Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Quote:

That's not cheap. That's 100 mil. in the 6000 hours life of the airframe. The tbo of the Su-35 is said to be 500 hours, but that's what they said the Su-30 would have and it dosn't. Plus try adding the cost of three SU-35's and compare it to the price of a F-22. To top it off the F-22 could likely beat three Su's without them ever seeing him.
Edited to add. A quick google and you can find the TBO of the F-119-PW-100 in the F-22 is 4000 to 6000 hours. The 4000 is if you supercruise alot.
My TSFG

What are you talking about Question

The 117S engine thrust has been increased by 16% (up to 14500 kgf) compared to the base AL-31FP engine, the ultimate life has been increased twice (up to 4 000 hours), keeping the same weight and overall dimensions. Such high parameters are attained thanks to application of:
• new high-tech LP compressor with increased air consumption and efficiency;
• high efficiency turbine with increased reliability and improved blade cooling system;
• new digital engine control system integrated to aircraft flight control system.

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

F-16.net Sponsor

PeanutMike wrote:

Both the F-35 and F-22 would obliterate any Flanker, past, present or future. Don't listen to people who tell you otherwise - not a single professional defense analyst agrees with them. Wink

American defence analyst*

You American idiots fail to realise that the radar systems in the SU-35BM (the model that Russia has) render the stealth technology of the Raptor and Lightning II obsolete. The PESA radar has the ability to lock on to stealth aircraft and missiles. Also, in a BFM engagement, the Su-35 will out maneuver both aircraft, with its three-dimensional thrust vectoring and excellent airframe. The missiles of the Su-35 (R-77, R-73) have far superior range, speed, accuracy, resistance to jamming and hit probability to their American counterparts. In fact, a Flanker can actually out maneuver an AIM-120. I also believe it's rather stupid that this question has been put up on AMERICAN forum. Americans have to stop being so stubborn and accept that they are NOT the best in the world. Also, no American or Western fighter will stand a chance against the soon-to-be-released Sukhoi PAK FA or the "F-22 Killer", as Vladimir Putin well puts it.

Oh Brother. The radar systems will only give away the flanker's position to the Raptor and Lightning II. Any proof that your missiles can engage a stealth target? Any proof that a Russian in a flanker can outmaneuver a Raptor driver who has put a lot more hours into training than your typical Russian pilot?

Both Stealth aircraft carry their weapons internally. That reduces drag and allows for good energy maintenance. All this post-stall mumbo jumbo is nice but used incorrectly and you'd be a sitting duck to everybody. Wow, you make all these claims about Russian missiles being so fantastic, yet their combat records are either non-existent or hideous. Sure, I'll bite that an AIM-120 can be dodged...ONCE. It happened in Kosovo so it'll happen again, but the same can be said for any Russian missile which, as I've said before, has little to no combat record to go by.

PAK FA is a prototype, so whatever can be said of it right now is practically invalid.

not to mention that the ability to detect "stealth targets" (0.01m^2 is the standard they use) is 90km. Cut that range to 60 km against the F-35 (0.004m^2 estimate) and to 30km against the F-22 (0.0005m^2 estimate). Meanwhile either the F-35 or F-22 will detect the radar transmissions from 160+km.

sapper10 wrote:

You American idiots fail to realise that the radar systems in the SU-35BM (the model that Russia has) render the stealth technology of the Raptor and Lightning II obsolete. The PESA radar has the ability to lock on to stealth aircraft and missiles. Also, in a BFM engagement, the Su-35 will out maneuver both aircraft, with its three-dimensional thrust vectoring and excellent airframe. The missiles of the Su-35 (R-77, R-73) have far superior range, speed, accuracy, resistance to jamming and hit probability to their American counterparts. In fact, a Flanker can actually out maneuver an AIM-120. I also believe it's rather stupid that this question has been put up on AMERICAN forum. Americans have to stop being so stubborn and accept that they are NOT the best in the world. Also, no American or Western fighter will stand a chance against the soon-to-be-released Sukhoi PAK FA or the "F-22 Killer", as Vladimir Putin well puts it.

Let me guess- you've arrived at these conclusions based upon countless hours studying You Tube videos/comments, Wikipedia, APA, and Russian forums? All fire control radars can lock onto stealthy targets, if you can get close enough. The problem for the Flanker pilot is that the Raptor/Lightning 2 pilot would spot the Flanker long before they were close enough to be detected by radar or IRST. The Irbis is claimed to have the ability to detect a .01m^2 target at ~90km. The RCS of the Raptor/Lightning 2 are several orders of magnitude smaller than that, which means the7 detection range drops to something like ~20-40km on a very good day. The Flanker on the other hand would be detected at >300km, by the APG-77/81, and even further away by the ALR94/ASQ239. The take away here is that regardless of the range of the Flanker's missiles(why by the way don't outrange the AMRAAM C7/D, or AIM9X Block II), the Flanker would be well in range of the US missiles long before the Flanker knew of the Raptor/Lightning II's presence. Additionally, the electronic attack capabilities of the AESA radars, would allow the US planes wreak havoc with the Flanker's radar. Lastly, thrust vectoring doesn't determine which plane is more maneuverable, whether it be 3D, 2D or otherwise. It merely allows the pilot to maintain control, once the aerodynamic control surfaces can no longer provide lift.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and we all have our favorite aircraft, and ideas about how effective about how plane X would do against plane Y but,"You American idiots..." is that really necessary?! Rolling Eyes

To be perfectly blunt. I like the raptor along with a lot of the American and Russian aircraft. But the F-22 was supposed to face a big cold war threat which ended with the fall of the soviet union. So the F-22 is way overdue. Also we seem to be In good terms with Russia so I highly doubt WWIII will happen. If it does it will be a nuclear war most likely. Also looking at the NATO intervention in Libya all the 4th gen birds stole the raptors thunder. So all this arguing is really pointless. The F-22 will just be reduced to bombing a bunch of guys with slingshots and AK-47s rather then fighting a well equipped military. Also despite the falling economy guess what remains in production? The F-16 and 15 along with the 18. Reason being because they can do everything the raptor does and more at a cheaper cost and more reliable package. And finally with a due respect. Looking back at a comparison I made similar to this I will say that comparisons like this are rediculous. The SU-35 is better compared with the new F-15s,16s,F-18E/F,gripen and the typhoon.

I don't think you're taking into full account the extra capabilities the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II bring to the table. Stealth: Less likely to be shot down, both by enemy aircraft and S.A.M.'s and the F-22/35's engine's and avionics should (knocks on wood) have less maintenance and higher mean-time-between-failures in my opinion.

Your points about Russia/Soviet Union and the N.A.T.O. air campaign in Libya are well taken and I won't try to dispute those.

FlightDreamz wrote:

I don't think you're taking into full account the extra capabilities the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II bring to the table. Stealth: Less likely to be shot down, both by enemy aircraft and S.A.M.'s and the F-22/35's engine's and avionics should (knocks on wood) have less maintenance and higher mean-time-between-failures in my opinion.

Your points about Russia/Soviet Union and the N.A.T.O. air campaign in Libya are well taken and I won't try to dispute those.

Honestly while stealth is innovative and less likely to be shot down there's one very big thing that's been nipping at me flightdreamz. The USAF is upgrading the eagles with AESA radar to protect the raptors. Now I find this ironic since the raptor is supposed to replace the eagle. So I did read somewhere (I'll find the source soon) saying that another reason the F-22 never went to Libya is because the air force or government didn't want to risk a shoot down. Also something that helped us big time in the gulf war was electronic jamming of enemy radars I believe. And the whole Russian aircraft are crap thing is another thing I'd like to try and address. The mig-29s the USAF faced were actually downgraded models with a terrible radar and flight control suite. Plus Iraq didn't really have a good command group for their pilots. Now the Russians on the other hand who have AWACS and the fully upgraded versions of their aircraft seem to have a much better chance. And the German migs performed very well even with their flaws in a knife fight and they did address the flaws to the Russians. So all the new migs and sukhois may look like their cold war counterparts but under the skin their brand spanking new. Also I have considered the avionics of the lightning II and raptor. Their very good. And lastly the downgraded Russian birds We're likely under maintained. Plus Russian birds are a bit more rugged then their western counterparts which is something I quite like in my opinion.

The F-22 can barely use any air-ground ordnance, what would be the point of deploying it to Libya? It's not suitable for the mission.

That didn't stop the British deploying the Typhoon, although I imagine that was for marketing reasons rather than it being an actually useful deployment.

destroid wrote:

The F-22 can barely use any air-ground ordnance, what would be the point of deploying it to Libya? It's not suitable for the mission.

That didn't stop the British deploying the Typhoon, although I imagine that was for marketing reasons rather than it being an actually useful deployment.

Seeing that there was a no fly zone established. That would be the raptors reason for deployment, to patrol the no fly zone. That's what I'm trying to say. And by stole the raptors thunder meant that the eagles vipers and hornets were doing the air superiority Job just fine. Now attempting to get on topic with this comparison. If you want to compare 5th gen aircraft then use the PAK FA not the flanker. Also since I put PAK FA in a sentence let me clarify. The PAK FA is not an aircraft to be dismissed as a piece of flying trash. It's still being tested and has a lot of growth potential.

Perhaps it was thought that the intensity of the conflict was not high enough to warrant revealing the F-22s true stealth capability?

If the F-22 is for World War events then save it for such events.

destroid wrote:

The F-22 can barely use any air-ground ordnance, what would be the point of deploying it to Libya? It's not suitable for the mission.

That didn't stop the British deploying the Typhoon, although I imagine that was for marketing reasons rather than it being an actually useful deployment.

Strange how the "marketing exercise" resulted in comprehensive A2G kill/mission marks on the returning aircraft...

Andy

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

SU-35... does it match up with F-22/F-35?