F-22 and F-35 vs. Su-50 Firefox PAK FA

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

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 09:07

Read this latest article and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

Read the article thoroughly and then ping me your opinions.
Attachments
AFG-060705-004.jpg
F-22 Raptor
pak-fa_render2.jpg
Su-50 PAK FA
pak-fa-t-50-c.jpg
PAK FA vs. F-22
Offline

Rapec

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 10:13
  • Location: Poland

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 10:38

Well, i'm not so sure if PAK FA gets operational until 2017- rather 2020 and later. The production and deliveries of Su-35BM to Russian Air Force are supposed to start in 2011.

What's more, the F-22 and F-35 perfomance presented by the author is based on assumption that those fighters doesn't get any future upgrades, so their real perfomance may be far bether than it's given in this article. We can also read that radar detection ranges for APG-77 and APG-81 are pessimitics ones - real perfomance simply must be better.

And finally, detection of aircraft using IRST is one thing, while getting lock is another.

Regards.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 11:36

skyhigh wrote:Read the article thoroughly and then ping me your opinions.


I couldn't be bothered with it.

Their "analysis" is infantile and by their own admission, based soley upon open sourced data.

Then they get basic information that IS available wrong, because it interferes with their typical "pre-determined end point argument" (ie: F-22 is greater than anything on earth. F-35 is the most incapable fighter ever created. Therefore Australia should buy F-22 and F-111's upgraded by the authors of this very document).

That you continue to post this rubbish, speaks volumes about you.
Offline

muir

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2008, 18:29

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 11:55

The fact of the matter is, the PAK-FA doesn´t exist. Will it come into production, probably. Harder to say when though. When it does, will it be any good? Possibly. But who knows how good? Taking the russian wishlist as some kind of facts seems stupid. They may very well have to cut a lot of the goodies to keep the price down.

Still, I do think more F-22´s are needed simply because we don´t know what the future brings and whatver that might be the F-22 is most likely the best platform to handle surprises.
I don't have a problem with alcohol, I have a problem with reality.
Offline

tank_top

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 22:59

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 14:55

muir wrote:Still, I do think more F-22´s are needed simply because we don´t know what the future brings and whatver that might be the F-22 is most likely the best platform to handle surprises.


Oops, I misread what you said, never mind. :oops:

With that said I do agree that the post is garbage!
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 15:37

I saw Karlo kopps name and - well - still he puts nice pictures in sometimes
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 16:03

A poor article indeed for all the reasons that have been mentioned by other forum members before my post.
I want my 5 minutes back ;)
Offline

Kryptid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 01:16

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 16:43

*sigh* As much as I am interested in the PAK FA, there isn't enough information about it to determine its true performance. It's possible that the PAK FA will not meet all of its design goals. Or perhaps it will exceed its design goals. The prototype has yet to fly. How can any measure of its performance be anything but conjecture until it has been put through its paces?

Also, you call it the Su-50. I doubt that the production model will have that designation. Take note that the prototype for the Su-27 was designated the T-10. You can't really say that the production version of the T-50 will be called the Su-50. Production fighter jets designed by Sukhoi usually have an odd number in their designation (except for the Su-30). Where do you get "Firefox" from as being the NATO reporting name? It probably doesn't even have one yet.
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.
Offline

desx

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 03:14

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 18:50

"Where do you get "Firefox" from as being the NATO reporting name? It probably doesn't even have one yet."

heh that and it's the MiG-31's name.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 19:07

While we are at it, how about the worrying about a Chinese ripoff?

Image
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 19:57

For what it's worth, I don't think Sukhoi adhered to the odd numbered convention.

SU-20 & SU-22 swing-wing Fitters

SU-24 Fencer

SU-34 Fullback

Maybe it's an air-to-ground thing.

OL
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Apr 2009, 20:29

It occurred to me that if the were to be SU-50 were to be NATO code-named the "Fifty", it would make it the "Fifty, Fifty"....... which is probably optimistic as far as exchange rate against the F-22.

OL
Offline

BDF

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 13:54

Unread post05 Apr 2009, 00:47

Sigh, Kopp at it again. First off his theory of out maneuvering Slammers when they are high on kinetic energy (inside their no-escape zone) is abject nonsense. 2G barrel role? Please. I seriously do hope the Russians think that’s a viable tactic. APA keep beating that drum and it doesn’t carry a tune. Oh and btw, “Grisha” isn’t a former fighter pilot and he isn’t even Russian.

As usual, according to APA, Russian “threat-ware” is omnipotent and western equipment is utterly helpless. Anyone notice that even the mighty F-22 which previously was the object solution to every life’s problems (poverty, world hunger, world peace etc) is now showing cracks in its armor according APA?

This abstract is conveniently ignoring that IRSTs fundamental limitations are the same as any optical device. That is sensitivity and resolution are proportional to magnification and aperture size. Brochure ranges are always best case: clear spectral background, optimum aspect and cued acquisition (high magnification and small FOV)

Couple caveats that I’ve run into is that for IRST brochure ranges one should adjust them down about 30-35% to get a more accurate ”real life” number. Typical top end IRST are purporting front aspect non-afterburning fighter detection ranges on the order of 25-50nm. These are certainly cued high magnification acquisition modes which are woefully inadequate for volume searches. The wide FOV search modes degrade expected performance by half or even two thirds. So were looking at a maximum effective search range of approximately 15-25nm for current arrays under average to optimum spectral conditions.

QWIP are of course the next step in IR detectors and represent a rough 2-3 fold improvement in sensitivity vis-à-vis current MCT detectors. I’ve heard of ranges on the order of 80nm for future IRSTs. So were looking at an average “real world” search range on the order of approximately about 30 – 40nm. From what I hear the F-22 can drop a slammer down a conventional fighter’s throat at 55nm w/ a Pk on the order of almost 70% provided is has an altitude and speed advantage (frontal aspect I’m sure). I don’t know if that is the latest -120D or the earlier missiles.

Of course what also isn’t being addressed is inability for ranging and identification at those long ranges. Yes IRST can do those things but only at much shorter ranges. Even with high magnification at long range the target is merely a blob and you’ll have to wait until it gets (much) closer to get enough resolution to ID and utilize passive ranging.

Networking multiple jets to triangulate a contacts position is possible there are limits here too. Typical IRSTs have a bearing resolution of about 1 degree and I recall one example where three jets are tracking the same target in real time at about 20nm would only be able to narrow down the error cell to about 50nm cubed. More sensors reduce this error but you can see that even from a fairly modest range getting a sufficient track for weapons guidance is difficult but here’s the kicker; those jets are now all focused entirely on that one target and can’t search for his buddies who are now maneuvering against you.

IRST is a good technology and in the right circumstances it will be very useful but it’s not going to be a game changer anytime soon. Radar will still be the dominant sensor and this is where the Raptor and the Lightning have a substantial advantage. For right now, PAK-FA is vaporware and its debatable that the Russians will be able to close the gap in operational low observables.

BDF
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2009, 04:12

BDF wrote:Sigh, Kopp at it again. First off his theory of out maneuvering Slammers when they are high on kinetic energy (inside their no-escape zone) is abject nonsense. 2G barrel role? Please. I seriously do hope the Russians think that’s a viable tactic. APA keep beating that drum and it doesn’t carry a tune. Oh and btw, “Grisha” isn’t a former fighter pilot and he isn’t even Russian.

As usual, according to APA, Russian “threat-ware” is omnipotent and western equipment is utterly helpless. Anyone notice that even the mighty F-22 which previously was the object solution to every life’s problems (poverty, world hunger, world peace etc) is now showing cracks in its armor according APA?

This abstract is conveniently ignoring that IRSTs fundamental limitations are the same as any optical device. That is sensitivity and resolution are proportional to magnification and aperture size. Brochure ranges are always best case: clear spectral background, optimum aspect and cued acquisition (high magnification and small FOV)

Couple caveats that I’ve run into is that for IRST brochure ranges one should adjust them down about 30-35% to get a more accurate ”real life” number. Typical top end IRST are purporting front aspect non-afterburning fighter detection ranges on the order of 25-50nm. These are certainly cued high magnification acquisition modes which are woefully inadequate for volume searches. The wide FOV search modes degrade expected performance by half or even two thirds. So were looking at a maximum effective search range of approximately 15-25nm for current arrays under average to optimum spectral conditions.

QWIP are of course the next step in IR detectors and represent a rough 2-3 fold improvement in sensitivity vis-à-vis current MCT detectors. I’ve heard of ranges on the order of 80nm for future IRSTs. So were looking at an average “real world” search range on the order of approximately about 30 – 40nm. From what I hear the F-22 can drop a slammer down a conventional fighter’s throat at 55nm w/ a Pk on the order of almost 70% provided is has an altitude and speed advantage (frontal aspect I’m sure). I don’t know if that is the latest -120D or the earlier missiles.

Of course what also isn’t being addressed is inability for ranging and identification at those long ranges. Yes IRST can do those things but only at much shorter ranges. Even with high magnification at long range the target is merely a blob and you’ll have to wait until it gets (much) closer to get enough resolution to ID and utilize passive ranging.

Networking multiple jets to triangulate a contacts position is possible there are limits here too. Typical IRSTs have a bearing resolution of about 1 degree and I recall one example where three jets are tracking the same target in real time at about 20nm would only be able to narrow down the error cell to about 50nm cubed. More sensors reduce this error but you can see that even from a fairly modest range getting a sufficient track for weapons guidance is difficult but here’s the kicker; those jets are now all focused entirely on that one target and can’t search for his buddies who are now maneuvering against you.

IRST is a good technology and in the right circumstances it will be very useful but it’s not going to be a game changer anytime soon. Radar will still be the dominant sensor and this is where the Raptor and the Lightning have a substantial advantage. For right now, PAK-FA is vaporware and its debatable that the Russians will be able to close the gap in operational low observables.

BDF


I feel you're wasting your breath...

APA and it's sycophants often remind me of this (at about 2 minutes in):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y

They don't really care for such things as "facts"...
Offline

skyhigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 467
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 11:01

Unread post05 Apr 2009, 05:13

By the time the Su-50 PAK FA becomes operational, and it ever winds up against the F-22 Raptor, such a dogfight would resemble the Battle of Britain, but much faster and pulling high G maneuvers, trying to get missile lock-ons and that.
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests