Russian Stealth Fighter and premature shutdown of F-22

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

DarthAmerica

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 627
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2006, 15:17

Unread post17 Feb 2010, 17:13

GeoGen,

Of course you don't believe it! We've already established that you don't know enough to believe it. It would be like if I started writing about neurosurgery to a group of doctors. I think it's cute that you say things like "strategic deterence airframes"...lol. Just talk straight and stick to what you know. It's clear that you are passionate about the subject but passion and understanding are two different things. For instance when you say no one knows the state of the world in x years, well that's true to an extent. But in a military context we do know with reasonable certainty the most likely and most dangerous courses of actions threats will take. I know that there is no chance of PAK FA going IOC in significant numbers anytime before 2017. I know Russia does not have the capability to rebuild the VVS overnight. This isn't arrogance and optimism. It's through detailed knowledge of the problem, industrial capacity, technical know how and the timelines associated with the changes. When the Raptor announcement was made, SecDef Gates specifically mentioned that it would be 2017-2020 timeframe before Russia and China had an operational 5th Generation fighter. Low and behold Sukhoi just confirmed that. Do you think he was just guessing? Obviously not. PAK FA and how many "strategic deterence airframes", what ever the hell that means, we need were a part of the decision. He also mentioned the FACT that buying more "strategic deterence airframes" would mean buying less of something else. In case you haven't noticed we are at war. One would hope the defense budget is being spent on things necessary to win the wars. So, what in your mind should we buy less of GeoGen? Take anything away and it has ripple effects. You don't seem to get that.

To date, you still haven't managed to mention a threat that requires more Raptors. I'll simplify it for you. List those threats that can put more than 48 air superiority fighter sorties in the air simultaneously and actually battlemanage/coordinate them effectively.

-DA
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 Feb 2010, 04:17

@Exec
Sorry exec, which missile models are you referring to? What's your source?

Don't get me wrong here, I didn't really set out to be APA's great defender or anything but everytime they are mentioned on this and probably other forums I get this automatic knee-jerk reaction. And frankly, everytime I look up these things on APA the knee jerk guy is wrong or has misread or has cherry-picked one factoid and used it to generate a conclusion about everything on their site.

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Sept03.pdf

The above document contains a table on page 34 that lists a number of Russian missile parameters. I've reproduced a section here for example. (Sorry I couldn't find anything more recent I only did a quick search):

Type Kinematic Range
-------- -------------------
R-27R1 43.2NMI (69.1km)
R-27T1 38.9NMI (62.2km)
R-27P 38.9NMI (62.2km)
R-27A 43.2NMI (69.1km)
R-27ER 1 70.2NMI (112.3km)
R-27ET 1 64.8NMI (103.7km)
R-27EP 64.8NMI (103.7km)
R-27EA 70.2NMI (112.3km)
R-77 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77T 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77P 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77M 86.5NMI (138.4km)

The table is prefaced with the following statement: "This is a current open source compilation based on manufacturers’ and third party
data therefore figures should be treated with appropriate caution (Author)."

How is that clown-like? He's simply referring to the manufacturers claims, the manufacturer has claimed these are the kinematic ranges. I don't know if that's independent of the aircraft speed when launched, wiser heads than mine can decide. Is it common knowledge that these ranges are wrong? How has that been determined? Again what is your source?

I can't be bothered with checking the radar stuff but I'm going to assume that it's based on manufacturers claims again. How do you verify those values? Do you know anyone in an airforce which is operating this type of equipment well enough for them to reveal to you what their detection ranges are? Are the claims outrageously outside what the American manufacturers of similar equipment claim? Throw me a bone here.

The big deal with APA seems to be centered around the fact that they think the JSF is crap. That just seems to generates a whole lot of apparently emotional responses from people. I really wonder if he was a great supporter of the JSF if they would still think he was an idiot. I really wonder if there just hasn't been a deliberate campaign by LM to shout down any JSF detractors.
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post18 Feb 2010, 09:49

jeffb wrote:@Exec
Sorry exec, which missile models are you referring to? What's your source?

Which missiles?
R-27R
R-77 (RVV-AE)
AIM-120A

Sources are pretty good:
R-77
Image

R-27R
Image

AIM-120A (russian source - I also have US source for aim-120 range, but i'm not sure i can post it here)

Image

I can tell you that the real amraam range should be like 10% greater than that


Type Kinematic Range
-------- -------------------
R-27R1 43.2NMI (69.1km)
R-27T1 38.9NMI (62.2km)
R-27P 38.9NMI (62.2km)
R-27A 43.2NMI (69.1km)
R-27ER 1 70.2NMI (112.3km)
R-27ET 1 64.8NMI (103.7km)
R-27EP 64.8NMI (103.7km)
R-27EA 70.2NMI (112.3km)
R-77 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77T 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77P 54NMI (86.4km)
R-77M 86.5NMI (138.4km)


The calculations are wrong.
You have to multiply NMI range by 1,85.

[/quote]The table is prefaced with the following statement: "This is a current open source compilation based on manufacturers’ and third party
data therefore figures should be treated with appropriate caution (Author).[/quote]
Ok, but he uses these ranges to prove that the western fighters and missiles are worse than russian/soviet.

[/quote] I don't know if that's independent of the aircraft speed when launched, wiser heads than mine can decide. Is it common knowledge that these ranges are wrong? How has that been determined? Again what is your source?[/quote]
This ranges always refer to high speed head on engagements.

Right now I don't have time to explain the radar stuff - have to go to work.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post18 Feb 2010, 10:50

Czesc, exec - Good arguments, but just a minor counter-point in fairness of discussion without emotions attached... one could presume some of the speculated assessments in this popularly hyped scenario, i.e. hypothetical Su-35S vs F-35 include some improved or extended ranged/smaller finned 'PD' or e.g., 'M1' ramjet powered variant, in terms of potential engagement envelope? That isn't too radical of a supposition to make. The point being, with potential extended ranged IR variants included, and means to track farther out despite any mutual 'jamming environment' on each side (whether via 3rd party tracking or passive track, etc), the potential exists according to the examples of a superior BVR first shot opportunity (at least vs a 120C-7). Of course, spoofing/countering aside... with longer range engagements usually comes lower closing missile speeds, albeit less than dual-pulse motors and ramjet all things being equal with same missile - enabling relative survivability to maneuvering targets, Bottom line, no matter how potentially equalizing the high tech platform, even today (and near term at least) all modern fighters are assumed to be equally judged according to WVR performances as well.

Otherwise, all things at the high-end potentially being balanced out, modern/future era engagement regardless of range are arguably something never to be assured outright by one or the other. Regards.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post18 Feb 2010, 12:33

Darth - Straw man check..

Look, I know enough over the years from following publicly available info, history and govt released data to contribute in various subject matter punch for punch, thanks. But nice dodge on my points, replying in kind via fallacious inductions and predictable 'poisoning the well' on my behalf - I would argue is all you have established.

Let's just either argue each others statements and claims as I try to do with yours, or don't even post, OK? As a deep-thinker on various subjects (discussing/contemplating matters and predicting scenarios quite often before they are mainstream), I can hold my own I think and I'm really just trying to engage you in dialogue if you're interested.. nothing less.

Re: "strategic block 35 F-22 deterrence airframes" comment and terminology, whatever. I'm pretty sure you comprehend the principle, i.e. block 35 F-22s being a strategic platform, so how about disputing it or expanding on the context if you feel interested... or just ignore it, OK? It's not that difficult sir to have an intellectual, academic, civil conversation.

Re: SecDef predicting PAK FA being IOC in significant numbers no sooner than 2017?? Good for him, good call. Although really, even I, the guy trying to talk about things I dont know have previously calculated that similar timeframe into the total formula, just as I've been assessing mature F-35A not achieving IOC in significant numbers until around 2016. It's not rocket science.. but the point being, No, the above is a poor example of militarily able to predict accurately the status of world affairs in 10, 15, even 5 yrs out. The current Occupation-COIN policies today being a prime example of 'not knowing' the contingencies required ahead.

Re: F-22 shutdown however and based on the raw projections, e.g., w/ F-22's hypothetical replacement commencing in 2040, to shut the line down @ 85 future-deterrent, strategic block 35 Raptor airframes (while absorbing attrition and normal retirements along the way), is in fact an arguably inadequate size for maintaining future balance of power. Moreover, without knowing future of F-35 program procurement outcome and spiral block development, and with entering a period of far more uncertainty according to QDR, it is perfectly valid to support at least some nominal continuation of the line (especially to augment plausible, reduced JSF/restarted 4.5 legacy acquisition scenario which is largely overlooked). Even if new build F-22 were placed into reserve storage, while exploiting the mature line which is producing operational, gap-filling replacement a/c today - it just seems to defeat the whole national defense purpose of recapitalization to shut down now. Finally, no, there is little evidence also that the feasibility and rationale would exist to either technically, economically or Politically reconstruct/re-train/re-supply the F-22 'line' later on as an alternative solution.

(note: I'm not arguing the F-22 'line' will remain open producing additional a/c, just that it would be justifiable to do so).
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post18 Feb 2010, 12:53

exec wrote:AIM-120A (russian source - I also have US source for aim-120 range, but i'm not sure i can post it here)


Could you post this graph again, but larger to be able to read notes? Thx.
Cheers, Cola
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post19 Feb 2010, 02:54

@ exec
Nice graphs exec, but still not really a source. Where do the graphs come from?
Sorry about the nautical miles to kilometers thing, that was me.

If he's deliberately ignoring sources of real data like reports on test articles captured during Gulf I or II or intel gained from air forces who operate the russian a/c and weapons then, ok, that's lazy/bad. If he doesn't have access to data like that or he can't confirm data like that then he's stuck with the manufacturers claims and what he's doing is perfectly reasonable from an analytical point of view. Again not really clown-like.

He doesn't attempt to prove anything with the data on russian missiles though, he just goes onto likely scenarios based on the figures he has.
Some or most of those scenarios suggest that likely BVR and WVR combat outcomes aren't nearly as cut and dried as LM and MD et.al would have you believe and that seems to upset alot of people. It's important to realise that the AIM series aren't infallible and that they are not a 100 percent solution; to assume they are is just bloody silly and asking for another nasty surprise like Korea and Vietnam.

It's bizarre to me that someone points out that the wests preconceptions might need an update or re-think or that we're becoming complacent and a whole lot of people stick their fingers in their ears and start shouting "nah, nah your an idiot".
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post19 Feb 2010, 11:18

geogen wrote:Czesc, exec - Good arguments, but just a minor counter-point in fairness of discussion without emotions attached... one could presume some of the speculated assessments in this popularly hyped scenario, i.e. hypothetical Su-35S vs F-35 include some improved or extended ranged/smaller finned 'PD' or e.g., 'M1' ramjet powered variant, in terms of potential engagement envelope? That isn't too radical of a supposition to make.

Czesc geogen. Look - Kopps claims are often based on a comparison of today's American equipment and tomorrow's Russian equipment. Plus he often compares American radar's tracking range vs Russian radar's long-range-mode detection range. He uses many, many tricks to prove his claims.


jeffb wrote:@ exec
Nice graphs exec, but still not really a source. Where do the graphs come from?

Not really a source? :shock: That's the best source you can get!
First graph is from the manufacturer, second and third is from Samoliet MiG-29: Boyewoye primienieye (MiG-29 manual for Russian pilots). I have another source (American) for AIM-120A range, but i don't know if I can put it here, but it says that the AMRAAM's range is 19 NM (35km) at 11 000 ft and closing speed ~1000 knots. I'll put a black dot and line to show you the AMRAAM's range (red dots and line is the R-27R range).

Image

If he's deliberately ignoring sources of real data like reports on test articles captured during Gulf I or II or intel gained from air forces who operate the russian a/c and weapons then, ok, that's lazy/bad. If he doesn't have access to data like that or he can't confirm data like that then he's stuck with the manufacturers claims and what he's doing is perfectly reasonable from an analytical point of view. Again not really clown-like.

He IS ignoring sources that don't support his claims. I've read a lot of his articles, and i I know this guy has a lot of knowledge about aircrafts, radars, missiles and how all this stuff works etc etc. Sources I have are not classified, and I'm sure he has them. Kopp manipulates facts and uses only those that supports his claims.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post19 Feb 2010, 13:07

jeffb wrote:
The table is prefaced with the following statement: "This is a current open source compilation based on manufacturers’ and third party
data therefore figures should be treated with appropriate caution (Author)."


Except him and Goon NEVER take their own advice. Every claim they make is based on nothing but open source data, they do NOT have access to serious classified intelligence, Kopp has never served a day as a civilian OR a sworn member of a military force and Goon hasn't been in RAAF for nearly 30 years and they take the Russian manufacturers claims at face value whilst denying the claims of other fighter manufacturers whose product competes with their fancied topic...

Then they include Russian future developments in their "comparisons" against current Western platforms and then patently ignore the reality of air combat and bring everything down to a 1 v 1 fighter comparison.

Sorry, but warfare hasn't been this simple since a 3rd person joined in a fight...

Considering all this, do you really wonder why using them gains one absolutely no traction whatsoever in a discussion? The best that can be said of them, is that they have a large collection of Russian marketing propaganda located at one site.

I wonder if they've tried to bill Rosoboronexport yet? It wouldn't surprise me....

:twisted:
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 08:02

@exec & conan

So what you guys are saying is that Kopp is some kind of fifth-column subversive. That he's
making all this stuff up to undermine the morale of the west or something? No, no that's right
he's in the pay of the russian aircraft manufacturers. Come on guys, that's just paranoid drivel.
That or it's a deliberate misinformation campaign against the APA analysts instigated by vested
interests.

Conan, I agree most a2a these days isn't one-to-one but if you're going to compare apples and
apples then you have to get down to the base cases. The RAND study that looked at what might
happen if the Chinese tried to invade Taiwan assumed that in the end 10-20 raptors would be facing
3 REGIMENTS of flankers. The raptors all escape but the surviving flankers leak through and take
out the US tankers and AWACS. So if you want be more realistic about the numbers on either side
in an a2a stouch, by all means be my guest.

When I read their analysis I never come away with the opinion that they are over-hyping the opposition
systems or under-hyping the western ones. It's quite clear if you read carefully that they think that the
american equipment is years more advanced than the russian stuff but that the russians aren't idiots
and are countering by building bigger, and as they get better technology from the west, smarter systems.

A (very)quick bit of research found that their quoted figures for missile ranges for the R-27 at least
matches the stuff published most other places on the web. If you DO have access to serious intelligence
about this stuff then by all means share (with sources).

Range of R-27 (various models) as reported by APA: 70-130 km
R-27R1 43.2NMI (80 km)
R-27T1 38.9NMI (72 km)
R-27P 38.9NMI (72 km)
R-27A 43.2NMI (80 km)
R-27ER1 70.2NMI (130 km)
R-27ET1 64.8NMI (120 km)
R-27EP 64.8NMI (120 km)
R-27EA 70.2NMI (130 km)


I'm not a Jane's subscriber but this is available through their news website:
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/j ... _5_n.shtml

"Funding shortages and the current use of the R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo') family of missiles, later versions of which have a
maximum range of 70-110km, have further delayed the AA-12 programme, as has the fact that Russia currently
possesses few of the upgraded aircraft required to deploy the weapon. "

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r27.asp

"The R-27 is generally based on the 1970s/80s Soviet technology and does not possess the real “fire-and-forget”
capability. Only a limited number of the missile has been acquired by the PLAAF for its Russian-built Su-27 fighters.
The Chinese license-built version of the Su-27, designated J-11, may be equipped with an indigenous MRAAM. The
newer Su-30MKK is equipped with the more advanced R-77 (AA-12 Adder) active radar-homing MRAAM.

Specifications
R-27R/AA-10A R-27T/AA-10B R-27AE/AA-10E
Length 4.08m 3.79m 4.78m
Diameter 0.23m 0.23m 0.26m
Wingspan 0.77m 0.77m 0.80m
Launch Weight 253kg 254kg 350kg
Guidance Semi-active radar Infrared Active radar
Range 50~80km 45~70km 60~130km
Speed Mach 2.5~4.5 Mach 2.5~4.5 Mach 2.5~4.5
Warhead Expanding rod Expanding rod Expanding rod
Warhead Weight 39kg HE fragmentation 39kg HE fragmentation 39kg HE fragmentation

Last update: 20 October 2008"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

" Contractor Vympel
Date Deployed 1982
Range 2 - 80 km R-27R 70 km R-27T 130 km R-27RE 120 km R-27TE
Speed Mach 4
Propulsion One solid-propellant rocket motor
Guidance SARH R-27R, R-27E All-aspect Infrared R-27T, R-27TE
Warhead 39 kg expanding rod
Launch Weight 253 kg R-27R 254 kg R-27T 350 kg R-27RE 343 kg R-27TE
Length 3.70 m
Diameter 230 mm
Fin Span 0.77 m
Platforms Su-27, Su-33, Su-35, Mig-29, Yak-141

So apart from Jane's who think they only range out to 110 km APA is pretty much on the nose.

I don't want to be rude here and I don't want this thread to become all about APA but as I stated above until better
information can be confirmed the analyses are perfectly reasonable. Conan, of course they compare future russian
developments against current western systems! That's just saying this is what appears to be coming down the pipe
and if we don't move our asses this is where we'll be. Come on.

Considering all this Conan I do wonder why using them immediately results in buckets of vitriol. Every time I go back
and try to verify the claims of people like yourself who say that they're incompetent or liars I find (as I said earlier)
that your claims simply can't be supported, that essentially, you've misread or misinterpreted sections and then emotionally
rejected the site in it's entirety.

It shouldn't matter whether or not they are sworn members of a military force, attacking the person and not their arguments
is pretty poor form generally. To my thinking it essentially concedes the argument if you have to resort to name calling or
casting dispersions on their background and whether or not they've served in the military.

Nice one on the Rosoboronexport, how big was your last cheque from Lockheed Martin?
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 11:45

jeffb wrote: The RAND study that looked at what might
happen if the Chinese tried to invade Taiwan assumed that in the end 10-20 raptors would be facing
3 REGIMENTS of flankers. The raptors all escape but the surviving flankers leak through and take
out the US tankers and AWACS. So if you want be more realistic about the numbers on either side
in an a2a stouch, by all means be my guest.

And what about Republic of China Air Force? They're not defending their home? What about 144 F-16's, 56 Mirage-5, 127 F-CK-1 and 33 F-5E? Why are they not involved in the RAND study? What about Taiwan's air defence? What about surface-to-air missiles?


jeffb wrote:A (very)quick bit of research found that their quoted figures for missile ranges for the R-27 at least
matches the stuff published most other places on the web. If you DO have access to serious intelligence
about this stuff then by all means share (with sources).

(...)

So apart from Jane's who think they only range out to 110 km APA is pretty much on the nose.

Clearly, you have no idea how all this 'missile range' stuff works.
Missile ranges vary on different altitudes. The higher above sea level, the lower the density of air. So - higher means greater range.

All this ranges quoted by APA are probably correct, but they refer to high altitude - 20km above sea level (65 000 ft).

Look here:
Image

F-16's HUD. Closing speed ~1000 knots (1850 km/h), altitude ~11 000 ft (3,4 km). Launch zone ~19 NMI (35km). At this altitude R-27R range is ~20km and R-77 range is ~22km.
So now explain this:
Image

And what about this:
Image
my calculations for Su-30MKI and F-18E super hornet:
Su-30MKI - 50% fuel + 2klb AAM -> T/W ratio 1,03
F-18E - 50% fuel + 2klb AAM -> T/W ratio 1,10

And what about comparing Russian radars detection range vs US radars tracking range on one graph?. I have a word for it - manipulation.
Image

One more thing - Russians show their radar and missile max ranges under optimal conditions. US radar and missile ranges are classified. For example: AIM-120 range is officially "greater than 20 miles" (and in this case we know it's much greater than that). APG-81 tracking range is officially 'greater than 80 miles'. How much greater? None of us knows. But hey, look at Kopp's graph - APG-81 tracking range - 80 miles vs 1m2 target and Bars radar (N011) detection range ~77 miles (142km) vs 1m2 target. But didn't the Russians say that the Bars max detection range is 140km vs 2,5m2 target? What about tracking range? We know that tracking range is often like 2/3 - 3/4 detection range. So if you ask me - detection range should be 61 NMI vs 1m2 target and tracking range should be ~43 NMI.
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 15:57

Hahaha - Love the Su-30 Vs F-35 scenario - does it explain what tactics the Su-30 uses when it cant even detect the 35 so far out unless it has external stores? hmmm
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 16:03

jeffb wrote:@exec & conan

So what you guys are saying is that Kopp is some kind of fifth-column subversive. That he's
making all this stuff up to undermine the morale of the west or something? No, no that's right
he's in the pay of the russian aircraft manufacturers. Come on guys, that's just paranoid drivel.
That or it's a deliberate misinformation campaign against the APA analysts instigated by vested
interests.



Well they certainly make me laugh - perhaps they are comedy writers - but hey they want you to beleive it - and if you are then perhaps I've not given them enough credit!
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 16:54

Take a few snippets from this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html#3

Analysis of PAK-FA prototype airframe aerodynamic features shows a design which is superior to all Western equivalents, providing ‘extreme agility’, superior to that of the Su-35S, through much of the flight envelope

Just speechless - thats just a great analysis from a photo and video - well done :?


While the basic shaping observed on this first prototype of the PAK-FA will deny it the critical all-aspect stealth performance of the F-22 in BVR air combat and deep penetration, its extreme manoeuvrability/controllability design features, which result in extreme agility, give it the potential to become the most lethal and survivable fighter ever built for air combat engagements 3.


Ok the first part is a fair point to make - even I can make that judgement that the rear aspect wont be that stealthy - but look theres a ref number in - lets scroll down to reference number 3:




The authors will use the term “extreme manoeuvrability”, first coined by the Russians a decade ago, as this capability well exceeds what is described by the conventional Western term “super manoeuvrability”.

Oh its not a reference whatsoever - but a baseless statement about a super super duper form of agility thats sooo much better than the anything in the west :roll:




now to http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-150210-1.html

“The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D."



Has LMAggie been shooting his mouth off - where did he get that supposed fact from? - Oh silly me ref number 6 - which is one of their own articles!!! :lol:
Pilots claim the thing is similar in turning performance to an F-16 - if the 1969 F-4E (non slatted) double brick has a better turning performance in any part of the flight regime I will eat my hat!





The arrival of the PAK-FA therefore also irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, defined around a 1990s technology threat spectrum, in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. The F-35 will, not unlike legacy fighters, retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where neither the Su-35S nor the PAK-FA is deployed or is able to be deployed.

Lets see then - 2 jets not in service yet - 1 might not even reach production wtf do they know about their actual capabilities to make a statement like that?

and hold on wtf is this super lethal Su-35S he keeps going on about - thats right - its an SU-35BM - so a 4++ gen fighter then - wow :P



The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A’s aerodynamic performance is ‘retrograde’ when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it.

Bluh - I would expect the turbofan powered F-35 to cain the turbojet powered F-4E in most areas - apart from maybe top speed - please Karlo lets go head to head and see how i detect you 100 miles away - oh im not using radar - I can see the smoke trail from those amazing J79s!!!

Believe the missile hype and no manned craft can out turn a modern missile - maybe back in 1970s hey guys - which is where I assume you are stuck.

rant over
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post20 Feb 2010, 18:37

A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet.


0.8 Mach at 20,000 feet is 373 KCAS. Clean Phantom's 7.33G corner velocity was a much higher KCAS with negative Ps at just about any weight and altitude, certainly at 20K.

It's probably possible that the Phantom could get an instantaneous 5.5 Gs at 373 KCAS. I suspect that even at 40% internal fuel, the Ps is negative at 5.5 Gs at 20K, so you wouldn't have 373 KCAS for long, or if you chose to hold the 373 KCAS, you wouldn't be at 20,000 feet for long. In addition, the F4C, not the F-4E, probably had the best performance numbers of any of the USAF Phantoms.

I don't have the charts in front of me so I could be wrong, but it sure sounds bogus. As do the comparison numbers for the F-35, unless those are Mil power only numbers.

40% internal fuel in the Phantom is about 4900 lbs of JP4. At this point you have at best about 5 continuous minutes of AB use available to you before you run completely out of gas anyway.

However, just before you ran out of gas, you might actually be able to sustain 5.5 Gs at some lower altitude.

This is why the Phantoms were replaced with F-16's.

:D

OL
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests