Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I will give you a simple analogy here. Endurance vs. Brute strength. A marathon runner will never be a football player and vice versa. One will suffer for the other, it's a given. What you do to compromise between these values is what makes the difference. I could care less if the PAK-FA is faster if it does not allow me the endurance/ capability I am looking for. Fat means heavy, means more calories burned to perform. Say it does go faster. At what sacrifice? Something to ponder...

F-16.net Sponsor

I hear the MiG-25 is faster than the F-15 too... Rolling Eyes

TEG

cywolf32 wrote:

The F-22 would still be "slower" @ top speed given it's stealth coatings and fixed inlets require such a limitation. However, from an acceleration point of view with a usable combat load, F-22 baby.

Fixed inlets don't mean squat. This has been discussed ad nauseam on this board and elsewhere. As for being limited by stealth coatings do you have any sources for this? And why wouldn't the T-50 have the same limitation?

Well sferrin, please elaborate on "don't mean squat"??? As for T-50, it's already a given it's stealth is nowhere near US capabilities, so it makes speed up for this fault. Or have you not read what the Russians already know??

There are thermal issues to consider by the way. I will leave it at that. Your retort will be amusing.

"The fifth-generation PAK FA T-50 jet fighter will have a higher maximum speed, longer maximum flight time and greater freight capacity..."

All I want to know is how many of these things FEDEX and UPS are getting because anything that fast that carries freight...well...I know how I'm sending my packages from now on!!! LoL

LMAO!! Too funny. Thanks sixx!!

Thats Zelin allright.. what a clovn.
Why does he keep up with those lame statments. Probably meant for domestic propaganda if nothing else.
At least he has stoped commenting on any deliveries date, and thank god for that.

I remember his statements on Su-35S, Su-34 and Pak-Fa deliveries, which were all completly off, with delays..

Anyway, why should not the Pak-Fa have greater range and more armmament than the F-22.
Even the Flanker have greater range vs both F-15 and F-22.
Besides those F119 engine gobbles fuel and the T-50 enjoy more lift and less drag from an aerodynamic point of view.

Give the Russians some credit were credit are due. When they designed the Su-27, the goal was to best the F-15. For all intent and purpose they sucseeded. If not on system level, but on a platform level anyway..
I think they can and will repeat this on the T-50 design as well.

"The 117 (AL-41F1) is a new 5th generation engine custom built for Russia’s fifth-generation stealth fighter jet PAK-FA according to Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosyan. Mikhail Pogosyan has clarified that claims that fifth-generation fighter allegedly has an old engine are wrong. Such claims are made by people with limited knowledge,he said. Though most parameters of the new 5th Gen Engine remains classified General Director Mikhail Pogosyan provided some information on the new engine, The engine thrust was enlarged by 2.5 tonnes when compared with the AL-31 engine, while the engine weight was cut by 150 kilograms. That allowed the new jet to supercruise i.e. move at a supersonic cruise speed without the use of after burner.

The Saturn Research and Production center made digitally controlled system (FADEC) of Project 117 Engine.The new engine produces 33,000 lbs (147 kN) of thrust in afterburner has a Dry weight of 1420 kilogram and T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that this engine (117) meets the client’s (Russian AirForce) requirements. This is not an intermediate product made particularly for test flights. The engine will be installed in production PAK-FA fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients."

Last edited by em745 on Feb 14, 2012 - 12:38 PM; edited 1 time in total

cywolf32 wrote:

yeah, and the engines are melting all the way back to Russia. Yawn.....

Sorry, I guess the sarcasm didn't make it through like I thought it would.

My bad. Embarassed

tacf-x wrote:

Yes, but the Raptor's use fixed chines. Shouldn't that be better for LO?

So "vortex controllers" = LEVCONS?...

My bad #2, I suppose. Embarassed

haavarla wrote:

Even the Flanker have greater range vs both F-15 and F-22.

From my own [limited] research, Flankers and Eagles have combat radiuses in the same ballpark (~650 - 900+ nm, depending on model & loadout/mission).

As for the F-22, you should know by now that its combat radius has been ascertained in a very specific manner with regards to speed and on-site combat time. It would be interesting to see if a Flanker is able to match it under those very same conditions.

haavarla wrote:

Besides those F119 engine gobbles fuel and the T-50 enjoy more lift and less drag from an aerodynamic point of view.

Other than fanboyism, on what do you base these assertions on?

Seriously, do you have access to these planes' Cd's and the SFC data for both the F119 and 117?

haavarla wrote:

When they designed the Su-27, the goal was to best the F-15. For all intent and purpose they sucseeded. If not on system level, but on a platform level anyway.

That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

em745 wrote:

haavarla wrote:

When they designed the Su-27, the goal was to best the F-15. For all intent and purpose they sucseeded. If not on system level, but on a platform level anyway.

That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

In the slow speed regime, I believe the Su-27 does outclass the F-15 by a fair margin. Of course, almost no contemporary air combat occurs at those speeds, and in the transonic area, the F-15 has similar or better turning performance than the Su-27, especially considering that the Eagle has unholy T/W ratio, even with the original F100s.

Also, what do you mean by "system level" and "platform level?"

Considering that nobody in Russia knows what the F-22's top speed is, and presumably the T-50 hasn't flown at its top speed, I'd say this claim falls somewhere between whimsical and horsepuckey.

Last edited by haavarla on Feb 14, 2012 - 08:16 PM; edited 2 times in total

Quote:

From my own [limited] research, Flankers and Eagles have combat radiuses in the same ballpark (~650 - 900+ nm, depending on model & loadout/mission).

As for the F-22, you should know by now that its combat radius has been ascertained in a very specific manner with regards to speed and on-site combat time. It would be interesting to see if a Flanker is able to match it under those very same conditions.

I take it you are compairing the F-15C with a legasy Flanker.
Well lets see. The F-15C are total depended on wet stations for compair. Take it with a light load-out A2A(four missiles) mission. In those same conditions, the Flanker has an advantage right there. And at an lower altidude, those DT will only increase the T/D(Thrust/Drag) penalty. Drop em, and you are left with less fuel for AB duration
Now lets look at the aerodynamic layout. The Flanker beeing larger with a blended body/wing design, larger wings. Produce far more high lift vs the F-15C, Hense the F-15 poor low speed regime.

And you mention slow speed regime and transonic speed regime. Pls put some number in Kts on this so we have a metric to debate here.
What happens when two jets engage in a WVR, Is most of the time it is an head on encounter, resulting in a merge.
Now, in this 'merge', Its all about out turning your oponent, but also conserving energy.
As any jet fighter spend energy, it loosing speed. As soon as the F-15C drops under 400 kts, it is dead meat in the merge.

Now add that extra 2000kgf of thrust on Flanker(AL-31FM1 engine)..

Quote:

That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

Humor me, what was the RF2008 results, other than that USAF officer making an complete @ss of him self?

Except in 2008 Red Flag where USAF F-15's took down IAF SU-27's and SU-30MKI's repeatedly in both 1-on-1 and group scenarios.

Sufa Viper

Last edited by haavarla on Feb 14, 2012 - 08:19 PM; edited 1 time in total

Well then, pls explain to me how he manage to insult IAF pilots by claiming they were rookies, but at the same time adding "their(MKI) jets will beat our F-15 and F-16 on a regular basic"?
You know, he contradicted him self several times, so its is not wise to even use him as an source..

"oh and thrust me, i wont mention anything other than Jane's material here" a few sec later he stated the 28 deg/sec High alpha on the F-22.. great work man!
That man was a a joke.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Moscow Times: PAK-FA Faster than F-22