Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 09:15

Loving F-22 is fine, but you shouldn't let it cloud your judgment to the point of thinking that it is better in all aspect than any others aircraft.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 10:27

disconnectedradical wrote:F-22 pulling G isn't what's special, energy fighters like Typhoon and clean F-16 give it run for the money.


You really need to learn to verify info first before posting.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
This statement was according to Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL)

At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22.


Remember how you insisted on the other thread that Vietnam had absolutely no contribution to the F-15's design. How did that go by the way.

Listen, I'm not saying the Raptor is perfect at everything. But its very good at what it was intended to do, let me rephrase that, its the best at what its supposed to do.

Just like how a lot of folks here (including me) defend the F-35 against detractors who say it's not a fighter, I simply do the same for the Raptor. Why is it okay when I do this for the F-35 but not when its for the Raptor.

People here have said the F-35A can pull Gs as well as any fighter specially at combat loads and there are no issues. But when I say the same for the F-22, its suddenly an issue.

People have suggested on making a modified F-35 for 6th gen and theres no problem, but when I suggested to do the same for the F-22, its suddenly a problem.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 11:42

zero-one wrote:People here have said the F-35A can pull Gs as well as any fighter specially at combat loads and there are no issues. But when I say the same for the F-22, its suddenly an issue.


Honestly I don't think I've seen anyone here stating that. :?
But, granted that I haven't been following this discussion with detail but the general consensus around here seems to be that the F-22 has a better performance than the F-35, since it should have a better acceleration due to having two (2) extremely powerful engines (on a similar class as the F-35 single engine) and be able to attain very impressive AoA maneuvering/quick nose pointing turns due to having TVC engines.

But despite the F-22 having a better turning/energy maneuvering (than the F-35) this doesn't mean that the F-35 cannot win in this own turf. A "very good" pilot on the F-35 will have a very good chance of winning against an "only good" pilot flying the F-22 and this is because while the F-22 being generally better (again in terms of agility/energy) the F-35 is definitely not a slouch in this regard. And I would say that this is something that you seem to ignore (forgive me, if I'm mistaken).

On top of the above the F-35 has some other tricks in its sleeve, namely DAS which allows the F-35 pilot to constantly know where a F-22 is around its F-35 (with a 360 spherical coverage) and in dogfight or WVR combat (and the F-22 has nothing like this) and usually the pilot that sees first or is able to maintain "visual" contact with the enemy the most is the one who wins (and not necessarily or generally not the one with the better performing aircraft).

zero-one wrote:People have suggested on making a modified F-35 for 6th gen and theres no problem, but when I suggested to do the same for the F-22, its suddenly a problem.


Well, I guess that depends on what's that "modifying to 6th gen" is all about?
Anyway the advantage of building modified F-35's over modified F-22's is that the former is and will be in production while the later's production ended more than a decade ago. So I would say it's easier and cheaper to modify an aircraft whose production is running right now and will continue to run at least up to 2050 or so than doing this with an aircraft whose production it now long gone.
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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 14:06

[/quote]

So lets see if I get your logic:

- It is ok to[b] point out the exaggerated (and ultimately BS) claim that the Super Hornet will be easily defeated by other aircraft (which is at best plain ridiculous, sorry),

Right.

Like oh, I dunno...that time in DS where an Iraqi Mig 25 shot down an F/A-18C. You mean that exaggerated, BS claim the SH will be easily defeated by other aircraft, which is just plain ridiculous? That one??

In, before "but his ECM failed him" and other excuses (it was only one instance!/It was just an F/A-18C!) to cover up for the Hornets deficiencies. You know its awful funny.. F-14's, F-15's and even F-16's have recorded kills of the Mig-25. But not the F/A-18.

I suppose that's just another exaggerated, BS and ridiculous claim though, right?
Last edited by mixelflick on 03 Jun 2019, 14:18, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 14:14

ricnunes wrote:Honestly I don't think I've seen anyone here stating that. :?
But, granted that I haven't been following this discussion with detail but the general consensus around here seems to be that the F-22 has a better performance than the F-35.


It wasn't against the F-35. Basically I said that I think the F-22 has better 9G performance than most if not all aircraft. We literally have pages upon pages of discussion pointing to that over the years.

But I was accused of exaggerating and that an F-15C at 30,000 feet Mach 0.9 has better sustained G performance (later proven to be incorrect)

ricnunes wrote:But despite the F-22 having a better turning/energy maneuvering (than the F-35) this doesn't mean that the F-35 cannot win in this own turf. A "very good" pilot on the F-35 will have a very good chance of winning against an "only good" pilot flying the F-22 and this is because while the F-22 being generally better (again in terms of agility/energy) the F-35 is definitely not a slouch in this regard. And I would say that this is something that you seem to ignore (forgive me, if I'm mistaken).

Absolutely,
We've seen T-38s kill Raptors. Its always the man not the machine.
But the more capable machine can make things a whole lot easier.

So to me an average Raptor trainee with far fewer hours also has a chance against a veteran F-35 pilot in BFM DACT.
He can afford to get away with more mistakes than his F-35 instructor who needs to play his cards right and has slimmer margins for error. I'm not saying he'll win, I'm saying he has a chance.


ricnunes wrote:On top of the above the F-35 has some other tricks in its sleeve


Well logically that makes sense and I agree. But I won't label F-16ADF a liar. He claims to have spoken to Raptor pilots who have said that it flat out beats the F-35 in BFM. Albeit we don't know the ROEs or what but that tells me the F-22 may also have a few tricks that maybe even DAS can't compensate for.

ricnunes wrote:So I would say it's easier and cheaper to modify an aircraft whose production is running right now and will continue to run at least up to 2050 or so than doing this with an aircraft whose production it now long gone.


Again this is logical and I agree. But I also have to say that modifying an F-35 air frame which was originally intended primarily for Strike to a primary A-A platform may cost more than restarting the F-22 line. Well this all speculation and what not, so I'll stop here before someone labels me for exaggerating :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 15:08

zero-one wrote:You really need to learn to verify info first before posting.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
This statement was according to Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL)


Oh FFS. The link you posted doesn't even work. Also, the DERA report is from 1999 or 2000, which was well before F-22 flight testing was even finished. And you're using this as an example of "verifying"? :roll:

zero-one wrote:Remember how you insisted on the other thread that Vietnam had absolutely no contribution to the F-15's design. How did that go by the way.


Check your memory. No one said Vietnam had no contribution to F-15's design, but that F-X program that resulted in F-15 would have happened with or without Vietnam. You were the one claiming that F-111 would have been USAF's fighter without Vietnam, and that's untrue given that F-X origins was before Vietnam, even if combat experience adjusted requirements.

Stop putting words in people's mouths.

zero-one wrote:People have suggested on making a modified F-35 for 6th gen and theres no problem, but when I suggested to do the same for the F-22, its suddenly a problem.


Neither an F-35 or F-22 derivative will really fit for PCA. No one has talked about F-35 derivative except for some suggestions on this forum. The only benefit of F-35 derivative over F-22 derivative is avionics and the open production line, with open production line being a BIG one. But most likely PCA airframe won't be based on either, neither has the range USAF wants.

zero-one wrote:It wasn't against the F-35. Basically I said that I think the F-22 has better 9G performance than most if not all aircraft. We literally have pages upon pages of discussion pointing to that over the years.

But I was accused of exaggerating and that an F-15C at 30,000 feet Mach 0.9 has better sustained G performance (later proven to be incorrect)


:doh:

F-15C with -220 engines, 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and pylon will sustain 0.1g less at those conditions. When clean or with just 4 AIM-7, F-15 will sustain more (4.0g when clean).
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 03 Jun 2019, 17:26, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 15:11

mixelflick wrote:In, before "but his ECM failed him" and other excuses (it was only one instance!/It was just an F/A-18C!) to cover up for the Hornets deficiencies. You know its awful funny.. F-14's, F-15's and even F-16's have recorded kills of the Mig-25. But not the F/A-18.

I suppose that's just another exaggerated, BS and ridiculous claim though, right?


:wtf:

What is the deficiency of F/A-18 that caused it to be shot down in that situation? If F-14, F-15, or F-16 had malfunctioned RWR, will the result be different?
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 16:36

disconnectedradical wrote:Oh FFS. The link you posted doesn't even work.


The quotes there can still be found in this forum and are accepted as factual. If you want to dispute them, then post your counter arguments.

disconnectedradical wrote:Also, the DERA report is from 1999 or 2000, which was well before F-22 flight testing was even finished.


Link please

disconnectedradical wrote:Check your memory. No one said Vietnam had no contribution to F-15's design, but that F-X program that resulted in F-15 would have happened with or without Vietnam.

How do you even know this? How do you know that both the VFX and FX programs wouldn't be scrapped to save cost.
I'm just saying what really happened. Vietnam heavily influenced both programs.

even if they pushed through without Vietnam, they would not be the F-14 and F-15 we know now. But these alternate reality scenarios are just your speculations.


disconnectedradical wrote:F-15C with -220 engines, 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and pylon will sustain 0.1g less at those conditions. When clean or with just 4 AIM-7, it will sustain more (4.0g when clean).


If the SAR report represents the current limit the F-22 has now then maybe.
But given that some of the sources were taken from 2004, with demonstrated supercruise speeds still at 1.76M, I doubt that.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 17:15

Zero-one why do you keep referring to 2004 SAR the 2010 F-22 SAR has exactly the same demonstrated performance figures.

Or are you confusing the 2004 date of ORD as source of requirements from the actual current performance on those ORD KPP in 2010?

Either way...
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 18:10

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Also, the DERA report is from 1999 or 2000, which was well before F-22 flight testing was even finished.


Link please


Since your link doesn't work, I found the archive version.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120623172 ... r/tech.php

It references a DERA report that was also referenced by an APA article from 2000. Notice they refer to same figures, like 82% BVR effectiveness against predicted Su-35.
https://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

From your own source, it said the results were from battle simulation computers. And this was when F-22 and Typhoon were both not done with flight testing. You call that "verified"? :doh:

zero-one wrote:How do you even know this? How do you know that both the VFX and FX programs wouldn't be scrapped to save cost.
I'm just saying what really happened. Vietnam heavily influenced both programs.

even if they pushed through without Vietnam, they would not be the F-14 and F-15 we know now. But these alternate reality scenarios are just your speculations.


It's a FACT that F-X and VF-X programs were started before bulk of air combat in Vietnam. F-X started in 1965. F-X did take more cues from Vietnam but VF-X would most likely be like the F-14 regardless, since the Grumman 303E was chosen in 1968 and that was very close to final F-14.

You accuse me of using alternate reality speculations, yet that's exactly what you're doing with the "what if F-X and VF-X are scrapped" line.

zero-one wrote:If the SAR report represents the current limit the F-22 has now then maybe.
But given that some of the sources were taken from 2004, with demonstrated supercruise speeds still at 1.76M, I doubt that.


The requirements are from a 2004 ORD. And like I said, by 2004 both static and fatigue testing were complete, there should be no g limits.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 19:08

“...by 2004 both static and fatigue testing were complete, there should be no g limits.”

When was flight sciences/envelope expansion complete in flight test? The events you cite are ground test events. You get more envelope as flight sciences testing is incrementally completed and the air worthiness authority grants expansion based on the data/results of demonstrated performance.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1055
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 19:41

Ahum, static and fatigue testing are NEVER complete, and always continue to determine weak spots and service life upgrades. => Hence, even the good old F-16 static tests still continue to find long term weak spots and test modifications
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 20:00

mixelflick wrote:Right.

Like oh, I dunno...that time in DS where an Iraqi Mig 25 shot down an F/A-18C. You mean that exaggerated, BS claim the SH will be easily defeated by other aircraft, which is just plain ridiculous? That one??

In, before "but his ECM failed him" and other excuses (it was only one instance!/It was just an F/A-18C!) to cover up for the Hornets deficiencies.


Before you come up again and again with the "SOLE episode" when that F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25 during Desert Storm as some stupid evidence of the supposed inferiority of the F/A-18 you should research about what really happened instead of jumping up to conclusion.

After researching about the subject (all these years) here are the facts:

1- Yes, it is known that the ECM of Capt Speicher's F/A-18C malfunctioned during that fateful event.
2- Capt Speicher's F/A-18C and other F/A-18's in the package were tasked with an Air-to-Ground mission while F-14's also in that same package had the task to provide escort for the F/A-18C's. So in the end was this the failure of the F/A-18 or was this a F-14 failure, which you so much defend on your post??
3- Despite the failure of the F-14 to provide effective escort for the F/A-18s, one of the F/A-18C's of the package managed to detect the incoming Mig-25 to lock him but he had to ask permission to AWACS to engage - a permission that never came - since the F/A-18C at that time didn't have NCTR radar mode. If the AWACS gave the permission to engage this F/A-18 would have shot down the Mig-25 and this wouldn't have shot down Capt Speicher's F/A-18C later on!
4- On top of the above this engagement wasn't even a "dogfight" per-se - The Mig-25 managed to lock the F/A-18 (helped with the fact that the ECM malfunctioned) shot a missile at the F/A-18 and get the hell out of dodge - A situation which could have happen between any type of aircraft - You know this was a war, right??

So lets see the pattern here:
1- AWACS failed (to give permission)!
2- The F-14's escorting the F/A-18Cs failed to even detect or adquire and pursuit and ultimately engage the Mig-25!
3- The ECM of Capt Speicher's F/A-18C malfunctioned!

And the fault is because of the F/A-18's being an "inferior" aircraft :doh:
Really you should research more before you jump into conclusions!

mixelflick wrote:You know its awful funny.. F-14's, F-15's and even F-16's have recorded kills of the Mig-25. But not the F/A-18.


And did you know that F-14's were shot down by Mirage F1's??
And did you know that a F-16 was shot down by a Mirage 2000??
And did you know that a F-15 was damaged (and as such almost shot down) by a Mig-25 also during DS?? You can read about this last F-15 vs Mig-25 case here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle

As you can read in the link above, that was during an air battle between (US) F-15's and (Iraqi) Mig-25's which was actually won by the Iraqi Mig-25's. <sarc mode=on> So we must conclude that the F-15 is also a crap! <sarc mode=off> :roll:

mixelflick wrote:I suppose that's just another exaggerated, BS and ridiculous claim though, right?


As you can read above, yes it is...
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
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 20:14

zero-one wrote:So to me an average Raptor trainee with far fewer hours also has a chance against a veteran F-35 pilot in BFM DACT.
He can afford to get away with more mistakes than his F-35 instructor who needs to play his cards right and has slimmer margins for error. I'm not saying he'll win, I'm saying he has a chance.


Yes, I would fully agree with you above if the F-35 didn't have this thing called DAS :wink:


zero-one wrote:Well logically that makes sense and I agree. But I won't label F-16ADF a liar. He claims to have spoken to Raptor pilots who have said that it flat out beats the F-35 in BFM. Albeit we don't know the ROEs or what but that tells me the F-22 may also have a few tricks that maybe even DAS can't compensate for.


Well as you said above there could be a ROE reason for this - The F-35's could have been prevented from using DAS due again to the ROE during those same mock combats.
Or, if those same mock combats were taken a few years ago then there could also be the case that DAS wasn't still fully operational then.

The only trick that I can think of for a F-22 pilot to offset/compensate for the F-35's DAS is not loosing sight - with his "MkI Eyeball" :mrgreen: - of the opposing F-35 (something very hard for a trainee or an average pilot) this during and after the merge.

zero-one wrote:Again this is logical and I agree. But I also have to say that modifying an F-35 air frame which was originally intended primarily for Strike to a primary A-A platform may cost more than restarting the F-22 line. Well this all speculation and what not, so I'll stop here before someone labels me for exaggerating :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


I don't know about the above but yes, I agree with you that the entire subject above is at best, very speculative :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 20:18

quicksilver wrote:“...by 2004 both static and fatigue testing were complete, there should be no g limits.”

When was flight sciences/envelope expansion complete in flight test? The events you cite are ground test events. You get more envelope as flight sciences testing is incrementally completed and the air worthiness authority grants expansion based on the data/results of demonstrated performance.


Right, the 2010 SAR says requirements source is from 2004 ORD, CAF 304-83-I/II/III-A dated February 17, 2004 and F-22A Enhanced Global Strike Capability Production Document dated April 23, 2007. Either way now I look at it this is just where requirements came from, the 2010 SAR itself was has a column saying Demonstrated Performance and by that time it should be tested to full envelope. Some say it "only" gives Mach 1.76 supercruise instead of Mach 1.82 that was stated elsewhere. Either way, not a big difference and maybe at a different engine trim or something.

vilters wrote:Ahum, static and fatigue testing are NEVER complete, and always continue to determine weak spots and service life upgrades. => Hence, even the good old F-16 static tests still continue to find long term weak spots and test modifications


In 2004, the design life fatigue testing was done, so it doesn't include things like SLEP. Either way, loads should not prevent 9g envelope testing.
https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article ... tem_id=101
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests