Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 19:03

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 19:03

@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
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 19:48

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.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 19:53

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."
Last edited by haavarla on 06 Jan 2013, 20:15, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 20:08

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 20:52

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 21:01



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.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 22:09

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.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 22:40

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 23:09

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..."
Offline

firstimpulse

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post06 Jan 2013, 23:31

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:
Offline

hobo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39

Unread post07 Jan 2013, 05:29

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?
Offline

sewerrat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2009, 18:03

Unread post07 Jan 2013, 10:51

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.
Offline

sewerrat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2009, 18:03

Unread post07 Jan 2013, 10:54

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.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post07 Jan 2013, 14:50

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests