Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

popcorn wrote:

Why should the Chinese J-20 be superior to the PAK-FA? They are even further behind on the tech curve.

I'm not an engineer, but when I look at Russia's more recent weapons programs, I get a strong *just-for-show* vibe in that for all the big talk, they haven't really produced all that much. The T-50 is simply one of several flagship projects that Putin uses in an effort to prove himself effective to his domestic audience. It could spend the next 15 years in development hell, get canceled, and still serve its purpose, which is to keep cutting edge Russian technology in the spotlight so as to not appear irrelevant.

The J-20 on the other hand, shows every sign of being a program with a real military purpose. From its large size, to its deliberate testing (not wasting time on airshows), it gives the distinct impression of military value. It also doesn't hurt that China is in a significantly better economic situation than Russia.

In fewer words, I think the J-20 program is the more robust and better thought-out than the T-50, even if I can't put my finger on a particular reason why. But that's just my ill-informed opinion.

F-16.net Sponsor

bigjku wrote:

Quote:

Am I one of the few who doesn't think that the Raptor is at all suitable for Australia's needs? And we aren't talking about some fantasy Super Raptor with all sorts of A2G capabilities that have never been funded, integrated, or promised, but the current, USAF standard, GBU-32 and SDB Dropping F-22A Raptor.

I agree with you 100%. I still think if the USAF could travel back to the time the Raptor was specified it would look substantially different. They learned so much with the F-35 on how to build stealthy in a manner that is sustainable that I think that is why they chopped off Raptor funding.

The F-22 needs so much specialized maint. that it is kind of a pain. It will do the high end Air to Air stuff well for a long time but I think when you see it replaced you are going to see something much more multi-role along the lines of an F-35 with two engines.

It would be kind of ironic if new-build F-22s using F-35 avionics, coatings and other tech became the "compromise" 6th Gen long range strike aicraft.

The F/A-18E/F is easier to maintain, including its RAM coatings, compared to previous carrier jets(F/A-18C/D, S-3, A-6, EA-6B etc) and definitely easier than a F-22. Hopefully the lesson learnt will actually mean the F-35 & 6th Gen strike aircraft will be easier to maintain.

The F-35 surge sortie rate seems to suggest the F-35 isn't as problematic as the F-22 maintenance wise.

shingen wrote:

Maybe we need a new view of Russian fighter development. Anyone over a certain age experienced the MiG-29 hype and the '90's Sukhoi obsession that occurred online. They were sold as superior to the F-teens and people bought it.

However, looking at reality, it appears that the MiG-29 and T-10 series were what was required to decisively beat the US 3rd gen and to have a ghost of a chance vs the 4th. They didn't build a plane decisively superior to the F-teens until the Su-35. Even then Golden Eagles in the US network will slaughter it.

I disagree.

The MIG-29 and SU-27/30 family weren't entirely inferior to our 4th gen aircraft. The problem for the countries we fought flying them were training, tactics, and advanced support. Out of all the conflicts where we fought MIG-29s and MIG-23s, how many of them had AWACS support or even moderately effective tactics? Those countries had guys that would fly into the ground only a couple turns after the merge. All of those countries were also using soviet ground based control tactics, which are basically useless when your command and control is wiped out and you are left completely blind.

Plane vs. plane, those Russian fighters were very comparable to our 4th gens in most aspects, including BVR. I'm not saying our technology wasn't better, because in some ways it was, but the Russian jets were better than you're giving them credit for.

Quote:

Even then Golden Eagles in the US network will slaughter it.

Do you really think the F-15C, even with an AESA and AWACS support, will even have a chance against the SU-35? Assuming the light greys even survive the BVR massacre, the flankers will completely dominate at the merge with their TVC. The only way for the F-15C's to have a chance is by getting into a AIM-9x WEZ with their JHMCS, and getting a shot off before the flankers easily slide into their 6 o'clock.

I'm not saying its impossible, just the flankers have the edge in most respects.

sketch22 wrote:

Do you really think the F-15C, even with an AESA and AWACS support, will even have a chance against the SU-35?

If it's against Su-35s purchased by some 3rd-world-shithole dictator for his nephews to fly, then I'd say that F-15C has a lot more than a chance. Against a professional AF... it's hard to say.

Two points on Golden Eagle vs Su-35. One, the 35 is not all that superior, if at all, despite being 30 or so years later. Two, in the US force the F-15 has more support and can perform better when push comes to shove because it gets more than a little help from its friends. Those friends include the F-22.

shingen wrote:

Two, in the US force the F-15 has more support and can perform better when push comes to shove because it gets more than a little help from its friends. Those friends include the F-22.

If we're just talking plane vs plane, in a 1v1 scenario (BVR or WVR) with similar pilot ability the SU-35 would probably come out on top.

That being said, you're right about other factors because the fact is in a realistic combat scenario it will never just be plane v plane. Even if they got to the merge and were left alone its guaranteed that at least one side would have AWACS support to get them there. That side would have numerous advantages because they would be able to track the other side much sooner and get set up into as much of an offensive position as possible.

In addition, the F-22 doesn't even have to fight and it'll still be the deciding factor. An F-22 flying as a controller for the F-15Cs with its radar will allow them to get the first shot and remain offensive during the engagement.

[quote="sewerrat"]

pants3204 wrote:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html
Plus we'll have 160 Raptors (due to attrition over the upcoming years).

We've lost ONE combat coded F-22 since they began production 10 years ago not counting the 2 test jets that crashed.

Do you really think we are going to go from two-three losses per decade to 20?

popcorn wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

tacf-x wrote:

If the Sukhoi wishes to shield itself in plasma it can forget about using its radar AND picking anything up on its ESM. Plasma will just absorb the RF energy making any sort of detection almost out of the question.

Not to promote the "plasma stealth" concept that has basically gone nowhere in several decades, but the idea is to turn the plasma on and off rapidly in time with the radar so that the radar works normally. ESM detectors would just be small devices outside of the sheath (which is actually under the outer skin).
Not that anyone has gotten it to work, mind you, but what you are talking about isn't the problem.

Being completely realistic, we might have anti-grav before Ivan gets his fabled "plasma steath" which all the YouTube Pak Fart (good name sewerrat!) fanboys use as an excuse.

The only known non-American craft which could really be in the same league as the Raptor is most likely the J-20... But even if that turns out to be stealthy enough to get WVR, that bus will never tu9rn with an F-22. Perhaps when they build the prototype J-2X (low end J-20 counterpart), we'll have something to worry about.

Why should the Chinese J-20 be superior to the PAK-FA? They are even further behind on the tech curve.

Its takes a lot of money and time to convert techs into a weapon system. The Russias may still got tons of schematics on paper but they don't have enough funding to sustain a long term development, as fighter jet has become an extremely expensive business these days. (just look at F-35)

besides I won't be surprised there are many Russians selling technologies to China or even working in Chinese defence projects instead of in their own countries.

sketch22 wrote:

shingen wrote:

Maybe we need a new view of Russian fighter development. Anyone over a certain age experienced the MiG-29 hype and the '90's Sukhoi obsession that occurred online. They were sold as superior to the F-teens and people bought it.

However, looking at reality, it appears that the MiG-29 and T-10 series were what was required to decisively beat the US 3rd gen and to have a ghost of a chance vs the 4th. They didn't build a plane decisively superior to the F-teens until the Su-35. Even then Golden Eagles in the US network will slaughter it.

I disagree.

The MIG-29 and SU-27/30 family weren't entirely inferior to our 4th gen aircraft. The problem for the countries we fought flying them were training, tactics, and advanced support. Out of all the conflicts where we fought MIG-29s and MIG-23s, how many of them had AWACS support or even moderately effective tactics? Those countries had guys that would fly into the ground only a couple turns after the merge. All of those countries were also using soviet ground based control tactics, which are basically useless when your command and control is wiped out and you are left completely blind.

Plane vs. plane, those Russian fighters were very comparable to our 4th gens in most aspects, including BVR. I'm not saying our technology wasn't better, because in some ways it was, but the Russian jets were better than you're giving them credit for.

Quote:

Even then Golden Eagles in the US network will slaughter it.

Do you really think the F-15C, even with an AESA and AWACS support, will even have a chance against the SU-35? Assuming the light greys even survive the BVR massacre, the flankers will completely dominate at the merge with their TVC. The only way for the F-15C's to have a chance is by getting into a AIM-9x WEZ with their JHMCS, and getting a shot off before the flankers easily slide into their 6 o'clock.

I'm not saying its impossible, just the flankers have the edge in most respects.

I don't see how a APG63V3 equpped F-15C is inferior to Su-35, engines, radar, avionics, tw ratio are still superior to the Flanker's. Let alone the Su-35 is just a test platform, it was being marketed to Brasil and China, but neither of them wanted it.

The Su-35 has a more powerful radar (though the Irbis-E would be easier to jam) with a 240 degree FOR compared to the 120 degrees of the F-15. In BVR it can seriously deminish the A-pole range of its opponents while maximizing its own by pretty much turning away after taking a shot to track the target for the missile. Its got a significant edge in WVR maneuvering as well.

The deciding factor would be, what are the ranges and details of the 2 fighters' respective weapons and can the F-15 jam the irbis and still track the flanker?

munny wrote:

The Su-35 has a more powerful radar (though the Irbis-E would be easier to jam) with a 240 degree FOR compared to the 120 degrees of the F-15. In BVR it can seriously deminish the A-pole range of its opponents while maximizing its own by pretty much turning away after taking a shot to track the target for the missile. Its got a significant edge in WVR maneuvering as well.

The deciding factor would be, what are the ranges and details of the 2 fighters' respective weapons and can the F-15 jam the irbis and still track the flanker?

Back on target....

If any of the 15 or 20 (combat coded) SU-35's survive the F-35's BVR salvo, much like the Mig-21 of N. Vietnam, they'll turn tail to save a precious asset.

delvo wrote:

I love how often they sprinkle their claims with "analysis shows...", including a few descriptions of their analysis or "observations" as "detailed", along with variations of the word "strategy" like "strategic". There's even a sentence starting with "Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy...". Very Happy

It's like they got some advice in how to talk like an expert from a twelve-year-old.

OK, on to the meat of the article's claims... it's very long and there are problems like this with practically every single sentence, so I don't think there's any way I'll have the patience to go through it picking out every single one to the bitter end, but I'll at least get started so you can see how it's going and then just picture what a complete response would look like...

I concur with many of your points (which I haven't quoted here), but some of your claims are equally simplistic and speculative as those of Kopp.

To save time I'll deal with some points only, leaving out what I agree with and don't quote/reply.

1.) You claim that the T-50 is heavier and draggier than the F-22, but can you bolster this claim with any credible data and sources? Afaik neither Sukhoi nor the RuAF have published an accurate specifications for this type. The few figures floating around in the public domain are estimations only. The estimated dimensions, based on image analysis, are roughly accurate, but the discrepancy in size isn't that big and the raw dimensions themselves aren't telling you the whole story either if we ignore the detailed design, material properties and structural design much of which is classified.
So how can you seriously conclude that the T-50 will be heavier and draggier?

2.) You claim that the T-50 is an aerodynamic copy of the F-22 and I concur that there are some similarities, especially if we take a look at the design and arrangement of the wings and horizontal stabilisers. But other than this there aren't too many similarities which one could describe as "copy". The fuselage design, vertical stabs, intakes etc. are all different.

3.) You claim that the leading edge sweep angles of the T-50 are lower than that of the F-22, I would say it's in fact the other way round. The leading edge sweep angles of the T-50 are ~48° or similar to that of the YF-22, but those angles have been reduced to 42° on the F-22A.

4.) You claim that the T-50 has 3-D TVC, in reality it has 2-D TVC only, with the nozzles moving "V" like. The definitive engine is said to feature a similar 2-D flat nozzle as the F119. It's also just speculation that the TVC is being activated separately. It was the case for the earlier designs such as the AL-31FP/Su-30MKI combo, but the TVC are reportedly integrated with the FCS of the Su-35s and I don't think it's to far stretched to assume that the T-50 will follow suit.

5.) Wrt the avionics integration I concur that the authors are hardly in a position to know for sure, but a modular core architecture and much better integration of systems and data has been reported for the Su-35S whose avionics suite is reportedly derived from technological developments of the T-50, some say it's the other way round.

6.) You state that the engines of the T-50 will be weaker and that Russian engines are less fuel efficient, but can you bolster these claims? The AL-31F of the Su-27 has a fairly moderate fuel consumption and the upgraded AL-41F1S is reportedly more fuel efficient. US engines don't appear to be much more, if any more fuel efficient, but they are for sure more durable. IIRC the definitive engine of the T-50 is supposed to generate up to around 175 kN of thrust (~39000 lb) whether it works out remains to be seen.

46.5 sweep angle on T-50 according to APA. Bad site for analysis but they're obsessive about little factoids.

The wing "looks" kind of small. Any estimates of wing loading?

Haven't measured it myself, but even if just 46.5° it would still be somewhat steeper than that of the F-22. The wings look indeed somewhat small, as does the stabs, but bear in mind that the aircraft is reportedly very unstable (10-12%) and that it has a wide fuselage and adjustable LEX which is going to distribute the weight more evenly and increase lift.

That's why even if we get the wing loading it doesn't do us any good. We need the Ps diagrams which we're not going to get.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

PAK FA will "remove the advantage held for decades"