Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post25 Jul 2019, 11:30

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I will be open to any comments or tweeks you all may want to see until this weekend.

First off thanks and congratulations Sprst.
awsome

Screenshot_20190725-173336_OneDrive.jpg
From the Flankers maneuvering analysis at Mach 0.8/20k, its estimated to make an ITR of around 19.9 deg/sec when clean, this is the same ITR made by the F-15, F-22 and F-35A when loaded for A-A given similar conditions.

When loaded for A-A the ITR turn decreases to around 18+ deg per/sec.

the Sustained turn when clean is almost as good as an A-A loaded F-15C at around 11 or 10+ deg/s. Loaded for A-A it drops to about as good as an F-35A at around 9+ deg/sec.
I like what im seeing, but when things look too good to be true, they usually are. So I tried to look for a 2nd opinion.

I don't have the Su-35's EM chart but I do have a Russian Su-27 chart. The Su-35S has similar T/W ratios as the Su-27 and even has inferior wing and lift loading. But with nearly identical airframes, their performance when TVC is not used should be similar. By the way I dont know what R or H is. (H looks like altitude, but one line is at 200M the other is at 3000M)
Screenshot_20190206-034928_Chrome.jpg


Anyway, if limited to 9Gs. The ITR looks like its at 20 deg/s when at 900 Km/H which could translate to Mach 0.8. So Sprts's 19.9 d/s is remarkably close. So again, thanks Sprts, great work
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post25 Jul 2019, 15:02

nathan77 wrote:Under point "1 Aircraft" you have the F-35A as being purchased by "Austria" rather than "Australia". There's also Turkey on the list.

"al" added and Turkey removed. Thank you for catching that.
"Spurts"

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

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Jul 2019, 19:42

Thanks Spurts for all the effort you put into that, it's amazing-
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 02:29

f-16adf wrote:Thanks Spurts for all the effort you put into that, it's amazing-


Yea, great work, thank you.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 02:47

The AIM-120D is truly deadly at 84.7nm, so you gotta launch 1 at that range and on average over 9 enemy aircraft are shot down. :mrgreen:
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

southerncross

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 13:06

Thanks for sharing your work Spurts, that was great to read.

A question that springs to mind before going deeper into the results is if it is sensible to use the Su-35S as a comparison. There is a serious lack of data of that model that prevents us from even having actual T/W values, since official empty weight of the plane is not available, or not to my knowledge. This is aggravated by the fact that Russia only discloses characteristics of export models, which further confuses our view. For instance it may be that they export the Su-35S with the izd. 117S but internally use the izd. 117 since they usually keep their domestic HW one step ahead of what they sell.

So, while the interest of comparing with non-Western models is clear, the risk of getting a distorted view by using data from export models or simply unsourced looks very real to me.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 17:44

southerncross wrote:A question that springs to mind before going deeper into the results is if it is sensible to use the Su-35S as a comparison.

That is why I was honest and upfront about the model validity. I have just as much data available to me about the Su-35 as I do about any other non-US plane. My Su-35 model started as an Su-27 model that I uprated the engine thrust for to match the new low alt accel specs released. Did I have to make a lot of assumptions on the model? You bet. Is there a different, non-US plane I would be comfortable using as the adversary instead? No. In the end the real comparison will be how well the different western planes do relative to a given adversary. I chose the Su-35S because we know more about it's systems than we do the systems of any other aircraft with that kind of range and overall capability. Russian flight manuals simply do not have performance indexes the way US flight manuals do.
"Spurts"

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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 20:39

viper12 wrote:The AIM-120D is truly deadly at 84.7nm, so you gotta launch 1 at that range and on average over 9 enemy aircraft are shot down. :mrgreen:


You are right. :shock: I assume its 8-9 % :wink:

Thanks a lot spurts. Amazing work.

Empty weight of the Su-35 should be ca. 19 Tonnes.

Also according to Tass.

https://tass.com/defense/1069215

The Su-35S weighs 19 tonnes, has a service ceiling of 20,000 meters, can develop a maximum speed of 2,500 km/h and has a crew of one pilot. The fighter jet’s armament includes a 30mm aircraft gun, up to 8 tonnes of the weapon payload (missiles and bombs of various types) on 12 underwing hardpoints.


I have some questions to the ranges of the Radarsystems. The manufacturer say the irbis-e has a range of 82nm vs a 1m2 Target. In your list its 93nm. Im also surprised that the APG-83 and RBE2 AA have more Range then the APG-79.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 21:20

swiss wrote:
viper12 wrote:The AIM-120D is truly deadly at 84.7nm, so you gotta launch 1 at that range and on average over 9 enemy aircraft are shot down. :mrgreen:


You are right. :shock: I assume its 8-9 % :wink:


I think I'm missing something. Is there a typo? Pages would be helpful.
Nevermind. Found it. 918% Pk! What a formation killer! that should be 18% LOL that's a good one. This is why I have you all as "proof readers".


swiss wrote:Empty weight of the Su-35 should be ca. 19 Tonnes.

I used 40,570lb which is 18.44tonnes. I can update it but there will be no meaningful change in anything performance wise.

swiss wrote:I have some questions to the ranges of the Radarsystems. The manufacturer say the irbis-e has a range of 82nm vs a 1m2 Target. In your list its 93nm. Im also surprised that the APG-83 and RBE2 AA have more Range then the APG-79.

I have never seen that claim, only the 350-400km of 3m^2 in narrow search. I used the AESACalcTrial spreadsheet to simulate the PESA (change noise figures on send and receive, increase dwell time for narrow search, adjust for 50% instead of western 75% on detection) to reverse generate a volume search 1m number.

Thanks for all the feedback!
"Spurts"

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

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3238
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 22:32

The Irbis manufacturer claims 170km in look down mode vs 3m^2 target, and 190km in look up mode. The 350 to 400km claim, is for a 10° × 10° cued search. All of those ranges would have to be adjusted significantly for a 90% detection probability vs a 1m^2 target.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 22:48

wrightwing wrote:The Irbis manufacturer claims 170km in look down mode vs 3m^2 target, and 190km in look up mode. The 350 to 400km claim, is for a 10° × 10° cued search. All of those ranges would have to be adjusted significantly for a 90% detection probability vs a 1m^2 target.

I have not been able to find anything to support this even googling "Irbis-E 190km" the closest I have come is below

"The Zhuk-MSF / Sokol-3 from the Phazotron NIIR OKB

Zhuk-MSF is the most up to date radar design by Phazotron. Sokol uses a non-equidistant rather than the traditional linear radar field distribution, which, Phazotron says, allows a fivefold radar cost reduction over a traditionally designed phased array radar. The production radar will have a 980mm antenna diameter (37dB gain) and weigh 275kg. The radar tracks 24-30 targets, engages the most dangerous 6 to 8 of them. Its electronic beam steering will give ±70 deg spatial coverage in both axes. Power output is 8kW peak, 2 - 3kW average. It is designed for high reliability, and is frequency agile with LPI and anti ECM features. Phazotron says it will be capable of interleaving between air-to-air and air-to-ground modes.

Velocity search: 245km head-on vs fighter target.(This figure is no longer quoted. The mode may have been removed)

Range-while-search, lookup mode: 180-190km head-on / 80km tail-on vs fighter target.

Range-while-search, lookdown mode : 170km head-on / 60km tail-on vs fighter target.

Track-while-scan mode: 150km head-on vs fighter target.

Against a large target such as a bomber or AWACS aircraft detection range comfortably exceeds 300km. "

Edit* Even at https://www.niip.ru/catalog/eksportnaya ... u-irbis-e/ I only see the narrow search value.
"Spurts"

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2085
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 23:29

First of all I also want to thank spurts for this work.

swiss wrote:Im also surprised that the APG-83 and RBE2 AA have more Range then the APG-79.


However, I have to say that don't buy the APG-79 detection range figures specially when compared to the RBE2 and APG-83 range figures.
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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post27 Jul 2019, 05:28

ricnunes wrote:First of all I also want to thank spurts for this work.

swiss wrote:Im also surprised that the APG-83 and RBE2 AA have more Range then the APG-79.


However, I have to say that don't buy the APG-79 detection range figures specially when compared to the RBE2 and APG-83 range figures.

I would happily take any credible evidence of ranges. I am stuck using size only for the most part (I also play with power per module a bit for tech advantages) but there have been publicized issues with the -79 so it got hit with losses (noise) in Tx and Rx. Otherwise I would have it at 111nm, longer ranged than both APG-83 and RBE2 AA. BTW, thanks for bringing this up. I left the F-16C Blk 50+ radar in (APG-68(v)9) instead of the Blk 70.

I haven't done the Rhino yet so there is still time to determine what should be correct.
"Spurts"

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 769
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post27 Jul 2019, 05:53

Thank you Spurts for all your effort, your comparison is the best that one could find in public sector.
However, IMHO, there are some details that could be improve.
I) ALR-94 is a passive system without any jamming capability
II) IRST21 should have longer range than EOTS
III) APG-79 should have longer range than APG-83 and RBE2AA, its aperture is nearly double that of RBE2
IV) Meteor PK at long range should be better than AIM-120D
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4409
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post27 Jul 2019, 07:11

garrya wrote:Thank you Spurts for all your effort, your comparison is the best that one could find in public sector.
However, IMHO, there are some details that could be improve.
I) ALR-94 is a passive system without any jamming capability
II) IRST21 should have longer range than EOTS
III) APG-79 should have longer range than APG-83 and RBE2AA, its aperture is nearly double that of RBE2
IV) Meteor PK at long range should be better than AIM-120D


I) You know, now that you mention it I don't see anything about any jamming for the F-22, only all the other non jamming things the ALR-94 does. I guess I made an incorrect assumption that since ASQ-239 can jam that ALR-94 did too. I do see that APG-77 is credited with Electronic Attack, so perhaps that can jam? To be determined later when I get to the F-22.

II) IRST21 would have longer range than EOTS as is, but would it have longer range than the upgraded EOTS? I am looking at funded programs that should be in place in the next six years or so. That is why I have them with the rates I do. EOTS has an upgrade path to stay cutting edge.

III) I wish someone in the know could tell me what the problems were the APG-79 had and if they related to range at all. I am thinking I will restore it to 111/86nm since nothing I have seen actually says it impacted range.

IV) AIM-120D at ~85nm is 18%(not 918%), Meteor at 90nm is 72%. That is a whole hell of a lot better at longer range. The AIM-120 drops from 78% to 18% in 21.5nm. The Meteor drops from 72% to 8% in 47.4nm.

Thank you all for your comments. You help make this analysis possible.
"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 10 guests