Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

primorsky wrote:

AFAIK, supercruise at M2+ speed is not even in requirements for PAK-FA. However, it does not mean that Russian aircraft should be inferior to F-22 in this terms of speed and energy maneuverability.

Remember the T-50 looks to be the draggier design of the two aircraft and has a far more basic wing profile. I wouldn't be to confident it will outclass the F-22 in the speed and agility department.

F-16.net Sponsor

primorsky wrote:

Did you ever seen T-50's internals weapons bays inside? Do known its requirements for combat load? No. No.
So you have no clue what you are talking about.

Unless they're using smaller missiles, one can have a general idea of what's possible in the amount of available space.

Quote:

AFAIK, supercruise at M2+ speed is not even in requirements for PAK-FA. However, it does not mean that Russian aircraft should be inferior to F-22 in this terms of speed and energy maneuverability.

Once the T-50 demonstrates parity, then we can have a discussion, but with the current engines, it's highly doubtful that the T-50 has reached parity. Once the new engines are available in 10-12yrs, then one can do a better comparison(however, this assumes that the F-22 will be stagnant in upgrades during that period).

Quote:

Yes. But it's annoying, when some people claim that they are already known its actual RCS and capabilities, and also trying to put PAK-FA in the "losers" category beforehand.

It's only prudent to have a wait and see stance. The production model isn't available to compare, and the prototype is clearly not as stealthy in its current form.

Quote:

At least, we should wait for some technical data about new IRST and EODAS-like systems which are in development for PAK-FA.
Russian developers aren't newbies in optical and sensors technology. It's not reasonable to believe, that they can't design and produce competitive and capable systems.

The point about MMI/Sensor fusion, isn't how well the individual systems work by themselves. It's how well the fused information from all of the various sensors are put into an easy to understand format for the pilot, so that he has the best situational awareness possible. This allows the pilot to spend more time working on tactics, rather than trying to figure out what's going on, in a dynamic setting. When comparing the to platforms, you also have to look at the systems that they'll be operating in, and just how much information is available in that network. The RuAF(or any other AF for that matter) can't begin to compare with the numbers/variety of different platforms that will be networked together, that the USAF/USN/USMC have at their disposal.

Quote:

There're too many "ifs". I think if PAK-FA will got 5 radars (with a different bands) as it claimed in many sources, where one of them is powerful large-aperture X-Band radar (with a >1500 T/R modules), PAK-FA could probably counteract possible F-35's advantage in stealth,

Unless those 5 emitters have LPI good enough to avoid the F-35's ESM systems, it's not necessarily beneficial to be radiating like that.

Quote:

The question is how well F-35's small aperture radar (AN/APG-81) is suited for air combat? How well it can perform against VLO tagets?

You're the first person I've heard that has suggested that the APG-81 isn't a suitable/capable A2A radar. Aside from the APG-77's advantage in overall size/power, the -81 is the most sophisticated FCR out there. If the T-50 has a larger RCS, then the F-35 is going to see it first(as the T-50's radar will be having to work harder). As an AESA system, it has inherently good capabilities in detecting small targets.

IF anyone can build the next 5th gen, it will be Russia. And the best partner they could ask for has signed on.. India, their engineering is excellent - i work with them daily in the auto industry. I expect in 20yrs this will be toe to toe with F22 just like SU27 is today. Respect the Russian / Indian r&d.

The more interesting question, will China pair up with someone to make a pak 50 clone or a pak 50 killer? I dont see war with either anytime soon, but i could see a skirmish or two between China and Russia over some future teritory since China can't seem to stop growing like its 3rd world.

[quote="Scorpion82"]

wrightwing wrote:

Again, unless the T-50's RCS/LPI is equal to(or better) than the F-35's, then the F-35 will have the first look advantage.

Since when? The T50 has K and L Band Radar that will pick up the F-35 at long range. The T-50 will probably be able to launch 2 long range missiles to the vicinity of the F-35 with different homing systems before the F-35 launches. He has 8 missiles - not 4.
OK the F-35 out-manouvres them??? or its ECM beats them. Now they have each other on Radar. The T-50 can run - his performance gives him that choice. The F-35 can't do that - too slow.
Say they both fire medium range missiles now. Still 2 to 1. Even if there ECMs are not equal T-50 with its super manouverability probably still has the best chance.
Say they miss. The T-50 can still run but he now is in his element - he has - manouverability - 3D Vectoring - better endurance etc. If the Russians can build the T-50 to design even with inferior RCS [We don't know yet]- I certainly would not like to be in a F-35 without a lot of mates nearby -an AWAC nearby and a full load of fuel just picked up from a tanker.

Remember the T-50 looks to be the draggier design of the two aircraft and has a far more basic wing profile. I wouldn't be to confident it will outclass the F-22 in the speed and agility department.[/quote]

All statements from Sukoi and other Russian sources say the T-50 is designed to be better than the Su-series in terms of agility and equal in speed. They say it will have "sustained" Supercruise even with the interim partly new engine based on the 117 engine. I did not know the F-22 was better then an SU35 in terms of agility. If so we have never seen it. It must be a secret.

[quote="rkap"]

Scorpion82 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

Again, unless the T-50's RCS/LPI is equal to(or better) than the F-35's, then the F-35 will have the first look advantage.

Since when? The T50 has K and L Band Radar that will pick up the F-35 at long range. The T-50 will probably be able to launch 2 long range missiles to the vicinity of the F-35 with different homing systems before the F-35 launches. He has 8 missiles - not 4.

If the T-50 uses K band radar they will NEVER see the F-35. K band radars are generally very short ranged.

L band radar is better for long ranged detection but it isn't a panacea and successful L band radar designs tend to have large antennas, like AWACS or aerial surveillance radars, NOT the sized antennas that will fit into a fighter. One thing L band isn't routinely used for is providing targetting data for fire control of active radar guided missiles. Have to to rely on the good old X band fire control radar there my friend and the signature management features of the F-35 will work best against these types of radar.

Once again, neither you me, nor anyone else outside the F-35 program knows exactly how well the signature management features of the F-35 or the T-50, will perform against radar threats so arguing this will happen or that won't happen in the absence of such knowledge is just a tad foolish.

What is interesting though is the amount of effort Russia, China etc are putting in to try and counter it. A lot of people seem to think that 'stealth' has just about run it's course, but it seems every other week someone is touting the latest 'stealth killer'. Seems someone is obviously mighty worried about it...

Quote:

OK the F-35 out-manouvres them??? or its ECM beats them. Now they have each other on Radar. The T-50 can run - his performance gives him that choice. The F-35 can't do that - too slow.

Too slow? Didn't BF-1 just hit M1.3 the other day and isn't it's KPI to hit M1.6? Is this too slow? How, why?

We have F-15 Commanders telling the world that the amount of time the M2.5 capable F-15 has spent at speeds beyond M1.4 can be measured in minutes, across the whole fleet for the 25+ years it has been in service.

So if the USAF with it's current inventory of M2+ capable aircraft are satisfied with this alleged lower performance of it's new fighter, why do you think it's too slow?

What I imagine is important in a fighter that won't be cruising at supersonic speeds very often is how quickly it can get to supersonic speeds when it needs to.

With 43,000lbs of thrust, enormous amounts of on-board fuel and a relatively 'clean' aerodynamic airframe in the majority of operational configurations, I cannot help but think that the F-35 will get supersonic in a big hurry if it needs to.

Can you tell me what the practical difference of the F-35 fly supersonic at M1.4 -M1.6 and the T-50 flying supersonically at the same speeds will be? I'm guessing not all that much?

T-50 might be able to go faster if course, but it takes a long time to get to M2 and beyond in any fighter from all reports and I wonder if it will have the time, once an engagement has begun? I suspect not...

Quote:

Say they both fire medium range missiles now. Still 2 to 1. Even if there ECMs are not equal T-50 with its super manouverability probably still has the best chance.
Say they miss. The T-50 can still run but he now is in his element - he has - manouverability - 3D Vectoring - better endurance etc. If the Russians can build the T-50 to design even with inferior RCS [We don't know yet]- I certainly would not like to be in a F-35 without a lot of mates nearby -an AWAC nearby and a full load of fuel just picked up from a tanker.

And many might call that a mission kill too. The T-50 in this scenario can't kill the F-35 so he runs. Does the F-35 decide to be sporting in this case and then go home too, or continue on and achieve it's original mission?

I wonder exactly how 3D thrust vectoring actually helps one 'run'?

The problem with your scenario and everyone else who likes to compare the F-35 against the T-50, is that neither aircraft operates in a vacuum. They will be operated in force packages with supporting capabilities, so considering one v one air combat is relatively futile. Especially as discussed earlier when you don't actually know the true capabilities of either aircraft...

Conan wrote:

Since when? The T50 has K and L Band Radar that will pick up the F-35 at long range. The T-50 will probably be able to launch 2 long range missiles to the vicinity of the F-35 with different homing systems before the F-35 launches. He has 8 missiles - not 4.

I think we can dismiss this as nonsense as there are no indications about a K-band radar onboard the T-50 at all and those L-band antennas fitted to the wings leading edge have comparably small apertures. Their range performance is going to be limited anyway.

Quote:

Too slow? Didn't BF-1 just hit M1.3 the other day and isn't it's KPI to hit M1.6? Is this too slow? How, why?

We have F-15 Commanders telling the world that the amount of time the M2.5 capable F-15 has spent at speeds beyond M1.4 can be measured in minutes, across the whole fleet for the 25+ years it has been in service.

So if the USAF with it's current inventory of M2+ capable aircraft are satisfied with this alleged lower performance of it's new fighter, why do you think it's too slow?

Perhaps because newer fighters are designed to operate at higher supersonic speeds for extend periods and much more regular than it was the case for previous generation fighters.

Quote:

What I imagine is important in a fighter that won't be cruising at supersonic speeds very often is how quickly it can get to supersonic speeds when it needs to.

Correct, the acceleration to moderate supersonic speeds ~M1.6 in combat configuration is more important than the ability to achieve M 2+ in testing conditions.

Quote:

With 43,000lbs of thrust, enormous amounts of on-board fuel and a relatively 'clean' aerodynamic airframe in the majority of operational configurations, I cannot help but think that the F-35 will get supersonic in a big hurry if it needs to.

It depends on how much thrust the engines generate high up at supersonic speeds. The static thrust values aren't a real indicator of that. The aerodynamics matter as well and the F-35 is certainly not the optimal configured supersonic fighter. Albeit internal carriage of weapons will at least partially compensate vs a fighter relying on external carriage, with the T-50 carrying its weapons and fuel internal as well it's a moot point however.

Quote:

Can you tell me what the practical difference of the F-35 fly supersonic at M1.4 -M1.6 and the T-50 flying supersonically at the same speeds will be? I'm guessing not all that much?

Well IF the T-50 already cruises at that speed it don't need to accelerate to get their which safes time and might bring an advantage.

Quote:

I wonder exactly how 3D thrust vectoring actually helps one 'run'?

It aids supersonic and high altitude manoeuvrability by reducing trim drag and providing control authority when the control surfaces are less efficient.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Perhaps because newer fighters are designed to operate at higher supersonic speeds for extend periods and much more regular than it was the case for previous generation fighters.

Nonsense, in fact the opposite is true. Fighters in general are 'slowing down' compared to previous generations.

Range is improving, thrust is improving, maneuverability is improving, sensors, avionics, weapons, reliability and duel efficiency is improving but the amount of time spent at high supersonic speeds is decreasing as are cleared top speeds...

Quote:

Correct, the acceleration to moderate supersonic speeds ~M1.6 in combat configuration is more important than the ability to achieve M 2+ in testing conditions.

Agreed. Especially if your combat configuration routinely includes large air to ground weapons...

Quote:

Well IF the T-50 already cruises at that speed it don't need to accelerate to get their which safes time and might bring an advantage.

But it's not going to cruise EVERYWHERE at those speeds. Even the F-22 doesn't...

It won't have the fuel for it and Russia etc won't have the tankers to support it...

Quote:

It aids supersonic and high altitude manoeuvrability by reducing trim drag and providing control authority when the control surfaces are less efficient.

Wonderful, but that isn't what I asked. I asked exactly how it is going to help the T-50 'run' after an unsuccessful engagement with an F-35?

The previous post stated that 3D TVC engines will help the aircraft 'run' AFTER it has out-maneuvered the F-35's missile shots..

Conan wrote:

Nonsense, in fact the opposite is true. Fighters in general are 'slowing down' compared to previous generations.

Range is improving, thrust is improving, maneuverability is improving, sensors, avionics, weapons, reliability and duel efficiency is improving but the amount of time spent at high supersonic speeds is decreasing as are cleared top speeds...

Well I was of the impression that the F-22 is operating at higher speeds more regularly and for some extended periods either and the T-50 is going down the same route.

Quote:

But it's not going to cruise EVERYWHERE at those speeds. Even the F-22 doesn't...

That's true. Depends on the situation.

Quote:

Wonderful, but that isn't what I asked. I asked exactly how it is going to help the T-50 'run' after an unsuccessful engagement with an F-35?

It certainly doesn't help to get faster, but it helps to sustain speed while turning, by minimising trim drag. So it can help the aircraft to separate and run.

rkap wrote:

I certainly would not like to be in a F-35 without a lot of mates nearby -an AWAC nearby and a full load of fuel just picked up from a tanker.

...and that would be the case generally considering there'll be 10 times more F-35's in the world than PAK FA's.

And the F-35 can detect a supercruising fighter (skin friction heating from M 1.6 flight is not insubstantial and the air at 60K is quite cold) passively on IR and datalink the info to a raptor who can then engage the T-50 on its own terms.

twistedneck wrote:

IF anyone can build the next 5th gen, it will be Russia. And the best partner they could ask for has signed on.. India, their engineering is excellent - i work with them daily in the auto industry. I expect in 20yrs this will be toe to toe with F22 just like SU27 is today. Respect the Russian / Indian r&d.

The more interesting question, will China pair up with someone to make a pak 50 clone or a pak 50 killer? I dont see war with either anytime soon, but i could see a skirmish or two between China and Russia over some future teritory since China can't seem to stop growing like its 3rd world.

Are you saying the su-27 is on par with the f-22????? Are you crazy? man some of the crap people spin on these forums is amazing. The T-50 DOES NOT EXIST YET!!!!! It is an idea, a gimmic, a prototype that has engine trouble. How many are there 2 or 3? And some how the U.S is going to lay stagnate for 20 years while russia gets this piece of propoganda off the ground? It is just amazing how dumb some people are in thier rabid persistance in the Pak and super A-A missles and super russian radars when all of that crap IS STILL ON THe books!! The f-22 is real and they domimnate at red flag! period. They slay everyone and the Pak is no where near its realm nor will it be. It if it magically got airborne as an effective 8-ship those clowns wouldnt hae the training to now how to maximize thier kinetic effects. For gods sake choke yourself.

I think what he means is that the SU-27 is toe-to-toe with today's 4th gen and assumes that Russia's 5th gen (20 years from now) will be toe to toe with he F-22. Of course this assumes that the US will have nothing new in 20 years.

Right now, the only thing the T-50 has proven is that it photographs well and actually flies. Its got a long, long ways to go before I can feel comfortable comparing it to a F-22.

popcorn wrote:

Right now, the only thing the T-50 has proven is that it photographs well and actually flies. Its got a long, long ways to go before I can feel comfortable comparing it to a F-22.

I'm just amazed how the PAK-FA prototype gets so much praise, I mean the aviation press seem to be gushing all over it and never seem to offer up any crticism whatsoever of the program. Its like its immune to criticism.
Sure it would impress me too, had it come out around the same time as the YF-22 but it first flew 20 years on from the YF-22 with seemingly very little if any advances at all, infact its probably less stealthy! (yeah yeah, in before the "but but Russians didn't see stealth as number 1 priority" excuse)

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

T-50 and F-35