F-35 vs all non-thrust vectored fighter jets

[juretrn]

I just googled "Red Flag 2008 Su-30".
The amount of butthurt Indians... oh boy.

Here we go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KBmv6HBltM

Yep, ol' colonel triggered them hard.

[fastestbird]

LOL, you must be one hell of a runner...

As a matter of fact I am

If you want analysis, your own posts are far from any kind of analysis.

Look, I'm not the one claiming that F-35 has more power than it really has by eyeballing the video, and it seems that I have enough of analytic approach not to be fooled by staged/manipulated and meaningless video comparisons and certainly I'm not the one expressing gratitude to the joker that has made those videos like many of you did.

But if you like them so much I'll be happy to inform you that F-18 can do a Cobra maneuver with a bunch of missiles on an air show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg6ywg98JYE

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".

My last take on this one:

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever for F-35 to have the same minimum take off distance as Su-35S, especially if they are fueled for the same distance.
Su-35S has excellent CLmax, it has better T/W ratio and most importantly it has TVC that can rotate the plane (by pitching/increasing the AoA you are creating much more lift for takeoff) way before elevators can produce enough pressure for rotation. F-35 has showed very nice takeoff performance but it simply can't beat that.

Now take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFWJWy6JA7c&t=327s

When you play two videos simultaneously it takes almost exactly the same amount of time for them to lift off and to be honest Su-27 looked like it was climbing at very fast pace at more steeper angle through most of the climb.

If that was Su-35S the results would be even better because that plane can accelerate much faster even with more than one tone of payload over the regular Su-27. 4 more tones of thrust can do that to a plane.

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.

Let me get this straight, because one plane is more maneuverable and because it has presented wider spectrum of maneuvers and capabilities it is flashy, and other plane that is less maneuverable with narrower flight envelope is actually more combat maneuvering oriented?

Fascinating!

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.

Have you even bother to watch the videos I have posted where two PAK-FA are simulating close combat using that flashy moves?
And as far as I know, there were never those type of maneuvers such as somersault/kulbit and double backflips in PAK-FA's demos. That type of maneuvers are done to show the controllability of the plane at extreme situations and the resistance to departure from controlled flight.

Just to give you perspective on difference between these two types of maneuverability.
F-35 has similar high AoA capability as F-18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5CyPAC6qbI
F-18 also did a pedal turn on that video.

When they pitted the F-18 against the X-31 without using the TVC, the F-18 came victorious in most of engagements because it had better acceleration, sustained and instantaneous turn rate together with better high AoA maneuverability.

The addition of TVC alone was enough for X-31 to beat the F-18 in more than 90% of the time.
Now imagine F-18 fighting against the PAK-FA that is superior to F-18 both kinematically and has the same or better level of high AoA maneuverability as X-31? And yes, PAK-FA will be superior kinematically against the F-35 to

[pmi]

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...

S&W Hand Ejector in .455 Webley

[gta4]

To fastestbird

Long reply text is useless if you can not find a russian non tvc jet that could flip 270 deg in 9 seconds.

[gta4]

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

To fastestbird

It has been proven mathmatically that F35 has better subsonic acceleration than su27/35

[fastestbird]

Let's see how the fastestbird lies:

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?

If anything I don't have the habit of lying!

You can see that I have said that this was the Su-37, but without TVC and no, the OP didnt made a mistake.

http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/6307 ... iya-serii/

11104● Т10М-11 №711 (п/п 16.11.1993 – В.Д. Остренко), 02.1994–08.1994 были выполнены доработки под установку нового двигателя и нового оборудования в кабине, в августе 1994 г. получил песчаный камуфляж, в 1995 г. установлены АЛ-31Ф с УВТ, п/п 02.04.1996 (Е.И. Фролов), позднее получил собственное обозначение Су-37. Принимал участие в авиасалонах Фарнборо`96, Сеул`96, Ле-Бурже`97, МАКС`97, Сантьяго`98, ILA`98, Сеул`01. За весь период испытаний в период с 1996 по 1998 года, выполнено более 200 полётов с суммарным налётом 227 часов. После в 1998–2000 годах самолёт стоял на доработках, на самолёт установлены обычные двигатели АЛ-31Ф, изменена система управления и кабинная индикация, борт подготовлен для участие в южно-корейском тендере, п/п 10.2000 (Ю.М. Ващук). 19.12.2002 авария из-за отказа ЭДСУ.

After year 2000 the TVC engines were replaced with regular AL-31F and more advanced flight control system. The plane was renamed to Su-35 again and as such was presented to south Korean tender. The plane was doing that display without TVC. It is evident that the post stall maneuvers were somewhat slower and that there were absence of more complex maneuvers such as kulbit which was the Su-37 trademark.

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

It would be my guess that F-35 should stall its wings at 50 deg AoA, and by looking the various videos of the maneuver it seems that at the end of the loop there is vortex bursts which indicates that the wings are stalled. I could be wrong, and if I am I stand corrected.

And, could Su-27 perform post-stall nose pointing loop?

No, because somewhere between 30 and 50 deg AoA the plane has stability issues. By adding the TVC that problem is solved and we can see how tight and fast the plane can turn, hence the reason I made the comparison.

To fastestbird:

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

9s 270 deg.png

First of all, this is pure example of 180 deg loop, not 270 deg one. The plane is pointing strait up and strait down at about the same angle, hence it is much closer to 180 deg loop.

Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un-5sqTYR08

Su-27 is doing high AoA loop right from the takeoff full of fuel and it takes about 6 seconds or so to finish the 180 deg.

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.

That was no classical approach and you can't tell the speed just by looking, but the point wasn't that, I have already stated and presented that even heavy transport or civil planes without afterburners can climb at steep angle. The point was in the fact that the joker was editing and labeling the video in the way to make the people believe what he wants them to believe.

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.

I'm not embarrassed at all

I know that the rolling sequence was from official video and it is absolutely not uncommon for them to speed up some part of the video for more dramatic effect in marketing purpose. Everybody is doing that from time to time and it is obvious that this was much faster than normal speed. As a matter of fact it is on average 1,5 times faster than the fastest roll I have recorded for the F-35 during airshow.

How many time do I need to remind you about the weight conversion?

For sustained turn rates:

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510&start=75

What I have proved:

Su-27 at 18920kg flying weight could sustain at 21 deg/sec, and that is about 1800kg total fuel weight.

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-15C needs only 1600kg fuel, resulting in 15200kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 22.5 deg/sec (converted from 20.5 deg/sec at 37000lb. See flight manual).

You have only proved time and time again that you can't make a difference between controlled maneuvering and departure from controlled flight and you have also proved that the numbers you have are nowhere near the true numbers from the flight manual.

[fastestbird]

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

You got me partner!

Just for the record, I know nothing about DCS forums and I have never posted there. I have posted on Key publishing and unfortunately here...what a waste of time!

[eloise]

First of all, this is pure example of 180 deg loop, not 270 deg one. The plane is pointing strait up and strait down at about the same angle, hence it is much closer to 180 deg loop.

Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un-5sqTYR08

Su-27 is doing high AoA loop right from the takeoff full of fuel and it takes about 6 seconds or so to finish the 180 deg.

The f-35 finished 180° loops in the third photo.
Start loop at 1:54 finished at 2

I question that part about take off full of fuel too, standard for airshow is around 50%

[fastestbird]

The f-35 finished 180° loops in the third photo.
Start loop at 1:54 finished at 2

I stand corected, they are about the same time. Thanks!

I question that part about take off full of fuel too, standard for airshow is around 50%

I was not talking about 100% full fuel tanks, I was taking about full of fuel compared to the middle of the show for example or the end of the show when the plane has drastically less fuel compared to the start of the show.

[gta4]

I am so sorry but someone has already used the SU-27 video provided by fastestbird and made the comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS9oBv7iZTM

Does he still claim that they are evenly matched?

The first 180 deg look close, but the last 70-90 deg does not.

[gta4]

You have only proved time and time again that you can't make a difference between controlled maneuvering and departure from controlled flight and you have also proved that the numbers you have are nowhere near the true numbers from the flight manual.

I don't what to waste time to post the tutorial again.
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52918&start=15
The speed-g load curve in Su-27 manual could not be used to calculate turn rate directly, because the indicated mach number is smaller than the true mach number, especially during maneuvering (i.e. In a 2.5G turn, the indecated mach number is 0.2 while the true mach number is at least 0.25)

If you don't do the conversion, you will significantly overestimate the turn rate.

The "18920kg, 21deg/sec sustained turn" is from this report, which is converted from the flight manual:

[gta4]

I am pretty sure F-22 uses 18000 lbs of fuel (near full fuel) in airshow demos. The documents are open to public.

[gta4]

No, because somewhere between 30 and 50 deg AoA the plane has stability issues. By adding the TVC that problem is solved and we can see how tight and fast the plane can turn, hence the reason I made the comparison.

" By adding the TVC that problem is solved "
This phrase is wrong.

TVC also adds additional pitch moment. The tight turn was aided by the pitch moment, so it could not be used to illustrate "how the turn rate would be if high AOA stability issue is solved".

The normal logic is:

"Non tvc F-35 out-rates Non tvc flanker in vertical loop.
So if equipped with tvc, F-35 will still out-rate a flanker in vertical loop."

[charlielima223]

I think back to what retired test pilot Jon Beesley said about the F-35... more importantly what he says at the end of the video. Granted an old video but his predictions seem to be spot on.

[eloise]

Based on the paint color and the name of the pilot who flown the airplane (Anatoly Kvochur), i find out that it belongs to Russian aerobatic display team. The team has following aircraft: Su-27P (595), Su-27PU (596), Su-27PU (597) and later Su-27PD (598). These aircraft have no military installations (no radars, IRST, or dispensers) and all underwings hardpoints were removed. They are essentially stripped down version of Su-27 for better performance
http://www.sukhoi.mariwoj.pl/su-30-ru-lii.htm