Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

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

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1968
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 23:13

mixelflick wrote:Wow, so we should be handing out kills for "almost" shooting down another aircraft? Fantastic news. We'll just go back and add a whole lot more aces to history then, won't we?

When all your "facts" change the FACT an F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25, let me know. And when your "facts" change the FACT no F-14, 15 or 16 were ever downed by a Mig-25, let me know that too.

Can't wait to hear.


It means that the one F/A-18 and one F-15 we BOTH hit by missiles fired from Mig-25s during Operation Desert Storm (DS)! But one of them (the F-15) was lucky that the missile detonated relatively far from the aircraft and thus and despite the damage was still able to return to base while the other (the F/A-18) wasn't that lucky - the missile detonated much closer to the aircraft and thus was shot down.

If you don't understand the logic above - that the episode above wasn't in any way related the the quality of the F/A-18 - then I can't help you any further I'm afraid... :roll:
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
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1968
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 23:14

hornetfinn wrote:On the other hand several F-14, F-15 and F-16 were shot down by enemy AD systems, but no F/A-18 has ever been lost to them AFAIK. What are the excuses for those?

I don't really think that we can make any real conclusions about combat capability of different fighters from a very small number of isolated incidents.


DITTO! :thumb:
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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2207
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 00:34

zero-one wrote:
madrat wrote:Someone pointed out years ago the climb from brake release to 40,000 feet is vastly faster using conventional lift than a zoom climb.

Well according to Metz:
The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically,
If he means straight up, then it would resemble a zoom climb

Unlikely. But if he was climbing from the get go he clearly will be to height in a few minutes by not zooming. As soon as you point upwards you fight gravity without the help of wing lift. You definitely want the lift to climb.
Offline

f119doctor

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 02:04

Once you get to 600+ KCAS, the ram recovery of the intakes is pushing the thrust of the F119 engines to 50-60k each. Pulling up at that condition will drive massive climb rates while maintaining the engine thrust and aircraft speed during the climb to 40K.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 16:24

Back to the topic at hand..

Based on what is known, I think the F-35 would have a rather easy time of it vs PAK FA. For the moment, it has it all over it in terms of stealth, SA, weapons etc.. Further out, the PAK FA/SU-57 may in fact have some nasty surprises - but they are conjecture only at this point. It has a LONG way to go insofar as being a mature weapons system, and something has to be said for its lack of a worldwide logistical footprint. Something the F-35 is building on every passing day.

Just sending 3 or 4 to one of the world's hot spots isn't feasible. The Syria deployment notwithstanding, LOL. Nobody fell for that, including the Indians.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 09:18

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If your max SEP occurs with Supersonic speeds then you are in a max performance climb while flying at supersonic speeds. You are in a supersonic climb. This DOES NOT say, in any way shape or form, that the RATE OF CLIMB is supersonic. Only the speed at which best rate of climb is achieved is supersonic. Every single aircraft on earth has a "best rate of climb speed" and in none of them does it relate to actual vertical velocity. Climb speed in a Cessna 172 is ~72knots. Is my vertical speed 72 knots? heck no! That is my "climb speed", not my "rate of climb".

Sorry, I am just getting a little tired of this argument. Some posters are making this harder than it needs to me. The forward speed at which the F-22 climbs the fastest is a supersonic forward speed (angle not being 90 is irrelevant).

End of story.


Yup and this post by Col. Showers from Fencecheck back in the day give better idea of what F-22 can do in vertical.

At slower speeds the engines are not putting out maximum thrust, the more air flow there is through the motors the more thrust you're getting, so, for example, I did a takeoff where I was at about 570 knots at Edwards, I was prior to the end of the runway, not used to being that fast so I pulled up to 90 degrees nose high (single ship with my own tanker and first chance to try this with a Raptor so I decided to see what she'd do), and the mass flow at that point is close to producing max possible thrust, the a/c continued to accelerate in the climb to .99 mach passing about 20 thousand feet and then slowly began to decelerate - (unofficially according to the engineers I would have ended up around 65+ thousand feet on that day and broke every time to climb record we could think of for category & weight class -- and oh by the way, that wasn't a Streak Eagle or Flanker stripped down bare with weight removed, no external stores for combat configuration, etc., that was in a stock, off the line F-22, full of gas, combat configured with the internal weapons bay full - as an Eagle guy previous I was absolutely astonished, I hope someday we go after the official records because this jet will likely crush most of them. One last interesting point is that I did that going straight up after takeoff (that day I ended up blasting past my assigned altitude at Edwards of 29 thousand after takeoff, ended up at 31.5 AFTER a 5g pull to level out which at that weight and altitude should bleed energy fast but when I rolled out I was still at 330knots KCAS!!), but normally to get those altitudes they use a specific climb profile like the Streak Eagle did (I forget what it's called) climb at .9m to the mid 30 thousands, push over to accelerate to supersonic and then finish the climb profile to bust the records from there).


And obviously since he's accelerating in the climb there was still positive SEP at sea level. Mach 0.99 at 20,000 ft is about 312 m/s, so max rate of climb is probably in mid-300s. Which for 60,000 lb gross weight aircraft is great.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 10:42

Interesting.
He said he was full of gas with a full internal load and reached .99 mach while going straight up before slowly decelerating past 20k.

Imagine if he had an empty weapons bay and less than full fuel. Perhaps using some wing lift instead of going full vertical.
Could this be the conditions where Metz achieved his "high supersonic climb speeds"

Legitimate question. If the answer is still No then its a no.

I just find it hard to believe without further data that this guy was 0.01 mach away from the barrier going straight up with a heavy F-22 and think that it can't go faster under more ideal conditions.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 14:20

zero-one wrote:Interesting.
He said he was full of gas with a full internal load and reached .99 mach while going straight up before slowly decelerating past 20k.

Imagine if he had an empty weapons bay and less than full fuel. Perhaps using some wing lift instead of going full vertical.
Could this be the conditions where Metz achieved his "high supersonic climb speeds"

Legitimate question. If the answer is still No then its a no.

I just find it hard to believe without further data that this guy was 0.01 mach away from the barrier going straight up with a heavy F-22 and think that it can't go faster under more ideal conditions.


With better climb profile it can get better rate of climb, but again, even with half fuel you won't be going high supersonic speeds vertically, that's not possible currently for a fighter. Your speed when climbing is high supersonic, but the rate of climb which is vertical component won't be that high. Remember max rate of climb is measure of max SEP which is essentially thrust power - drag power.

F-22 has some great kinematics especially consider it carries everything internally. But physics is physics. Just don't turn it into an X-wing.
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 10 Jun 2019, 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 15:41

zero-one wrote:Imagine if he had an empty weapons bay and less than full fuel. Perhaps using some wing lift instead of going full vertical.
Could this be the conditions where Metz achieved his "high supersonic climb speeds"
.

Correct. By going faster and not climbing vertically the SEP could actually increase (especially as you get higher). You may be flying 1.5M with a vertical speed of 1.0M and that only comes out to a ~42 degree angle of climb.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 16:33

disconnectedradical wrote:F-22 has some great kinematics especially consider it carries everything internally. But physics is physics. Just don't turn it into an X-wing.


It doesn't have to be an X-wing. the Streak Eagle is claimed to be capable of 342 m/s vertical speed.
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/streak-eagle/

So if the F-22 was expected to break records at full combat loads, wouldn't it do even better at climb record attempt profile.
Unless you're suggesting weight is a non factor and the F-22 is limited to just 312 m/s due to drag or other limitations
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 16:41

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:F-22 has some great kinematics especially consider it carries everything internally. But physics is physics. Just don't turn it into an X-wing.


It doesn't have to be an X-wing. the Streak Eagle is claimed to be capable of 342 m/s vertical speed.
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/streak-eagle/

So if the F-22 was expected to break records at full combat loads, wouldn't it do even better at climb record attempt profile.
Unless you're suggesting weight is a non factor and the F-22 is limited to just 312 m/s due to drag or other limitations


WTF? Where did I say F-22 is limited to 312 m/s? I say in Dozer's vertical climb he accelerated to 312 m/s at 20,000 ft. Since he was accelerating obviously he had positive SEP so the max rate of climb would be higher, probably mid-300s. Don't put words in my mouth. Lighter weight will obviously increase rate of climb, but not enough to make vertical speed high supersonic.

Can F-22 beat Streak Eagle rate of climb? Maybe, but Streak Eagle was also lighter than normal Eagle since it was unpainted and had bunch of stuff removed like gun and even flap actuators. That's a lot of excess thrust.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 820
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 17:04

This may be off topic but I do believe F-22 can out-accelerate or out-climb almost anything that flies.
Go check F-22's acceleration from Mach 0.8 to 1.5 at 30000 ft (loaded with 6 amraams and 2 aim9s), it is about 50 seconds. (2011 SAR). It is 7 seconds faster than an almost clean F-16C-block52. That F16C is again 13 seconds faster than a Fulcrum-A in similar configuration. And if you compare the kinematic performance (acceleration, rate of climb...) of Su-35's official brochure and compare it with Fulcrum-A's flight manual, it is not hard to find that Su-35 is out-performed by Fulcrum-A.

Acceleration and climb rate are strongly correlated, as math equation suggests. If aircraft A can out-accelerate aircraft B, it is pretty safe to assume A can out-climb B.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post11 Jun 2019, 08:11

disconnectedradical wrote:WTF? Where did I say F-22 is limited to 312 m/s?


I was referring to this

disconnectedradical wrote:but again, even with half fuel you won't be going high supersonic speeds vertically, that's not possible currently for a fighter.


why? What limits fighters from going high supersonic in a climb?
Well first what is the definition of "high supersonic climb speeds" anyway?

someone here claims the Su-57 with AL-41F1 engines got to 384 m/s.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-faste ... the-moment

Thats around Mach 1.2 maybe.
If true, will that count as high supersonic. Is it impossible to think that the Raptor can top that?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1668
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Jun 2019, 09:17

zero-one wrote:
someone here claims the Su-57 with AL-41F1 engines got to 384 m/s.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-faste ... the-moment

Thats around Mach 1.2 maybe.
If true, will that count as high supersonic. Is it impossible to think that the Raptor can top that?

The original source for that number looking to be Sputnik International quoting a Russian blog quoting "sources" on Facebook, and no actual time-to-altitude numbers. It is nonsense
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post11 Jun 2019, 15:38

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:WTF? Where did I say F-22 is limited to 312 m/s?


I was referring to this

disconnectedradical wrote:but again, even with half fuel you won't be going high supersonic speeds vertically, that's not possible currently for a fighter.


why? What limits fighters from going high supersonic in a climb?
Well first what is the definition of "high supersonic climb speeds" anyway?

someone here claims the Su-57 with AL-41F1 engines got to 384 m/s.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-faste ... the-moment

Thats around Mach 1.2 maybe.
If true, will that count as high supersonic. Is it impossible to think that the Raptor can top that?


I feel like you're asking questions without understanding what SEP is and how it's related to rate of climb. First, that climb rate number is unconfirmed and flateric from Secret Project who is a trustworthy source on Su-57 said it's BS. Second, Mach 1.2 is not high supersonic, that's barely out of transsonic.

If you look at Ps chart, F-16 Block 50 max rate of climb is a bit over 366 m/s, but that's with 0 drag index and only 3,000 lbs of fuel, so it's completely useless combat configuration.
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 11 Jun 2019, 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests