not.
But the MKI would never see daylight without the India funding.

But fast forward today, the Pak-Fa program will enter Serial Production With or without funding from India. Times have changed.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 21:59
by Scorpion82
The gap in experience overall in the field of aviation is hardly comparable. The Russians are sucessfully designing military aircraf on their own sine decades, so does the Americans. The Indians have never designed a military aircraft from front to end. The comparison is thus apples vs oranges. Wrt "people claim", it's not of relevance to me. I'm not going to debate "other people claims".

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2013, 03:50
by popcorn
Scorpion82 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece


And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Because the Indians claim that the FGFA will be lighter, stealthier and more powerful? They even struggle with their Tejas LCA, yet they claim they can do it better than the Russians? That's a pretty big joke if you ask me, let alone that composites make up 70-80% of the T-50's airframe surface, according to the Russians. The "all-metal" airframe claim of the Indians is a bad joke as is the "more powerful engines". These engines are developed by the Russians and should be available by the time the FGFA is finally produced, it will also be fitted to the Russian aircraft. Unless the Indians alter the design, much increase the manufacturing accuracy and surface treatment I don't buy the "stealthier" claim either.


Next time I'll put a :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 13:11
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:
First off, The F-35 would need to located the bandit.
Then if he transmit nouse through a tight beam towards the T-50, Its EW and RWS would pick up the niose and the approx position.
Furthermore a singel F-35 using its radar for such a task is doubtfully effective.

based on...?

Cause the Self protection system of F-35 is nowhere near a dedicated stand off jammer in term of performance.
If you can't tell the difference, do Your homework and read up.. you know.. Google.


Why would you need a dedicated standoff jammer to jam an X-band fire control radar coming towards you? A standoff jammer is a system that flies out of range of enemy defences and does jamming from a distance (from a standoff). Standoff jammers jam mainly long-range surveillance radars (lower frequency radars, S-band and lower) as their jamming would not be effective against highly directional high frequency radars like fighter fire control radars.

You are the one who needs to read up at least the basics of radars and jamming techniques. Why not start here: http://www.tscm.com/jamingcp.pdf, here: http://www.tscm.com/supt-jam.pdf or here: http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... -ANN-C.pdf

RWS of PAK-FA might not pick up even noise jamming sent by F-35 if the aim is to protect the F-35 itself as required jamming power would be extremely small due to very low RCS of F-35 itself. F-35 would need roughly 100-1000 times less jamming power to protect itself from being detected or tracked than Super Hornet or Eurocanards. It would need thousands of times less power to protect itself than conventional fourth generation fighter would need. This very low level of jamming power would be very difficult to pick up from the background noise. F-35 would be rather close to PAK-FA before detection would be likely. It'd be almost impossible to get even approx position without several PAK-FA flying far apart detecting the jamming coming from the same F-35 and triangulating the jamming strobes.

And why would you use noise jamming anyway in this scenario is beyond me. I'd rather use deception jamming techniques (like DRFM) which are much more efficient in this scenario when needed. Most of the time the F-35 would not be sending any jamming signals, until it was getting so close that jamming would be required to avoid being accurately tracked.

haavarla wrote:
The beam in its self is quite narrow, and the area of jamming coverage become narrow. And while the F-35 do this it cannot Tranmit/receive any usefull signals eighter.. So much compromises.

Compromises you just made up with no sources? it sure is funny to watch the guy who earlier said the F-35 has no internal jammer now think of scenarios for the jammer it doesn't have not working.

I've allready posted some of the compromises using the Radar as an effective Jammer. It cant transmit noise and at the same time get usefull Tr/Rc signal back. The Field of coverage will be severly Limited( it can only operate in the frontal hemisphere!) and at the same time the area picked for Jamming will be Limited by performance alone. It can only transmit in X band signal afaik. If anyone can prove me wrong pls contribute..


There are definitely compromises in using the radar as a jammer,but there are compromises in everything. AESA radar could well transmit noise with only some T/R modules and use the rest of the modules as radar. Since each T/R module has it's own transmitter and receiver, they'd not interfere with each other, especially if they used different frequencies for each task. Besides, there are many self protection jammers which also use same antenna for receive and transmit (jamming) functions and timeshare between the tasks. It's not necessary to continuously transmit to affect the radar detection and tracking processes.

Field of coverage is limited to radar field of coverage, but if the scenario is two fighters (F-35 and PAK-FA) facing each other, then this does not matter much. Besides, most (if not all) self protection jammers offer only front and/or aft sector jamming coverage. And AFAIK there is no public knowledge if there are or aren't other antennas in the F-35 airframe used for jamming. It's interesting that antennas connected to ASQ-239 are called electronic warfare antennas, not radar warning antennas.

If APG-81 uses GaAs T/R modules, then it most likely is confined to X band. If it uses GaN modules, then it has potential to jam much wider bandwidth. Even early GaN T/R modules have been capable of covering three whole radar bands (like C, X and Ku bands). Of course jamming is transmit only and it's likely that bandwidth for jamming is larger than for radar operations in which receiving functions likely cuts down the usable bandwidth. Of course it doesn't matter if it can only jam X band radars in this scenario as PAK-FA radar operates in X band, just like all fighter fire control radars.

haavarla wrote:
The ASQ-239 is not a jammer system.

Oh? please enlighten us then. And remember, all modern aircraft have internal jammers of some variety or another. I would love to know why the F-35 would be the first without one. and before you guess "stealth" B-2s and F-22 have them too

I wonder why the Commandant of the US Marines would tell Congress that is is 85 percent as effective then? (I provided a source for this earlier)

omg.. seems i need to enlighten only you here.. ? see above.

Whatever he tell the congress, is hot air in fear of pissing of the senators in their defence committees.. The F-35 have enough problems as it is.. beats me why you try to Connect any jammer With the F-35..? There is none.

Balance of Surviability
"NGJ is a part of the Navy's overall Balance of surviability which focus on stand-off jamming, defensive jammers, signature reduction and speed.

Look at what the Navy has done With the SH and Growler, in terms of cost and focus survivability features, it creates an platform that is very well balanced and it doesn't drive you in the Extremes in any one area. A very credible, stand-off mod escort jammer, like the NGJ, is a huge part of that Balance of survivability towards the increasing double digit SAM system that only cost a fraction of Air wings.
And we believe it Works Beyond the bounds of the Navy. We know that we will continue to be used as a joint asset, as the Analouge ALQ-99 jammer is today. Anytime a strike package has to og over the Beach, weather that's the Navy, AF or USMC, it's protected by the ALQ-99. The NGJ will continue that."

Courtesy of Capt John Green Airborn Attack Program Manager With PMA-234.


Once again the ASQ-239 is not a jammer. Get over it.


ASQ-239 is an EW suite, not just a jammer. But it most definitely has jamming capability for self defence and most likely also escort jamming against most fire control radars. It's very unlikely that it can do real standoff jamming, but show me a fighter aircraft that can and also be used as an effective fighter at the same time.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2013, 19:41
by Scorpion82
I think we should be beyond this. The ASQ-239 features no dedicated ECM transmssion antennas, it uses the radar aperture for transmission. It's not a plain RWR however as it serves the purpose of radar warning, RF surveilance incl. ELINT/SIGINT and passive targeting of emitters. It also provides the means of jamming other than the plain transmissions itself which is taken care of by the radar.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 10:37
by lookieloo
Scorpion82 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It looks like Russia stands to benefit more from the ToT, not India.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece
And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Because the Indians claim that the FGFA will be lighter, stealthier and more powerful? They even struggle with their Tejas LCA, yet they claim they can do it better than the Russians? That's a pretty big joke if you ask me, let alone that composites make up 70-80% of the T-50's airframe surface, according to the Russians. The "all-metal" airframe claim of the Indians is a bad joke as is the "more powerful engines". These engines are developed by the Russians and should be available by the time the FGFA is finally produced, it will also be fitted to the Russian aircraft. Unless the Indians alter the design, much increase the manufacturing accuracy and surface treatment I don't buy the "stealthier" claim either.
Here's the thing with Indians:

Bring up a problem with the PAK-FA, and they'll claim that FGFA is a completely separate program. Bring up issues about technology-transfer and export-rights, and they'll claim to be full/equal partners in the entire enterprise. The hell if I know, but they can't have it both ways.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 19:43
by haavarla
Last Sunday this happend:

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5292

I think there are some Vids as well, but they are not any good.. i will Edit or post them when there are better ones aviable.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 19:50
by JetTest
50 minute flight, tested all systems, sounds like some extremely stringent testing to me. No way could terrible F35 begin to compete, so many more PAK-FA's are flying an logging thousands of hours...oh, wait......not so much, huh? Sorry...

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 20:30
by Scorpion82
Ever heard about flight acceptance trials of newly manufactured aircraft? Probably not.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 21:31
by JetTest
Ever heard of sarcasm, probably not. This thread is almost as ridiculous as my last post, that's the point.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 21:33
by JetTest
Some people take this way too seriously.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 00:36
by haavarla
Jettest, you just made Three completly useless post.. congrat to you.

It was a first test flight.
B.t.w. has any of the F-35 made a 6000km+ flight in two days, just after its 4th test flight?
Not that its a big deal, just askin..

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5052

I think this T-50-05 will perform the same route back to Zhukovsky, Moscow, after a few more test flights.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 01:20
by JetTest
Ok, to try to be serious for a moment, I am sure most posters here do not work either program, and at least in the case of the JSF, anyone that does is rather limited in what they can or should comment on beyond the official public releases. I would expect the Russians would exercise a similar level of security and discretion. Granted, there are some very intelligent contributors here, but that does not negate the fact that there is a large amount of speculation on how these systems and equipment perform. If it was so clear and certain there would be no need for the extensive test programs. Going back to the original question of the thread, considering the fact that there just are now 5 PAK-FA's flying, and there are many F-35's, having accumulated over 10,000 hours, over half of which were flown in just this year, wouldn't a more reasonable question be will the PAK-FA ever be able to match the F-35?

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 09:54
by haavarla
If you mean to compair the two in sheer numbers, it not much of a compair is it?

As said many times before, you can't compair F-35 test program With Pak-Fa's.
You have Marines and Navy Version of F-35.
As for now, Pak-Fa is only Airforce, thus does not need such a huge scale of Things.

all in all, i'd say the Pak-Fa program are lookin healty.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5136

As time goes on, more will be reveild about the T-50.
I would like to praise the openness so far by Sukhoi on the Pak-Fa program, id say its above average.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 16:40
by SpudmanWP
The Pak-Fa is also not flying with final engines, avionics, weapons, etc.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 17:42
by Scorpion82
What do you chaps expect? The Russians have poured a fraction of funds into the PAK FA programme and they are where they are. 5 prototypes in this time scale is maybe not too impressive, but in comparison to other contemporary programmes it's not too bad either. Considering that the PAK FA programme received state funds from 2005 onwards only the achievement isn't too shaby. There is still a long way to go from here which is hardly surprising. What's the purpose of comparing the progress of two programmes that weren't launched at the same time at all?

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 18:12
by JetTest
Exactly....

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 03:30
by Corsair1963
haavarla wrote:If you mean to compair the two in sheer numbers, it not much of a compair is it?

As said many times before, you can't compair F-35 test program With Pak-Fa's.
You have Marines and Navy Version of F-35.
As for now, Pak-Fa is only Airforce, thus does not need such a huge scale of Things.

all in all, i'd say the Pak-Fa program are lookin healty.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5136

As time goes on, more will be reveild about the T-50.
I would like to praise the openness so far by Sukhoi on the Pak-Fa program, id say its above average.


Honestly, I have my doubts about the PAK-FA Program. As it is extremely crude and needs a great deal of refinement. Before it would ever have a change against the American F-22's and F-35's.

Also, you hear more and more rumblings from India and its work share. As Russia pretty much completed the final design and left little fort for India to do!

As a matter of fact just a year or two ago the F-35 would be out of the question. Yet, it keeps coming up.

Lastly, the export chances for the PAK-FA are very limited. Except for small batches here or there. Plus, in the near future it may have to compete against the Chinese.


All and all I don't see a rosy picture :shock:

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 09:20
by haavarla
Corsair1963 wrote:
haavarla wrote:If you mean to compair the two in sheer numbers, it not much of a compair is it?

As said many times before, you can't compair F-35 test program With Pak-Fa's.
You have Marines and Navy Version of F-35.
As for now, Pak-Fa is only Airforce, thus does not need such a huge scale of Things.

all in all, i'd say the Pak-Fa program are lookin healty.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5136

As time goes on, more will be reveild about the T-50.
I would like to praise the openness so far by Sukhoi on the Pak-Fa program, id say its above average.


Honestly, I have my doubts about the PAK-FA Program. As it is extremely crude and needs a great deal of refinement. Before it would ever have a change against the American F-22's and F-35's.

Also, you hear more and more rumblings from India and its work share. As Russia pretty much completed the final design and left little fort for India to do!

As a matter of fact just a year or two ago the F-35 would be out of the question. Yet, it keeps coming up.

Lastly, the export chances for the PAK-FA are very limited. Except for small batches here or there. Plus, in the near future it may have to compete against the Chinese.


All and all I don't see a rosy picture :shock:


There are several report to show otherwise.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131025 ... -Grow.html

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 21:15
by cantaz
haavarla wrote:There are several report to show otherwise.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131025 ... -Grow.html


Did you read the whole article you linked?

The IAF had initially planned to order 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but India’s chief of air staff said in October last year that New Delhi would now go for only 144 single-seat jets, with domestic production slated to begin in 2020.


So basically, India remains the only actual buyer other than Russia, and the Indian order has dropped by 33%.

Also:

India’s The Economic Times newspaper reported on October 17 that Indian military officials were concerned over the country’s work share in the FGFA project, which is currently only 15 percent even though New Delhi is bearing 50 percent of the cost.


To which the Russians responded:

“The figure cited by the Indian side reflects current capabilities of India’s industry, in particular the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] corporation,” said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade.



To paraphrase the above...

India: "You're still waiting for you to share what we paid for."

Russia: "Not our fault, you guys just aren't good enough yet to share with."

Sounds like a wonderful partnership.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 22:19
by haavarla
Let me fix this for you.
The article i reported are the latest on the Pak-Fa/FGFA front.

We know for certain India will buy 144 Pak-Fa.
What we do not know is how many, two seater they will procure when it get ready.
It Depends on the price i Guess, but looking at the MKI, it will be Close to 280 units.. its a good Call to expect the Pak-Fa and FGFA will Reach just as many in the future.
Nothing is carved in stone yet..

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 22:43
by cantaz
We know for certain India will buy 144 Pak-Fa.
What we do not know is how many, two seater they will procure when it get ready.


The problem is that if we know for certain that India will buy 144 PAK-FA/FGFA, then we also know for certain that they won't be buying any 2-seat FGFA. Both facts were conveyed in the same message from the Indian Air Force. The original 214 FGFA order explicitly included the 2-seaters, the Indian Air Force executed the 33% FGFA order cut down to 144 aircraft by deleting all 2-seaters plus some single seaters. Until India says otherwise, there are no 2-seater FGFA anymore.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... ghters.htm

Incidentally, Indian introduction for FGFA was originally 2017. It's now tentatively set for 2020. However, IAF will make the final decision based on the final config of the 3rd FGFA prototype, which could be completed (assuming on schedule) anywhere between 2017 and 2019. A 2019 decision would really throw the 2020 goal for a loop.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 02:30
by haavarla
Now think about this.. If some Russian official says the Indians will get a much higher % stake in the Development, like Close to 30-40%, it could only mean one thing. They are negotiating on the two seater FGFA.
You know, since the singel seater Pak-Fa is all but done for ;)

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 16:51
by cantaz
That's sheer wishful thinking at this point. You're completely ignoring the fact that the Indians are owed 50% of the development work because they're paying for 50% of the development cost, not because of their order quantity.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 20:41
by Scorpion82
Thus far the Indians haven't paid much. The costs thus far covered the preliminary design phase for the FGFA. Everything else has been paid for by the Russians. It's understandable that the Indians want a greater work share if they pay half of the bill, but will they? There are currently no signs suggesting that Russian T-50s will feature any Indian content. That the Russians aren't waiting for the Indians is understandable as well as is the fact that they won't share IP on what they have developed and paid for on their own. If Indian bureaucrats wouldn't slow down and screw up any defence programme the Indians may have joined earlier.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 00:27
by haavarla
cantaz wrote:That's sheer wishful thinking at this point. You're completely ignoring the fact that the Indians are owed 50% of the development work because they're paying for 50% of the development cost, not because of their order quantity.


Only that India so far only has funded a $ 290 mill premiliriary contract on the design of FGFA.
On the Pak-Fa, India has funded ZIPPO.

Hardly wishfull thinking now is it?

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 21:28
by haavarla
Some pics from the latest test flight of T-50-05

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/772847.html

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 07:03
by Corsair1963
cantaz wrote:
We know for certain India will buy 144 Pak-Fa.
What we do not know is how many, two seater they will procure when it get ready.


The problem is that if we know for certain that India will buy 144 PAK-FA/FGFA, then we also know for certain that they won't be buying any 2-seat FGFA. Both facts were conveyed in the same message from the Indian Air Force. The original 214 FGFA order explicitly included the 2-seaters, the Indian Air Force executed the 33% FGFA order cut down to 144 aircraft by deleting all 2-seaters plus some single seaters. Until India says otherwise, there are no 2-seater FGFA anymore.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... ghters.htm

Incidentally, Indian introduction for FGFA was originally 2017. It's now tentatively set for 2020. However, IAF will make the final decision based on the final config of the 3rd FGFA prototype, which could be completed (assuming on schedule) anywhere between 2017 and 2019. A 2019 decision would really throw the 2020 goal for a loop.


Personally, I am not optimistic that Russia let alone India can deliver the PAK-FA by 2020. As most Fighter Programs suffer a series of delays during development. Plus, Russia and India's record is hardly stellar on top of that..

Also, let's not forget the "Elephant in the Room". Especially, in the case of India. Which, is of course China! How far will it own Stealthy Fighters progress during the same period and how many will they be able to field???

China is giving 110% effort to its 5th Generation Fighters and it doesn't have to worry about resources ($$$) or partners!

Finally, under the current plan India is only expected to purchase just 144 PAK-FA/FGFA's. Which, would have to defend two boarders! Now they could of course purchase more. Yet, another says ~50 would still only be ~200. Again which would have to be split on two fronts.

BTW Next thing we will be talking about $100 Million plus PAK-FA's. Especially, when you considering the numbers planned and few exports opportunities available.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 07:38
by lookieloo
Sukhoi and the Russian air force can declare IOC whenever the hell they feel like it. Who's gonna say otherwise? It's not as if they're accountable to any monitoring agencies or dealing with any media scrutiny; and should the FGFA be delayed, they can always blame it on the Indians.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 11:43
by Scorpion82
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I am not optimistic that Russia let alone India can deliver the PAK-FA by 2020. As most Fighter Programs suffer a series of delays during development. Plus, Russia and India's record is hardly stellar on top of that..


The Indians plan to induct the FGFA in 2022 anyway, HAL schedules to start series production of said aircraft in 2019 at its Nasik plant. The Russians have different time scales and their PAK FA programme is independent from the FGFA. Thus far the programme progresses at good pace, albeit some delays have already occured, which isn't really surprising. No complex military aircraft programme is delivering on time and cost these days. There is a fair chance that the RuAF will receive its first production examples around 2018 for training and development of operational procedures. Operational units may not start to take delivery much before 2020, but we'll see.

Also, let's not forget the "Elephant in the Room". Especially, in the case of India. Which, is of course China! How far will it own Stealthy Fighters progress during the same period and how many will they be able to field???


How should this affect the schedules for the PAK FA or FGFA?

China is giving 110% effort to its 5th Generation Fighters and it doesn't have to worry about resources ($$$) or partners!


But it may have to worry about the lack of skills, experience and expertise in certain fields, albeit not as much as the Indians, but the later can count on aid from the Russians.

Finally, under the current plan India is only expected to purchase just 144 PAK-FA/FGFA's. Which, would have to defend two boarders! Now they could of course purchase more. Yet, another says ~50 would still only be ~200. Again which would have to be split on two fronts.

BTW Next thing we will be talking about $100 Million plus PAK-FA's. Especially, when you considering the numbers planned and few exports opportunities available.


Unlike the Americans the Russians never expected to produce many hundreds or even thousands of aircraft. If they plan for modest quantities from the outset they won't suffer from excessive cost growth when orders are cut, not to the extend as the F-35 programme which is one of the worst examples of programme mismangement. Even more so if you consider that LM already designed a 5th generation fighter before.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 02:15
by Corsair1963
Scorpion82 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I am not optimistic that Russia let alone India can deliver the PAK-FA by 2020. As most Fighter Programs suffer a series of delays during development. Plus, Russia and India's record is hardly stellar on top of that..


The Indians plan to induct the FGFA in 2022 anyway, HAL schedules to start series production of said aircraft in 2019 at its Nasik plant. The Russians have different time scales and their PAK FA programme is independent from the FGFA. Thus far the programme progresses at good pace, albeit some delays have already occured, which isn't really surprising. No complex military aircraft programme is delivering on time and cost these days. There is a fair chance that the RuAF will receive its first production examples around 2018 for training and development of operational procedures. Operational units may not start to take delivery much before 2020, but we'll see.


You are much more optimistic that I am in that regard. Especially, as the PAK-FA looks like substantial refinement is needed.

Also, let's not forget the "Elephant in the Room". Especially, in the case of India. Which, is of course China! How far will it own Stealthy Fighters progress during the same period and how many will they be able to field???


How should this affect the schedules for the PAK FA or FGFA?


I would think that is obvious??? As China maybe able to field its Stealth Fighters in far great number at around the same time frame.

China is giving 110% effort to its 5th Generation Fighters and it doesn't have to worry about resources ($$$) or partners!


But it may have to worry about the lack of skills, experience and expertise in certain fields, albeit not as much as the Indians, but the later can count on aid from the Russians.


I would have likely agreed several years ago. Yet, China's progress is unbelievable and growing by leaps and bounds.

Again, China is giving Maximum Effort and Resources to its 5th Generation Fighter Programs..

Finally, under the current plan India is only expected to purchase just 144 PAK-FA/FGFA's. Which, would have to defend two boarders! Now they could of course purchase more. Yet, another says ~50 would still only be ~200. Again which would have to be split on two fronts.

BTW Next thing we will be talking about $100 Million plus PAK-FA's. Especially, when you considering the numbers planned and few exports opportunities available.


Unlike the Americans the Russians never expected to produce many hundreds or even thousands of aircraft. If they plan for modest quantities from the outset they won't suffer from excessive cost growth when orders are cut, not to the extend as the F-35 programme which is one of the worst examples of programme mismangement. Even more so if you consider that LM already designed a 5th generation fighter before.


Sorry, Russia can't change the facts of life. Few number mean far higher costs! As a matter of fact the PAK-FA is already projected to cost over a $100 Million and most fighter projections are low.

As for the F-35 we knew it was going to be expensive during development but would come down to reasonable level as production ramped up! Yet, all you have heard from the F-35 Critics is it was costing $150-200 Million per copy! (duh) Now that the price is coming down as predicted from the start. You hardly hear much about it.........(funny how that works)


Nonetheless, I bet in the end the F-35 will be cheaper than the PAK-FA. Plus, being vastly more capable to boot.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 02:29
by haavarla
You don't seems to understand the different in Pak-Fa and F-35 program.
As Scorp tried to tell you, the Assembly plant at KNAAZ will be several times smaller than any F-35 Assembly lines, which means less workers and less subcontractors.
Which means less expences at producing the Pak-Fa.
If it comes out at the same price as F-35, then LM are doing something wrong! Considering the different role, class and performance between the two.

About China. They can't even Field any engines to og With a +4th Gen jet, nevermind their 5th Gen jets. They still want that Su-35S it seems.
And how many flying 5th Gen prototypes does China got at the moment?

China's progress is unbelievable and growing by leaps and bounds.. where?

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 03:05
by Corsair1963
haavarla wrote:You don't seems to understand the different in Pak-Fa and F-35 program.
As Scorp tried to tell you, the Assembly plant at KNAAZ will be several times smaller than any F-35 Assembly lines, which means less workers and less subcontractors.
Which means less expences at producing the Pak-Fa.
If it comes out at the same price as F-35, then LM are doing something wrong! Considering the different role, class and performance between the two.


Russia itself projects a price of $100 Million and like I said that is likely low. As for comparing the PAK-FA vs F-35 in Price. I brought it up because many PAK-FA Supporter have been crying about the price of the F-35 for sometime. While in turn ignoring the price of the PAK-FA.
About China. They can't even Field any engines to og With a +4th Gen jet, nevermind their 5th Gen jets. They still want that Su-35S it seems.
And how many flying 5th Gen prototypes does China got at the moment?


Sure China has a ways to go know doubt. Yet, they seem willing to go to almost any length to get what they want. As a matter of fact Russia is usually in the mix. As what they can't steal. She just buys from Russia.

Unless you really think China wants 24 Su-35's with Advance Radars and 117S Engines just to look pretty???

China's progress is unbelievable and growing by leaps and bounds.. where?


China has one good 4.5 Generation Fighter and two 5th Generation Fighters in development. Just a decade ago most would be shocked if China could field a single comparable 4th Generation Fighter. Which, will be decades after most of the major powers. That is quite a leap....

You could also says that about a number of Naval Development and that is just the tip of the Iceberg.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 18:15
by haavarla
Corsair1963 wrote:
haavarla wrote:You don't seems to understand the different in Pak-Fa and F-35 program.
As Scorp tried to tell you, the Assembly plant at KNAAZ will be several times smaller than any F-35 Assembly lines, which means less workers and less subcontractors.
Which means less expences at producing the Pak-Fa.
If it comes out at the same price as F-35, then LM are doing something wrong! Considering the different role, class and performance between the two.


Russia itself projects a price of $100 Million and like I said that is likely low. As for comparing the PAK-FA vs F-35 in Price. I brought it up because many PAK-FA Supporter have been crying about the price of the F-35 for sometime. While in turn ignoring the price of the PAK-FA.
About China. They can't even Field any engines to og With a +4th Gen jet, nevermind their 5th Gen jets. They still want that Su-35S it seems.
And how many flying 5th Gen prototypes does China got at the moment?


Sure China has a ways to go know doubt. Yet, they seem willing to go to almost any length to get what they want. As a matter of fact Russia is usually in the mix. As what they can't steal. She just buys from Russia.

Unless you really think China wants 24 Su-35's with Advance Radars and 117S Engines just to look pretty???

China's progress is unbelievable and growing by leaps and bounds.. where?


China has one good 4.5 Generation Fighter and two 5th Generation Fighters in development. Just a decade ago most would be shocked if China could field a single comparable 4th Generation Fighter. Which, will be decades after most of the major powers. That is quite a leap....

You could also says that about a number of Naval Development and that is just the tip of the Iceberg.


China latest Development on the Naval aviation is the J-15.
Now pls tell me how China bought a Su-27K prototype from Ukraine years ago, turns the recent flying J-15 which is pretty much a cloned Su-33 into Your "China's progress is unbelievable and growing by leaps and bounds"..?

Do note the different in years between the Su-27K first flight and last year J-15 first flight from their CV..

No doubt China has come a long way.. no doubt China has a long way to go as well. They are still very much trailing dust in Russias aviation progress.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 19:23
by lookieloo
Some recent pics of the 5th copy, claimed by some quarters to be fully-representative of a war-ready production model... This plane is concerning me less by the day now.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 00:48
by pushoksti
Even their new aircraft look old. No, I'm not talking about the lack of paint.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 01:57
by haavarla
We can all see the prior prototypes here:

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircra ... /index.wbp

There are some smaller changes, but on the general term, they all looks pretty identical on their first flights.. without any primer Paint.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 03:50
by Corsair1963
pushoksti wrote:Even their new aircraft look old. No, I'm not talking about the lack of paint.



I agree at first I was somewhat impressed my the design. Yet, looking at it closer I have my doubts it will have anything close to the F-22 and F-35 in RCS. In addition the Avionics and Weapons are also not up to Western Standards as a whole.


So, my hope was these first few aircraft were far from the definitive production examples. If, that is not the case then the US has little to worry about....(IMO)

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 04:43
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:Some recent pics of the 5th copy, claimed by some quarters to be fully-representative of a war-ready production model... .


Quite a claim.. would have to qualify as some sort of record.. :lol:

Anyway, I noticed a curious design feature, some sort of opening at the base of each vertical tail.. anyone know what they are for?

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 04:45
by Corsair1963
Maybe help to cool the exhaust??? (wild guess)

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 20:31
by pushoksti
Probably to cool the gigantic actuator servos required to move the H and V stabs.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 22:42
by popcorn
Whatever they are, can't be good from a LO perspective. Maybe the cavity is stuffed with RAM?

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 00:10
by haavarla
As of now, no flying T-50 prototype has any RAM coating. Engine and Aerodynamic testing so far, remember..
The Next on the floor, is reported to be an Static Airframe. If true, it could be for Skin material and RAM coating purpose.

About those airducts, they seems splitted into several ducts.. could be for Cooled air on Main Engines, APU and other systems..

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 00:16
by disconnectedradical
lookieloo wrote:Some recent pics of the 5th copy, claimed by some quarters to be fully-representative of a war-ready production model... This plane is concerning me less by the day.


Not quite. Definitive production models will sport the second stage Item 30 engines, which are considerably more powerful. People with inside sources over at secretprojects said that the RCS testing model isn't ready yet and the upcoming T-50-10 (10th plane produced) is probably analogous to what we consider a LRIP model. That said, they're gonna need quite a few exterior changes to be competitive with F-35's stealth.

However if T-50-10 also ends up looking like this one, then the Russians are in deep trouble.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 13:11
by haavarla
If the Pak-Fa T-50-10 end up getting a more refined and improved(more composites) skin material and Ram coating. Then i'd say they are getting a Product that is ready for the second stage RuAF "state trials" and will get moved over to Lipetsk training senter for early crew and pilot training.

It is easy to understand that the T-50 prototypes so far has not been build to accomondate the stealth specture as it skin surface has a lot of metal/allue surface and quite frankly the skin quality does not look refined.
we can see on all New Su-30SM, Su-35S and even the Su-34 has a better quality on the skin surface as they enter service these days..

This T-50-05 is reported to have a fully functional Radar and weapons system.
Later prototypes will include more sensor systems and will enter weapons trials, AND ECM/EW With a full suite stealth coating.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113636888/Mla ... sue-8-2012

It is reported that it will be ready by 2016.
It is allways difficult to understand the way Russians work their jets up to IOC.

Take a look at both Su-35S and Su-34. Both of them entered full Serial Production years before the Second stage "state trials" were finnished.
Which basicly means, it wasn't/hasen't declered IOC yet.

But who are we to claim Sukhoi and VVS don't know what they are doing. While the Pak-Fa program has seen delays, i think the program are doing very well at the moment. There are some 500 hours of flight testing done so far. this will increase at a faster range as more prototypes leaves the floor.

There are even some reports that the second stage engine are Ahead of deadline.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?rssid=1383651277&sat=6&slang=0

The current engines on T-50 is quite frankly impressive in term of performance. And certainly not underpower by any standard. 9.500kgf on dry thrust and 15.000kgf on wet thrust.

A wise decission by Sukhoi. It is not the first time eighter.. The first flight of the T-10 prototypes, were done by AL-21F engines, since the AL-31F wasn't ready for service yet.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 13:24
by mixelflick
Why are you "not concerned"?

Does it just boil down to lack of stealth?

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 22:40
by cantaz
Hey, has anyone ever found any real pictures of the interior the PAK-FA's weapons bays? It dawned on me that even the J-20 has pictures of its weapons bay in action, but there's nothing I can find for the PAK-FA to suggest any weapons integration activity internal or external. Not even a picture of the PAK-FA with its doors open.

I find this odd for the otherwise show-off-happy-Russians.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2013, 01:05
by haavarla
You & me both cantaz.. I'm fairly up to speed on Russian harware. But so far there is Zippo on those Int W--bays.

Hopefully we'll see em within this year.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2013, 13:12
by haavarla
The T-50-05 Prototype just landed outside Moscow.

http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events ... t-50-5.wbp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVQPXBA ... ata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3sJzeo ... ata_player

Departs en route Novosibirsk-Shagol-Moscow.

KoA - Kansk 2778 km
Kansk - Novosibirsk - Shagol 2176 km
Shagol - Zhukovsky 1460 км

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2013, 21:03
by disconnectedradical
So, when can we finally expect painted nacelles?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2013, 02:23
by haavarla
Beats me..

Here is some great shots:

http://falcrumx.livejournal.com/61991.html

After the initial glance... I think I like the New Paint :)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 18:19
by haavarla
Sleek lookin beauty

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 14:33
by haavarla
New engines are to be tested in flight, 2016.

http://www.ato.ru/content/sukhoi-fighte ... -air-force

With this News, it means we will not see any modification of nozzle and engines before 2016.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 07:26
by Corsair1963
PAK-FA you better check your six.......... :twisted:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 07:35
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:PAK-FA you better check your six.......... :twisted:

Well, it does have that rear-facing radar.. is it really a good idea to flaunt your backside so invitingly? :D

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 15:01
by haavarla
Corsair1963 wrote:PAK-FA you better check your six.......... :twisted:


The only way F-35 can get inside of the NEZ of T-50 six, is by using its teleporters. Otherwise, it will be trailing vapor waay behind.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 09:32
by zero-one
haavarla wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:PAK-FA you better check your six.......... :twisted:


The only way F-35 can get inside of the NEZ of T-50 six, is by using its teleporters. Otherwise, it will be trailing vapor waay behind.



Not if you get into the merge and the F-35 ends up in your 6.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 12:47
by popcorn
Merge, NO. Combat Cloud, YES. :D

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 13:16
by zero-one
Interesting, some of the F-35s will act as nodes to guide others to an advantagous position.

BUT are you saying that the only good chance an F-35 has to end up on the PAK's 6 is if they heavily outnumber it?

What if the Pak's outnumber the F-35 on our scenario. 4 vs 6 or 4 vs 8 situations,

With both LO paltforms not just RCS but also IR reduction, detection ranges will be significantly decreased.

What will see the other first? APG-81 or NO36

Both will seamlessly share data to other units but which team will build a better picture of the battle space

And once fired upon which one has a higher chance of evading the incoming rounds. ?
(I'll give the maneuverability advantage on the PAK's side on this one but the F-35 is no slouch as well, ECM capabilities also come into play)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 13:45
by popcorn
zero-one wrote:Interesting, some of the F-35s will act as nodes to guide others to an advantagous position.

BUT are you saying that the only good chance an F-35 has to end up on the PAK's 6 is if they heavily outnumber it?

What if the Pak's outnumber the F-35 on our scenario. 4 vs 6 or 4 vs 8 situations,

With both LO paltforms not just RCS but also IR reduction, detection ranges will be significantly decreased.

What will see the other first? APG-81 or NO36

Both will seamlessly share data to other units but which team will build a better picture of the battle space
8
And once fired upon which one has a higher chance of evading the incoming rounds. ?
(I'll give the maneuverability advantage on the PAK's side on this one but the F-35 is no slouch as well, ECM capabilities also come into play)


No need to be on an foe's 6 to engage and destroy. Numbers are important, and so is quality. Advantage F-35 on both counts. As to who can build and implement the superior cloud, no mystery who currently occupies the technology high ground. Just need political will and smart investment to maintain the edge.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 14:03
by zero-one
popcorn wrote:No need to be on an foe's 6 to engage and destroy. Numbers are important, and so is quality. Advantage F-35 on both counts. As to who can build and implement the superior cloud, no mystery who currently occupies the technology high ground. Just need political will and smart investment to maintain the edge.


True. But if we're talking only AMRAAMs, then I would be a little nervous firing a HOBS shot at an LO target,
So if it could be done, I'll still take the best Pk position

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 14:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The AIM-120D (which would be the AMRAAM in service for such a hypothetical scenario) has advanced datalinking, meaning no F-35 in the cloud even needs to use radar (surely they still would, why else did the U.S. develop LPI AESA in the first place) to be able to guide the AMRAAM to the target.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 15:19
by popcorn
What I'm trying to impart is that no individual sensor or weapon is going,to make the difference, rather it is the network/ cloud that matters.. consider the aggregate of all sensors on a multitude of platforms within the battlespace spanning 5 domains i.e. air, sea, land,,space and cyberspace .. all fused to provide the best possible tactical picture.,Said picture is immediately shared among all nodes in the network, any of which can launch a kinetic attack using the most appropriate weapon, guided to the target's constantlhy updated location.
Consider a IR-guided missile like ,-9X Blk II or longer-range Blk III in LOAL mode guided via data link to the proximity of the target whereupon it's seeker acquires it's victim. Or, a -120D also launched in LOAL mode guided via data link to within a few hundred meters of target when it's radar activates.. at that range, a reduced RCS won't matter for much. The network/cloud is the killer.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 15:59
by haavarla
zero-one wrote:
haavarla wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:PAK-FA you better check your six.......... :twisted:


The only way F-35 can get inside of the NEZ of T-50 six, is by using its teleporters. Otherwise, it will be trailing vapor waay behind.



Not if you get into the merge and the F-35 ends up in your 6.



Ofcourse. Also not if the T-50 get malfunction on one engine.. which should be just as unlikly ;)

Seriously. Why would you guys belive them Russian pilots to just fly "blind" or fly in a "Fog of War" sphere all the time. They will be supported With all kind of means ranging from ground radars, AWACS, escort Jammers system.
What kind of tactics you would choose, you can be sure the other side will use em too.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 20:39
by cantaz
haavarla wrote:Seriously. Why would you guys belive them Russian pilots to just fly "blind" or fly in a "Fog of War" sphere all the time. They will be supported With all kind of means ranging from ground radars, AWACS, escort Jammers system.
What kind of tactics you would choose, you can be sure the other side will use em too.


Because of wishful thinking on your part and Russia's.

Decades of poverty and neglect has largely robbed the Russians the capability to produce and operate the quantity and quality of systems necessary to use the advanced network-centric doctrine of their American rival. In contrast, we know that American AWACS and jammer assets actually exist in sufficient quantity and quality to support what will be a large number of F-35s.

A mere 200 PAK-FA is already dubious from a quantity perspective but it's all the Russians can commit to and it already seems like a stretch given their low aircraft production numbers in the last 20 years. For you to suggest that, at the current level of their R&D and procurement budget, the Russians will suddenly and magically find enough of the other critical IAD and EW pieces in sufficient quantity and quality to fight like the Americans is downright ludicrous.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 23:32
by haavarla
haavarla wrote:Seriously. Why would you guys belive them Russian pilots to just fly "blind" or fly in a "Fog of War" sphere all the time. They will be supported With all kind of means ranging from ground radars, AWACS, escort Jammers system.
What kind of tactics you would choose, you can be sure the other side will use em too.


Because of wishful thinking on your part and Russia's.

Decades of poverty and neglect has largely robbed the Russians the capability to produce and operate the quantity and quality of systems necessary to use the advanced network-centric doctrine of their American rival.
In contrast, we know that American AWACS and jammer assets actually exist in sufficient quantity and quality to support what will be a large number of F-35s.


What happend from 1990-2000 is not that important. What has happend from 2000-2013 is important and put Your claim to shame. Russia did export more military jets and helis vs US in from 2009-13. Russia will recieve 64 New jets, fighter, AWACS, Cargo and other support units for VVS in 2013 alone. Poverty anyone?

Just how many AWACS do you think Russia need to fill their ranks in the network centric warfare?


A mere 200 PAK-FA is already dubious from a quantity perspective but it's all the Russians can commit to and it already seems like a stretch given their low aircraft production numbers in the last 20 years. For you to suggest that, at the current level of their R&D and procurement budget, the Russians will suddenly and magically find enough of the other critical IAD and EW pieces in sufficient quantity and quality to fight like the Americans is downright ludicrous.


That is on top of their current structure and force multiplier.. but hey, Nice job ignoring that.
In case you aren't up on current speed on VVS procurment program.
Thats 96 Su-35S and 120 Su-34(which Field escort jammers), 36 Su-30SM, 16 Su-30M2 and Su-27SM3. Their RuNavy gets New Mig-29K(allready recieved the first four) units. And finaly some 36 more Mig-29M3/SMT.

Anyway, so much for Your low Aircraft Production..

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 01:30
by popcorn
Those 200 T-50s plus the continued investment in older designs is probably sufficient to deal with China and Japan issues going into the future. As for the US, it should be building 5Gen jets exclusively by the end of the decade and retiring much of it's -teen fleets as production ramps up.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 15:26
by haavarla
VVS stand to increase its capability and at the same time shrink their structure. This is pretty much happening in most AF around the world, including USAF.
No one claimed VVS has an advantage over USAF, despite cantaz nonsens post above.

To claim Russia have inefficient Network coverage is just as incorrect.

http://www.janes.com/article/26332/maks ... c-aircraft

These A-50U awacs are InFact more capable/modernized vs those E-3 currently flying.

http://www.janes.com/article/30625/duba ... ew-package

VVS also have EW capability and continue to improve them.

The very notion that VVS is so lacking in its support assets and force multipliers are simply far from the reality.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131129 ... -2015.html

Network capability anyone?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130106 ... Three.html

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131128 ... -2014.html

These S-400 system are very much part of Russias Network sphere and in important part of air and Space defence.
And all these systems are driven by open achitecture and modular solution which makes room for software improvments.
This also include the sensors/radar on the New fighter being produced for VVS.

The area where Russia is most lacking at the moment would be in the UAV front. Be that as it may, those system are mostly for ground support at the moment, and will be so for quite some time.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 15:37
by bigjku
haavarla wrote:These A-50U awacs are InFact more capable/modernized vs those E-3 currently flying.



I am going to go ahead and say this statement is completely unsupported and just flat a$$ conjecture on your part. It is an adorable thought though.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2013, 05:24
by haavarla
bigjku wrote:
haavarla wrote:These A-50U awacs are InFact more capable/modernized vs those E-3 currently flying.



I am going to go ahead and say this statement is completely unsupported and just flat a$$ conjecture on your part. It is an adorable thought though.


What ever makes your clock tick.
Never mind any Sources that support any evidence at all of the E-3 being upgraded at the moment or even planed future modernizations.

But hey, i guess this slips right under the Russia News agency = propeganda crap and USAF New = wholy bible truth kind of crap.
Why don't you spare us a lot of time and energy and provide us any News about any Upgrade on the E-3 awacs??
Easy, cause its been deleyed for years.. and all you have is blowing steam out of Your rear end..

As allways, If you can't provide any Sources at all, then shut the hell up! cause you just make a fool of Your self.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2013, 06:21
by bigjku
haavarla wrote:
bigjku wrote:
haavarla wrote:These A-50U awacs are InFact more capable/modernized vs those E-3 currently flying.



I am going to go ahead and say this statement is completely unsupported and just flat a$$ conjecture on your part. It is an adorable thought though.


What ever makes your clock tick.
Never mind any Sources that support any evidence at all of the E-3 being upgraded at the moment or even planed future modernizations.

But hey, i guess this slips right under the Russia News agency = propeganda crap and USAF New = wholy bible truth kind of crap.
Why don't you spare us a lot of time and energy and provide us any News about any Upgrade on the E-3 awacs??
Easy, cause its been deleyed for years.. and all you have is blowing steam out of Your rear end..

As allways, If you can't provide any Sources at all, then shut the hell up! cause you just make a fool of Your self.


Well let's see.

The E-3 force went through a RSIP program in the 2000's.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-rsip.htm

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/airforce/99e3.html

The Block 40/45 upgrade is ongoing.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Air_Force/AWACS_Blk_40-45_December_2012_SAR.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-40.htm

Before that there was the Block 30/35 upgrades. And there were numerous little upgrades before that. All told in the past 15 years there have been multiple billions of dollars invested into R&D for the E-3 platform that you can trace pretty much back to the time that the aircraft first went into the air.

The A-50 on the other hand appears to have been totally neglected by the Russians (and was figured by most to be behind the E-3 when it went into service) until very recently. So the Russian air force is now investing some money to upgrade from the 1980's vintage Soviet technology.

But you are being obtuse if you believe that the E-3 program has been standing still. It has had far more investment over the years from nations with more advanced technology bases than Russia. You can pound your chest about some mythical performance levels all you want. But there is probably a reason when India bought theirs that they went to Israel to buy the radar and command and control systems. I guess in your world view they simply could not handle the awesomeness of the new Russian kit and had to settle.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2013, 06:55
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The AIM-120D (which would be the AMRAAM in service for such a hypothetical scenario) has advanced datalinking, meaning no F-35 in the cloud even needs to use radar (surely they still would, why else did the U.S. develop LPI AESA in the first place) to be able to guide the AMRAAM to the target.


Forgive my ignorance but, the way I understand the "cloud" concept is that, everyone on a given battlespace will be able to share information to build a single massive picture of what the battlefeild looks like.

But what are the variables?
Do you need to be within a certain range to be included in the cloud, or can everyone see the same thing regardless of location.

Also, datalinking with other units is not an exclusive capability by western allies. both the Russians and the Chinese have heavily invested on data link capabilities. they may not be on Par with us right now, but they wont be flying blind either.

on an engagement involving relatively few units, you may get away with hit and run tactics (ala North Vietnamese style) firing AMRAAMs then hitting the burners to egres fast.

But if you are on the offensive with dozzens of Flankers or PAK-FAs trying to find your flight of F-35s, then getting to a merge doesn't seem to far fetched. :doh: i guess

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2013, 22:18
by steakanddoritos
haavarla wrote:Ofcourse. Also not if the T-50 get malfunction on one engine.. which should be just as unlikly ;)


Considering the quality of Russian engines, and previous history with the T-50 (MAKS flameout) the liklihood of engine failure is a cause for concern. The P&W F135 engine on the F-35 has a far better operational record.

haavarla wrote:Seriously. Why would you guys belive them Russian pilots to just fly "blind" or fly in a "Fog of War" sphere all the time.


Yes. Russian pilots are poorly trained, and have low annual flying hours. They often make mistakes. Not to mention atrocious foreign pilots who will maybe be flying export T-50's

haavarla wrote:They will be supported With all kind of means ranging from ground radars, AWACS, escort Jammers system.
What kind of tactics you would choose, you can be sure the other side will use em too.


Russia's support aircraft fleet is known for low numbers, crappy equipment and poor training. Not to mention the foreign operated T-50's which will have no AWACS support.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2013, 19:48
by mixelflick
I suppose given what's known, I'd give the F-35 the advantage even in air to air.

Someone else made a really good point in another thread, about Russian 5th gen jets. Loosely stated, he cited the fact that they're poor in comparison to Western designs. The big one here being the radar cross section/avionics. By all accounts, they've resigned themselves to the PAK-FA having a much bigger cross section than the F - 35. And it's doubtful the sensors will compare, so they went with super-maneuverability.

Making it to the merge seems to be key, then winning WVR. I suppose it depends on just how good the AIM-120D is, or how good/bad Russian jammers are. For our sake I hope the F-35 remains undetected, because being run down by a T-50 sounds scary.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 14:35
by haavarla
haavarla wrote:
bigjku wrote:
haavarla wrote:These A-50U awacs are InFact more capable/modernized vs those E-3 currently flying.



I am going to go ahead and say this statement is completely unsupported and just flat a$$ conjecture on your part. It is an adorable thought though.


What ever makes your clock tick.
Never mind any Sources that support any evidence at all of the E-3 being upgraded at the moment or even planed future modernizations.

But hey, i guess this slips right under the Russia News agency = propeganda crap and USAF New = wholy bible truth kind of crap.
Why don't you spare us a lot of time and energy and provide us any News about any Upgrade on the E-3 awacs??
Easy, cause its been deleyed for years.. and all you have is blowing steam out of Your rear end..

As allways, If you can't provide any Sources at all, then shut the hell up! cause you just make a fool of Your self.


Well let's see.

The E-3 force went through a RSIP program in the 2000's.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-rsip.htm

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/airforce/99e3.html

The Block 40/45 upgrade is ongoing.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Air_Force/AWACS_Blk_40-45_December_2012_SAR.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-40.htm

Before that there was the Block 30/35 upgrades. And there were numerous little upgrades before that. All told in the past 15 years there have been multiple billions of dollars invested into R&D for the E-3 platform that you can trace pretty much back to the time that the aircraft first went into the air.

The A-50 on the other hand appears to have been totally neglected by the Russians (and was figured by most to be behind the E-3 when it went into service) until very recently. So the Russian air force is now investing some money to upgrade from the 1980's vintage Soviet technology.


From Your own link, i read this:

"The AWACS Block 40/45 Modification system upgrade replaces the 1970's vintage mission computer system with an open system"

Which support my post above and shows you wrong.

Yes the block40/45 mod is the Next E-3 upgrade. And when it complete it will be great.
But it is still on the R&D phase.
When will it be ready for production?
Even more important. When will Pentagon fund such Upgrade Production program?

The most modern E-3 flying around, is probably those in the French AF. They was delivered in 2005-06.
But still, even they has the older Legacy mission computer system.

But you are being obtuse if you believe that the E-3 program has been standing still. It has had far more investment over the years from nations with more advanced technology bases than Russia. You can pound your chest about some mythical performance levels all you want. But there is probably a reason when India bought theirs that they went to Israel to buy the radar and command and control systems. I guess in your world view they simply could not handle the awesomeness of the new Russian kit and had to settle.


One of the reason for this was that Russia manufactor VEGA did not have any capacity to deliver Phalcons to India since they was allready engaged in their own R&D of the A-50U upgrade at that time.

There should be four A-50U in operational service before Next year. And i'm pretty sure there will be a followup contract for more units.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ns-new-one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5CF-nK4-PQ

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 15:23
by haavarla
"steakanddoritos"]
haavarla wrote:Ofcourse. Also not if the T-50 get malfunction on one engine.. which should be just as unlikly ;)


Considering the quality of Russian engines, and previous history with the T-50 (MAKS flameout) the liklihood of engine failure is a cause for concern. The P&W F135 engine on the F-35 has a far better operational record.


Great Logic there!
Didn't the F-35 face some difficulty about its Power supply unit during its early trials?
By you own Logic.. the F-135 engine must be real poor on service record :doh: Sarcasm mode off

Seriously, you can't use this as an pointer about an engine servicebility record. It was and still is under trials back in 2011 MAKS.
As With T-50 and F-35, there as not been any attritions.
The last two T-50 did a few test flight before they flew some 7000km to Moscow.
Not bad at all.
We all know the TBO is 4000hour on Russian. While not quite up to the western standard, its not bad at all.
And how you makes this out to the T-50 operating on engine failure is riddiculess short sighted.



haavarla wrote:Seriously. Why would you guys belive them Russian pilots to just fly "blind" or fly in a "Fog of War" sphere all the time.


Yes. Russian pilots are poorly trained, and have low annual flying hours. They often make mistakes. Not to mention atrocious foreign pilots who will maybe be flying export T-50's


The Russian fighter pilots have around 140 hours by now. How is this low annual flying hour??
Pls compair With other NATO countries flying time.

="haavarla"]
They will be supported With all kind of means ranging from ground radars, AWACS, escort Jammers system.
What kind of tactics you would choose, you can be sure the other side will use em too.


Russia's support aircraft fleet is known for low numbers, crappy equipment and poor training. Not to mention the foreign operated T-50's which will have no AWACS support.


Just like that? I'm just gonna take you Word for this without any slightest Sources.. riiight.
India, Malaysia etc has Russian Datalink on both their export fighters and AWACS. Do some readup and possible gain some knowledge on the subject.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 17:04
by SpudmanWP
haavarla wrote:Yes the block40/45 mod is the Next E-3 upgrade. And when it complete it will be great.
But it is still on the R&D phase.
When will it be ready for production?
Even more important. When will Pentagon fund such Upgrade Production program?

The most modern E-3 flying around, is probably those in the French AF. They was delivered in 2005-06.
But still, even they has the older Legacy mission computer system.


http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2014.pdf

The Blk40/45 program started production several years ago (2009), went into FRP in early 2013, and goes IOC this year (Dec 2013). The current funding has a total of 31 sets on order through 2018.

Image

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 20:49
by bigjku
SpudmanWP wrote:
haavarla wrote:Yes the block40/45 mod is the Next E-3 upgrade. And when it complete it will be great.
But it is still on the R&D phase.
When will it be ready for production?
Even more important. When will Pentagon fund such Upgrade Production program?

The most modern E-3 flying around, is probably those in the French AF. They was delivered in 2005-06.
But still, even they has the older Legacy mission computer system.


http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2014.pdf

The Blk40/45 program started production several years ago (2009), went into FRP in early 2013, and goes IOC this year (Dec 2013). The current funding has a total of 31 sets on order through 2018.

Image


Yup, I believe more than 6 are operating right now which is what the USAF wanted to declare IOC. And Haavarla is ignoring the updates already on the system in the Block 30/35 updates and the RSIP updates that have been done while basically nothing was done to the Mainstay at all in that period. I am not even knocking the improvements to the Mainstay. But read some articles about it and pretty much everything they are doing is the same crap that the E-3 was doing with the Block 30/35 upgrades (data links, digital systems, ect). I guess they also upgraded the toilet (hey, not having to crap in a bucket in the corner is a big deal).

And don't try to feed us this line of garbage that the only reason Russia did not provide India with something like the Phalcon is because they were otherwise busy. They didn't supply it because they couldn't. Plain and simple.

Again Haavarla, I am not knocking the A-50U. I am sure the systems (and toilet) are lovely. But this suggesting that it outclasses the E-3 and the implication you were making that the E-3 program has been standing still is just silly. The E-3 program has basically been undergoing constant upgrades since it went into service. The Block 30/35 program runs right into the RSIP program which ran right into the Block 40/45 program. That represents billions of dollars of investment over a very long period of time. Almost every nation making those investments has a higher base technology level than Russia. The primary investor has a much longer history in airborne early warning and control aircraft than Russia, predating it in such fields by at least a decade if not more as the US dates back to WWII with its efforts in this field.

If you are going to assert that the A-50 has gained some sort of prominence in this field I think the burden is on you to provide a link to that sort of information, rather than shrieking at others to provide links to well known upgrade programs for the E-3 that you clearly didn't know existed.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 05:46
by disconnectedradical
I think people on both sides are getting too caught up in rhetoric, and I think we should all recognize the F-35 for what it is and isn't. F-35 isn't a plane with world class WVR maneuverability or the supercruise of the T-50, nor was it designed with that in mind. At the same time it's no slouch and with 50% fuel it has similar T/W ratio of 1.07 as the Su-27S at normal takeoff weight (56% fuel). That, and it has 50 degree AOA and 9 g on top of stealth, excellent handling, and unmatched sensors and helmet. So no, the F-35 is not an absolute top notch aircraft in WVR maneuvering, but all these things put together makes the F-35 very dangerous in WVR, even against a T-50.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 07:05
by blindpilot
This thread has lost any educational value. It is basically the old adage, "You can't argue with a two year old without beginning to look like a two year old.

I shrugged it off figuring, maybe others really are delusional, and in some cases those delusions serve well in the next conflict (see T-72's vs M1A1's etc.) But it has gotten just plain silly.

Ignoring the reality that development paths between the two countries are not analogous, and Americans have aversions to killing pilots, and crashing planes at air shows, as a design technique, the PAK-FA is barely past the stage where the X32/X35 flyoff aircraft were.That's almost 7 years ago (behind) assuming they ever get to production. The Russians have shown themselves quite good at making 5 or six ?Y" prototypes, that somehow then never make it to prime time production. (see SU-37 and other geewhiz prototypes) Even if the PAK-FA turns out near equivalent (not likely), it's at least a decade behind, and there will be hundreds, going on thousands, of F-35s in service aircraft flying, when the first PAK-FA wing goes operational. There will be more F-35's operational when the first PAK-FA goes into service, than PAK-FA's will ever be produced by then (if any are)

As to the commitment to WVR maneuverability, specifically the use of vectored thrust,... which is the basket all the Russian eggs are in, ... I have a non authoritative reply.

I have heard from pilots, who should know, that even in the case of the F-22, once you get merger and can see the nozzles move, there are counter responses that actually gain an aircraft like the Typhoon an advantage they did not initially have (immediate Hi Yo Yo over the depleted energy, falling, thrust vectoring aircraft etc. etc.) Vectored thrust is not a cure all without its own problems in close in maneuver. But that is pretty much the entire toolkit for current Russian designs.

Bottom line, can we just start a thread on the Boeing/Lockheed sixth generation fighter (or even 7 gen?) against the PAK-FA. I hear that the 6 gen plane is ... unbelieveable.... you should see the paper drawings.... They're awesume!

In a few years or so when the Russians or Indians have actually gotten a training squadron with the first non combat capable training PAK-FA air frames, we can pick up this conversation then?

Second point on numbers in service. There is a reason folks worried about stopping the F-22 at 187 instead of at least 235 or so. In order to actually have operational aircraft to deploy, you have to have ... a training/test wing somewhere. That eats up ?48-72 aircraft, ... and then the ?100 or so left have to be divided among 3? bases.... 24-48(instead of 72) AC wings? and those bases have to have specific trained/equipped deployment packages (see Alaska/Hawaii F-22 squadron activities) which ends up being ...
... 6-12 aircraft available in the Persian gulf. That's right 187 equals ... SIX - 6!! aircraft ...
actually there for fighting ... way to many times. The 144-181 is just the critical mass to get there.(unless you want to shut down initial training, proficiency flying, and weapons development)

Until either or both get to 200 aircraft operational, this conversation ... thread ... is meaningless.

MHO
BP

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 07:39
by spazsinbad
Not to go all kindergarten on your whatsit :D perhaps the lack of F-22 numbers is why this concept has been developed (don't tell the Marines): Already mentioned on another thread here - briefly.... OOPs I see you have mentioned this concept immediately above? "...specific trained/equipped deployment packages (see Alaska/Hawaii F-22 squadron activities)..." MY BAD! :doh:

Innovation advances F-22 as strategic force in Pacific Capt. Ashley Conner 477th Fighter Group Public Affairs 09 Oct 2013
"..."This concept decreases the logistical burden of deploying a fighter squadron and aircraft maintenance unit and
instead uses a flexible combination of four F-22s, one C-17, a tailored maintenance package and trained personnel to quickly project airpower anywhere on the globe," said Lt. Col. Robert Davis, former JBER 525th Fighter Squadron commander and current Air War College student, who played an integral role in making this concept a reality for the F-22s.

After several successful exercises the concept is now an operational reality...."

http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/story_print ... =123366570

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 14:19
by haavarla
"blindpilot"]This thread has lost any educational value. It is basically the old adage, "You can't argue with a two year old without beginning to look like a two year old.

I shrugged it off figuring, maybe others really are delusional, and in some cases those delusions serve well in the next conflict (see T-72's vs M1A1's etc.) But it has gotten just plain silly.


What on Earth are you talking about??
Can you atleast keep this within AF and not about Army issue!
Plain silly eh.. there is a saying: Stupid is what stupid says.

Ignoring the reality that development paths between the two countries are not analogous, and Americans have aversions to killing pilots, and crashing planes at air shows, as a design technique, the PAK-FA is barely past the stage where the X32/X35 flyoff aircraft were.That's almost 7 years ago (behind) assuming they ever get to production. The Russians have shown themselves quite good at making 5 or six ?Y" prototypes, that somehow then never make it to prime time production. (see SU-37 and other geewhiz prototypes)


Omg.. so much nonsens and ignorance.
Where to begin.. When was the last time an Russian jet crashed at an Airshow?
Could someone remind us what LM Beesly said about Russian ability to display their Jets? He practiple stated Russian pilots are second to none in their displays.
If you wanna compair the Su-37 and X-32/x35 to the Pak-Fa, well it just goes to show you have no Clue..

Even if the PAK-FA turns out near equivalent (not likely), it's at least a decade behind, and there will be hundreds, going on thousands, of F-35s in service aircraft flying, when the first PAK-FA wing goes operational. There will be more F-35's operational when the first PAK-FA goes into service, than PAK-FA's will ever be produced by then (if any are)


Someone are still living in the 80's.. and this is where Ignorance come in..
We all know the Pak-Fa program will succede.
It is being funded by the Russian state. It will happend, so why the unfounded effort to piss at it?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131210 ... -Plan.html

A total of $650 billion is to be spent on military hardware in the period to 2020.
And here you are talking about some old program from the 80's.. good grief, where are Your point in this?

A tousand F-35 before 2016? hahaha, a good one.




As to the commitment to WVR maneuverability, specifically the use of vectored thrust,... which is the basket all the Russian eggs are in, ... I have a non authoritative reply.

I have heard from pilots, who should know, that even in the case of the F-22, once you get merger and can see the nozzles move, there are counter responses that actually gain an aircraft like the Typhoon an advantage they did not initially have (immediate Hi Yo Yo over the depleted energy, falling, thrust vectoring aircraft etc. etc.) Vectored thrust is not a cure all without its own problems in close in maneuver. But that is pretty much the entire toolkit for current Russian designs.


The Pak-Fa was designed from the start With TVC system.
The FCS is more advance on the Pak-Fa. There is no analouge to it.
And With the LEVCONS, huge Internal fuel Storage, exellent lift and low drag. The Triplane aerodynamic design of Pak-Fa are More advance vs US designs. It bring more Pros than Cons in the Game.

Bottom line, can we just start a thread on the Boeing/Lockheed sixth generation fighter (or even 7 gen?) against the PAK-FA. I hear that the 6 gen plane is ... unbelieveable.... you should see the paper drawings.... They're awesume!


I think there are allready some threads about this, yes? Feel free to debate there..

In a few years or so when the Russians or Indians have actually gotten a training squadron with the first non combat capable training PAK-FA air frames, we can pick up this conversation then?


Probably around 2017-18 before India starts recieving any units. Allthough they could get their hands on a few Prototypes before that.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 14:39
by haavarla
bigjku wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
haavarla wrote:Yes the block40/45 mod is the Next E-3 upgrade. And when it complete it will be great.
But it is still on the R&D phase.
When will it be ready for production?
Even more important. When will Pentagon fund such Upgrade Production program?

The most modern E-3 flying around, is probably those in the French AF. They was delivered in 2005-06.
But still, even they has the older Legacy mission computer system.


http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2014.pdf

The Blk40/45 program started production several years ago (2009), went into FRP in early 2013, and goes IOC this year (Dec 2013). The current funding has a total of 31 sets on order through 2018.

Image


Yup, I believe more than 6 are operating right now which is what the USAF wanted to declare IOC. And Haavarla is ignoring the updates already on the system in the Block 30/35 updates and the RSIP updates that have been done while basically nothing was done to the Mainstay at all in that period. I am not even knocking the improvements to the Mainstay. But read some articles about it and pretty much everything they are doing is the same crap that the E-3 was doing with the Block 30/35 upgrades (data links, digital systems, ect). I guess they also upgraded the toilet (hey, not having to crap in a bucket in the corner is a big deal).

And don't try to feed us this line of garbage that the only reason Russia did not provide India with something like the Phalcon is because they were otherwise busy. They didn't supply it because they couldn't. Plain and simple.

Again Haavarla, I am not knocking the A-50U. I am sure the systems (and toilet) are lovely. But this suggesting that it outclasses the E-3 and the implication you were making that the E-3 program has been standing still is just silly. The E-3 program has basically been undergoing constant upgrades since it went into service. The Block 30/35 program runs right into the RSIP program which ran right into the Block 40/45 program. That represents billions of dollars of investment over a very long period of time. Almost every nation making those investments has a higher base technology level than Russia. The primary investor has a much longer history in airborne early warning and control aircraft than Russia, predating it in such fields by at least a decade if not more as the US dates back to WWII with its efforts in this field.

If you are going to assert that the A-50 has gained some sort of prominence in this field I think the burden is on you to provide a link to that sort of information, rather than shrieking at others to provide links to well known upgrade programs for the E-3 that you clearly didn't know existed.


If you can backtrack my post. Then youwill see that i stated the A-50U is more Modern vs the current E-3 flying around With systems that dates back to the 70's.. regardless of those earlier Block Upgrades.

By any standard this hold true and you know it.

The systems on A-50U are pure digital. They basicly riped everything away and started from scratch on them.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 00:54
by meatshield
blindpilot wrote:This thread has lost any educational value. It is basically the old adage, "You can't argue with a two year old without beginning to look like a two year old.

I shrugged it off figuring, maybe others really are delusional, and in some cases those delusions serve well in the next conflict (see T-72's vs M1A1's etc.) But it has gotten just plain silly.

Ignoring the reality that development paths between the two countries are not analogous, and Americans have aversions to killing pilots, and crashing planes at air shows, as a design technique, the PAK-FA is barely past the stage where the X32/X35 flyoff aircraft were.That's almost 7 years ago (behind) assuming they ever get to production. The Russians have shown themselves quite good at making 5 or six ?Y" prototypes, that somehow then never make it to prime time production. (see SU-37 and other geewhiz prototypes) Even if the PAK-FA turns out near equivalent (not likely), it's at least a decade behind, and there will be hundreds, going on thousands, of F-35s in service aircraft flying, when the first PAK-FA wing goes operational. There will be more F-35's operational when the first PAK-FA goes into service, than PAK-FA's will ever be produced by then (if any are)

As to the commitment to WVR maneuverability, specifically the use of vectored thrust,... which is the basket all the Russian eggs are in, ... I have a non authoritative reply.

I have heard from pilots, who should know, that even in the case of the F-22, once you get merger and can see the nozzles move, there are counter responses that actually gain an aircraft like the Typhoon an advantage they did not initially have (immediate Hi Yo Yo over the depleted energy, falling, thrust vectoring aircraft etc. etc.) Vectored thrust is not a cure all without its own problems in close in maneuver. But that is pretty much the entire toolkit for current Russian designs.

Bottom line, can we just start a thread on the Boeing/Lockheed sixth generation fighter (or even 7 gen?) against the PAK-FA. I hear that the 6 gen plane is ... unbelieveable.... you should see the paper drawings.... They're awesume!

In a few years or so when the Russians or Indians have actually gotten a training squadron with the first non combat capable training PAK-FA air frames, we can pick up this conversation then?

Second point on numbers in service. There is a reason folks worried about stopping the F-22 at 187 instead of at least 235 or so. In order to actually have operational aircraft to deploy, you have to have ... a training/test wing somewhere. That eats up ?48-72 aircraft, ... and then the ?100 or so left have to be divided among 3? bases.... 24-48(instead of 72) AC wings? and those bases have to have specific trained/equipped deployment packages (see Alaska/Hawaii F-22 squadron activities) which ends up being ...
... 6-12 aircraft available in the Persian gulf. That's right 187 equals ... SIX - 6!! aircraft ...
actually there for fighting ... way to many times. The 144-181 is just the critical mass to get there.(unless you want to shut down initial training, proficiency flying, and weapons development)

Until either or both get to 200 aircraft operational, this conversation ... thread ... is meaningless.

MHO
BP



Love your work BP

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 12:11
by hornetfinn
haavarla wrote:http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131210 ... -Plan.html

A total of $650 billion is to be spent on military hardware in the period to 2020.
And here you are talking about some old program from the 80's.. good grief, where are Your point in this?


Just to make things clear. That is misleading as it makes it seem like military hardware procurement is that much. That $650 billion or so is not spent on only military hardware, but is rather the total amount of money planned to be used on military during that time. The amount of money spent on hardware procurement would be about 30 percent of the total expenditure as it has been between 20 and 28 percent during the last decade. That would mean there is $200 billion for military procurement during that period. If that happens, it is not bad at all. They are the third largest spender on military after China and USA. Of course USA spends about 6-8 times more than Russia depending on what are calculated. Last year Russia spent about $18 billion on procurement, upgrades and support. UK, France and Japan spent about the same. Of course Russia gets more with the same money as prices and wages are generally lower.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 13:12
by mixelflick
If history repeats, lesser trained foreign pilots flying PAK-FA will get waxed by F-35s.

You saw it with the F-15 vs. Mig-21/23/25/29, you saw it with the F-16 vs Mig-25 and you saw it with the F-18 vs. Mig-21 and F-14 vs. Mig-23/25. Of course, we did lose one Hornet to a Foxbat...

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 01:13
by blindpilot
meatshield wrote:
blindpilot wrote:This thread has lost any educational value. It is basically the old adage, "You can't argue with a two year old without beginning to look like a two year old.

...

Until either or both get to 200 aircraft operational, this conversation ... thread ... is meaningless.

MHO
BP



Love your work BP

Thanks Meatshield.

I have to take some care here, with details on an internet forum, but as to Haavarla's concerns that - I may be clueless...
I certainly could be wrong, hence the MHO (It's only my humble opinion), but clueless not so much.

My personal first hand aircrew etc. experience is, I'm ?stuck?? in the '70's, not stuck in the '80's.

However my knowledge (via direct input with the first hand players) is with the JSTARS versus the invincible Russian design in T-72 tanks in 1991 Desert Storm (stuck in the '90s), and at the Group command level of the fighter forces, including integrating F-117 stealth ops. (stuck circa in the 2000's time frame) IE. they wrote the air war plan actually used for Iraqi Freedom, based on having 1,000's of hours of actual stick time in F-15/16/A10/etc.

As to software and systems development,... been there and done that for 40 years, ... including the complex code base seen in ladder logic level robotics. F-35 systems code is not just "write a line of code that says 'shoot missile'," So I have actually written code that does such things as vector nozzles, and integrate fused data to a desired virtual response. I have actually worked with military officers putting real operational new systems together.
- - - - -
I'm not sure if Haavarla is a kid in his basement, reading magazines or what, but it appears to me that he has no real life foundation on which to base his understandings of the magazine articles he reads.

Now should i be wrong there, and he actually is an experienced designer, pilot, military officer ... protege genius ...etc... then I guess I would simply observe. When you don't understand something, ... you don't know, what you don't know.

Finally I am certain that the language barrier is obscuring my sarcasm. I apologize for that, but I can't do anything about that beyond stop being sarcastic. But that would end up being brutally harsh, and I would rather not go there.

Haarvala -

I have actually flown military aircraft including fighters. I have been in harms way. I have been a program manager for large military development projects. I have written code like that used in the F-35 (and ?PAK-FA). I have managed contractor schedules against budgets. I have been a SME (subject matter expert) on these type subjects at the Pentagon. Actually I wrote one of the very first web pages, back when we were Alpha testers for Microsoft. (before Al Gore invented such things) So my opinion is based in something other than what I read on a web page...

Have you done even one of those things?

However Still Clueless :) but thanks for your appreciation, ;)
BP

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 02:17
by steakanddoritos
mixelflick wrote:If history repeats, lesser trained foreign pilots flying PAK-FA will get waxed by F-35s.

You saw it with the F-15 vs. Mig-21/23/25/29, you saw it with the F-16 vs Mig-25 and you saw it with the F-18 vs. Mig-21 and F-14 vs. Mig-23/25. Of course, we did lose one Hornet to a Foxbat...


Doesn't matter if your side has the best fighter in the world, if they're being flown by Capt. Sum Ting Wong, they're screwed to the bone.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 03:16
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote:Omg.. so much nonsens and ignorance.
Where to begin.. When was the last time an Russian jet crashed at an Airshow?
Could someone remind us what LM Beesly said about Russian ability to display their Jets? He practiple stated Russian pilots are second to none in their displays.
If you wanna compair the Su-37 and X-32/x35 to the Pak-Fa, well it just goes to show you have no Clue..


PAK-FA is currently at the same stage as F-22 during EMD, and LRIP won't be achieved until at least 2016. So no, it's not at the X-35 stage, but it's far from being in production right now.

Someone are still living in the 80's.. and this is where Ignorance come in..
We all know the Pak-Fa program will succede.
It is being funded by the Russian state. It will happend, so why the unfounded effort to piss at it?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131210 ... -Plan.html

A total of $650 billion is to be spent on military hardware in the period to 2020.
And here you are talking about some old program from the 80's.. good grief, where are Your point in this?

A tousand F-35 before 2016? hahaha, a good one.


There will be close to 200 F-35s in 2016, whereas the PAK-FA will just begin to enter LRIP (according to current plans). Regardless of what you believe, F-35 holds numerical advantage, at least in the case of USAF. Yes, the PAK-FA program will likely succeed, but no, it's not devoid of problems either.

The Pak-Fa was designed from the start With TVC system.


So was the F-22

The FCS is more advance on the Pak-Fa. There is no analouge to it.


This may likely be true, but you have no definitive way of knowing that, and more importantly, how much of an advantage does it bring you? When it comes to maximizing maneuverability, there's a point of diminishing returns.

And With the LEVCONS, huge Internal fuel Storage, exellent lift and low drag. The Triplane aerodynamic design of Pak-Fa are More advance vs US designs. It bring more Pros than Cons in the Game.


A bunch of buzzwords. Until you can bring out and compare EM performance diagrams, it's foolish to make blanket statements like this.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 03:45
by haavarla
disconnectedradical wrote:
And With the LEVCONS, huge Internal fuel Storage, exellent lift and low drag. The Triplane aerodynamic design of Pak-Fa are More advance vs US designs. It bring more Pros than Cons in the Game.


A bunch of buzzwords. Until you can bring out and compare EM performance diagrams, it's foolish to make blanket statements like this.


Let me turn this around for you then.
So those Levcons brings nothing new to the table here?
So the 3D TVC bring nothing Pros to the table here?
So the Triplane design which have been widly proven on the Flanker has not proved a very high fuel fraction and fuel Storage?
Oh Come on!! it is a given that the Pak-Fa will have larger fuel Storage vs F-22 design.
About the Drag, What can you possible point at on the Pak-Fa design to cause so much drag if you compair it to other fighter design?
The Wing sweep angle?
The smaller and better sweeped Rudders?
parasitic drag, consisting of form drag?
skin friction?
interference drag?
lift-induced drag, and
wave drag? (aerodynamics)

Just take one look at the design and it screams back at you; i'm a high and fast birdy.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 03:55
by hb_pencil
blindpilot wrote:Now should i be wrong there, and he actually is an experienced designer, pilot, military officer ... protege genius ...etc... then I guess I would simply observe. When you don't understand something, ... you don't know, what you don't know.



... what? What you don't know will do what?!?!

In all seriousness, I think you've reached the point where I have about a month ago with with Harvarala and a few weeks ago with Sergio: they are here to troll, and their field of battle is the awesome claims that russian government puts out, combined with a general lack of information. They play in the same space as Carlo Kopp.

I feel that Russia (and China, possibly) practice a type of Maskirova when it comes to its military capabilities. However its more used to conceal their very glaring deficiencies rather than hide their secret strengths. The limitations of Russian technology really become apparent when you compare them to western systems, or talk to people who have used both (which you see a lot in former soviet countries. Given my work and having seen what we do in the west, as well has having some sense of what is going on in Russia and FSU, the gulf is massive.

One area is big data. You, BP, can probably attest that modern western fighter maintenence is heavily driven by data based decisionmaking. Its a major reason why we have safety rates that are unheard of even 30 years ago. Russian systems by comparison, don't have anywhere close to that: I feel that they are somewhere around 1990 to 1995 in technology. You might have some fault detection systems that spits out some data and the like but its nowhere near the work that's going on in the west. Yet all I hear is that Russian engines like the saturn have phenomenal thrust as well as TBOs and failure rates approaching modern western designs. I'm sorry I can't believe that at all, especially given what I know about russian systems and when I see the PAK FA pull a double flameout on the ground, or the Bulava missile that has barely got a 50% success rate after 5 years of flight tests. If russian engines are that good, why does the Superjet 100's SaM 146 basically use the French designed core and FADEC, with NPO Saturn only working on the installation systems and low pressure section (which in engine design is the very easy work.) If Russian avionics are so good, why do they use Honeywell, HamSuns and Thales systems. Yet Russian fighters apparently have unbelievable radar systems that will make western low observable technology obsolete. Yet if you look at indicators about the quality of the industry from other areas, it indicates that the Russians are working off a lagging technology base that isn't anywhere close to being able to meet those lofty claims.

So when I hear the claims of russian military superiority, to me its just trolling. It is so often based on anti-americanism or anti-westernism.... the perceived belief that western superiority is in part or totally based on arrogance and not backed up by actual operational technology. Its a search for counter examples that are fed by the maskirova and a dismissive view of western capabilities and industrial development. People read a few critical articles about the F-35 and then think that the west's systems are garbage compared to the Russian systems... when they completely misjudge just how advanced the fighter is compared to everything else in the world. They have no idea on just how much money is poured into this area or the relative technology level in the west.

Its part of the reason I really enjoy hornetfinn's writing; he know both sides and give a pretty unbiased view of what is going on. Watching people try to twist his words or pull out the inevitable "but you haven't understood XXXX (insert uber russian technology)" then watching the subsequent deconstruction of that system is refreshing to say the least. Its part of the reason why I'm on this board, and not some of the other locales on the internet.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 04:46
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
And With the LEVCONS, huge Internal fuel Storage, exellent lift and low drag. The Triplane aerodynamic design of Pak-Fa are More advance vs US designs. It bring more Pros than Cons in the Game.


A bunch of buzzwords. Until you can bring out and compare EM performance diagrams, it's foolish to make blanket statements like this.


Let me turn this around for you then.
So those Levcons brings nothing new to the table here?
So the 3D TVC bring nothing Pros to the table here?
So the Triplane design which have been widly proven on the Flanker has not proved a very high fuel fraction and fuel Storage?
Oh Come on!! it is a given that the Pak-Fa will have larger fuel Storage vs F-22 design.
About the Drag, What can you possible point at on the Pak-Fa design to cause so much drag if you compair it to other fighter design?
The Wing sweep angle?
The smaller and better sweeped Rudders?
parasitic drag, consisting of form drag?
skin friction?
interference drag?
lift-induced drag, and
wave drag? (aerodynamics)

Just take one look at the design and it screams back at you; i'm a high and fast birdy.


What matters in the end is performance, not how many features there are. I look at the design and it screams different design philosophy and mission requirements. In fact, PAK-FA wings seem to have lower aspect ratio, which might mean higher induced drag. Bottom line is, all the individual features in and of itself means nothing. Overall performance matters. And until we have classified documents of the F-35, F-22, or PAK-FA, we can't make any definitive assertions.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 13:14
by haavarla
disconnectedradical wrote:
haavarla wrote:
And With the LEVCONS, huge Internal fuel Storage, exellent lift and low drag. The Triplane aerodynamic design of Pak-Fa are More advance vs US designs. It bring more Pros than Cons in the Game.


A bunch of buzzwords. Until you can bring out and compare EM performance diagrams, it's foolish to make blanket statements like this.


Let me turn this around for you then.
So those Levcons brings nothing new to the table here?
So the 3D TVC bring nothing Pros to the table here?
So the Triplane design which have been widly proven on the Flanker has not proved a very high fuel fraction and fuel Storage?
Oh Come on!! it is a given that the Pak-Fa will have larger fuel Storage vs F-22 design.
About the Drag, What can you possible point at on the Pak-Fa design to cause so much drag if you compair it to other fighter design?
The Wing sweep angle?
The smaller and better sweeped Rudders?
parasitic drag, consisting of form drag?
skin friction?
interference drag?
lift-induced drag, and
wave drag? (aerodynamics)

Just take one look at the design and it screams back at you; i'm a high and fast birdy.

What matters in the end is performance, not how many features there are. I look at the design and it screams different design philosophy and mission requirements. In fact, PAK-FA wings seem to have lower aspect ratio, which might mean higher induced drag. Bottom line is, all the individual features in and of itself means nothing. Overall performance matters. And until we have classified documents of the F-35, F-22, or PAK-FA, we can't make any definitive assertions.


The Feature i mention above, add to performance. I'm not making any definitive assertions, but we can see the difference on design layout and have pretty Close detailed assertains about a lot of these performance.

We know for certain that a triplane design makes room for more internal volume, be that weapons or fuel.
It also makes for better lift(wing/bodylift).
About the drag parameters.
Just compair the Flanker With the T-50. The Flanker has very little limitation compaired to other jet design. Its a fast flier, can fly pretty high too. Its manuvereable as hell. It has exellent mission range.

If you don't believe the T-50 surpass the Flanker on all these performance, well then the buzzwords are on you.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 13:46
by mixelflick
steakanddoritos wrote:
mixelflick wrote:If history repeats, lesser trained foreign pilots flying PAK-FA will get waxed by F-35s.

You saw it with the F-15 vs. Mig-21/23/25/29, you saw it with the F-16 vs Mig-25 and you saw it with the F-18 vs. Mig-21 and F-14 vs. Mig-23/25. Of course, we did lose one Hornet to a Foxbat...


Doesn't matter if your side has the best fighter in the world, if they're being flown by Capt. Sum Ting Wong, they're screwed to the bone.


You just made my point?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 16:56
by disconnectedradical
haavarla wrote:The Feature i mention above, add to performance. I'm not making any definitive assertions, but we can see the difference on design layout and have pretty Close detailed assertains about a lot of these performance.

We know for certain that a triplane design makes room for more internal volume, be that weapons or fuel.
It also makes for better lift(wing/bodylift).
About the drag parameters.
Just compair the Flanker With the T-50. The Flanker has very little limitation compaired to other jet design. Its a fast flier, can fly pretty high too. Its manuvereable as hell. It has exellent mission range.

If you don't believe the T-50 surpass the Flanker on all these performance, well then the buzzwords are on you.


I still don't get your point. I'm sure the T-50 will hold an advantage over the F-22 and F-35 in some parts of the envelope, but claiming that it will aerodynamically surpass the F-35 and F-22 in every way is a rather baseless statement until you bring out classified performance documents. And since when did we start talking about the Flanker?

Also, what matters in the end is mission effectiveness. Platform does not equate to capability, and the Russians had a different set of requirements when designing the T-50.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 17:38
by mixelflick
If I were the Russians, I would have designed PAK-FA the same way...

Building to F-22 stealth tolerances was out of the question, so they engineered just enough in. They did manage to come up with an airframe to match the F-22 in speed/ceiling, although the engine is an open question. Maneuverability looks to be top notch, and that + the speed/ceiling should give it the advantage over the F-35.

However, it's the stealth/sensors that we're banking on with the F-35. We apparently took the opposite approach of the Russians, in that we gave her "just enough" speed/maneuverability to get the job done.

I suppose it boils down to our experience in Gulf wars 1/2 and Bosnia, along with a strong multi-role slant. Leadership must be awful convinced that BVR and avionics have evolved so much, that those are more important now. For our sake, I hope they're right. At least we'll be on the right side of quantity for once, with plans for thousands of F-35 vs. hundreds of PAK-FA. That MAY have been a critical error on the Russians part, since quantity has a quality all its own...

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2013, 18:21
by disconnectedradical
I agree. Aerodynamically, the PAK FA is a excellent design. Whether that will tilt the odds in its favor against an F-35 is an open question.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 02:22
by Corsair1963
disconnectedradical wrote:I agree. Aerodynamically, the PAK FA is a excellent design. Whether that will tilt the odds in its favor against an F-35 is an open question.



I've have seen nothing to suggest the PAK-FA is more Aerodynamic than the F-35.


Do you have a source to the contrary???

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2013, 21:59
by haavarla
Some tid bit about the Power supply system on Pak-Fa.

http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/45 ... aboty.html

Roughly translated:
UAPO created a new system, which is 2 times more powerful than any existing Russian counterparts. The system converts the DC power supply three-phase voltage variable frequency generator to a DC voltage 27 V nominal capacity of more than 8 kW. It provides stability for the electronic systems and aircraft safety. The new system is different and weight - it's 1.5 times lighter, tha any predecessor design.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 01:29
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:At least we'll be on the right side of quantity for once, with plans for thousands of F-35 vs. hundreds of PAK-FA. That MAY have been a critical error on the Russians part, since quantity has a quality all its own...


It isnt critical error at all. They arent fools to go in arm race again. They are building enough pak-fa for their needs (they dont have intention to be world cop).

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 04:57
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:At least we'll be on the right side of quantity for once, with plans for thousands of F-35 vs. hundreds of PAK-FA. That MAY have been a critical error on the Russians part, since quantity has a quality all its own...


It isnt critical error at all. They arent fools to go in arm race again. They are building enough pak-fa for their needs (they dont have intention to be world cop).



Pretty hard to predict the future and ~200 PAK-FA's would hardly be adequate to cover the vast airspace of Mother Russia. (IMO) :bang:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 09:28
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:Pretty hard to predict the future and ~200 PAK-FA's would hardly be adequate to cover the vast airspace of Mother Russia. (IMO) :bang:


MiG-31 will be replaced with new interceptor which is more adequate then PAK-FA for that job.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 11:11
by hornetfinn
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Pretty hard to predict the future and ~200 PAK-FA's would hardly be adequate to cover the vast airspace of Mother Russia. (IMO) :bang:


MiG-31 will be replaced with new interceptor which is more adequate then PAK-FA for that job.


Considering that the Su-35 is not in service yet and neither is PAK-FA by a long shot, I don't think MiG-31 replacement will be seen soon. There is a contract to upgrade 60 MiG-31s to MiG-31BM standard by 2020. Actually I don't see any need for any new aircraft to replace MiG-31. Wouldn't PAK-FA be adequate for that? Developing another new fighter aircraft seems to be way too much for Russian economy and military budget.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 12:49
by milosh
hornetfinn wrote:There is a contract to upgrade 60 MiG-31s to MiG-31BM standard by 2020. Actually I don't see any need for any new aircraft to replace MiG-31. Wouldn't PAK-FA be adequate for that? Developing another new fighter aircraft seems to be way too much for Russian economy and military budget.


60 MiG-31 isnt enough even though they will be much more capable. USSR had around 400 MiG-31 and stealth fighters didnt exist then. Today stealth fighters are real thing and Russians need something much better then MiG-31BM.

Work on MiG-31 replacement is started:
http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/14/mig31-replacement/

Pak-Fa isnt solution because it cant fill MiG-31 role. They are planing to spend 650billion dollars on modernization, 10 billion for new interceptor project is nothing. Real problem is which company will develop new interceptor.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 14:14
by hornetfinn
milosh wrote:Pak-Fa isnt solution because it cant fill MiG-31 role. They are planing to spend 650billion dollars on modernization, 10 billion for new interceptor project is nothing. Real problem is which company will develop new interceptor.


Why PAK-FA couldn't fill MiG-31 role? What does MiG-31 type aircraft do so much better that would warrant a development of another fighter aircraft?

That modernization plan is the total amount of money spent on military to 2020 and depends on very positive economic growth. Only part of that (likely about 200 billion) will be spent on equipment. Developing a new aircraft will definitely cost more than 10 billion dollars even for Russia, especially when all the additional support, training and operational costs are calculated in. Even if it was only 10 billion dollars, that would result in zero aircraft in inventory. On the other hand with that 10 billion dollars they could buy about 100 additional PAK-FA jets. That would be much smarter way of using money IMO.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 15:27
by milosh
hornetfinn wrote:Why PAK-FA couldn't fill MiG-31 role? What does MiG-31 type aircraft do so much better that would warrant a development of another fighter aircraft?


If Pak-Fa is capable to fly 1000+ km supersonic and is capable od 2.8M dash then it would be adequate replacement. For all we know it isnt that capable.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 18:04
by KamenRiderBlade
Couldn't you pack a special missile on the PAK-FA that would allow it to accomplish the MIG-31's intercept role?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 05:21
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Pretty hard to predict the future and ~200 PAK-FA's would hardly be adequate to cover the vast airspace of Mother Russia. (IMO) :bang:


MiG-31 will be replaced with new interceptor which is more adequate then PAK-FA for that job.



Russia will be lucky if it can find the funding for a Mig-29 Replacement. So, I seriously doubt any Mig-31 replacement is even viable.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 08:59
by hornetfinn
milosh wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Why PAK-FA couldn't fill MiG-31 role? What does MiG-31 type aircraft do so much better that would warrant a development of another fighter aircraft?


If Pak-Fa is capable to fly 1000+ km supersonic and is capable od 2.8M dash then it would be adequate replacement. For all we know it isnt that capable.


Against what threat would you need that?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 11:30
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Pretty hard to predict the future and ~200 PAK-FA's would hardly be adequate to cover the vast airspace of Mother Russia. (IMO) :bang:


MiG-31 will be replaced with new interceptor which is more adequate then PAK-FA for that job.



Russia will be lucky if it can find the funding for a Mig-29 Replacement. So, I seriously doubt any Mig-31 replacement is even viable.


For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.

hornetfinn wrote:Against what threat would you need that?


Russia is huge so you can chose between many airfields or less airfields. Economically and logistically second option is only viable. Even USSR couldnt afford many airfields in Siberia. That is why MiG-31 was born. They need fast plane but with excellent range especially when flying supersonic to cover their huge territory.

Today things are even worse then in USSR era. SAM network is weaker, many airfields are closed and hole in Russian airspace is much wider. That is why MiG-31 replacement is must.

Maybe they will use PAK-FA mod for MiG-31 replacement. That wouldnt cost lot and wouldnt create logistically problems. It would be less stealthy, less agile but with better range and max speed then PAK-FA. Something like Su-34 which was created on basis of Su-27.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2014, 04:56
by Corsair1963


For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.



I doubt that is the case..... :doh:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2014, 23:06
by haavarla
Corsair1963 wrote:

For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.



I doubt that is the case..... :doh:


You seems to have a good intel and knowledge about the future Russian AF threat and requirements.. pls do tell why you doubt the Mig-31 will not see an replacment before and light 5th fighter?

Just a little tip,
Russia is in the prossess of mothballing all their Mig-29's bar the Mig-29SMT's.
And they are upgrading the Mig-31 to the BM modification and With that the expactance for the Mig-31BM to serve Beyond 2020 ;)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2014, 23:11
by haavarla
[/quote]

MiG-31 will be replaced with new interceptor which is more adequate then PAK-FA for that job.

For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.

hornetfinn wrote:Against what threat would you need that?


Russia is huge so you can chose between many airfields or less airfields. Economically and logistically second option is only viable. Even USSR couldnt afford many airfields in Siberia. That is why MiG-31 was born. They need fast plane but with excellent range especially when flying supersonic to cover their huge territory.

Today things are even worse then in USSR era. SAM network is weaker, many airfields are closed and hole in Russian airspace is much wider. That is why MiG-31 replacement is must.

Maybe they will use PAK-FA mod for MiG-31 replacement. That wouldnt cost lot and wouldnt create logistically problems. It would be less stealthy, less agile but with better range and max speed then PAK-FA. Something like Su-34 which was created on basis of Su-27.


I very much agree milosh.
We might even see a Deep striker Version(Su-34'ish), Interceptor and Naval bird out of the T-50 design Down the road :)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 02:39
by count_to_10
haavarla wrote:
I very much agree milosh.
We might even see a Deep striker Version(Su-34'ish), Interceptor and Naval bird out of the T-50 design Down the road :)

Seems likely, if they can manage to pay for it. I don't see them going for an all new airframe now that they have the T-50 more or less worked out. Like the Flanker and Fulcrum before it, it will likely be adapted to whatever is needed.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 03:46
by Corsair1963
haavarla wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.



I doubt that is the case..... :doh:


You seems to have a good intel and knowledge about the future Russian AF threat and requirements.. pls do tell why you doubt the Mig-31 will not see an replacment before and light 5th fighter?

Just a little tip,
Russia is in the prossess of mothballing all their Mig-29's bar the Mig-29SMT's.
And they are upgrading the Mig-31 to the BM modification and With that the expactance for the Mig-31BM to serve Beyond 2020 ;)



Maybe you should hold the sarcasm until you do a little research....... :doh:


MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will soon start developing a prototype of an advanced lightweight fighter jet to supplement fifth-generation T-50 aircraft, a top government official said Wednesday.

The new aircraft is expected to be cheaper to produce and easier to maintain, but should also possess combat capabilities and performance characteristics comparable with those of heavy-class aircraft.

“The development of a light-class fighter has been included in the current arms procurement program. It will be created,” said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, addressing the lower house of parliament.

Rogozin, who oversees the defense and space industries, said light-class fighters were in greater demand abroad, compared to more advanced heavy-class aircraft, such as Su-30 or the planned T-50 fighter jets.

Russia is currently developing the heavy-class T-50 multirole fighter aircraft, also known as PAK-FA, which will be the core of the country’s future fighter fleet.

The T-50 is expected to enter service with the Russian air force in 2016.

Rogozin, who first voiced the idea of developing a second type of a fifth-generation fighter in February 2012, said Wednesday that Russia has always had at least two types of tactical fighters that in general supplemented one another.

The latest example is a MiG-29/Su-27 pair.

Rogozin did not specify which of Russia’s two main designers of combat jets – MiG or Sukhoi – will be assigned the development of the future light-class fighter.


http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131211 ... r-Jet.html

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 04:42
by haavarla
Well well well, so now you are the one using these News media such as RIA NOVOSTI as a reliable Source :)
(Double standard anyone?)

So you think Russia will Engage in a light fighter program "soon" as the article state?
Oh lets not forget that, the light 5th Gen fighter, will retain and i qoute:

"but should also possess combat capabilities and performance characteristics comparable with those of heavy-class Aircraft"

These Words are not Worth the ink and paper they are printet on and whats more you know this!
But you selective use such nonsens whenever it fit Your point of view..
How about a more sober and realistic point of view here!

You know as well as i do that Rogozin often talk right out of his @ss when it comes to the press, and if you weren't, well now you do.
Russia has very little chance to develop and produce an light 5th Gen fighter and being able to compete With western F-35 and this particular export market.
It will be all too expensive for any Russian friendly nation to ever consider buying and at the same time it will never have the same capabilities as an Heavy jet like the Flanker.
And as stated earlier here, the Russian AF does not really need them due to several obvious reasons.

The backbone of VVS fighter fleet will be super Flankers and T-50.
Later Down the road there could come out an Interceptor based on the T-50, and possible a Deep striker and a Naval bird, but if it ever does it will take years if not decades from now. Its waay out there for now.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 combo worked out well during the Soviet Cold War Era, but not now. Thats why they are capping all Mig-29's. The Mig-35 will never happend eighter. My 2cent is that Russia will eighter Upgrade a few Mig-29 to SMT standard or they will produce a few handfull Mig-29SMT out of a surplus airframe parts they have on Storage. Some very cheap units to fill in the ever shrinkin RuAF Inventory.

What will live for yet a while is the Mig-29K, which goes to the Navy, thats about it.
Any upgraded Flankers will do the work for any Heavy and light fighter, end of story. You end up With fewer types of jet in Your Inventory, which is actuall a good thing in the end.

Feel free to engage in Your own facepalm as you were, cause you aren't fooling anyone here With you nonsens.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 13:19
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:

For Russia MiG-31 replacement is more important then MiG-29 replacement.


I doubt that is the case..... :doh:


http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/14/mig31-replacement/

It is from April 2013, and they wrote what Russian new AF commander said: Work on MiG-31 replacement is started. Eight months later russian politician Rogozin talk about lightweight 5gen fighter which is still only in plans work didnt started at all.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 14:52
by mixelflick
Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 16:38
by blindpilot
mixelflick wrote:Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?


As I mentioned on the X-45B thread, you do not understand the new paradigm. The F-35 is NOT an F14-F117 blend on steroids. It is not just a X0% increase in sensor range, and Y0% improvement on LO. Forget AMRAAM/CUDA specs. In the new paradigm, the external components could be SPAD bi-planes. The fused sensor/situational awareness model allows me to use tooth picks, if I can figure out how to do it, while the other guy is flying around with his head in a bucket.

I continue to say that when someone doesn't know/understand something .... well, they do not (cannot) know "what they don't know." That's true of the combat engagement, but also true of this discussion.

MHO
BP

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 19:47
by justboring
mixelflick wrote:Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?


than you can support the statements?

already existing Russian radar has biger range than F35 radar
is quite admissible to assume that the radar for PAK FA will be at least the same range and higher characteristics on the found purposes
having smaller range and taking into account technologies a stealth applied on PAK FA very few chances that F35 will be capable to make the first look
thanks to the inexpressive aerodynamic characteristics of F35 not the fact that having found the purpose F35 will be able to come at once to a position of sure defeat by the arms
the kerosen-cryogenic engine for PF (which development is now in a stage of increase in term of operation of the engine) will allow to reach height 24км and more that does it practically not vulnerable for F35
and efficiency of the aim 120 series at big range not very impressive
it has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 21:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No AMRAAM ever fired in combat is up to the electronics level of the CURRENTLY FIELDED variants. I am not talking about fiture pipe dream missiles or AIM-120XYZ, the A and B models used are nothing next to the C-5 through C-7 variants in terms of guidance OR range.

As to the radars, it makes no difference if the PakFa can detect an F-15 from twice the distance an F-35 can (and that is a dubious claim at best) since the PakFa is trying to detect something that is two orders of magnitude more stealthy (i.e. can be seen by the same radar at ~1/4 the range) as itself. Even if you have twice the aperature size and twice the power you get a whopping 40% gain in detection range. If you have twice the signal processing and twice the signal gain sensativity, well needless to say that will result in better than 40% increase in range. Plus the laws of Physics means LPI transmissions are limited to ~90nm of range.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 21:31
by Scorpion82
The AMRAAM variants are sirely a fair deal more effective, but the possible opponents are too. The ~50% pk of A/B variants achieved during Allied Force was against a totally outnumbered opponent with very limited SA, flying technologically dated, or outdated aircraft that were in a less than desirable operational condition as well. We also need to besr in mind that the performance of active radar missile seekers is rather limited, how well would it perform against an LO target like the T-50 (same is true the otherway round)! Add modern missile warning systems and ECM, if not EA to the mix the pk of any such missile might just be too low to be worthwhile. We don't really know, but the way to go are certainly dual-mode missile seekers that combine active/passive radar with IIR for best lethality, on the other hand we also see the development of laser based DIRCM systems which may or may not render IIR guided missiles even less effective. One critical aspect to take into account is that the T-50 will almost certainly operate at higher altitudes amd possibly higher speeds and in any case the T-50 will surely accelerate to relevant supersonic speeds in less time given its aerodynamics (sweep angles, frontal cross section vs thrust etc.) and be able to maneuver far more effectively at higher speeds and altitudes. That alone is an important factor as it will shrink the F-35's engagement envelope, first look or not. There are also no dependable data available and people appear to limit it to "it will have the first look", if the difference is, lets say just 5 km it's almsot insignificant. At more than 20 km it definitely becomes a really tactically useful advantage, but how much time would it take for an F-35 to go to M 1.3+ from cruise speeds and induce a climb to at least partially offset a T-50's plain altitude advantage of easily 10-25k ft likely dependent on the mission profile flown. The F-35 is optimised for operations in the 25-35k ft range, though its srvice ceiling will be around 50k ft. A T-50 may routinely operate at altitudes between 45-60k ft on air superiority/air defence missions.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:02
by mixelflick
blindpilot wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?


As I mentioned on the X-45B thread, you do not understand the new paradigm. The F-35 is NOT an F14-F117 blend on steroids. It is not just a X0% increase in sensor range, and Y0% improvement on LO. Forget AMRAAM/CUDA specs. In the new paradigm, the external components could be SPAD bi-planes. The fused sensor/situational awareness model allows me to use tooth picks, if I can figure out how to do it, while the other guy is flying around with his head in a bucket.

I continue to say that when someone doesn't know/understand something .... well, they do not (cannot) know "what they don't know." That's true of the combat engagement, but also true of this discussion.

MHO
BP


I don't understand...
I never even posted in the X-45B thread?

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:05
by mixelflick
justboring wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?


than you can support the statements?

already existing Russian radar has biger range than F35 radar
is quite admissible to assume that the radar for PAK FA will be at least the same range and higher characteristics on the found purposes
having smaller range and taking into account technologies a stealth applied on PAK FA very few chances that F35 will be capable to make the first look
thanks to the inexpressive aerodynamic characteristics of F35 not the fact that having found the purpose F35 will be able to come at once to a position of sure defeat by the arms
the kerosen-cryogenic engine for PF (which development is now in a stage of increase in term of operation of the engine) will allow to reach height 24км and more that does it practically not vulnerable for F35
and efficiency of the aim 120 series at big range not very impressive
it has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM


Hell I know this stuff cold. I've built several scale models, some with glue...

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:26
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Back on point: I think the F-35 will get first look/first shot at PAK-FA.

If it makes it to the merge however, that's a problem. I suppose much will depend upon whether PAK-FA can survive the AMRAAM/CUDA onslaught?


I wouldnt be surprise if F-35 see Pak-Fa first with DAS then with radar. Same thing for Pak-Fa (it has also 360 IR coverage). Both aircraft will be capable to detect missile launches. That gives enough time for pilots to evade incoming missiles. So merging is inevitably, in one on one scenario.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:41
by SpudmanWP
The Aim-120D has a very advanced seeker that does not have to go active till it is very close to the target. Because of this, the enemy has very little warning that it is about to die. The 120D has a GPS assisted INS with a 2-way datalink that let's it know the precise location of the target rather than the vague directions given by today's inertia-based INS systems.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:44
by milosh
SpudmanWP wrote:The Aim-120D has a very advanced seeker that does not have to go active till it is very close to the target. Because of this, the enemy has very little warning that it is about to die. The 120D has a GPS assisted INS with a 2-way datalink that let's it know the precise location of the target rather than the vague directions given by today's inertia-based INS systems.


That wouldnt work against targets equiped with advanced optic sensors providing 360 degree coverage.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:57
by SpudmanWP
The OLS info that is given for the SU-35 says that it won't detect a non-burning inbound AAM till 5km. That is damn close.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 00:12
by milosh
SpudmanWP wrote:The OLS info that is given for the SU-35 says that it won't detect a non-burning inbound AAM till 5km. That is damn close.


OLS isnt useful because it doesnt provide good coverage, I was thinking about new Rafale tail sensors or Pak-Fa sensors.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 00:14
by SpudmanWP
Not the IRST but the 360 IR MAWS.

I'm trying to find the source now.

-----------EDIT-------

Found it. Basically <50km launch detection and <5km coasting AAM detection. I'll keep looking for the English version.

Image

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 10:00
by milosh
That is why PAK-FA have new generation of sensors.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 14:43
by rkap
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 01:55
by mixelflick
rkap wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.


This was a most interesting point...

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 02:09
by laos
Not to forget the Hainan Island incident when chinease J-8II ram EP-3E ARIES II.

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 03:01
by Corsair1963
rkap wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.



So, did Germany in 1938.......... :?

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 03:02
by count_to_10
rkap wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.

The Chinese have a long history of conquest, and a modern history of attacking both Vietnam and Korea. Currently, they are looking to attack their maritime neighbors.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 03:14
by Corsair1963
It's clear for the world to see that China has territorial ambitions outside it's current boarders. The danger is will China try to force the issue with one or more of it's neighbors??? Which, could quickly escalate out of control in to a much wider conflict.

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 18:14
by haavarla
count_to_10 wrote:
rkap wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.

The Chinese have a long history of conquest, and a modern history of attacking both Vietnam and Korea. Currently, they are looking to attack their maritime neighbors.


You are correct(Vietnam). But that ofcourse put China right into US "hall of unfame" history books.. :D

Must say, this thread is widely out of topic!
This does not bode well for such a serious Furum like F-16.net... :)
Get back on track pls

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2014, 18:35
by araya
rkap wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I don't see Chinese pilots flying suicide missions. There is no basis in ideology, or in desperation of the situation, that would suggest that course of action.


Add to that I don't see the Chinese attacking anyone. Part of there Culture for thousands of years.
They are enjoying there new found wealth and economic power too much.
Why would they risk that? They have too much to lose.
To date there Defense spending in the main is on true Defense. Not projecting power US style.



Hi rkap, your comments indicates what you didn’t know much about the recent Chinese History. So since the Communists has taken the power in China they have stared a lot of Wars against their Neighbors. For example the first Neighbor how was conquered by Red China was in early 1950 the harmless and peaceful Tibet an easy prey for the communist’s. Just 2 Years later in 1951 Red China has even attacked the USA, South Korea and the UN Forces after their Nord Korean Ally’s failed with their invasion to conquer South Korea. In 1962 the Chinese also attacked India in Order to conquer disputed border territory and in 1969 they was even so bold to start a border conflict with the UDSSR (Sino-Soviet border conflict 1969) and in 1979 they stared even a full-scale invasion in Vietnam despite of the fact what both there communist states.
This are just some examples for Chinese Aggressions against their neighbors and they also indicate what Red China is disposed to use military violence even them they are not clearly superior to their enemy/pray. And today they see rising political tension in the entire Pacific Hemisphere from India to Vietnam and from Taiwan over South Korea to Japan and the Philippine’s all this countries have problems with Red Chinas massive military buildup and is growing territorial claims. So the Senkaku Islands are just one minor example for a long list of chinese territorial claims. So them you look around the World to find the region how a massive War with High Tech Weapons one both sides can occur, so it will be in the Pacific with China or one of is Ally’s (Nord Korea or Pakistan) as Aggressor. The most likely Scenario what involve the F35 against the J20 and J31 will be a major Conflict between Japan and China over the disputed Islands but also a new Sino-Indian Conflict is likely hearthe PAK FA will have to deal with the J20 and J31 and many Military’s in India see this conflict just as probably as a conflict with there live-time enemy Pakistan.


But too come to the Never-ending debate over the “poor” Air to Air capabilities of the F35 in compare to the PAK FA, J20 and J31 so I can said what I long dealt with this topic. And came to the conclusion what nearly all anti F35 Argument’s came from a just one unserious Source/Blog called “Air Power Australia” how is leaded by an obsessed F35 enemy named Dr. Carlo Kopp how has exactly 1 flight Hour expirience in a Military Jet as a quest how he lose a lot of time the consciousness. Them you read is Page with all is argument’s against the F35 you possible find them convincing. How long you look only superficially one them but them you going deeper into the matter you will recognize what nearly everything what Mr.Carlo Kopp writes in his Blog is nonsense or half-truths at best. I’m not a Fan of the F35 and it exist convincing Indicators what the F35 is not stealth enough to deal with state of art Russian air defense systems how are at last the biggest threat to all western Air forces since Vietnam. But what means the questions them the F35 will be able to deal with the PAK FA or older 4.5 generation airframes like the Su30MKI, SU34, SU27SM, SU35S or Chinese models like the J10B, J11, J15 so I have no worries what the F35 will beat them all. Because why despite of the fact what the F35 was not like designed like the F22 desgned as an Air Superiority Fighter it has the technological Edge in nearly all aspects over is eastern enemies. The interplay of Stealth, Modern Avionics and Communication Technology with good Air to Air Weapons and expired Pilots will give the F35 the edge over is adversary’s. And you can be also sure what the F35 as the look today or how the will look around 2020 will not be the same F35 around 2030 and later. With other Words the F35 will get a lot of improvements in the course of their life-time as the PAK FA will likely fight to get the capability’s how are written actually in is product description.


The real threat for the F35 are not Russian build Pak FA fighters but Russian build High End Air defense System like as specialized Chinese airframes like the J20 how is more a stealthy medium range strike platform against US Carriers, Warships and Air Bases them an Air Superiority fighter like the F22 or the PAK FA.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 01:04
by mixelflick
What are the implications of everyone under-estimating the F-35? I'd say they're huge...

If I'm LM right now, I'm smiling. Kopp and crew have convinced the world it's a dog, especially air to air. If HALF of what LM is saying is true, it'll be a nasty surprise for the opposition. IF it really flies like a "clean" F-16/18, is stealthy and brings all this networking/sensor fusion to the fight - it's going to be no pushover.

What bugs me is that's a BIG "if", and only LM knows for sure. That and it can't dictate the terms of engagement, at least once its discovered...

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 01:23
by justboring
LM fail to convince people around of the success F35
too often told fantastic stories about characteristics of there planes and too often the unattractive truth got out outside

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 02:05
by Corsair1963
justboring wrote:LM fail to convince people around of the success F35
too often told fantastic stories about characteristics of there planes and too often the unattractive truth got out outside



LOL Seems like Lockheed Martin had no problem with convincing Air Forces from Japan, South Korea, and Israel of the capabilities of the F-35. :doh:


Which, doesn't even include the JSF Partner Nations either.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 02:10
by justboring
they got big money on table
and all this nations depend on USA army
I can be believe that F35 something can when India or France with Germany will buy it

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 02:13
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:What are the implications of everyone under-estimating the F-35? I'd say they're huge...

If I'm LM right now, I'm smiling. Kopp and crew have convinced the world it's a dog, especially air to air. If HALF of what LM is saying is true, it'll be a nasty surprise for the opposition. IF it really flies like a "clean" F-16/18, is stealthy and brings all this networking/sensor fusion to the fight - it's going to be no pushover.

What bugs me is that's a BIG "if", and only LM knows for sure. That and it can't dictate the terms of engagement, at least once its discovered...



Honestly, I don't think the Kopp, Sweetmans, etc. etc. have convinced anybody except the Arm Chair Generals. As Russia and China are proceeding full speed a head with 5th Generation Fighters of their own....

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 02:15
by Corsair1963
justboring wrote:they got big money on table




All first line fighters are expensive. As a matter of fact in the end the F-35 is likely to be cheaper than either the Typhoon and/or Rafale. Hell, even the PAK-FA is projected to cost $100 Million +

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 02:46
by justboring
Corsair1963 wrote:
justboring wrote:they got big money on table




All first line fighters are expensive. As a matter of fact in the end the F-35 is likely to be cheaper than either the Typhoon and/or Rafale. Hell, even the PAK-FA is projected to cost $100 Million +


I spoke about great opportunities (nearly 400 billion dollars on the F35 program) LM to convince anyone that the countries whose elite goes in a foravotor of policy of the USA made the necessary choice

I doubt that the most expensive F35 version will be cheaper than a typhoon and Raf only if F35 is is made in large quantities and without changes from present level of readiness

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 03:30
by steakanddoritos
justboring wrote:I doubt that the most expensive F35 version will be cheaper than a typhoon and Raf only if F35 is is made in large quantities and without changes from present level of readiness


Well, it will be built in large numbers, and the design has been nailed down now, so the price pretty much is assured to go down. The F-35 will cost less than the Tiffy or Rafale due to economies of scale.

If it was such a crappy fighter, why is everyone buying it? The F-35 has become the 800lb gorilla of fighter acquisition programs.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 03:48
by newmanfrigan
This thread is an excellent idea. Just slap the words "PAKFA" on it and it turns into troll catching fly paper. It's good for the health of the rest of the forum. The actual history of corruption in fighter deals is exemplified to my mind by the sale of Typhoon to Saudi, or Gripen to South Africa. Look it up kids. In the past, US companies could get into this game as well, but nowadays US export laws are actually more strictly applied via Avis corruption than European ones, which disadvantages our companies in regions like the gulf, where palm greasing is an essential part of business. Offsets and political influence are applied by US companies, but that is fair game. Legal. Also, Boeing has more money than Lockmart and very muscular lobbyists. F35 provides a higher capability and opportunity to sit on the juggernaut that is the US logistical chain for European countries that can't afford to fully self support expeditionary warfare. Who do you want to be interoperable with, the US, or Sweden/France/Germany? The cost benefits in actual operational terms, and the economies of scale involved make an ultra-sophisticated fighter almost as affordable as the outgoing generation. upgrades in the future are 100% assured, whereas the Typhoon still awaits its AESA, and will have to catch as catch can for other upgrades. There' are solid reasons why air forces and general staffs are asking for this plane in regions like S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Israel. These countries are not going to mortgage their future security just to Over some Arabian-style personal gifts. That's just not how it works in the real world. In the real world though, the people who's opinions matter are fully aware that the F35, while expensive, provides a quantum leap in capability that makes it the better value proposition. It's just a deal that's too good to refuse. Journalists and enthusiasts may differ, but I'm sufficiently impressed with the professional version of reality. It may be more nuanced than turning and burning statistics of dubious legitimacy/context/importance and Vietnam gun analogies, but I prefer reality. ..let me also say that the Eurocanards are beautiful, capable fighters, but they are severely hamstrung by being too late, underfunded and poorly supported politically. The lack of a Euro 5th gen is a political failure and not a technical one. Where there is boldness and political will there will be success and the F35 program is immensely ambitious and bold. It's also over the hump now and beginning to pay off on the massive investments made. It's not Lockmarts fault that there is no Euro 5th gen competitor.

Now back to the topic: how the magical future ramjet, plasma stealth, phaser ray equipped PAKFA will make the Evil American corporate empire beg for mercy. I hear there will be 1,000 PAKFAs and 1,000 SU-35, as well as 6 new Russian aircraft carriers by 2020! (kids say the darndest things ;-) discuss amongst yourselves!

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 05:15
by araya
justboring wrote:they got big money on table
and all this nations depend on USA army
I can be believe that F35 something can when India or France with Germany will buy it


To see India, France or Germany buy the F35 it is in the moment unlikely because why France is in deep economic austerity and it has also is own indigenous fighter program the Rafale how it seeks to sell one the international market. And the France have even in the darkest hours of the Cold War also preferred to build and buy inferior indigenous military products instead of superior products from there NATO ally’s expectedly the USA. Germany is different from France but the German politics has led to a total collapse of that what was ones called the Bundeswehr and the Luftwaffe as is Air component they didn’t have even the political will to buy armed unmanned aerial vehicle like the MQ1 or the MQ9 and they are also part of the Typhoon Program with around 131 EF2000 and most are not even delivered. And India what it is more important has already paid the half of the development costs of the PAK FA and plans to buy the largest Numbers of PAK FA so to buy F35 is not an impossible outcome but in the moment unlikely. For India the PAK FA is in the moment the more attractive project because of the Know How what they get from it and also because why the PAK FA will meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force how are different from the requirements of the USA or is closed Ally’s particularly the Ally’s how have to deal with China. So how long the Indians remains a 50/50 partner one the PAK FA with Russian they can be sure what the Russian will not sell the PAK FA to China or Pakistan and in the same time the PAK FA will be able to beat is likeliest adversaries the Pakistan Air Force how didn’t have a 5 Generation fighter and also the Chinese PLAAF how will have 5 Generation fighter but not on a superior Level to the PAK FA.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:10
by Corsair1963
newmanfrigan wrote:This thread is an excellent idea. Just slap the words "PAKFA" on it and it turns into troll catching fly paper. It's good for the health of the rest of the forum. The actual history of corruption in fighter deals is exemplified to my mind by the sale of Typhoon to Saudi, or Gripen to South Africa. Look it up kids. In the past, US companies could get into this game as well, but nowadays US export laws are actually more strictly applied via Avis corruption than European ones, which disadvantages our companies in regions like the gulf, where palm greasing is an essential part of business. Offsets and political influence are applied by US companies, but that is fair game. Legal. Also, Boeing has more money than Lockmart and very muscular lobbyists. F35 provides a higher capability and opportunity to sit on the juggernaut that is the US logistical chain for European countries that can't afford to fully self support expeditionary warfare. Who do you want to be interoperable with, the US, or Sweden/France/Germany? The cost benefits in actual operational terms, and the economies of scale involved make an ultra-sophisticated fighter almost as affordable as the outgoing generation. upgrades in the future are 100% assured, whereas the Typhoon still awaits its AESA, and will have to catch as catch can for other upgrades. There' are solid reasons why air forces and general staffs are asking for this plane in regions like S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Israel. These countries are not going to mortgage their future security just to Over some Arabian-style personal gifts. That's just not how it works in the real world. In the real world though, the people who's opinions matter are fully aware that the F35, while expensive, provides a quantum leap in capability that makes it the better value proposition. It's just a deal that's too good to refuse. Journalists and enthusiasts may differ, but I'm sufficiently impressed with the professional version of reality. It may be more nuanced than turning and burning statistics of dubious legitimacy/context/importance and Vietnam gun analogies, but I prefer reality. ..let me also say that the Eurocanards are beautiful, capable fighters, but they are severely hamstrung by being too late, underfunded and poorly supported politically. The lack of a Euro 5th gen is a political failure and not a technical one. Where there is boldness and political will there will be success and the F35 program is immensely ambitious and bold. It's also over the hump now and beginning to pay off on the massive investments made. It's not Lockmarts fault that there is no Euro 5th gen competitor.

Now back to the topic: how the magical future ramjet, plasma stealth, phaser ray equipped PAKFA will make the Evil American corporate empire beg for mercy. I hear there will be 1,000 PAKFAs and 1,000 SU-35, as well as 6 new Russian aircraft carriers by 2020! (kids say the darndest things ;-) discuss amongst yourselves!



You knocked that one out of the ball park! :applause:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:20
by Corsair1963
araya wrote:
justboring wrote:they got big money on table
and all this nations depend on USA army
I can be believe that F35 something can when India or France with Germany will buy it


To see India, France or Germany buy the F35 it is in the moment unlikely because why France is in deep economic austerity and it has also is own indigenous fighter program the Rafale how it seeks to sell one the international market. And the France have even in the darkest hours of the Cold War also preferred to build and buy inferior indigenous military products instead of superior products from there NATO ally’s expectedly the USA. Germany is different from France but the German politics has led to a total collapse of that what was ones called the Bundeswehr and the Luftwaffe as is Air component they didn’t have even the political will to buy armed unmanned aerial vehicle like the MQ1 or the MQ9 and they are also part of the Typhoon Program with around 131 EF2000 and most are not even delivered. And India what it is more important has already paid the half of the development costs of the PAK FA and plans to buy the largest Numbers of PAK FA so to buy F35 is not an impossible outcome but in the moment unlikely. For India the PAK FA is in the moment the more attractive project because of the Know How what they get from it and also because why the PAK FA will meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force how are different from the requirements of the USA or is closed Ally’s particularly the Ally’s how have to deal with China. So how long the Indians remains a 50/50 partner one the PAK FA with Russian they can be sure what the Russian will not sell the PAK FA to China or Pakistan and in the same time the PAK FA will be able to beat is likeliest adversaries the Pakistan Air Force how didn’t have a 5 Generation fighter and also the Chinese PLAAF how will have 5 Generation fighter but not on a superior Level to the PAK FA.



Both France and Germany have and do purchase US Hardware all of the time. So, while neither has a short term need for F-35's. They will need something in the long term and at the moment nothing is even on the drawing board in Europe!

As for India the PAK-FA is only going to be produced in modest numbers. Approximately 200-250 each for the RuAF and IAF. So, that is going to leave a big gap in capabilities. That said Russia is talking about a small and cheaper 5th Generation Fighter to replace the Mig-29. Yet, that is way off if it even happens. China on the other hand has at least two 5th Generation Fighters in Development. Which, may very well give at least Russia a run for there money.............

In short the F-35 is a viable option in India too.............(IMO)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:25
by Corsair1963
steakanddoritos wrote:
justboring wrote:I doubt that the most expensive F35 version will be cheaper than a typhoon and Raf only if F35 is is made in large quantities and without changes from present level of readiness


Well, it will be built in large numbers, and the design has been nailed down now, so the price pretty much is assured to go down. The F-35 will cost less than the Tiffy or Rafale due to economies of scale.

If it was such a crappy fighter, why is everyone buying it? The F-35 has become the 800lb gorilla of fighter acquisition programs.



Which, is why few 4.5 Generation Fighters are selling. As most are waiting on the F-35! :twisted:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:27
by mk82
LMAO! +2 Newmanfrigan :D. Time to activate my plasma stealth...dammit....why am I still visible :P. Time to use my non existent phasers.....piao piao...dammit! Why are those evil and stealthy American planes not dieing :D? There, I have elevated the standard of this thread immensely :D

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:30
by Corsair1963
You funny...... :wink:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:34
by mk82
Justboring....you are not elevating the standard of this thread...unlike me :D! How disappointing!!

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 06:39
by mk82
Arrgh!!! No problems Corsair :D. Just adding to the comedy gold on this thread :D

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 08:08
by araya
Corsair1963 wrote:
araya wrote:
justboring wrote:they got big money on table
and all this nations depend on USA army
I can be believe that F35 something can when India or France with Germany will buy it


To see India, France or Germany buy the F-35 it is in the moment unlikely because why France is in deep economic austerity and it has also is own indigenous fighter program the Rafale how it seeks to sell one the international market. And the France have even in the darkest hours of the Cold War also preferred to build and buy inferior indigenous military products instead of superior products from there NATO ally’s expectedly the USA.

Germany is different from France but the German politics has led to a total collapse of that what was ones called the Bundeswehr and the Luftwaffe as is Air component they didn’t have even the political will to buy armed unmanned aerial vehicle like the MQ1 or the MQ9 and they are also part of the Typhoon Program with around 131 EF2000 and most are not even delivered. And India what it is more important has already paid the half of the development costs of the PAK FA and plans to buy the largest Numbers of PAK FA so to buy F35 is not an impossible outcome but in the moment unlikely. For India the PAK FA is in the moment the more attractive project because of the Know How what they get from it and also because why the PAK FA will meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force how are different from the requirements of the USA or is closed Ally’s particularly the Ally’s how have to deal with China. So how long the Indians remains a 50/50 partner one the PAK FA with Russian they can be sure what the Russian will not sell the PAK FA to China or Pakistan and in the same time the PAK FA will be able to beat is likeliest adversaries the Pakistan Air Force how didn’t have a 5 Generation fighter and also the Chinese PLAAF how will have 5 Generation fighter but not on a superior Level to the PAK FA.



Both France and Germany have and do purchase US Hardware all of the time. So, while neither has a short term need for F-35's. They will need something in the long term and at the moment nothing is even on the drawing board in Europe!

As for India the PAK-FA is only going to be produced in modest numbers. Approximately 200-250 each for the RuAF and IAF. So, that is going to leave a big gap in capabilities. That said Russia is talking about a small and cheaper 5th Generation Fighter to replace the Mig-29. Yet, that is way off if it even happens. China on the other hand has at least two 5th Generation Fighters in Development. Which, may very well give at least Russia a run for there money.............

In short the F-35 is a viable option in India too.............(IMO)


Hi justboring,
it is true what France and Germany have purchase US Hardware (more Germany to be honest) but the France have generally avoided to purchase any non-France Hardware however they cut and this despite of the fact that there products there generally inferior to US or even European products. So France decided to purchase there Mirage fighter jets as all other European NATO Country’s purchased US Jets like the F4 and later jointly develop and produced the European Panavia Tornado and start the developing of the EF2000 as France again preferred to develop their own Fighter the Rafale instead.

Your are also completely right them you say what it is nothing one the drawing board in Europe and I’m sure what around 2025 the Germans will buy F35 because of the lack of an alternative as France will do the same. What means India and the planned production Numbers of the PAK FA so they plan to buy around 300 PAK FA this is not so a small Number them you consider what India has also maintains 170 SU30MKI and had recent decided to purchase 128 Rafale with the option to buy another 64–74 more in is MRCA-competition as replacement for is aging Mig Fighter.

And India runs in the moment also in own indigenous the HAL Tejas how in plans to purchase over 200 of them. The Indian Navy has also 30 MiG-29K in inventory and 45 MiG-29K/KUB on order in the moment. So for the short term it looks what the Indians have enough Fighter and Fighter acquisition Programs running so the F35 should be more a distant option them the tensions with China grows or the relations with the US improves dramatically. What means the Russian plans to buy 250 PAK FA so I think what even this Number look a bit too high for them, the Russian Industrial base is very weak as consequence of the collapse of the UDSSR and it looks unlikely for me what the Russian will even start a second stealthy fighter program.

My predictions is what the Russian will remain by a mixed fleet of stealth and non-stealth airframes so they plan to procure around 200 to 250 Su34 and they recently procured another 48 Su35S and 10 Su30SM as 30 Su29k for their Navy additional to their PAK FA Program this is a lot for the Russian Industrial base so I will be very surprised them they see as next a second 5 Generation Fighter Program.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 10:37
by Corsair1963
Hi justboring,
it is true what France and Germany have purchase US Hardware (more Germany to be honest) but the France have generally avoided to purchase any non-France Hardware however they cut and this despite of the fact that there products there generally inferior to US or even European products. So France decided to purchase there Mirage fighter jets as all other European NATO Country’s purchased US Jets like the F4 and later jointly develop and produced the European Panavia Tornado and start the developing of the EF2000 as France again preferred to develop their own Fighter the Rafale instead.

Your are also completely right them you say what it is nothing one the drawing board in Europe and I’m sure what around 2025 the Germans will buy F35 because of the lack of an alternative as France will do the same. What means India and the planned production Numbers of the PAK FA so they plan to buy around 300 PAK FA this is not so a small Number them you consider what India has also maintains 170 SU30MKI and had recent decided to purchase 128 Rafale with the option to buy another 64–74 more in is MRCA-competition as replacement for is aging Mig Fighter.

And India runs in the moment also in own indigenous the HAL Tejas how in plans to purchase over 200 of them. The Indian Navy has also 30 MiG-29K in inventory and 45 MiG-29K/KUB on order in the moment. So for the short term it looks what the Indians have enough Fighter and Fighter acquisition Programs running so the F35 should be more a distant option them the tensions with China grows or the relations with the US improves dramatically. What means the Russian plans to buy 250 PAK FA so I think what even this Number look a bit too high for them, the Russian Industrial base is very weak as consequence of the collapse of the UDSSR and it looks unlikely for me what the Russian will even start a second stealthy fighter program.

My predictions is what the Russian will remain by a mixed fleet of stealth and non-stealth airframes so they plan to procure around 200 to 250 Su34 and they recently procured another 48 Su35S and 10 Su30SM as 30 Su29k for their Navy additional to their PAK FA Program this is a lot for the Russian Industrial base so I will be very surprised them they see as next a second 5 Generation Fighter Program.


Clearly, India is a wild card of sorts!

First, the main threat is of course China. Yet, China is pursuing at least two 5th Generation Fighters. Which, she will likely produce in numbers. In addition China could export or possibly even base such fighters in Pakistan! This would force India to fight on two fronts!

Plus, I've seen nothing to suggest Russia would come to India's aid in any conflict with China. Plus, India is reluctant to join any Western Alliance for mutual support.

In such a scenario even 300 PAK-FA's and 150 Rafales maybe to little to late! Especially, if China was able to get in the first strike........

Honestly, India should cancel the Rafale and instead procure a Hi/Low Mix of PAK-FA's (FGFA) and F-35's. Then in the future in could join forces with a Western (Europe/ASIA/US) Aerospace Company (but wouldn't rule out Russia) and jointly develop a 6th Generation Fighter 20-30 years from now.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 10:39
by Corsair1963
mk82 wrote:Arrgh!!! No problems Corsair :D. Just adding to the comedy gold on this thread :D



As only an Australian could......... :wink:

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 13:00
by araya
Corsair1963 wrote:
Clearly, India is a wild card of sorts!

First, the main threat is of course China. Yet, China is pursuing at least two 5th Generation Fighters. Which, she will likely produce in numbers. In addition China could export or possibly even base such fighters in Pakistan! This would force India to fight on two fronts!

Plus, I've seen nothing to suggest Russia would come to India's aid in any conflict with China. Plus, India is reluctant to join any Western Alliance for mutual support.

In such a scenario even 300 PAK-FA's and 150 Rafales maybe to little to late! Especially, if China was able to get in the first strike........

Honestly, India should cancel the Rafale and instead procure a Hi/Low Mix of PAK-FA's (FGFA) and F-35's. Then in the future in could join forces with a Western (Europe/ASIA/US) Aerospace Company (but wouldn't rule out Russia) and jointly develop a 6th Generation Fighter 20-30 years from now.



I am not contradicting you because why I agreed with your threat analysis for India. Them India join the F35 Program it will be a big victory for everybody but at this moment it is unfortunately unlikely. Possible what it will change them the F35 become operational and the cost begins to fall what the Indians will join the F35 Program so in the moment how I saw even the Rafael deal is not really a sure think so the possibility remain what the actual MRCA deal will fall apart.



Purely from a military view the PAK FA is a mistake for India because why it is the inferior airframe in compare to the F35 but them you take the political view in to the mix it didn’t looks so good to cancel the PAK FA Program or to join jet the F35 Program because why the Indians will lose some lever against the Russians. The Russians are driven by an anti-western mania and superpower fantasies so them the Indians get out of the PAK-FA Program it is likely what Russia will seek a new Partner for is 5 Generation Program and the only Option for the Russian will be Red China. As consequence the Indians will have to deal with a much improved Chinese PAK FA/J20/J31 Fleet much earlier them expected. Personally I believe what the Indians use there good military cooperation with the Russian to prevent what the Russian start to give the Red Chinese or even the Pakistanis complet access to their Know-how. So in the moment fortunately the Chinese lacks in some areas technological even behind the Russians but unfortunatly they have the money, the human capital and the will to catch up or even to surpass the High End Western Products but this will take time.

Actually the PLAAF have two Stealth Fighter Programs how are both more dangerous for the USA and is Allys them the PAK FA will ever be mainly because of their different operational profile. So they have in one hand the large J20 how looks more like a medium bomber how will be because of is stealth an ideal assault weapon against all is neighbors from Japan over South Korea and Taiwan to India and a ideal weapon against the US Bases and Surface Fleet in the Pacific Ocean. And in the other Hand they have also the smaller low end stealth Fighter the J31 how looks to become china’s next standard tactical fighter and will likely produced in large numbers. The F35 and PAK FA should deal easily with the J31 but against the larger J20 you need an interceptor airframe. The F22 should come from the existing stealth fighter this interceptor requirements as nearest. The PAK FA is possible also the better airframe to face the J20 in a defensive role because of is higher top-speed, longer range and higher weapon payload if we assume what the stealth level and also the Air to Air performance of the J20 will be below the performance of the F35 and equally or worse them the performance of the PAK FA.

As I've written I see the real threat for the Western especially for the USA and is Pacific Ally’s not in the PAK FA but in the J20. The PAK FA is in compare to the F35 inferior in the areas how really count in a modern Air to Air Combat. So the PAK FA lacks of stealth level of the F35 like as he lack of modern avionic and communication technology. So the F35 will have the first look and first shout and the edge but against the J20 the situation looks different. The F35 should be able to shut the J20 easily in an Air to Air combat but the situation becomes difficult for the F35 them they assume what the J20 will be just used as an offensive weapon against Surface Targets and important Bases. The F35 has a limited range and in compare to the F22 and even to the PAK FA a relatively low top speed and is also incapable for super-cruise what means what the F35 will be in disadvantage the he has to play an intercept role. So the USA and there Ally’s like Japan, South Korea and Twain lack of an effective Ground based Air Defense in compare to China or Russian how have invested a lot in overlapping air defense systems to negate there inferiority in Air to Air combat. So the USA and is Ally will have to count one the F35 as defensive weapon because why the J20 should be stealthy enough to be detected to late by actual US Air Defense System like the MIM-104 Patriot –PAC2.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 15:53
by justboring
araya wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Clearly, India is a wild card of sorts!

First, the main threat is of course China. Yet, China is pursuing at least two 5th Generation Fighters. Which, she will likely produce in numbers. In addition China could export or possibly even base such fighters in Pakistan! This would force India to fight on two fronts!

Plus, I've seen nothing to suggest Russia would come to India's aid in any conflict with China. Plus, India is reluctant to join any Western Alliance for mutual support.

In such a scenario even 300 PAK-FA's and 150 Rafales maybe to little to late! Especially, if China was able to get in the first strike........

Honestly, India should cancel the Rafale and instead procure a Hi/Low Mix of PAK-FA's (FGFA) and F-35's. Then in the future in could join forces with a Western (Europe/ASIA/US) Aerospace Company (but wouldn't rule out Russia) and jointly develop a 6th Generation Fighter 20-30 years from now.


I am not contradicting you because why I agreed with your threat analysis for India. Them India join the F35 Program it will be a big victory for everybody but at this moment it is unfortunately unlikely. Possible what it will change them the F35 become operational and the cost begins to fall what the Indians will join the F35 Program so in the moment how I saw even the Rafael deal is not really a sure think so the possibility remain what the actual MRCA deal will fall apart.

Purely from a military view the PAK FA is a mistake for India because why it is the inferior airframe in compare to the F35 but them you take the political view in to the mix it didn’t looks so good to cancel the PAK FA Program or to join jet the F35 Program because why the Indians will lose some lever against the Russians. The Russians are driven by an anti-western mania and superpower fantasies so them the Indians get out of the PAK-FA Program it is likely what Russia will seek a new Partner for is 5 Generation Program and the only Option for the Russian will be Red China. As consequence the Indians will have to deal with a much improved Chinese PAK FA/J20/J31 Fleet much earlier them expected. Personally I believe what the Indians use there good military cooperation with the Russian to prevent what the Russian start to give the Red Chinese or even the Pakistanis complet access to their Know-how. So in the moment fortunately the Chinese lacks in some areas technological even behind the Russians but unfortunatly they have the money, the human capital and the will to catch up or even to surpass the High End Western Products but this will take time.

Actually the PLAAF have two Stealth Fighter Programs how are both more dangerous for the USA and is Allys them the PAK FA will ever be mainly because of their different operational profile. So they have in one hand the large J20 how looks more like a medium bomber how will be because of is stealth an ideal assault weapon against all is neighbors from Japan over South Korea and Taiwan to India and a ideal weapon against the US Bases and Surface Fleet in the Pacific Ocean. And in the other Hand they have also the smaller low end stealth Fighter the J31 how looks to become china’s next standard tactical fighter and will likely produced in large numbers. The F35 and PAK FA should deal easily with the J31 but against the larger J20 you need an interceptor airframe. The F22 should come from the existing stealth fighter this interceptor requirements as nearest. The PAK FA is possible also the better airframe to face the J20 in a defensive role because of is higher top-speed, longer range and higher weapon payload if we assume what the stealth level and also the Air to Air performance of the J20 will be below the performance of the F35 and equally or worse them the performance of the PAK FA.

As I've written I see the real threat for the Western especially for the USA and is Pacific Ally’s not in the PAK FA but in the J20. The PAK FA is in compare to the F35 inferior in the areas how really count in a modern Air to Air Combat. So the PAK FA lacks of stealth level of the F35 like as he lack of modern avionic and communication technology. So the F35 will have the first look and first shout and the edge but against the J20 the situation looks different. The F35 should be able to shut the J20 easily in an Air to Air combat but the situation becomes difficult for the F35 them they assume what the J20 will be just used as an offensive weapon against Surface Targets and important Bases. The F35 has a limited range and in compare to the F22 and even to the PAK FA a relatively low top speed and is also incapable for super-cruise what means what the F35 will be in disadvantage the he has to play an intercept role. So the USA and there Ally’s like Japan, South Korea and Twain lack of an effective Ground based Air Defense in compare to China or Russian how have invested a lot in overlapping air defense systems to negate there inferiority in Air to Air combat. So the USA and is Ally will have to count one the F35 as defensive weapon because why the J20 should be stealthy enough to be detected to late by actual US Air Defense System like the MIM-104 Patriot –PAC2.


it is too much statements about F35 superiority (which isn't ready) and about PF shortcomings (which too isn't ready)

certainly the main threat for USA in the Pacific region is China
simply because Russia has no there big territories
and problems which create USA in this region directly concern China which comes out on top in the world by the economy size
China learned lessons 19-20 century and seeks to secure itself from the sea, friendly strategic agreements with Russia allow China will concentrate on distribution of the force towards the Pacific Ocean without distracting on land
system the patriot i will tell is a heritage of 80 years and almost no any innovations in it
and even such ancient missiles as Scud are capable to cause damage breaking through a zone of cover of this system of air defense

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 19:23
by milosh
China is still in problems with aircraft technology. It would develop advanced engines,radars and missiles but it wouldnt happen tomorrow, it is long process.

On other hand PAK-FA already have better engines, radar and weapons. And that is prototype version. We already hear about new engine they will start testing in 2014 and which would be ready when Pak-Fa full-rate production starts.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 19:58
by justboring
the engine for PF is already ready but while the problem with its small resource is unresolved - shovels of 150 hours + very quickly burn through

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2014, 20:52
by araya
justboring wrote:it is too much statements about F35 superiority (which isn't ready) and about PF shortcomings (which too isn't ready)

certainly the main threat for USA in the Pacific region is China
simply because Russia has no there big territories
and problems which create USA in this region directly concern China which comes out on top in the world by the economy size
China learned lessons 19-20 century and seeks to secure itself from the sea, friendly strategic agreements with Russia allow China will concentrate on distribution of the force towards the Pacific Ocean without distracting on land
system the patriot i will tell is a heritage of 80 years and almost no any innovations in it
and even such ancient missiles as Scud are capable to cause damage breaking through a zone of cover of this system of air defense


Hi justboring, it possible what I speak much about the F35 superiority in compare to the PAK FA but simply because of the fact that it is highly probable what the F35 is the superior airframe to the PAK FA and this despite of is shortcomings. So it is true what the F35 is not ready but it coming near to IOC and in compare to the PAK FA it is already more advanced in is development. Then you look one the F35 for the first time you see at first a lot of shortcoming for example the small internal armament, the smaller radar since and the low top-speed like as is inferior stealth in compare to the F22 and also some propaganda from “Air Power Australia” but then you take a closer look one the concept and also one other factors like Advanced Air to Air Missile’s, 360 degree targeting technology, the fact what all Top Speed Data from legacy Fighter are flown in clean configuration so the F35 start to look much better. Them you take now in consideration what the Russians already granted what the PAK FA will be less stealthy them the F35. For example the Russian embassy in India even has claimed what the RCS of the PAK FA should be as high as 0,5m2 I consider this likely as a mistake because why this is the level of the EF2000 in clean configuration and you also take other factors in the analysis for example the well know inferiority of the Russian in Avionic and modern fabrication technology the idea what the PAK FA should be competitive or even superior to the F35 becomes highly unlikely. Russia is not the Soviet Union and is Industrial base and Know How are just a shadow of what they was at the end of the Soviet Union. It exist a lot of facts what speaks for the quality and superiority of the F35 over the PAK FA hear just a few examples.


ASEA-Radar: The AN/APG 81 is not the first operational US ASEA Radar-System but just the newest US ASEA Radar in a long line of Models it based one the AN/APG-77V1 of the F22and it include more than 20 Years of experience with this technology and futures like LPI, Radar Based ECM and many more functions. Just to make it clearer the USA has in the moment 8 operational ASEA Radar Systems (starting with the AN/APG-63(V) 3 of the F15C over the AN/APG-79 of the F18E/F to the High End AN/APG-77 of the F22 and the AN/APQ-181 of the B2 Spirit) the Russian have in the moment just two ASEA prototypes the Zhuk-AE for the Mig35 how has even in compare to the low-end US Models inferior specification so for example the Zuck-AE has a max detection range against a 5 m² target of just 160 kilometer. The other Russian ASEA Radar how is in developing for the PAK FA is designed by Tikhomirov a design office how has no experience with this technology. Know-how and Experience didn’t fall from the Sky so it is simply highly unlikely what the Russian will be able to catch up to the USA with their first attempt.

Stealth Technology: So the USA are actually the only Country how have operative stealth airframes and also more than 30 Years’ experience with it, in compare the Russian again have no experience. And stealth depends not just one the design of the flight-cell it is also them not more a question of the use of advance materials and production methods and not forget of the high quality fabrication standards and also a lot about the emissions in electromagnetic spectrum.

Computer and Communication Technology: Hear the situation looks even darker for the Russian’s. The Russian are simply backward one this area, the USA in compare are the Global leader in both civilian and military It didn’t need to give hear some examples for the US Superiority everyone should know it.

Industrial Base: The USA has the largest military particularly Aeronautical Industrial base in the World in compare to Russia how has just a handful of insolvent or government running design offices how are even overwhelmed to fulfill relatively small orders one time and without large defects one the delivered hardware. One of the best example for the inferiority of the Russian Industrial base is the inability even to develop and manufactured a civil Regional Jet. I speak about the Superjet 100 from Sukhoi how nearly nothing one it is Russian made. So just look one the Components of the Superjet 100 more them a half came from the USA the rest form Canada, France and Italy. I can continuing the entire day with the enumeration of the Argument’s what speak against the PAK FA and the Russian ability to catch up Technological with the USA but I stop hear with.

Now let’s look one what the Russian’s are competitive or better in compare to the Western World and this are the same Areas how there was always since the time of the Soviet Union good in and this are forceful engines, high maneuverable and robust Flight Cells. This all looks good one Air Shows and thrilled the spectators but this specifications lose more and more one importance in modern air to air combat. So the PAK FA was exactly what I expected to be a form as a Russian made airframe. Just a robust, fast and very agile aircraft like all Russian fighter Jets but how important are this parameter in real combat.

So the F35 will likely see the PAK FA at first and have as consequence the first shout, the inferiority of the F35 in close combat are not really relevant because of is 360 grad targeting ability in combination with the AIM9X Block II and the newer Block III Missile’s. It is also to remind what the F35 will also get other the time new improvements like the Next Generation Jammer and even better Air to Air weapons. But also to make it clear I’m not a F35 Fan so the F35 is far from perfect and simply not an Air Superiority Fighter like the F22 how has because of its size, stealthier design, higher top speed, larger radar-system and higher Air to Air payload the clear edge over the F35. And I has also written what I fear what the F35 will be unable to deal with the Chinese J20 simply because of is lacks as interceptor and the lack of a strong Ground based Air Defense in the Western World.

Now let’s come to your Comments about the Patriot System. Your comments are simply untrue the Patriot from today is hardy to compare with the system how failed to stop the Iraqi SCUD Missile’s 1991. The actual MIM-104 Patriot or better said the MIM-104E or PAC-2 GEM+ is one of the most advanced Air defense system In the World comparable to the Russian SA-20 Gargoyle (S300 PMU1). The Patriot should be for non-stealth Russian and Chinese Fighter as deadly as the S400 is for non-stealth US/Western fighter. The real problem is what the Western lack of short range Air defense Systems like TOR M2 or Pansir S25 and Medium Range Systems like the SA-17 Grizzly to form an overlapping air defense so even a less stealthy enemy like a J20 can be effective as attacker.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 01:31
by justboring
SSJ-100

Aircraft Main System Suppliers: Thales (avionics),[50] Liebherr (with Teploobmennik OJSC and PMZ Voskhod JSC) (Flight Control Systems),[51] Messier-Dowty with OOO "Авиаагрегат", Ulyanovsk (landing gear), Vision Systems (IFE),[52] Intertechnique (Zodiac) (fuel system), BE Aerospace (interior), Curtiss-Wright Controls (fire protection system), Honeywell (APU), IPECO (crew seats), Parker Hannifin (hydraulic system), Hamilton Sundstrand (electrical system), Meggitt Vibro-Meter (engine vibration sensor), Saint-Gobain Sully (windows), Aircelle (engine nacelles and thrust reverser), SAMCO (passenger and cargo doors), Goodrich Corporation.
Engines: PowerJet (NPO Saturn and Snecma)

Airbus

The Russian company "VSMPO-AVISMA" provides more than a half of requirement of Airbus in the titan.

In 2004 the agreement was signed with the Russian group of companies "SUAL" about possible future deliveries of aluminum materials. According to forecasts of representatives of Airbus, deliveries can begin in 2009.

In March, 2003 there began work the Engineering center ECAR — the Russian company founded by Airbus and Kaskol Group of companies, and the first design office created by Airbus in Europe outside the participating countries. The official opening ceremony took place on June 3, 2003.

In December, 2003 of Airbus the contract with the Nizhny Novgorod aircraft factory "Falcon" on production of components for the Airbus planes in Russia was signed.

In December, 2004 of Airbus placed orders for production of knots for A320 family planes in Irkut corporation. At the end of 2005 in Irkut corporation (on Irkutsk aircraft factory) and at the Voronezh aircraft manufacturing association additional orders for components for planes of A320, A330/A340 and A380 families were placed.


Boeing
Since 1993 in Moscow the Scientific and Technical Center (STC), and also the Design center the Boeing companies conducting scientific and engineering development for needs of the company work. Specially for tests of components of the Boeing planes at the Central Aero hydrodynamic Institute of the prof. of N. E. of Zhukovsky (TsAGI) in the city of Zhukovsky the unique test bench was constructed.

Since 1997 VSMPO Verkhnaya Salda Metallurgical Production Association "AVISMA" delivers 25% of the titan used by Boeing for production of civil planes.

On the C of July, 2009 in the city of Verkhnyaya Salda of Sverdlovsk region the VSMPO-AVISMA and Boeing — Ural Boeing Manufacturing joint venture works. The enterprise is engaged in machining of titanic stampings for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 737 planes. [9] ]


the industry in Russia rather strong to make planes of world level
there is no plane at which there would be no Russian details
Advanced Air to Air Missile’s, 360 degree targeting technology it is game not in one gate
the radar on MiG-35 possesses bigger range than a radar on F15
180 km of Zhuk-MSF of PFAR
200 km of Zhuk-A of AFAR(148 of km export option)
radar of F15 78 nautical miles on so-so dimensional purpose
the instant-MIG 35 is less F15 and radar sees farther
you are right concerning civil electronics and isn't right concerning military electronics
specify the Russian source of information on a superiority of F35 over PF in a stealth
without information from the USSR to the USA a stealth would do for a long time

Patriot vs SSJ-100
I suggest to stop discussion not relating to a subject F-35vsT-50
and please to support the opinion with any sources

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 06:19
by Corsair1963
araya wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Clearly, India is a wild card of sorts!

First, the main threat is of course China. Yet, China is pursuing at least two 5th Generation Fighters. Which, she will likely produce in numbers. In addition China could export or possibly even base such fighters in Pakistan! This would force India to fight on two fronts!

Plus, I've seen nothing to suggest Russia would come to India's aid in any conflict with China. Plus, India is reluctant to join any Western Alliance for mutual support.

In such a scenario even 300 PAK-FA's and 150 Rafales maybe to little to late! Especially, if China was able to get in the first strike........

Honestly, India should cancel the Rafale and instead procure a Hi/Low Mix of PAK-FA's (FGFA) and F-35's. Then in the future in could join forces with a Western (Europe/ASIA/US) Aerospace Company (but wouldn't rule out Russia) and jointly develop a 6th Generation Fighter 20-30 years from now.



I am not contradicting you because why I agreed with your threat analysis for India. Them India join the F35 Program it will be a big victory for everybody but at this moment it is unfortunately unlikely. Possible what it will change them the F35 become operational and the cost begins to fall what the Indians will join the F35 Program so in the moment how I saw even the Rafael deal is not really a sure think so the possibility remain what the actual MRCA deal will fall apart.



Purely from a military view the PAK FA is a mistake for India because why it is the inferior airframe in compare to the F35 but them you take the political view in to the mix it didn’t looks so good to cancel the PAK FA Program or to join jet the F35 Program because why the Indians will lose some lever against the Russians. The Russians are driven by an anti-western mania and superpower fantasies so them the Indians get out of the PAK-FA Program it is likely what Russia will seek a new Partner for is 5 Generation Program and the only Option for the Russian will be Red China. As consequence the Indians will have to deal with a much improved Chinese PAK FA/J20/J31 Fleet much earlier them expected. Personally I believe what the Indians use there good military cooperation with the Russian to prevent what the Russian start to give the Red Chinese or even the Pakistanis complet access to their Know-how. So in the moment fortunately the Chinese lacks in some areas technological even behind the Russians but unfortunatly they have the money, the human capital and the will to catch up or even to surpass the High End Western Products but this will take time.

Actually the PLAAF have two Stealth Fighter Programs how are both more dangerous for the USA and is Allys them the PAK FA will ever be mainly because of their different operational profile. So they have in one hand the large J20 how looks more like a medium bomber how will be because of is stealth an ideal assault weapon against all is neighbors from Japan over South Korea and Taiwan to India and a ideal weapon against the US Bases and Surface Fleet in the Pacific Ocean. And in the other Hand they have also the smaller low end stealth Fighter the J31 how looks to become china’s next standard tactical fighter and will likely produced in large numbers. The F35 and PAK FA should deal easily with the J31 but against the larger J20 you need an interceptor airframe. The F22 should come from the existing stealth fighter this interceptor requirements as nearest. The PAK FA is possible also the better airframe to face the J20 in a defensive role because of is higher top-speed, longer range and higher weapon payload if we assume what the stealth level and also the Air to Air performance of the J20 will be below the performance of the F35 and equally or worse them the performance of the PAK FA.

As I've written I see the real threat for the Western especially for the USA and is Pacific Ally’s not in the PAK FA but in the J20. The PAK FA is in compare to the F35 inferior in the areas how really count in a modern Air to Air Combat. So the PAK FA lacks of stealth level of the F35 like as he lack of modern avionic and communication technology. So the F35 will have the first look and first shout and the edge but against the J20 the situation looks different. The F35 should be able to shut the J20 easily in an Air to Air combat but the situation becomes difficult for the F35 them they assume what the J20 will be just used as an offensive weapon against Surface Targets and important Bases. The F35 has a limited range and in compare to the F22 and even to the PAK FA a relatively low top speed and is also incapable for super-cruise what means what the F35 will be in disadvantage the he has to play an intercept role. So the USA and there Ally’s like Japan, South Korea and Twain lack of an effective Ground based Air Defense in compare to China or Russian how have invested a lot in overlapping air defense systems to negate there inferiority in Air to Air combat. So the USA and is Ally will have to count one the F35 as defensive weapon because why the J20 should be stealthy enough to be detected to late by actual US Air Defense System like the MIM-104 Patriot –PAC2.



Sounds like our views are very similar.........


While I am a supporter of a strong Indian Military. It's Defense Acquisition Strategy is a Nightmare of Biblical Proportion!

Honestly, I think the selection of any 4.5 Generation Fighter for the MMRCA was a waste of time and with little to be gained. Especially, with India already being a partner with Russia on the PAK-FA. (i.e. 5th Generation)

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 12:20
by milosh
araya wrote:For example the Russian embassy in India even has claimed what the RCS of the PAK FA should be as high as 0,5m2 I consider this likely as a mistake because why this is the level of the EF2000 in clean configuration


0.5m2 was never official number. It was what some indian reporter wrote, and that is probable RCS of prototype without RAM.

araya wrote:Russia is not the Soviet Union and is Industrial base and Know How are just a shadow of what they was at the end of the Soviet Union.


Russia can go to west and shop almost anything, that luxury USSR didnt had. USSR needed to smuggle or to spy to get technology. They smuggled Japan's CNC machines in 1980s for example.

araya wrote:Russia how has just a handful of insolvent or government running design offices how are even overwhelmed to fulfill relatively small orders one time and without large defects one the delivered hardware.


You need to check how many fighters Sukhoi build after USSR collapsed.

araya wrote:So the F35 will likely see the PAK FA at first and have as consequence the first shout, the inferiority of the F35 in close combat are not really relevant because of is 360 grad targeting ability in combination with the AIM9X Block II and the newer Block III Missile’s.


If Pak-Fa is trying to attack F-35 with gun then you are right. But in missile dogfight Pak-Fa fly higher and faster reducing range of aim-9X a lot while improving range of its short range missiles. RVV-MD which isnt missile it would carry (it gets new short range missile) has 40km maximum effective range. Next generation missile will be even better and it would be super cruise launch (which will boost range).

Best option for F-35 is to carry four aim-120, fire them all and hoping that pak-fa 360 maws sensors arent good at all.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 14:55
by araya
Hi milosh,
milosh wrote:0.5m2 was never official number. It was what some indian reporter wrote, and that is probable RCS of prototype without RAM.


As far as I know the source was the Russian Embassy in India but as I have said I didn’t believe what the RCS of the PAK FA should be 0,5m2 simply because why even the EF2000 how is a non-stealthy airframes has a comparable RCS.



milosh wrote:Russia can go to west and shop almost anything, that luxury USSR didnt had. USSR needed to smuggle or to spy to get technology. They smuggled Japan's CNC machines in 1980s for example.



It is not so easy how you believe, so you can go now to the west and shop some Products but them you can get the manufacturing technology/machines is a completely different question. It is hard to believe what the Russian can go for example to BAE-Systems or to Lockheed Martin and ask for the Manufacturing Technology and the Know How. One recent example what the Russian struggle to catch up to Western Standard is the Mistral Deal with France how was above all closed only to get modern manufacturing and communication technology and knowhow to Russian and the France Mistral-Class is for large part just build on Civilian standards. Another is the infamous Superjet 100 from Sukhoi how is nearly completely build from foreign components because of the lack of an indigenous industrial base.


milosh wrote:Russia how has just a handful of insolvent or government running design offices how are even overwhelmed to fulfill relatively small orders one time and without large defects one the delivered hardware.



Sukhoi only survived the collapse of the UDSSR because of the abroad disposals to China and India how has enable to hold some production lines open. But the production rates continuous declined from year to year and as the Russian start to modernized and buy new Weapon’s they faced massive delays because of the lack of production capacities and also off professional workers just look for example one the modernization program for the Su27 or the delivering of the Su34. Other design offices like Mikoyan bankrupt or better said they exist only one the paper. Just for example the to see how insignificant the Russian Aeronautic Industry so you have just to look one the production numbers from 2005 to 2012 how the entire civilian Aeronautic sector was able to produce just 99 new airframes in compare Boing has delivered 648 civilian airframes in 2013 alone. Now you can argue that the civilian sector never played an important role for the UDSSR or the Russian and I agree with but them you look one the Military delivering of new models you will see also relatively disappointing numbers so you permanently hear in the Russian press from big delivers of hundreds of new airframe peer Year but them you take a close look you came to a disappointing reality. So Sukhoi for example has since the Su34 first take of in 1990 just build 7 prototypes and 40 series machines another example the Su30 the best-selling actual Russian fighter from what was produced since 1990 around 420 airframes but only 10-25 go to the Russian Air force the rest to India, Red China and other Foreign customer.


The Russian Air force have actually just get the fallowing new airframes since the collapse of the Soviet Union in his own inventory.

25 Su30 (10 from prototypes)
22 Su35S (10 from prototype’s)
47 Su34 (7 from prototypes)
35 MiG-29SMT/UBT (from a canceled Algeria order)
5 PAK FA (Prototypes)
37 Yak-130 trainer
With other words since 1991 just 134 Fighter and 37 Trainer.


milosh wrote:If Pak-Fa is trying to attack F-35 with gun then you are right. But in missile dogfight Pak-Fa fly higher and faster reducing range of aim-9X a lot while improving range of its short range missiles. RVV-MD which isnt missile it would carry (it gets new short range missile) has 40km maximum effective range. Next generation missile will be even better and it would be super cruise launch (which will boost range).

Best option for F-35 is to carry four aim-120, fire them all and hoping that pak-fa 360 maws sensors arent good at all.

What people never consider when they compare Pak-Fa with western stealths is what missiles Pak-Fa can carry. It is only stealth fighter out there which can carry really big missiles. Awacs with cover? No problem. Most advanced long range SAM system no problem at all.



Your scenario base one an optimal scenario for the PAK FA but this scenario is highly unlikely. First you for example
assume what the Pak FA will fly Super-cruise them it fires is missiles. This is possible but not so likely because why a jet despite of the assumptions of the most people didn’t fly Supersonic most of the time of his life so it is more likely what a combat will occur in sub-sonic area. Because why to flay Supersonic has some disadvantages in a combat first you are easier to detect one radar and more important in IR Spectrum and your Curve radius and the G-load increases dramatically and also important even with super-cruise your fuel consumption is considerably higher them in Subsonic Area. You suppose also what the F35 carry just 4X AIM120 in is internal bays but I saw also configurations concepts how allows to carry up to 6X AIM120 or 4X AIM120 and 2X AIM9X in is internal bays and as alternative it is also possible to carry 2 additional AIM9X one the Station 1 and 11 externally in a relatively stealthy configuration. You also suppose what the F35 fly’s alone like the PAK FA what is highly unlikely and not conform to the operational doctrine of any Air Force in the World. So you most calculate with at least two F35 and them you fight against the USA with Four or more F35 with additional AWACs Support. But let’s accept what the F35 didn’t have any AWACS Support like the PAK FA as well. Now the think becomes complicated because why the F35 like the PAK FA cannot count one their own Radar so them the PAK FA fly’s with active Radar the F35 will detect the PAK FA by up to 400 kilometer because of the Radar emission contrariwise the Pak FA should be able to do the same with a F35 how flay with active Radar but hear is an if because why they didn’t know how effective the LPI-Modus of the AN/APG-81 works at least they can say what F35 has a confirmed LPI function in compare to the PAK FA. But let’s assume what the LPI Modus did not works against the PAK FA Radar Warning System. So both Airframes most renounce one the Radar them they will avoid to be detected and count one there passive system hear the F35 has a the edge because why it carry the most advanced IRST System in the World but the PAK FA will have also an advance IRIST System so they can suppose what both airframes will detect each over at the same time and now it depends all one how effective there Missiles are and also how effective there ECM and Countermeasure’s System work and hear they have again a lot of ifs. So for example can a PAK FA survive Four AIM120D or two IR guided AIM9X Block III ? How good are the Russian radar-guided Air to Air Missiles against a Stealthy target? What happen them the F35 also carry the NGJ as additional ECM System, as I say a lot of ifs. What they know is what the F35 have with the AIM9X already a Missile how is capable to be fired from any angle and nevertheless hit the target because of the combination with the IRST System of the F35 how is able for 360 Grad targeting. What I also didn’t take in consideration is the advance communication technology of the F35, so the F35 can share data with other F35. Hear they speak about Network-Centric Warfare as I said a F35 will never fly alone at last they will fly in formation of two or more airframes. So for example one F35 can turn is Radar on and provoke a PAK FA to fire one it just to be shut down by another upstream F35 how just receives the target data from the F35 how fly’s with active Radar. To make a cut hear I consider the F35 superior to the PAK FA because of is Avionic not because of is Flight-Cell the Russian are one this Area (Avionic) considered by all serious analyst as inferior to the Western. And it is also questionable how many of the planed modern air to air weapons of the PAK FA will really become operational.





justboring wrote:SSJ-100

Aircraft Main System Suppliers: Thales (avionics),[50] Liebherr (with Teploobmennik OJSC and PMZ Voskhod JSC) (Flight Control Systems),[51] Messier-Dowty with OOO "Авиаагрегат", Ulyanovsk (landing gear), Vision Systems (IFE),[52] Intertechnique (Zodiac) (fuel system), BE Aerospace (interior), Curtiss-Wright Controls (fire protection system), Honeywell (APU), IPECO (crew seats), Parker Hannifin (hydraulic system), Hamilton Sundstrand (electrical system), Meggitt Vibro-Meter (engine vibration sensor), Saint-Gobain Sully (windows), Aircelle (engine nacelles and thrust reverser), SAMCO (passenger and cargo doors), Goodrich Corporation.
Engines: PowerJet (NPO Saturn and Snecma)

Airbus

The Russian company "VSMPO-AVISMA" provides more than a half of requirement of Airbus in the titan.

In 2004 the agreement was signed with the Russian group of companies "SUAL" about possible future deliveries of aluminum materials. According to forecasts of representatives of Airbus, deliveries can begin in 2009.

In March, 2003 there began work the Engineering center ECAR — the Russian company founded by Airbus and Kaskol Group of companies, and the first design office created by Airbus in Europe outside the participating countries. The official opening ceremony took place on June 3, 2003.

In December, 2003 of Airbus the contract with the Nizhny Novgorod aircraft factory "Falcon" on production of components for the Airbus planes in Russia was signed.

In December, 2004 of Airbus placed orders for production of knots for A320 family planes in Irkut corporation. At the end of 2005 in Irkut corporation (on Irkutsk aircraft factory) and at the Voronezh aircraft manufacturing association additional orders for components for planes of A320, A330/A340 and A380 families were placed.


Boeing
Since 1993 in Moscow the Scientific and Technical Center (STC), and also the Design center the Boeing companies conducting scientific and engineering development for needs of the company work. Specially for tests of components of the Boeing planes at the Central Aero hydrodynamic Institute of the prof. of N. E. of Zhukovsky (TsAGI) in the city of Zhukovsky the unique test bench was constructed.

Since 1997 VSMPO Verkhnaya Salda Metallurgical Production Association "AVISMA" delivers 25% of the titan used by Boeing for production of civil planes.

On the C of July, 2009 in the city of Verkhnyaya Salda of Sverdlovsk region the VSMPO-AVISMA and Boeing — Ural Boeing Manufacturing joint venture works. The enterprise is engaged in machining of titanic stampings for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Boeing 737 planes. [9] ]


Hi justboring, nearly all this examples are just material shopping how didn’t involve thinks like High End Technology and Avionic you will find even with Romania not to speak about Poland or the czech republic comparable partnerships in order to save money.


justboring wrote:the radar on MiG-35 possesses bigger range than a radar on F15
180 km of Zhuk-MSF of PFAR


Sorry but the AN/APG-63(V) 3 of the F15C has a maximum range against a fighter target (3m2) of 195 kilometer the Mig35 just a max range of 180 km vs a 5 m2 RCS target! For example a F16 has a RCS of 1,2m2 and the EF2000 has a RCS of 0,6m2. ^^

A good source about the AN/APG 63 (V) 2 and 3

http://www.nxtbook.com/fx/books/raytheo ... eek-oct04/

justboring wrote:Patriot vs SSJ-100
I suggest to stop discussion not relating to a subject F-35vsT-50
and please to support the opinion with any sources


You must misunderstood something, I have only talked about the PAC2 GEM+ vs J20.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 17:07
by milosh
@araya

Sukhoi never build civilan aircrafts so I dont see why it is important for pak-fa program.

Only when Bush attack Iraq Russia start to make serious money thanks to rise of oil price and connecting gas price to oil price. But it took years for state to force tycoons to pay taxes and to cut down coruption (which is still huge). That is reason why Su-27 modernization, Su-34, Su-35 programs were so slow. Not because Sukhoi couldnt produce ;)

MiG is also irrelevant for pak-fa program.

When I said Russia can buy almost anything on West (I said ALMOST) of course it cant buy latest millitary technology. But it can buy civilian technology, for example CNC machines. USSR couldnt buy them or it could buy only old versions. And CNC machines are very important for modern fighter production.

Pak-Fa will sure get RVV-BD because that missile is important for MiG-31 and it would be developed. So Pak-Fa will have missile which has 200km range for exported version. Domestic verison will be similar to R-37 (which take out drones from +300km).

Kh-58 is in production for decades, it was exported and lastest variant is developed especially for Pak-Fa (folding fins):
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... 5.Full.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... 4.Full.jpg

So those arent some new type missiles which are very hard to developed (for example europian Meteor).

Why we are comparing Pak-Fa vs F-35 in one on one? Becuase you said it would be better for India to buy F-35 if it goes in war with China but India wouldnt had USAF numbers at its disposal and that is why it is important to compare Pak-Fa and F-35 one on one.

I am pretty sure it is better to go with Pak-Fa. As I point out it has kinematic advantage, it can go in dogfight with any chinese figher and win, it can kill chinese awacs, tankers and ground radars without need to be close or use slow antirad missiles which are easy prey for chinese modern shorad systems. So Pak-Fa will much easier make holes in Chinese defense.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 18:57
by araya
milosh wrote:@araya
Sukhoi never build civilan aircrafts so I dont see why it is important for pak-fa program.


The Superjet 100 should be just an example for the problems of the Russians to catch up with the west after the fall of the Soviet Union. So the Superjet 100 was one of the prestige projects of Putin especially of is marionette Medvedev and the Russian failed even with this small prestige project. It is also interesting why Sukhoi was chose to construct the Superjet100 most likely simply because why no other Office/Company was able to do this project another example for the problems of the Russians with their Industrial base.

milosh wrote:@araya
Only when Bush attack Iraq Russia start to make serious money thanks to rise of oil price and connecting gas price to oil price. But it took years for state to force tycoons to pay taxes and to cut down coruption (which is still huge). That is reason why Su-27 modernization, Su-34, Su-35 programs were so slow. Not because Sukhoi couldnt produce ;)
HTe reasion because why Sukhoi was so long unable to


The reason because why Sukhoi was so long unable to modernized the Su27 to the SM level and to build airframes especially new designs like the Su34 was a combination of a lack of money, skilled workforce and also of the fact what the entire production capacity was fully occupied to produce for foreign buyers. It has also played a role what the Su34 was not completely developed as the Russians chose to purchase the airframe. As consequence the first delivered Su34 suffers of massive quality lacks how not become public but they was massive how it was told me.

milosh wrote:MiG is also irrelevant for pak-fa program.


Yes it is irrelevant for the PAK FA Programm but the condition of Mikoyan is a good indicator for the poor condition of the Russian Industrial base.


milosh wrote:Pak-Fa will sure get RVV-BD because that missile is important for MiG-31 and it would be developed. So Pak-Fa will have missile which has 200km range for exported version. Domestic verison will be similar to R-37 (which take out drones from +300km).


The RVV-SD (Improved R77) and the RVV-MD (Improved R73) will likely become operational they are at last just improved or possible just renamed existing weapons. The RVV-BD (R37) is at last also just an improved Wympel R-33 how based one the US AIM-54 Phoenix how was ones carried by the F14. The R37 is like the R33 a AWACs killer because of is since and limited maneuverability a good weapon them you have to deal with an enemy how count one AWACS Support like the USA but as Weapon against fighter the R33 and R37 is from limited worth. So let’s look one the more important R77 and R73 how will be the main armament of the PAK FA so the R73 looks inferior for me to the AIM9X Block II because of is smaller angle of coverage and the lack of a dual data link how allows the AIM9X to be used even them you didn’t have the enemy in the angel of the Seeker of Rocket. The R77 is in compare to the AIM120C7 and D the better rocket in my eyes because of is superior guidance system but they simply didn’t know how the R77 will perform against stealthy Targets, ECM but the AIM120D is also questionable. A real Game Changer is the Meteor but even them the Meteor will be integrated In the F35 it will not be in use by the US-AF or US-NAVY. What means offensive weapons against Ground and surface targets so I give the F35 the edge because why it was at first designed as strike fighter and will support from the beginning a large Inventory of different Air to Ground and other standoff Weapon’s how the PAK FA simply didn’t have. For example the F35 can carry in is internal bays glide Bombs like the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) and the AGM-154 JSOW like as the Anti-radiation Missiles (AGM-88E - AARGM) how was designed to counter advance air defense system and one especially for India extremely interesting future is what the F35 can also carry the Advance Joint Strike Missile internally. And also carry and launch if only externally advance Stand of Cruise Missiles like the AGM-158 JASSM and the Storm Shadow with a effective range to up of 1000 Kilomter like as the (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) LRASM how should base one the JASSM-ER. So them you speak from the Indian Perspective, the F35 makes a lot more sense for them the PAK FA them you look only one the millitary parameter.


milosh wrote:I am pretty sure it is better to go with Pak-Fa. As I point out it has kinematic advantage, it can go in dogfight with any chinese figher and win, it can kill chinese awacs, tankers and ground radars without need to be close or use slow antirad missiles which are easy prey for chinese modern shorad systems. So Pak-Fa will much easier make holes in Chinese defense which would allow Su-30 and Rafale to use Brahmos to hit hard targets (they are working on smaller verison of brahmos for Rafale and MiG-29).



As I wrote the true strength of the F35 are is Air to Ground capabilities how surpass by far the capabilities of the PAK FA how was designed at first as an Air Superiority fighter. So for Indian it will makes a lot more sense to purchase around 400 F35 instead of the PAK FA and the Rafale because why they get with the F35 the best strike fighter one the market how is also Nuclear capable and also a tactical fighter how beat any Chinese Communist Airframe. How I wrote the F35 will be able to use a lot of specialized weapons how there designed to deal with advance Air Defense System how the Chinese have like and it is also capable to use advance Anti-Ship Missiles against the Chinese Surface Fleet. And also didn’t underestimate the F35 skills as a AWACs Killer because why even a AIM-120D has an effective range of about 200 Kilometer against a slow AWACS and you can be sure what no enemy will be able to detect the F35 before they can fire is Missile’s one the Chinese AWACS. So the most likely reason why the Indians go forward with the PAK FA is at first politically because why how long they are 50/50 partner with the Russians they will have a Political lever to prevent the Russians from sharing Know How to the Red Chinese.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2014, 22:04
by milosh
Part of Su-34 slow progress was in production capabilities of Sukhoi but that was in early phase before money invested in production paid off (money from Chinese licence). After that it was all about money. Airforce didnt had money or had more important things to invest money.

Today those problems doesnt exist.

As I said earlier Sukhoi never before done civilian aircrafts and it wasnt smart to gave them to work on new civial jet.

RVV-MD, RVV-SD arent new missiles. RVV-MD probable cant even fit in wing pods. There are working on new missile which isnt just one more variant of R-73. RVV-SD replacment will be similar in size but without grid fins. With grid fins, RVV-SD even though heavier then AIM-120C8 doesnt have similar range. Grid fins are Soviet tradition to have agility on cost of range, they knew their seekers are far behind western so they didnt expect to use missiles on its maximum optimal range in war, that is why their BVR missiles have large fins. Today there isnt such gap in seeker tech and no need to still have large fins.

RVV-BD use R-37 technology, most of work on R-37 was done in USSR, test fires where done in 1990s, missile destroy MiG-21 drone on 300 km distance. There isnt any reason to use old R-33. RVV-BD is 8g capabile while R-33 is only 4g.

And R-33 cant be copy of AIM-54. You can check seekers of both if you dont believe me. What Soviets would like to copy from Aim-54 is seeker. They already knew how to build excellent rocket engine.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 00:01
by araya
milosh wrote:Part of Su-34 slow progress was in production capabilities of Sukhoi but that was in early phase before money invested in production paid off (money from Chinese licence). After that it was all about money. Airforce didnt had money or had more important things to invest money.

Today those problems doesnt exist.



Sorry but you can believe me, the still have technical problems even with the recent series model of the Su34. :roll:


milosh wrote:RVV-MD, RVV-SD arent new missiles. RVV-MD probable cant even fit in wing pods. There are working on new missile which isnt just one more variant of R-73. RVV-SD replacment will be similar in size but without grid fins. With grid fins, RVV-SD even though heavier then AIM-120C8 doesnt have similar range. Grid fins are Soviet tradition to have agility on cost of range, they knew their seekers are far behind western so they didnt expect to use missiles on its maximum optimal range in war, that is why their BVR missiles have large fins. Today there isnt such gap in seeker tech and no need to still have large fins.

RVV-BD use R-37 technology, most of work on R-37 was done in USSR, test fires where done in 1990s, missile destroy MiG-21 drone on 300 km distance. There isnt any reason to use old R-33. RVV-BD is 8g capabile while R-33 is only 4g.

And R-33 cant be copy of AIM-54. You can check seekers of both if you dont believe me. What Soviets would like to copy from Aim-54 is seeker. They already knew how to build excellent rocket engine.



To shout down a Target drone with a R37 is not the same like to shout down a maneuverable fighter. The standard tactic them a missile of what class is fired one you is to escape what is not really hard because why the no escape zone is in compare to standard Air to Air Missiles like the R77 or the AIM120C7/D relatively small. The R33 like the R37 is primarily an Anti-AWACS weapon and them you take is since in configuration it should be even possible to shout the R33 and the R37 with an AIM9X down and save the AWACS.

I also searched for additional information about the RVV-MD and RVV-SD and came to the conclusion what this missile is at just an improved version of the Wympel R77 how was modified primarily to be carry in the Internal weapon Bays of the PAK FA. The RVV-SD should have a maximum range of 110 to 150 kilometer comparable to the AIM120C7 but lover them the effective range of the AIM120D with 180 to 208km Kilometer.

Link:

http://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missil ... 32004.aspx

The RVV-MD is also just I improved R-73 for the PAK FA

http://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missil ... 33002.aspx

And the official source:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

Hear I found an ingesting technological detail about the RVV-MD because why according to the source so the Target designation angles of the RVV-MD is just +/-60 degrees in compare the AIM9X has a Target designation angle of +/90 degrees the range of both missiles are approximately the same the RVV-MD has max range of up to 40 kilometer the AIM9X Block 2 has a max range of 30 to 40 kilometers the last AIM9X the Block 30 should have a 60% higher maximum range them the AIM9X Block II.

What means the claim what the R33 is a copy of the AIM-54 Phoenix so this theory bases one the fact was both missile’s not just look like as same but also what the control Computer of the R-33 is a 1 to 1 copy of the original control computer of the AIM-54 Phoenix.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 00:54
by haavarla
There was reported some issues With the first two Serial Su-34.
But most of them are corrected by now.
How many have they produced now.. around 40?

They still have some issues With software and weapons systems(due to New weapons!), but that will also get correct.
Its an open architect system onboard the Su-34 computers, no big deal.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 00:56
by hb_pencil
milosh wrote:Part of Su-34 slow progress was in production capabilities of Sukhoi but that was in early phase before money invested in production paid off (money from Chinese licence). After that it was all about money. Airforce didnt had money or had more important things to invest money.

Today those problems doesnt exist.


Uhh, yes they do exist. Declining population, the shale oil price glut (Combined with declining reserves) and declining competitiveness of non-resource sectors (particularly given the rising levels of corruption) are seriously dragging the Russian economy. Defence recaptialization is not a 2~4 year process; its really a 5~10 year process. Much of the estimates for the rearmament process were made before 2008, and figured an economic growth rate above 6%. Problem is the government is getting 4% growth on average and the economy decline by 7% in 2009. Estimated defence expeniture between 2000 and 2011 (excluding the 2009 war in Georgia) has never really exceeded 2.85% of GDP, despite claims they were going to broach 3.8%.

Given ALL the negative trends regarding the Russian economy, there is absolutely NO guarantees that the russians are going to be able to get anything close to what they claim. Given the demands of an increasingly disgruntled middle class, I doubt the russian government is going to protect defence procurement over social programs. The Russians have so much to recapitalize that something will get dropped, or everything will face a haircut, which we all know means late development, higher costs and lacking performance.

milosh wrote:As I said earlier Sukhoi never before done civilian aircrafts and it wasnt smart to gave them to work on new civial jet.


Ah, no... the correlation is significantly stronger than that. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the SaM-146, which uses a SNECMA M88 core from the Rafale. If Engines are such a strong area of russian performance, why are they going to the french to utilize their derivative core? Presumably they could have done the same thing with one of their newer engines. Then there is avionics, radars ect. Almost all of the major high value systems are foreign sourced, which doesn't really help their ability to undertake technological development. AS the Japanese have discovered, licensed production is a good way to keep up, but not to get ahead.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 01:06
by hb_pencil
haavarla wrote:There was reported some issues With the first two Serial Su-34.
But most of them are corrected by now.
How many have they produced now.. around 40?

They still have some issues With software and weapons systems(due to New weapons!), but that will also get correct.
Its an open architect system onboard the Su-34 computers, no big deal.


No big deal? I'm sorry, that's not at all the case.

Open architecture could mean anything. The F-22 has an "open, expandable architecture:" it didn't do a lick of difference. Actually its arguable that some of those decisions are now hindering its current development. The F-35 is the same thing, however its components are more COTS and took into account some of the major mistakes encountered by the Raptor. A more telling indicator is what were the initial architecture decisions concerning the aircraft. Did they go blank sheet? Did they repurpose something that probably shouldn't have been? Those probably give you a better idea if its No big deal or not.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 07:00
by justboring
200 km Mig-35 > 195km F-15

F-15 AN/APG-63 RADAR
CASE STUDY REPORT

F-15 AN/APG-63 Radar Final
http://s7.uploads.ru/K3bBo.png

the radar of mig 35 surpasses the first radar for F15 and is at the same level as the most modern if information on range of the last version is right

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 11:12
by araya
justboring wrote:200 km Mig-35 > 195km F-15

F-15 AN/APG-63 RADAR
CASE STUDY REPORT

F-15 AN/APG-63 Radar Final
http://s7.uploads.ru/K3bBo.png

the radar of mig 35 surpasses the first radar for F15 and is at the same level as the most modern if information on range of the last version is right



Hi justboring the graphic didn’t say many, for example how large the target is 5m2 or it is 1m2?

So the actual APG-63(v) 3 has a max range of around 125 km in look-up and look-down against a 1m2 target. In compare the Range of the Zhuk-AE (the only ASEA of the Schuk- Series the rest are PESA-Systems) was stated to have a 160km range against a 5m2 target with other words they speak about an Apples to Oranges comparison how long they not know what for the Russian’s a medium since target mean. Let’s stay a bit longer by the Schuk- Series so the Russian have in them moment only one functional ASEA the Zhuk-AE with a max range of just 160km against a 5m2 target. The other Zhuk are not ASEA including the Zhuk-MFSE and Zhuk-MFE how are all PESA Systems. Another problem is what the Range of the US ASEA Radars are regularly measured against a 1m2 target what is a big different to the 5m2 target what the Zhuk are measured against. And to make it also clear they speak in the moment just about the APG-63(v) 2/3 one of the weakest US ASEA radars how based partially one old legacy technology.

The more recent Models of the APG-63v3 is the V4 now called the AN/APG-82 how should be more powerfully them the V3 and was chosen to be installed one the F15E. They also didn’t speak about the AN/APG-79 of the F18 E/F how is more advance them the APG-63(v) 2/3 they also not take the High end US Systems in Consideration like the AN/APG-77V1 or the An/APG-81how are one or two generation more advance them the low-end APG-63 or AN/APG-79 and they are all already operational the AN/APG-77 since 10 Year’s.

So let’s just took for example also the AN/APG-79 in the game to give the Russian Zhuk a chance so the maximum range of the AN/APG-79 against a 1m2 target is 80 nm or 150km against a 5m2 target it is around 120 nm or 220 km2 then not more.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 14:58
by justboring
araya wrote:
justboring wrote:200 km Mig-35 > 195km F-15

F-15 AN/APG-63 RADAR
CASE STUDY REPORT

F-15 AN/APG-63 Radar Final
http://s7.uploads.ru/K3bBo.png

the radar of mig 35 surpasses the first radar for F15 and is at the same level as the most modern if information on range of the last version is right



Hi justboring the graphic didn’t say many, for example how large the target is 5m2 or it is 1m2?

So the actual APG-63(v) 3 has a max range of around 125 km in look-up and look-down against a 1m2 target. In compare the Range of the Zhuk-AE (the only ASEA of the Schuk- Series the rest are PESA-Systems) was stated to have a 160km range against a 5m2 target with other words they speak about an Apples to Oranges comparison how long they not know what for the Russian’s a medium since target mean. Let’s stay a bit longer by the Schuk- Series so the Russian have in them moment only one functional ASEA the Zhuk-AE with a max range of just 160km against a 5m2 target. The other Zhuk are not ASEA including the Zhuk-MFSE and Zhuk-MFE how are all PESA Systems. Another problem is what the Range of the US ASEA Radars are regularly measured against a 1m2 target what is a big different to the 5m2 target what the Zhuk are measured against. And to make it also clear they speak in the moment just about the APG-63(v) 2/3 one of the weakest US ASEA radars how based partially one old legacy technology.

The more recent Models of the APG-63v3 is the V4 now called the AN/APG-82 how should be more powerfully them the V3 and was chosen to be installed one the F15E. They also didn’t speak about the AN/APG-79 of the F18 E/F how is more advance them the APG-63(v) 2/3 they also not take the High end US Systems in Consideration like the AN/APG-77V1 or the An/APG-81how are one or two generation more advance them the low-end APG-63 or AN/APG-79 and they are all already operational the AN/APG-77 since 10 Year’s.

So let’s just took for example also the AN/APG-79 in the game to give the Russian Zhuk a chance so the maximum range of the AN/APG-79 against a 1m2 target is 80 nm or 150km against a 5m2 target it is around 120 nm or 220 km2 then not more.


You claimed that the first radar with AESA for mig-35 concedes to the first radar with AESA for F-15.
I provided data of USA AF on the first radar for F-15 (it is the period 1982 and the average purpose of mig-25) and in them it is clearly visible that range of the first radar with AESA for F-15 concedes to PESA to a radar of the Russian production and AESA to a radar is very considerable.
If to look at progress of AESA of a radar in USA and to compare the first samples of ASEA in USA and in Russia,
that can be assumed that at further development and preservation of rates of a gain of productivity of a radar, a radar of production Phazotron-NIIR will surpass those Raytheon Company

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 17:12
by munny
justboring wrote:So the actual APG-63(v) 3 has a max range of around 125 km in look-up and look-down against a 1m2 target. In compare the Range of the Zhuk-AE (the only ASEA of the Schuk- Series the rest are PESA-Systems) was stated to have a 160km range against a 5m2 target with other words they speak about an Apples to Oranges comparison how long they not know what for the Russian’s a medium since target mean


In this case (based on the radar range equation) the Zhuk would have a range of roughly 106km against the same 1msq target the APG detected from 125km. The APG would be the better radar.

Most likely a product of the Mig-35's very small aperture size and the state of their TR module industry right now. Just for a brief update on this, the power density of Russian TR modules is EXTREMELY low in comparison to the unclassified units produced by US manufacturers such as triquint and cree, we are talking 10-100's of times less depending on frequencies.

There's a clueless nut on Key Publishing who's been talking up russian kit like its magical. Most of his garbage was hilariously uninformed, such as not having the faintest clue what average power output actually is. I took a little time to confirm his claims (eg stating that a particular russian GaN based module was the bomb and equal to a Cree HPA product with 400W output), turns out the products he was talking up are only 2.5 Watt output and have an input to transmitted efficiency of 30% compared to a fairly standard 70+% of western components :doh:

But anyhoo this led me on a search through russian manufacturers and products and basically there is an obvious quantifiable difference in transmitter technology. Western transmitter products are currently numerous orders of magnitude superior in peak power output, power density, efficiency, frequency range ... etc and there are many more companies in the US that produce these components.

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 18:11
by hb_pencil
Excellent post Munny.

munny wrote:There's a clueless nut on Key Publishing who's been talking up russian kit like its magical. Most of his garbage was hilariously uninformed, such as not having the faintest clue what average power output actually is. I took a little time to confirm his claims (eg stating that a particular russian GaN based module was the bomb and equal to a Cree HPA product with 400W output), turns out the products he was talking up are only 2.5 Watt output and have an input to transmitted efficiency of 30% compared to a fairly standard 70+% of western components :doh:


Are his initials KC, and rhymes with Narlo Nopp?

munny wrote:But anyhoo this led me on a search through russian manufacturers and products and basically there is an obvious quantifiable difference in transmitter technology. Western transmitter products are currently numerous orders of magnitude superior in peak power output, power density, efficiency, frequency range ... etc and there are many more companies in the US that produce these components.


Welcome to the wonderful world of export controls. I discussed this very topic last time we had a powerrossyia expert.

viewtopic.php?p=262963#p262963

Re: Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA