F-35 vs all non-thrust vectored fighter jets

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

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 14:04

What do you want?

Maximum performance at whatever the cost? Weight? Maintenance? Mean time between failure? Logistics?
Or do you calculate "effect" versus cost, versus weight, versus maintenance, versus MTBF.

Something you do NOT put on an A/C does not weight anything, will cost nothing, and will never fail.

And seeing all video's from Paris, those Flight Control system guys did a GREAT Job.
Offline

fastestbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2013, 14:05
  • Location: Europe

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 23:17

hornetfinn wrote:And why all the personal attacks towards everybody?


There are no personal attacks in my statement, I'm just stating the obvious. If you feel insulted I honestly apologize!

But look at this from another perspective, you had absolutely no analytic and critical approach towards this subject and you praised the worst video comparisons on the youtube made by a person with real mental issues, and at the end you came to the conclusion (that is based on nothing accept your hype about the F-35) that the plane has more power than it really has?! How did you calculate that, I'm really intrigued?

If that is not fanboyish behavior, then I don't know what is?

The rest of your comments only confirms the fact that you are not able to admit that there is some other fighter that can do something better than F-35, or you are not able to comprehend that?

Sure, but at that point Su-35 already had quite a lot of speed from accelerating on dry thrust for about 10 seconds and thus the time on AB was very short. It was impressive for sure, but IMO not really much more so than what F-35 did.


This is what I'm talking about!

The plane started to roll with engines almost on idle (look at the cross sectional opening of the nozzle) and the speed that was generated before the throttle was opened up was in the range of me running. In other words, the plane was just wasting time going really slow before full military and burners are lit.

I'd call them very equal as it seemed to take almost identical time from rotation to full vertical and first maneuver.


Ok, now imagine this!

What would happen if the plane started to roll the same way F-35 did with the afterburners on from the beginning of the take off?

Time and the distance for the take off would be drastically shortened and that is the physical fact! It is already incredibly short with that ridiculous slow speed roll let alone on with the full afterburners from the beginning of the take off.

The plane already broke the record for the shortest take off distance among russian planes (PAK-FA excluded because it is not operational yet) and there is no possibility whatsoever for the F-35 to have that type of the take off performance for two simple reasons.

The first is the better T/W ratio that comes in to play during take off and the other is TVC that provides rotation before vertical tail can generate enough dynamic pressure for the pitch up.

F-35 can't lift off from such a short take off distance Su-35S can and go to the vertical, period! It is physically impossible.

Btw, it seems like Su-35s always do this kind of rolling start with quite long roll before hitting AB. Why would that be, to lower fatigue?


My guess is good as yours and I think you are right. I have never seen the plane (PAK-FA included) going aggressive on the show with the engine spool up.

I find it very interesting that F-35 is so competitive with both in power and maneuverability despite having just single engine and no TVC and having easily the most comprehensive avionics suite of them all with very unique capabilities.


There is no doubt about it, F-35 has some very nice high AoA capability, but that is not in the same league with the Russian fighters. More like F-18 level and we all know how that plane went with X-31.

nutshell wrote:It is known that guy sped up some of his videos to fit his narrative.

But some of them are quite legit.

Anyway, let's go back to square 1: non tvc single engine fighrer vs twin engine TVC.


The fact is almost all of his videos are manipulated in some way or another.

Just a few examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5atnx_Mvlk

He used the sequence where F-22 is doing the power loop. The next thing he did is to rotate the video (from vertical to horizontal) to make Raptor appear like it is doing horizontal 360 deg turn. He also made the video in the lowest possible resolution for better kamuflase.

This is the work of a sick mind. He feels good about it and has no problem deceiving others!

And I know that almost everybody on this forum swallowed this "pill" with pleasure. No critical analysis whatsoever! Raptor power all the way!

Look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90EQD4V3UMI

Can you believe this?

Departure from controled flight labeld as some incredible maneuverability with the weapons on board!

The guy is incredible!

You just point to any video he made and I will tell you what is wrong with it ;)

basher54321 wrote:The advantages of TV are well known through years of testing with various platforms such as MATV, X-31, F-22 etc - however the advantages clearly do not outweigh the disadvantages - or to put it another way the designers or anyone else that matters don't appear to think it has any relevance in most tactical situations.


In other words the people that have implemented this solution to the fighters are not real designers and all real experimental analasis that confirmed that there are so much more benefit from the system than not are just monkeys :doh:

If you are not thinking US way, you are not thinking at all ;)

vilters wrote:What do you want?

Maximum performance at whatever the cost? Weight? Maintenance? Mean time between failure? Logistics?
Or do you calculate "effect" versus cost, versus weight, versus maintenance, versus MTBF.

Something you do NOT put on an A/C does not weight anything, will cost nothing, and will never fail.

And seeing all video's from Paris, those Flight Control system guys did a GREAT Job.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-333501/
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 23:37

fastestbird wrote:The plane already broke the record for the shortest take off distance among russian planes (PAK-FA excluded because it is not operational yet) and there is no possibility whatsoever for the F-35 to have that type of the take off performance for two simple reasons.

The first is the better T/W ratio that comes in to play during take off and the other is TVC that provides rotation before vertical tail can generate enough dynamic pressure for the pitch up.

F-35 can't lift off from such a short take off distance Su-35S can and go to the vertical, period! It is physically impossible.

From what i understand, because F-35 wing has lesser sweep angle so it will have steeper lift curve that can aid in take off performance. Piston aircraft can take off at really short distance with their straight and thick wing.
How about F-35B and C, they can land on aircraft carrier
so surely shorter take off distance, no?



fastestbird wrote: There is no doubt about it, F-35 has some very nice high AoA capability, but that is not in the same league with the Russian fighters. More like F-18 level and we all know how that plane went with X-31.

I have no doubt that TVC fighters should have better high AoA fighting capabilities. But then F-18 didn't have the kind of acceleration that F-35 does nor does it have DAS to better keep track of target. AFAIK, F-16 and F-15 was able to won with their superior acceleration. So surely, decent high AoA capabilities + very good acceleration (as far as i know F-35A subsonic acceleration is better than Su-27, Su-35, not my words but Andraxxus and gta4) + decent roll rate (AFAIK, high wing loading aircraft with mass concentrated in the center often roll faster than one with big wing area and mass more spread out) + DAS + HOBS missiles will be more than adequate for close in dogfight.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 13:44

fastestbird wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And why all the personal attacks towards everybody?


There are no personal attacks in my statement, I'm just stating the obvious. If you feel insulted I honestly apologize!

But look at this from another perspective, you had absolutely no analytic and critical approach towards this subject and you praised the worst video comparisons on the youtube made by a person with real mental issues, and at the end you came to the conclusion (that is based on nothing accept your hype about the F-35) that the plane has more power than it really has?! How did you calculate that, I'm really intrigued?

If that is not fanboyish behavior, then I don't know what is?

The rest of your comments only confirms the fact that you are not able to admit that there is some other fighter that can do something better than F-35, or you are not able to comprehend that?

Sure, but at that point Su-35 already had quite a lot of speed from accelerating on dry thrust for about 10 seconds and thus the time on AB was very short. It was impressive for sure, but IMO not really much more so than what F-35 did.


This is what I'm talking about!

The plane started to roll with engines almost on idle (look at the cross sectional opening of the nozzle) and the speed that was generated before the throttle was opened up was in the range of me running. In other words, the plane was just wasting time going really slow before full military and burners are lit.


LOL, you must be one hell of a runner... If you want analysis, your own posts are far from any kind of analysis.

Why don't we look at Su-35 performance from another angle:



This seems to be from another flight, but in both cases it took almost identical 15-16 seconds from break release to rotation. So the takeoff was likely very similar all around as takeoff speed seems to be similar. Here we can see that it had plenty of speed before hitting AB. I agree that it was still pretty impressive short takeoff, but viewing angle in your video made it look much better than what it really was.

Compare it with F-35 performance with almost identical viewing angle:



It took 10-11 seconds from break release to rotation and F-35 clearly had more speed and could climb steeper from there. I'd rate the two very close to each other and both are definitely impressive performances. If Su-35 would've lit the AB right from the start, it might well be very similar to what F-35 did here. Alternatively I'm sure F-35A can come very close to matching what Su-35 did in your video. F-35A has actually better nominal T/W ratio in dry thrust compare to Su-35 whereas in AB it has slightly lower nominal value. Of course it depends on what thrust value for AB we are using for 117S AB thrust as 14,000 kgf is the "Combat mode full AB thrust" and 14,500 kgf is "Maximum AB thrust".

I do agree that Su-35 has shown some great maneuvers and clearly has excellent maneuverability. F-35 has also shown some great maneuvers and also has excellent maneuverability. I do think that Russian jets have done more flashy moves, but F-35 shows have been more combat maneuvering oriented. It might be very possible that F-35 can't do all somersault type maneuvers that TVC controlled jets, but I don't see any real combat value in those maneuvers. They do show great resistance to engine stalls etc. though. It seems F-35 has great maneuverability compared to all non-TVC fighters and even comparable to TVC equipped ones in many maneuvers.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 18:40

fastestbird wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And why all the personal attacks towards everybody?


There are no personal attacks in my statement, I'm just stating the obvious. If you feel insulted I honestly apologize!

But look at this from another perspective, you had absolutely no analytic and critical approach towards this subject and you praised the worst video comparisons on the youtube made by a person with real mental issues, and at the end you came to the conclusion (that is based on nothing accept your hype about the F-35) that the plane has more power than it really has?! How did you calculate that, I'm really intrigued?

If that is not fanboyish behavior, then I don't know what is?

The rest of your comments only confirms the fact that you are not able to admit that there is some other fighter that can do something better than F-35, or you are not able to comprehend that?

Sure, but at that point Su-35 already had quite a lot of speed from accelerating on dry thrust for about 10 seconds and thus the time on AB was very short. It was impressive for sure, but IMO not really much more so than what F-35 did.


This is what I'm talking about!

The plane started to roll with engines almost on idle (look at the cross sectional opening of the nozzle) and the speed that was generated before the throttle was opened up was in the range of me running. In other words, the plane was just wasting time going really slow before full military and burners are lit.


There's were no personal attacks in your previous post(s)?? Really??
Not only there were personal attacks in your previous posts but you continue them in your latest post - See the highlighted parts in your post which were underlined and put in bold. If you don't recognize this as personal attacks than you certainly don't have any notion of common sense whatsoever.

Moreover and mentioning the parts that I underlined and put in bold (of your post) I can't stop to find how ridiculous you "sound" when you accused hornetfinn "of accepting nothing but his supposed hype on the F-35" when in fact hornetfinn is one of the most reasonable and more knowledgeable persons here at F-16.net - And there is a good number of such people around here.

Moreover you accuse the creator of those F-35 comparison videos (in Youtube) for having "mental issues" but all you have posted in order to prove otherwise was a couple of another videos which also don't prove anything! And yet, when you were challenged in providing more lets say "technical evidence" all you said was:
- I don't have time to post, bla bla bla...

This again proves how pathetic you look since you accuse others of not knowing nothing and yet it's you who hasn't prove to know anything relevant :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1984
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 19:15

fastestbird wrote:In other words the people that have implemented this solution to the fighters are not real designers and all real experimental analasis that confirmed that there are so much more benefit from the system than not are just monkeys
/



Nope - the Russians know exactly what they are doing - YOU however do not - big difference.



If anyone is wondering fastestbird crops every now on here to troll the forum - this child goes under peregrinefalcon on Key pubs and DCS forums - of course he cannot exhibit this behaviour at DCS less he be banned in 3 seconds :wink:
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 20:31

Does anyone know if the F-35 was introduced as the F-22 is introduced at airshows? That all F-22's are fully combat ready and are flown in shows at combat weight without any limitations in the performance. Russian A/C (except the T-50) can not boast this tremendous capability.

Early in the F-22/35 development words like agility and control were used, and that is reflected in their performance, the ability to maneuver from one maneuvering state to another without much lose of performance and control. Russian performance with T/V was seen as out of control, now they have refined their shows to reflect more control.

Although, I admire Russian A/C, the design and performance are beautiful and spectacular. I also believe that any ounce of performance advantage you have in your fighter, even at shows, can be an advantage in combat. It's like saying my jet is to fast or to slow, there was a day when every jet made was was faster than the one before and then it shifted to how slow can we go. In combat you may find yourself in a situation where you need that extra part of the envelope, even though you shouldn't or don't want to be there, whether dog fighting or dodging a missile.

The mind blowing part of this conversation is the combined characteristics of the F-22/35 maneuverability, speed, stealth and SA which the Russians have not achieved.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 14:37

Let's see how the fastestbird lies:
fastestbird wrote:Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKWMXAfKRA&t=0s

Old Su-35 (it is actually Su-37 without TVC) could do the same stuff and much more. The same control laws are used for Su-30MKI in perfected form. In other words, all Su-30MKI variants can perform similar maneuvers without TVC. According to Russian ingenieurs PAK FA can do all post stall maneuvers wihtout TVC, just at slower rate.


This is in fact the thrust vectored Su-37 (not Su-35), the evidence is the tail number 711. The OP who uploaded the video made a mistake in the title of the video.

Can you give any proof of this phrase?

"According to Russian ingenieurs PAK FA can do all post stall maneuvers wihtout TVC"

Isn't the original phrase

"PAK FA can do post stall maneuvers wihtout TVC" and you let an "all" slipped in?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 14:40

fastestbird wrote:

This is the most common thing this joker is doing.

In this case he is comparing classical high G loop (the Su-27 is performing) with post-stall nose pointing loop (F-35 is performing).


How could you prove that F-35 is already stalled? (it must get stalled first to get into the post-stall phase)

And, could Su-27 perform post-stall nose pointing loop?
Last edited by gta4 on 27 Jul 2017, 15:12, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 14:43

fastestbird wrote:This is the basic example how this joker is manipulating the videos.

He took this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKpUv_qlC0&t=0s where we can see at 5:36 that F-35 is doing the touch down and going up again. He cut the part before the plane is touching the ground and he labeled the video with the deceptive title "F-35 vertical take-off without afterburner. Beats Russian fighters".


Don't you know that landing speed is smaller than take-off speed? In this sense, touch-and-go is harder than simply taking off, because you don't have the opportunity to accumulate speed on the runway.
Last edited by gta4 on 27 Jul 2017, 15:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 14:49

fastestbird wrote:
gta4 wrote:
armedupdate wrote:Any Rafale comparison?


As far as what the video shows:

1) 360 roll rate
F-35 has significantly higher roll rate in this video:
https://youtu.be/_DzqERHh7Tg?t=12s


Of course it does, when you speed up the video you get such results ;)



Original video here. This is an OFFICIAL VIDEO!
https://youtu.be/qceZALofOcg?t=1m16s

Do you need more official video showing F-35's high roll rate? You will be embarrassed.
Last edited by gta4 on 27 Jul 2017, 15:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 14:56

fastestbird wrote:There is no doubt about it, F-35 has some very nice high AoA capability, but that is not in the same league with the Russian fighters. More like F-18 level and we all know how that plane went with X-31.


Any russian NON-TVC jet in the same league as F-35 and F-18? And, do you know how X-31 got his a$$ kicked by F-18 when tvc was switched off?

This video is a SU-37 instead of a non-thrust vectored SU-35. The proof is the tail number 711.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKWMXAfKRA&t=0s
The title is confusing, which is very common because so many magazines confuses these two planes in that era.

Su-37 is simply a thrust-vectored version of the old Su-35, so tecnically you can still call Su-37 "Su-35", but that doesn't mean you can call it a non-thrust vectored Su-35.

Remember, tail number 711, thrust vectored.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 15:15

fastestbird wrote:And he is bragging all the time how F-35 is limited to 7G and is not aware of the fact that PAK-FA is limited to 5G.


Again. Proof?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 15:28

To fastestbird:

Show me a non-thurst-vectored Russian jet who can loop 270 deg in 9 seconds.
9s 270 deg.png
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 23:16

This whole comparison via youtube of post stall maneuvers F-35 vs. PAK FA conjures up visions of Indian Jones for me.

You know, the one where the karate master goes through all his fancy karate moves, then Indiana Jones pulls out his 357 magnum (or whatever) and blows him to smithereens...

Guess who Indiana Jones is in this example? :D
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests