Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23098
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Jan 2019, 21:56

'zhangmdev' said: "...If you want two pilots, the traditional twin-boom design like de Havilland Sea Vixen is more practical and looks far better." Tell me more. The OBSERVER was in a 'coal hole' (no viz) in a SEA VIXEN with the pilot up front.
"...The Pilot sat slightly left of center with the Observer seated in a dark "Coal Hole" off center right. He was lower than the pilot and had a small gap where he could see the pilots right thigh. He had a small window on his right and he was covered by a metal hatch. This hatch was always slow to jettison in the event of an ejection. This caused delay in comparison to the pilots seat and many Observer deaths. In later years of service a frangeable hatch was fitted so the Observer could eject through it. With his limited vision he was hurled and thrown around the skies under high g forces in this multirole aircraft...." https://www.seavixen.org/sea-vixen-acci ... ublic-page

"...The twin-boom arrangement gives a strong hint as to its Venom and Vampire ancestry; a layout the Navy was well used to operating in the guise of the Sea Vampire and Sea Venom. The side-by-side seating of the Sea Venom was kept on in an unusual form; the observer nestled in the fuselage below and to the right of the pilot. The observer's cockpit was known as the coal-hole because of the almost total lack of a view out of it, and it was not a popular arrangement...." http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk ... istory.php

https://www.seavixen.org/images/phocaga ... 01_njd.jpg

Image
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 260
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post16 Jan 2019, 22:21

0_b6d09_3b3b906e_orig.jpg

0_b6d00_acddad4b_orig.jpg

The unusual configuration of the centerbody I think is attributable to enhance survivability in the design (low thermal signature, obscured intakes and exhausts), and which lent itself at the end to low observable versions as can be seen in these late-configuration renders (again attributed to EP Grunin). The strange "trombone" engine would possibly be conceived as a way to achieve a high speed, low altitude dash capability without the signature bloom of an afterburner and requisite LO nozzle technology. Afterburner is a bit of a waste at low altitudes anyways since air density is a limiting factor. Though later the impracticality of such an engine layout seems to have caught up with them:
the work on the T-12 did not stop and several options for aircraft layout were developed. When it became clear that there would be no engine for Kolesov’s design, it was decided to install 2 engines of the AL-31 type, but without an afterburner. The total thrust of the motors was 16 tons. The T-12 project was slightly shrunk in size, the aircraft weight was 24-26 tons, and the combat load weight was 7.2 tons. A supersonic version of the T-12 with two afterburner variants of the AL-31F engine was also considered.


Note EO in all renders remains conceived as forward-fixed. Modern Sturmovik would still be envisioned to designed to dash up, rapidly acquire target with the help of second operator, and launch weapons while taking advantage of surprise afforded by signature reduction. Not so much designed to sit inside contested airspace and quarterback a la F-35.

EDIT:
The Ministry of Defense constantly discussed the issue of the overweight of the developed “two-headed” T-12 attack aircraft. And although MP Simonov firmly defended the point of view about the need to design a large aircraft weighing up to 30 tons, it became increasingly necessary to search for the possibility of building a lighter craft weighing 18-19 tons. It is these numbers most often voiced at meetings with the military. Reducing the weight, by reducing the geometric dimensions of the T-12, seemed unpromising, although such work was carried out. Assumed version of the T-12 in the layout with two cabins, but with RD-33 motors. In fact, at the very beginning of the work it was clear that this was a dead-end branch. With this arrangement, the weight will still be over 20 tons, and the weapon bays will become small and useless, because nothing could be placed in them anyway.

Only further puts into perspective the amazing achievement of the F-35's design.
Last edited by lbk000 on 16 Jan 2019, 23:05, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post16 Jan 2019, 22:45

By the look of the frontal area the design resembles a certain Ekranoplane

http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php? ... cts_id=715
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 260
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post16 Jan 2019, 23:24

Well as I quoted earlier, EP Grunin expressly denied any relationship between Sh-90(T-12) and Sukhoi WIG designs; Although AFAIK with how OKBs take their direction from TsAGI, as the latter always had a set of aerodynamic configurations they considered trendy at any one time, in a sense they could be related in that way.

This was also an interesting snippet:
According to the people involved in the work during the work on the project, few people cared about the exact composition of weapons and equipment. Quote: "The fact is that the internal compartments were planned, but there were problems, the existing weapons did not fit, but they didn’t want to design new ones..."

Russian weapons are perennially larger than their US counterparts, or at the very least, they tend to favor larger, heavier, higher yield analogues. This seems to be biting them in the rear when it comes to designing concealed carriage designs.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 06:53

But who and what were they planning to fight with this old-school approach? If the initial targeting was via drone or special-forces teams and these 'Frogmouths' enter at very low level with a target fix they could pop-up to get a quick shot off. The weapons look to be short-range laser and/or IR guided. A fastjet would get quite close before the main attack weapon locks and fires. At least the wing forward sweep provides for fast turn-away, and the separate pilot allows for a better execution of a tree top level egress. Killing GBAD would be the first item of business, presumably done with the standoff missile prior to going closer, so the enemy is already alerted that you and wingmen are on their way in so alerted passive MANPADS would be scanning for pop-ups.

Given this is not an ideal platform against modern ground forces (sans sufficient standoff weapons and better sensors) I’m wondering if this aircraft would fare better than a fast (quiet) turboprop, popping-up with a lighter weapon load, and doing the same things, but not getting as close, as a function of being slower with a better turn radius.

(and is that really an R77 I see there?)
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 260
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 07:45

element1loop wrote:(and is that really an R77 I see there?)

Yes, but a disclaimer is made:
The author of the sketches [Grunin] notes that it is not necessary to consider the types of weapons exactly, this is only a rough approximation of the placement of goods in the compartments.

------
In the Ministry of Aviation Industry, the concept was named “Sturmovik 90" and was set back in 1981 along with the promising programs "Fighter 90" and "; Bomber 90". And if the promising fighter and bomber had western analogues, then the "Sturmovik 90 "was absolutely original and the Soviet designers went on an absolutely unbeaten path.

What I interpret this to mean is that there was no new doctrine for this new aircraft, and so you get this creature that has no choice but to squander modern design features on an outdated strike doctrine.

Back to the original topic though, I think it's likely that something similar here may be what ultimately hamstrings the Su-57. Regardless of the technical specifications of the aircraft, without a true 5th generation doctrine guiding their employment, they will forever miss the winning "X factor".
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 09:36

lbk000 wrote:Back to the original topic though, I think it's likely that something similar here may be what ultimately hamstrings the Su-57. Regardless of the technical specifications of the aircraft, without a true 5th generation doctrine guiding their employment, they will forever miss the winning "X factor".


Well put. Then again the Chinese have made the step in the general right direction via mere mimicry it seems, sans the engines needed to make them perform. They busy themselves trying to replicate the US stealth forces structure, including a PCA analogue 'fighter-bomber', as just acknowledged. Read below:

Intelligence Report Confirms Two Chinese Stealth Bombers

Jan 15, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

A new report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) offers the first official acknowledgment of the existence of two stealth bomber development programs by China’s air force.

A previously-confirmed Chinese strategic bomber and a newly acknowledged stealth “fighter-bomber” are both now under development, the DIA says in a China Military Power report released Jan. 15.

The Pentagon first acknowledged a strategic bomber program exists in a 2017 report to Congress. The admission came a year after a senior Chinese air force official publicly confirmed the effort to develop a new strategic bomber variously called H-X and H-20.

For several years, Chinese and foreign media have speculated about the existence of a separate stealth bomber development project sometimes called the JH-XX, a replacement for the Mach 1.8-class Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber.

The new DIA report also describes the second project as a “medium”-range stealth bomber. In a chart showing the “aircraft systems characteristics” of the Chinese air force fleet, a “next gen” fighter bomber is shown as a development project with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, long-range air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions.

The same chart also describes the “long-range bomber” now in development as equipped with an AESA and precision-guided munitions, but not long-range air-to-air missiles.

“These new bombers will have additional capabilities, with full-spectrum upgrades compared with current operational bomber fleets, and will employ many fifth-generation fighter technologies in their design,” the DIA report states.

The initial operational capability for both bombers is expected “no sooner” than 2025, the DIA reports, although it caveats that forecast by adding “probably.”

China has unveiled two stealth fighters—the J-20 and FC-31—and numerous designs for radar-evading unmanned aircraft systems over the last decade. China also has introduced a series of fourth-generation fighters, including the J-10, J-16 and newly acquired Sukhoi Su-35, over the same period.

Although a previous Pentagon report to Congress in August described the Chinese fighter fleet as possessing about 2,000 combat aircraft, the new report by the DIA lowers the estimate by 15% to around 1,700 aircraft.

By contrast, China’s bomber fleet has relied upon Xian’s JH-7 and H-6 bombers for decades, with recent upgrades adding to the range and weapons mix of the H-6. AVIC also displayed a model of a JH-7 at Airshow China in November. It was displayed with the designation “JH-7E,” which appeared to indicate a new configuration or perhaps an export variant.

As the H-20 and JH-XX enter service in the next decade, the DIA expects China’s next-generation bomber force to perform a nuclear strike mission and complete a Western-style nuclear triad by augmenting the capabilities of Chinese submarines and ground-based rocket forces.

“As of 2017, the Air Force had been reassigned a nuclear mission, probably with a developmental strategic bomber,” the DIA report says.

China’s stealthy new fighter-bomber also could introduce a unique capability among world air forces. The DIA indicates that China’s air force is developing a medium-range aircraft with stealth characteristics.

The U.S. Air Force has analyzed similar concepts such as the FB-22
and the initial design of the Long Range Strike-Bomber, but never launched development of such an aircraft. Since the retirement of the medium-range General Dynamics F-111, Western and Russian air forces have depended on comparatively short-range fighter-bombers with little passive ability to avoid radar detection, such as the Boeing F-15E and Sukhoi Su-34.


http://aviationweek.com/defense/intelli ... th-bombers

Besides doctrine and engines, for Russia money supply is more constrained. Whereas the Chinese just keep issuing more and more state debt to themselves and are apparently content to default on their own debts to themselves, and then keep offering themselves more and more state credit. Apparently they have found a 'magic pudding' here, as you can eat all that you want, but there's always more CHICOM approved credit-pudding to be doled-out.

So unless their financial apple cart is upset this mimicry will continue apace.

(mind the 'bomber-gap')
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 12:54

Su-57 buy looks to be 2 airframes per year until 2025, for 13 total.


Contract for 13 Su-57 Fifth-Generation Fighter Jets to Be Signed In 2020

(Source: TASS; published Jan 16, 2018)

MOSCOW --- The second contract to manufacture 13 Su-57 fighter jets for the Russian Aerospace Forces is to be signed next year, a source in Russia’s aircraft-making industry told TASS on Wednesday.

"In 2020, we plan to sign the second contract to manufacture and deliver 13 Su-57 fighter jets, some of them equipped with the second-stage engines," he said. "The preliminary timeframe for the new contract is five years."

[i.e. the time schedule is not so much a schedule as a variable]

The first contract envisages the delivery of two fifth-generation aircraft in 2019-2020.

[i.e. two years ... for two jets?]

"In line with the contract signed in 2018, one serial Su-57 jet with first-stage engines will be delivered to the Aerospace Forces this year, the other aircraft featuring the same type of engine in 2020."

The aircraft’s manufacturer, the United Aircraft Corporation, refrained from commenting on the report.

The Su-57 is a fifth-generation multirole fighter designed to destroy all types of air targets at long and short ranges and hit enemy ground and naval targets, overcoming its air defense capabilities.

The Su-57 took to the skies for the first time on January 29, 2010. Compared to its predecessors, the Su-57 combines the functions of an attack plane and a fighter jet while the use of composite materials and innovation technologies and the fighter’s aerodynamic configuration ensure the low level of radar and infrared signature.

The aircraft has been successfully tested in Syria.

[i.e. it's really good!]


http://tass.com/defense/1040167
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3318
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 14:09

If I were Russia, I'd be gearing my PAK FA/SU-57 to take on China, not the US. In 2010 there was only the F-22 to plan/design against. Now they have the J-20, F/C-31, New Stealth Bomber and Fighter Bomber to deal with. And importantly, it's right on their border/competing for export orders.

The situation is rapidly deteriorating for them as a country capable of procuring advanced combat aircraft (either for their air force or foreign customers). It's increasingly clear they've hitched their cart to the SU-57, which looks more and more like a losing gamble. Way behind schedule, going to be expensive as hell and a lot less stealthy than its American and Chinese counterparts.

Whole lotta' vodka going to be consumed between now and 2030 IMO....
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 18:06

lbk000 wrote:Well hang on there guys, let's not get carried away with the chestbeating.


Sorry, but I simply don't share your "optimism" here.
The more I look at that ABOMINATION the more I want to "chestbeat" on it! :wink:

That thing just hurts my eyes and my brain and my 9 year old daughter designs aircraft better than that! :mrgreen:

lbk000 wrote:Remember the F-82?

And this was actually designed to be an escort fighter -- and it scored the first three kills of the Korean War, against single engine, single pilot La-7's no less. The second pilot was a measure against the fatigue of long duration escort. It really didn't matter how maneuverable your airplane was if you were too tired to do anything.

Most importantly, it doesn't matter how ridiculous you look if there's nobody left alive to laugh at you.


Yes, I remember the F-82.
And I also remember that basically no combat twin-fuselage or "twin-plane" aircraft have been designed, built and entered in service since then.
There must be a reason for this and IMO the reason is quite "basic":
- That kind of design is simply crappy in overall terms which offers much more disadvantages than advantages compared to "conventional" (I would say properly designed/built) aircraft.

An odd example of success - this case regarding the F-82 in the first days of the Korean War - doesn't necessarily equates to the aircraft (F-82) being an overall success (or not) or being a "good" aircraft.
IMO, this could be more the case of the La-7 pilots being Rookies and/not well trained/experienced than being the case of the F-82 being a good aircraft. This would be especially true if the La-7 pilots were North Koreans (mostly inexperienced rookies) which were most likely facing experienced WWII veteran American pilots flying the F-82.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 18:34

mixelflick wrote:If I were Russia, I'd be gearing my PAK FA/SU-57 to take on China, not the US. In 2010 there was only the F-22 to plan/design against. Now they have the J-20, F/C-31, New Stealth Bomber and Fighter Bomber to deal with. And importantly, it's right on their border/competing for export orders.

The situation is rapidly deteriorating for them as a country capable of procuring advanced combat aircraft (either for their air force or foreign customers). It's increasingly clear they've hitched their cart to the SU-57, which looks more and more like a losing gamble. Way behind schedule, going to be expensive as hell and a lot less stealthy than its American and Chinese counterparts.

Whole lotta' vodka going to be consumed between now and 2030 IMO....


China really don't have nothing to gain in war with Russia. Parts of Russia which was Chinese ones are much less important for China then seas and oceans. That is one reason why Russia don't invest in military as they did during cold war. Chinese aren't advisory anymore and in fact Chinese became bigger advisory to US military might then Russia is and very soon PRC will overtook USSR in military might especially in naval power. So Russians have big benefit from stronger China, America need to allocate more and more military assets to counter China.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4347
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 19:50

milosh wrote: So Russians have big benefit from stronger China, America need to allocate more and more military assets to counter China.

This is like saying 1990 Iraq had the benefit of not being the major Competitor to the US. We were tooled up to fight the USSR. When We aimed that might at Iraq, we effectively walked right over them. The same thing could happen with Russia. China becomes our biggest adversary, outstripping the USSR as you say, so the US military preps to defeat that level of threat. Russia decides to get uppity. We walk right over them because we have prepared to fight a much more potent force.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5918
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 21:41

element1loop wrote:Su-57 buy looks to be 2 airframes per year until 2025, for 13 total.


Contract for 13 Su-57 Fifth-Generation Fighter Jets to Be Signed In 2020

(Source: TASS; published Jan 16, 2018)

MOSCOW --- The second contract to manufacture 13 Su-57 fighter jets for the Russian Aerospace Forces is to be signed next year, a source in Russia’s aircraft-making industry told TASS on Wednesday.

"In 2020, we plan to sign the second contract to manufacture and deliver 13 Su-57 fighter jets, some of them equipped with the second-stage engines," he said. "The preliminary timeframe for the new contract is five years."

[i.e. the time schedule is not so much a schedule as a variable]

The first contract envisages the delivery of two fifth-generation aircraft in 2019-2020.

[i.e. two years ... for two jets?]

"In line with the contract signed in 2018, one serial Su-57 jet with first-stage engines will be delivered to the Aerospace Forces this year, the other aircraft featuring the same type of engine in 2020."

The aircraft’s manufacturer, the United Aircraft Corporation, refrained from commenting on the report.

The Su-57 is a fifth-generation multirole fighter designed to destroy all types of air targets at long and short ranges and hit enemy ground and naval targets, overcoming its air defense capabilities.

The Su-57 took to the skies for the first time on January 29, 2010. Compared to its predecessors, the Su-57 combines the functions of an attack plane and a fighter jet while the use of composite materials and innovation technologies and the fighter’s aerodynamic configuration ensure the low level of radar and infrared signature.

The aircraft has been successfully tested in Syria.

[i.e. it's really good!]


http://tass.com/defense/1040167



LOL Awesome. in ten years we went from "watch this you pitiful F-22 and F-35 westerners" to "2 airframes per year"
Choose Crews
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 23:35

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
milosh wrote: So Russians have big benefit from stronger China, America need to allocate more and more military assets to counter China.

This is like saying 1990 Iraq had the benefit of not being the major Competitor to the US. We were tooled up to fight the USSR. When We aimed that might at Iraq, we effectively walked right over them. The same thing could happen with Russia. China becomes our biggest adversary, outstripping the USSR as you say, so the US military preps to defeat that level of threat. Russia decides to get uppity. We walk right over them because we have prepared to fight a much more potent force.


Russia isn't on offensive as USSR was so they really don't need to match US airforce capability. China on other hand is keen to match USA and if you look Chinese running arm race even though they spend less then 2% of GDP on military.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4347
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Jan 2019, 23:47

milosh wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
milosh wrote: So Russians have big benefit from stronger China, America need to allocate more and more military assets to counter China.

This is like saying 1990 Iraq had the benefit of not being the major Competitor to the US. We were tooled up to fight the USSR. When We aimed that might at Iraq, we effectively walked right over them. The same thing could happen with Russia. China becomes our biggest adversary, outstripping the USSR as you say, so the US military preps to defeat that level of threat. Russia decides to get uppity. We walk right over them because we have prepared to fight a much more potent force.


Russia isn't on offensive as USSR was so they really don't need to match US airforce capability. China on other hand is keen to match USA and if you look Chinese running arm race even though they spend less then 2% of GDP on military.

Iraq wasn't on the offensive against the US before 1991 either.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests