Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 23:11

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23910
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 23:15

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]
Attachments
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter.pdf
(1.01 MiB) Downloaded 709 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6146
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2013, 23:36

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?
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 00:04

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6146
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 00:18

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:
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 00:52

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.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 01:04

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 01:19

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6146
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 03:05

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?
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 04:38

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6146
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 05:09

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!
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 11:48

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.
Offline

firstimpulse

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 18:21

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 17:11

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.
Offline

marksengineer

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01
  • Location: Ohio

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 18:10

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23910
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 18:20

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F

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

Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction
Attachments
SuperHornetRCSreductionNATOPS.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests