F-35 vs Su-30/35

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

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 15:24

shrimpman wrote:I have just got through the entire topic. One thing I have discovered is a fantastic level of sophistry in between the genuine arguments in this kind of discussions especially from the “eastern bloc fan club”. I really like playing with words, I’m a (wannabe) writer, it’s my job, I quite enjoy reading those comments.
I have compiled a shot list of the techniques I see regularly, maybe they will help you detect and defeat them next time you see them:
1-Scarecrow tactic – secretly swap the opponent’s idea with a ridiculous one, then smash that scarecrow to pieces with a strong statement and claim victory
2 - Invisible men tactic – “It is said that…” , “Experts claim that…”
3 - Cherry picking (by far the most common) – sifting through the facts to pick only the ones that support your view and blatantly ignoring everything that contradicts you
4 - Confirmation effect – seeing only the tiny bits of information that support what you wanted to hear in the first place, regardless of the context, overall scope or even the credibility of your source
5 - Golden sample – presenting a perfect specimen for an assessment and claim that the standard product is going to be just as good. (That’s a far comparison, but a lot of the “real life scenarios” people present are something like that: ok, a lone F-35 guy is flying right above 6 enemy SAM sites and 20 AAA batteries, he is texting his wife with one hand and his mistress with the other, meanwhile Su-35 dude is at his six, 2km behind, with a solid lock and weapons in the air. I believe F-35 is a toast and this proves Yankee air force is no match for the Russian bear!)
6 - I even see one more I did not know (thank you, Sergei, I am always willing to learn) – let’s call it a Big brother – you place your idea and throw in a completely random, undeniable fact that is supposed to protect your statement from a counterstrike. Example: “I believe F-35 is a piece of junk. The Earth is round. “. Obviously, the opponent cannot deny without looking ridiculous.


You forgot to add that in the golden sample the F35 will still kick seven shades of s**t out of the SU 35 and be at the mistress' house in time bwahahahaha :mrgreen:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2543
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 16:14

@ATA

You seem to believe that the F-35's strength relies solely on Stealth, when in reality, stealth or "low observability is only one of the advantages the F-35 brings to a fight, there are many more.

1. Aerodynamic Agility and speed: This is where most critics fail to understand the F-35, they take one look at the aircraft and see small wings, no Thrust vectoring, one engine, bulky fuselage, no canards, and think,oh look it can't turn.

However the F-35 was designed to meet specific maneuvering requirements that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World.

The F-35 was designed to combine the high acceleration and high G performance of the F-16C with the high AOA and slow speed maneuverability of the F/A-18.

How? well for one thing the F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids.
The F-35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty with a 460 foot wing area,
'The F-16C block 50 weighs 18,900 lbs empty with a 300 foot wing area,

this means that when both aircraft are empty their wing loading sits at approximately 63 lbs/sq feet, however since the
F-35A is heavier, it will be less sensitive to loads than the F-16C.

Lets load up a block 50 Viper against an F-35A and see what we have

F-16C Block 50
Empty Weight: 18,900 lbs
Fuel: 6,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 26,900 lbs
Thrust: 29,000 lbs

Wing loading: 89.67 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.08

(Note that in actual combat the F-16 is often equipped with sniper pods and additional ECM equipment, but was deducted to improve agility on this test, the F-35 carries all this internally)

F-35A
Empty Weight: 29,300 lbs
Fuel: 9,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: 43,000 lbs

Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.07

even when loaded with 50% more fuel the block 50 only has a 0.01 pound advantage in thrust-to-weight but the F-35A has a 2 pound/sq feet advantage in wing loading.
plus all the weapons and pods on the F-16 will add significant drag to the air frame while the F-35A only has 2 missiles adding additional drag.

now most Viper drivers dread a slow speed dogfight with Rhinos and Hornets due to that high AOA capability enjoyed by the F/A-18, imagine an F-16 which has the high AOA of the Hoenet, thats what the F-35 brings to the fight.

Why is it a big deal to be more maneuverable than the F-16?
Because according to Lt. Col. Dymtro Fisher "“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable" when asked to compare his Flanker against the F-16D (less maneuverable than the F-16C)
Read here:
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/saf ... RQQqCsaZv8

with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet.

2. Sensors: the F-35 sensor suit is unparalleled, with 2 types of optical sensors with 360 degree coverage, a large AESA arrey and a host of passive emission sensors. the Flanker on the other hand is still stuck with a PESA system and a single IRST sensor that can only scan the frontal arc of the aircraft.

3. Low observability: a lot of critics love to downplay the advantages given by Stealth and say that this can be overcome by other systems, be it LF radars or optical sensors or both, however the fact remains that it will still be more difficult for all these systems to detect, track and target Stealth aircraft.

If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35, then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, if the F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems to maintain lock then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, even if the F-35 isn't completely invisible, it will still cause problems for the Su-35 and in a dogfight, those problems can still dictate the terms of the fight
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7416
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 16:28

ata wrote:
Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?
Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.



Like your Magical Flanker concepts?

I'm sorry to say it but the burden of proof is on the Flanker. An upgraded airplane from the 1970s must detect the 21st century stealth aircraft to even have a chance. Keeping that real simple for you, not going to get into any numbers or anything. The Flanker pilot is betting his life he will be able to detect the multiple stealth aircraft in a pretty big sky. In the mean time we know what 1970's airplanes can do. IRST is not some new magical technology invented yesterday either.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Its the one you don't see that gets you?" even if you detect 50 percent of the F-35s, that's still 50 percent that are going to wreck you. In the mean time Russia has how many upgraded Flankers with the latest sensors? how many Su-35S?

What Percentage of Russian aircraft date from the Soviet Era? (Not exactly known for their avionics capability)

how many aircraft are built post USSR?

and how many have been upgraded?

The last issue, and I hope this isn't too philosophical-- So stay with me. Detection does not equal destruction. F-15s have been detected plenty and never lost in the air, so why does everyone assume an F-35 detected is the same as a kill? The Flanker still has to close in and kill. Detection is but one aspect. and detecting even a few F-35s isn't detecting all of them. Moreover F-35s do not rely solely on stealth. Even then, fully detected Western aircraft have been smashing soviet/Russian aircraft in the air for how many decades now? So why should we be terrified that even if an F-35 or two was detected that they are now dead and the war plan is finished? Even if 2 or 3 F-35s are lost, the amount of Flankers attrition simply isn't feasible. You can't trade half your air force to kill 2 F-35s and expect long term success.

I hope some F-35s are deliberately made "Bait planes" and made to stand out and be detected So that some jagoff who believes the hype get smoked by a the dozen he doesn't see. This also creates the effect that even if F-35s are detected in the future, it will be assumed its a trap, and thus they won't be pursued or attacked out of fear. This is also before we get into "spoofing" in other words using avionics to give fake targets.

Honestly this stuff has become comical. The US has its Flanker type airplane in the F-15 It is known, (Only its always been better) and the F-35 is going to get plenty of practice against them. Flankers are "band aid" tech at this point. "What band aid can we throw on this thing to limp it along 5 more years? sell it to a few more suckers? Canards? Thrust Vectoring? SU-3X Flanker ABCDEFG+?"

Its a joke. Right down to all the "internet tactics" like "flying low to escape detection" That have Flankers doing all kinds of absurd things because the F-35 is dictating the fight from the start. The Second a Flanker takes off its on the defensive, Its flying low, its having to rely on secondary sensors, etc. It can be seen, meanwhile Flanker is desperately trying to find even a single enemy aircraft. How many targets can an IRST track at once by the way? Even your own scenarios bear this out. Flankers have to change tactics, fly perfectly and rely on F-35 pilots making big mistakes along with good weather and good luck. F-35s have all the advantages. Its pilots don't have to be perfect, they don't have to hide, or drastically alter their preferred tactics. F-35s are content to have Flankers burning all their fuel at low altitude trying to survive rather than fight. That works for F-35s just fine. Turning a bear into an earth worm is always a happy end for a man with a fishing hook. Flankers play in the F-35s world not the other way around. Even Bill Sweetman is saying the Russians are conceding first look first shot.

Besides I've seen this movie before. Every time a western aircraft crushes a Russian/Soviet aircraft in the air the excuse train starts. It won't be any different when an F-22 or F-35 knocks out whatever Fulcrum (which the US already did all the way back in 1991 and again in 1999,its already old news) or a Flanker. Its not the cold war anymore. Russian equipment is no longer some unknown boogey man. We have up close and personal looks at them now. we have sparred against them in exercises and practices, Westerners have flown Russian planes and they are not impressed. I'm amazed people keep falling for it over and over again. Not that I mind. The Russian Boogeyman sells western fighter airplanes, and we are content to let him keep doing so.

Again its funny. Tell me how your disco era super fighter will beat us this time? I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. Surely this time will be different? especially as they become even more outdated by the day? tell me how a hand full of Flankers exported to some country for the purpose of airshows somewhere is going to destroy the USAF? Now tell me what excuse we will use when they get smoked. Will we blame the pilots? blame the avionics? the tactics? Help me out.

We can see the strings on this puppet and people keep trying to tell us its a real boy.
Choose Crews
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:24

mk82 wrote:Hang on...hang on ata...I am puzzled about a few things......

Number 1 - Do your research on weapons carriage capabilities of the F35. In internal carriage only mode, it's primary air to air weapon is the AMRAAM, not the Sidewinder at this point of time (definite fact). With external carriage, the F35 can carry Sidewinders on its outer most hardpoints (on the wing) and a mixture of AMRAAMs and air to ground ordnance on the remaining hardpoints.

Number 2 - How can you talk about "real" world scenarios when the F35 has not met the SU 35 in real or even simulated combat? The potential tactics you dream up for the SU 35 are just theories and concepts as well frankly. Especially when the SU 35 has yet to engage VLO opponents in real life. At least we know the SU 35 is a relatively radar "bright" aircraft...not a good starting base. Having to use contrived and potentially disadvantageous tactics due to relatively crippling limitations of your aircraft....not a good starting base as well

Number 3 - By your logic, the capabilities of the SU 35 are also just commercials by Sukhoi. Have you personally flown the SU 35 and verified all of it's capabilities personally? I think not. Sukhoi is in the business of selling aircraft too....why would they be more honest than Lockmart? Are the SU 35's capabilities tested in real world/combat conditions rather than best case scenarios? Do you know the answer for that? It seems like you would believe Sukhoi uncritically if they said that the SU 35 would spray fairy dust out of its exhaust or believe that absurd Sukhoi commercial showing the SU 35 downing gaggles of Eurofighters (actually the Eurofighter, especially armed with Meteor BVRAAMs, would more than adequately match the "mighty" SU 35)


Exactly, when I came here I was expecting to generate those scenarios. It would be, of course far from reality, but much closer than commercial from both sides anyway. "blindpilot" said there are a lot of real pilot here, so I'd like if possible them to tell me how it could be in real life without all those "amazing super technology overcome everything in the world". As I said, stealth great feature, but it works not always, not in every situation in the same great way. And my point (don't want to offend the fans) is that in case of F-35 designers put all the money to stealth capabilities. I remember the great sensors, networking, etc, but from outside it seems like invisibility is playing main tactic's role. That's why I'm so focused on RCS. Numbers tell more story than any word, so, let's play numbers at least those we know more or less.
1. "In real life" F-35 would leave the base for some practical reason. For spying, bombing, getting air dominance, etc. I was considering bombing situation. In that case it's very probably it will haven't AMRAAMs on board.
2. Answered before, but one thing more: "radar bright" means F-35 is hunting with radar turned on - so, no stealth at all. With radar turned off it's different and it leaves us with a lot of scenarios would be interesting to discuss. But if you insist on sentences from commercial brochures, useless.
3. Well, there are no huge secrets around Su. It proved it's power and I saw it with my eyes. At Moscow's air show it was staying on it's tale for 20 seconds and then started accelerate up to the sky. It impressed me, of course. Also, description of Su avionics give me an idea it's not the best in the world, but it's "good enough" to do it's job. It's also not a big secret. In opposite F-35's plane numbers are not very impressive while F-35's "computer" numbers are absolutely amazing. But how that "computers" help in real battle situation? Have you tested F-35 in real battle agains well prepared modern Flankers with good pilots? Answer is no. So, how you could be sure all those amazing numbers will be working (I'd rather skip magic explanation from Lockheed)? So, answering your question, I don't need to be critic about Su, because it's like barbarian - you see all the muscles, and even if he's not that smart you can't be sure if his brain power would be enough to support muscles or not. While you have a kung-fu master agains of him, almost without muscles, and his skills must be proven.
So, if you're interesting in this kind of discussion, I would be very appreciated. If not, in fact I'm not very focused on this problem, and I can easily ignore your vodka-bear comments.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:25

shrimpman wrote:I have just got through the entire topic. One thing I have discovered is a fantastic level of sophistry in between the genuine arguments in this kind of discussions especially from the “eastern bloc fan club”. I really like playing with words, I’m a (wannabe) writer, it’s my job, I quite enjoy reading those comments.
I have compiled a shot list of the techniques I see regularly, maybe they will help you detect and defeat them next time you see them:
1-Scarecrow tactic – secretly swap the opponent’s idea with a ridiculous one, then smash that scarecrow to pieces with a strong statement and claim victory
2 - Invisible men tactic – “It is said that…” , “Experts claim that…”
3 - Cherry picking (by far the most common) – sifting through the facts to pick only the ones that support your view and blatantly ignoring everything that contradicts you
4 - Confirmation effect – seeing only the tiny bits of information that support what you wanted to hear in the first place, regardless of the context, overall scope or even the credibility of your source
5 - Golden sample – presenting a perfect specimen for an assessment and claim that the standard product is going to be just as good. (That’s a far comparison, but a lot of the “real life scenarios” people present are something like that: ok, a lone F-35 guy is flying right above 6 enemy SAM sites and 20 AAA batteries, he is texting his wife with one hand and his mistress with the other, meanwhile Su-35 dude is at his six, 2km behind, with a solid lock and weapons in the air. I believe F-35 is a toast and this proves Yankee air force is no match for the Russian bear!)
6 - I even see one more I did not know (thank you, Sergei, I am always willing to learn) – let’s call it a Big brother – you place your idea and throw in a completely random, undeniable fact that is supposed to protect your statement from a counterstrike. Example: “I believe F-35 is a piece of junk. The Earth is round. “. Obviously, the opponent cannot deny without looking ridiculous.


You're wrong. Thanks for attention.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:42

hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.


Wrong. Su-35 OLS-35 can definitely not detect F-35 from 90/50 km away unless F-35 is going with full AB. Actually here is what the manufacturer says about the OLS-35:
http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/166-ols-35.html
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/ols-35-irst/

It's clearly said that Su-35 can detect Su-30 target at 90 km away when receding and 35 km away when approaching. AFAIK, the 50 km figure is for afterburning MiG-25 target flying above Mach 2. Now Su-30 does not have any IR signature reduction measures, while F-35 is full of them (deeply buried engine, exhaust cooling, ceramic nozzles, using heat sinks for example).

Also the IRST comparison is not good for Su-35. F-35 has latest generation imaging system (EOTS) with performance far superior to the non-imaging heat-seeking system used in Su-35 (OLS-35). OLS-35 does not provide imaging capability (can no identify the target) and has very poor multi-target performance in comparison. It can only detect 4 heat sources in comparison to EOTS which can track hundreds of targets simultaneously.


What do you mean "while F-35 is full of them"? Do you engine specialist? "deeply buried engine" - is ridiculous, sorry. Both engines F135 and AL-31 have very similar ourside gas temperature. "exhaust cooling" - no idea what you mean. I know how exhaust cooling works in F-22 and B-2 and F-117. What do you mean about this technology in case of F-35? "ceramic nozzles" - very funny, sorry. "using heat sinks" - in which part of the engine?
The only fact works for you, is that Su-30 produce much more exhaust from two engines. But for sensors it's not that important in comparison with exhaust temp.
Last edited by ata on 26 Mar 2015, 20:40, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 936
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:45

Once again, the L-band arrays on the PAK FA's leading edge slats are for IFF, NOT radar. Their role is similar to the arrays used by the F-22's AN/ALR-94.

As a heads up for everyone, for future reference, if you see someone claiming the stealth detection merits of the T-50's L-band arrays, then you can almost be certain that that person doesn't know much about the T-50. :D
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:51

popcorn wrote:@ATA,

You can assume F-35 RCS that is most advantageous for your scenario but you can have no factual basis. You are relying on 50km IR soda straw vision as primary sensor? Building a house of cards?

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away. It thinks it is the hunter but it is prey being stalked by a pack of networked wolves. No F-35 fights alone, not because it can't but because it‘s the smart way. This is why the Combat Cloud is being put in place. How does a Flanker deal with foes that enjoy contempt of engagement and enjoy first-look/first-shot/first-kill advantage?


"stalked by a pack of networked wolves" - very impressive. Sure, no F-35 fights alone. The same for Flankers. So let's imagine my Flankers are trying to intercept your F-35. They way F-35 were detected initially depends of what they were doing here. Were they just checking the frontline? Were bombing? Supported cargo plane and going back to the base? In all those cases Flankers will be doing different things, which one do you mean?
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 19:59

zero-one wrote:@ATA

You seem to believe that the F-35's strength relies solely on Stealth, when in reality, stealth or "low observability is only one of the advantages the F-35 brings to a fight, there are many more.

1. Aerodynamic Agility and speed: This is where most critics fail to understand the F-35, they take one look at the aircraft and see small wings, no Thrust vectoring, one engine, bulky fuselage, no canards, and think,oh look it can't turn.

However the F-35 was designed to meet specific maneuvering requirements that easily puts it on the list of most maneuverable platforms in the World.

The F-35 was designed to combine the high acceleration and high G performance of the F-16C with the high AOA and slow speed maneuverability of the F/A-18.

How? well for one thing the F-35A is basically an F-16C on steroids.
The F-35A weighs 29,300 lbs empty with a 460 foot wing area,
'The F-16C block 50 weighs 18,900 lbs empty with a 300 foot wing area,

this means that when both aircraft are empty their wing loading sits at approximately 63 lbs/sq feet, however since the
F-35A is heavier, it will be less sensitive to loads than the F-16C.

Lets load up a block 50 Viper against an F-35A and see what we have

F-16C Block 50
Empty Weight: 18,900 lbs
Fuel: 6,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 26,900 lbs
Thrust: 29,000 lbs

Wing loading: 89.67 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.08

(Note that in actual combat the F-16 is often equipped with sniper pods and additional ECM equipment, but was deducted to improve agility on this test, the F-35 carries all this internally)

F-35A
Empty Weight: 29,300 lbs
Fuel: 9,000 lbs
Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)
Combat weight: 40,300 lbs
Thrust: 43,000 lbs

Wing loading: 87.6 lbs/ square feet
Thrust to weight: 1.07

even when loaded with 50% more fuel the block 50 only has a 0.01 pound advantage in thrust-to-weight but the F-35A has a 2 pound/sq feet advantage in wing loading.
plus all the weapons and pods on the F-16 will add significant drag to the air frame while the F-35A only has 2 missiles adding additional drag.

now most Viper drivers dread a slow speed dogfight with Rhinos and Hornets due to that high AOA capability enjoyed by the F/A-18, imagine an F-16 which has the high AOA of the Hoenet, thats what the F-35 brings to the fight.

Why is it a big deal to be more maneuverable than the F-16?
Because according to Lt. Col. Dymtro Fisher "“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable" when asked to compare his Flanker against the F-16D (less maneuverable than the F-16C)
Read here:
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/saf ... RQQqCsaZv8

with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet.

2. Sensors: the F-35 sensor suit is unparalleled, with 2 types of optical sensors with 360 degree coverage, a large AESA arrey and a host of passive emission sensors. the Flanker on the other hand is still stuck with a PESA system and a single IRST sensor that can only scan the frontal arc of the aircraft.

3. Low observability: a lot of critics love to downplay the advantages given by Stealth and say that this can be overcome by other systems, be it LF radars or optical sensors or both, however the fact remains that it will still be more difficult for all these systems to detect, track and target Stealth aircraft.

If it will take a Flanker 2 seconds longer to lock on a Stealth F-35, then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, if the F-35's airframe is causing the R-77 some problems to maintain lock then that is a huge advantage in a dogfight, even if the F-35 isn't completely invisible, it will still cause problems for the Su-35 and in a dogfight, those problems can still dictate the terms of the fight


Well, nothing to say. Really, it seems another fresh portion of commercial here.
with a big bulk of the RuAF being composed of Su-27s, that instantly translates to the F-35A enjoying a significant maneuvering advantage over much of the RuAF air superiority fleet

Very funny, thanks. Maybe the best promo speech I've seen here.
Offline

shrimpman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:08

ata wrote:
You're wrong. Thanks for attention.


:) I was not actually referring to your posts, Ata, but the earlier discusion, as well as other topics in this forum. Check them out, you will easily discover real gems. Don't want to pick on anyone and point out their nicknames, but you will notice them straight away. As for your arguments, I do not agree with you, but am not qualified to argue. I would just say that western planes have been mopping the floor with Russian constructions for decades now. I can't see why that would change anytime soon, considering how far ahead is the western aviation technology. Russians and Chinese are taking their first baby steps into stealth technology while the Americans have had decades to master it. For some reason F-35 is portrayed as a cow and a sitting duck while all credible data I can find,including pilot opinions, point out it is more nimble than the Viper and far more deadly. One fallacy I can attribut to you is off-handedly dismissing all opinions that do not sit well with your opinions as commercials or propaganda. That is not a good way to argue, as your claims can just as well be dismissed as defeatism or something similar in return.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:33

XanderCrews wrote:
ata wrote:
Ok, expanded. Flanker can detect old-fashioned jets at several hundred kms. But F-35 is stealth, and It will be reduced range. Let's say 100 km, because it's what Flanker can do with 0,01-0,1 sq.m objects. In that case, which one of many "expanded" features of F-35 will help it in that situation? I mean those features that different it from F-15/16?
Also expanded would be to think about IR signature, and it was said earlier that Su-35 could detect F-35 in front at 50 km, and from back at 90 km. Imagine real world situation where F-35 is used for bombing. Most probably it will have only Sidewinders onboard. How it will help him in that case, if I detect you from 50 km, and you can attack me at 30?
Again, I came here not to read tons of commercials and concepts, but I've asked about real world scenarios where F-35 overcome Flanker. Real world is always different from concepts, by the way.



Like your Magical Flanker concepts?

I'm sorry to say it but the burden of proof is on the Flanker. An upgraded airplane from the 1970s must detect the 21st century stealth aircraft to even have a chance. Keeping that real simple for you, not going to get into any numbers or anything. The Flanker pilot is betting his life he will be able to detect the multiple stealth aircraft in a pretty big sky. In the mean time we know what 1970's airplanes can do. IRST is not some new magical technology invented yesterday either.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Its the one you don't see that gets you?" even if you detect 50 percent of the F-35s, that's still 50 percent that are going to wreck you. In the mean time Russia has how many upgraded Flankers with the latest sensors? how many Su-35S?

What Percentage of Russian aircraft date from the Soviet Era? (Not exactly known for their avionics capability)

how many aircraft are built post USSR?

and how many have been upgraded?

The last issue, and I hope this isn't too philosophical-- So stay with me. Detection does not equal destruction. F-15s have been detected plenty and never lost in the air, so why does everyone assume an F-35 detected is the same as a kill? The Flanker still has to close in and kill. Detection is but one aspect. and detecting even a few F-35s isn't detecting all of them. Moreover F-35s do not rely solely on stealth. Even then, fully detected Western aircraft have been smashing soviet/Russian aircraft in the air for how many decades now? So why should we be terrified that even if an F-35 or two was detected that they are now dead and the war plan is finished? Even if 2 or 3 F-35s are lost, the amount of Flankers attrition simply isn't feasible. You can't trade half your air force to kill 2 F-35s and expect long term success.

I hope some F-35s are deliberately made "Bait planes" and made to stand out and be detected So that some jagoff who believes the hype get smoked by a the dozen he doesn't see. This also creates the effect that even if F-35s are detected in the future, it will be assumed its a trap, and thus they won't be pursued or attacked out of fear. This is also before we get into "spoofing" in other words using avionics to give fake targets.

Honestly this stuff has become comical. The US has its Flanker type airplane in the F-15 It is known, (Only its always been better) and the F-35 is going to get plenty of practice against them. Flankers are "band aid" tech at this point. "What band aid can we throw on this thing to limp it along 5 more years? sell it to a few more suckers? Canards? Thrust Vectoring? SU-3X Flanker ABCDEFG+?"

Its a joke. Right down to all the "internet tactics" like "flying low to escape detection" That have Flankers doing all kinds of absurd things because the F-35 is dictating the fight from the start. The Second a Flanker takes off its on the defensive, Its flying low, its having to rely on secondary sensors, etc. It can be seen, meanwhile Flanker is desperately trying to find even a single enemy aircraft. How many targets can an IRST track at once by the way? Even your own scenarios bear this out. Flankers have to change tactics, fly perfectly and rely on F-35 pilots making big mistakes along with good weather and good luck. F-35s have all the advantages. Its pilots don't have to be perfect, they don't have to hide, or drastically alter their preferred tactics. F-35s are content to have Flankers burning all their fuel at low altitude trying to survive rather than fight. That works for F-35s just fine. Turning a bear into an earth worm is always a happy end for a man with a fishing hook. Flankers play in the F-35s world not the other way around. Even Bill Sweetman is saying the Russians are conceding first look first shot.

Besides I've seen this movie before. Every time a western aircraft crushes a Russian/Soviet aircraft in the air the excuse train starts. It won't be any different when an F-22 or F-35 knocks out whatever Fulcrum (which the US already did all the way back in 1991 and again in 1999,its already old news) or a Flanker. Its not the cold war anymore. Russian equipment is no longer some unknown boogey man. We have up close and personal looks at them now. we have sparred against them in exercises and practices, Westerners have flown Russian planes and they are not impressed. I'm amazed people keep falling for it over and over again. Not that I mind. The Russian Boogeyman sells western fighter airplanes, and we are content to let him keep doing so.

Again its funny. Tell me how your disco era super fighter will beat us this time? I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. Surely this time will be different? especially as they become even more outdated by the day? tell me how a hand full of Flankers exported to some country for the purpose of airshows somewhere is going to destroy the USAF? Now tell me what excuse we will use when they get smoked. Will we blame the pilots? blame the avionics? the tactics? Help me out.

We can see the strings on this puppet and people keep trying to tell us its a real boy.


Seems very painful for you... Take it easy :D
It's quite hard to tell you such a long story to answer because so many questions require a lot to say. And because I'm speaking now foreign language I'm not going to do that. Also because you're talking about WW3, while I'm talking about simple comparison. Do you want to compare Air Forces? I have no idea how to do that. F-117 was downed by ground missile made just after WW2. Does it make sense? I think yes. Do I'm going to make any conclusion on that? No. Because we have no hundreds of new and proven S-300/400. We have Mig-31 which is in fact mini-AWACS with speed of 3 Mach. Really, I don't know how to compare it to avoid fantasy. Do you know?
Flankers (Su-27) are old? Yes. Can any other plane in the world do the same maneuvers? No. So what is old in modern Flankers (30/35)? All the rest except body is new. Do you think new Toyota Prius is better than 50 years old Mercedes SLS? Well, it consume less fuel. Ok.
Anyway, I'd be happy to answer all what you said, and I personally invite you August this year to Moscow's air show. At least, you'll see a lot of bad Flankers :D
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:36

disconnectedradical wrote:Once again, the L-band arrays on the PAK FA's leading edge slats are for IFF, NOT radar. Their role is similar to the arrays used by the F-22's AN/ALR-94.

As a heads up for everyone, for future reference, if you see someone claiming the stealth detection merits of the T-50's L-band arrays, then you can almost be certain that that person doesn't know much about the T-50. :D


Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5175
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:39

ata

First of all, even on bombing missions EVERY F-35 will have AT LEAST 2 AMRAAMs. There are dedicated AAM stations inside the bays independent from the bombing, or secondary of you will, stations.

Second, you can't pose a scenario and they say "Don't talk to me about stealth, it won't work, and don't talk to me about sensors, they give away your position or are only in commercials" while simultaneously saying "Su will detect, track, and engage with OLS-35 only based on this brochure".

You want to talk proven?

The F-35's Barracuda has already detected and jammed an F-22's radar. AFAIK no other RWR on earth has so much as detected the F-22 transmissions. This goes to show two things: 1) The LPI technology works 2) The sensor technology on the F-35 is far more advanced than the F-22. There is no evidence that any Russian system has OR can detect LPI capabilities.

The F-35 has an RCS TARGET of 0.003-0.001m^2. This target is an "end of life" target, meaning after 8,000 hours of use it still has this ability. The target was exceeded in ACTUAL RCS testing. There have been statements made by AF Brass that the F-35 surpasses the F-22 in RF stealth. "I can't put a weapon system on it even when I can see it through the glass" was stated about the RF capabilities of the F-22 from the perspective of either an Eagle pilot or a Typhoon pilot. So, stealth works at more angles than head on only.

The OLS-35 states it can detect a head on Su-30 at 25km. The EOTS HAS "detected" a hotel window at ~70km. That is the difference IIR makes. Panning over to the MGM Grand from over 40nm, individual windows were visible. At close range the panel seams of an F-16 are visible. Oh, and two engines (especially so widely spaced apart) will make a larger IR signature than one engine of the same temperature.

The OLS-35 has a 10X7.5degree view that it slews around like a MSA radar. The EODAS has detected, classified, and tracked ballistic missiles at around 1,000km, and tank fire, artillery, and rockets (of the ground combat variety) from a range of about 20km. OLS-35 states it can track up to four targets, EODAS can track over a thousand.

Kinematically the F-35 has proven 9G, 50+degree capability, Acceleration rivaling the F-16 and F-22, Cruise at 1.25M and hitting M1.6 with a 2.5ton payload. What loaded top speed has the Su-35 proven? What are the stores limitations when it comes to speed?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1341
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:47

@ata

Let's establish some realities for you. There is a joke about two friends walking in the African grasses when they see a Cheetah running towards them. The first friend sits down and changes from his hiking boots, into running shoes. His friend laughs and says, "You cannot outrun a cheetah!" His friend replied, "I don't have to. I just have to outrun you. :)"

Stealth and situational awareness is like this. It has been that way since the first WW I bi plane came out of the sun and flamed the unsuspecting adversary.

The US has had and trained with stealth for many years now. In 2007 The F-22 was in its first "Red Flag" training. First. It shot down every other aircraft who never knew they were there. So they changed the rules of engagement and let the adversaries close to visusal. The 4th Gen aircraft couldn't get a lock with targeting systems even when they could "see" the F-22. Fast forward five or so years and the rules of engagement have been fine tuned for effective training. German Typhoons will even claim F-22 kills, and F-15 pilots will say they know how to fight "vectored thrust" now.
BUT remove all those rules of engagement, and just let the F-22 go back to 2007 and every one of the adversaries would die. Even in 2015. Nothing has changed but the rules of training.

The F-35 may not be able to "outrun an F-22." But it doesn't have to. It just needs to manage the battlespace. F-105's could outrun MIG 17s and in fact did sometimes escape that way. But it didn't change the reality of a piss poor kill ratio for the Thuds.

Here is what will happen in real world engagements.

First - In all likelihood all the SU-35s will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles/B-2s/EW systems. The networked enemy comm will go dark from that and other"attacks." If S400/500 radars come on line they will die quickly from SEAD sorites undetected, and some of those attackers will be F-35s over head undetected.
Second if those with Russian weapons try a similar approach to attack first with 4th Gen aircraft, they will fail because they don't have stealth/ECM to execute against modern Integrated Defense Systems. It will be the same result as if F-16s/18s tried to attack S400 systems. All aircraft in the air report to the bottom of the ocean. That is the nature of modern IDS.

But let's assume some SU-35s get airborne. There will be F-22s in the air. The Flankers will have to deal with those before they can try your test flight against the F-35s. See unlimited rules Red Flag 2007.

But let's assume the F-22s were heading home for fuel, and only Aussie F-35s were up for Mig Cap. The Aussies will see the SU-35s first and manuever to manage the battle space. The SU 35s can't stop/preempt this because they haven't seen the Aussie F-35s yet. While they are looking, the Aussies are positioning away from any type of ground radar, IRST searches. The Aussies will shoot first and kill first and the SU-35s will probably not even know they were in the battle space at all.

As to your two fictional F-35s who were being targeted?? some how by the airborne SU-35s, by a means we have no evidence even exists, they will fly home with all weapons unused.

That's the closest thing to real world examples. No Stealth and poor SA + Modern IDS equals dead.

BP

PS I didn't go there because we start to enter classified areas where no one knows, but if the SU-35s get radar / sensors on the Aussies and fire a missile. The F-35 has some significant EW abilities for even that instance. The Aussies will win even then.
Last edited by blindpilot on 26 Mar 2015, 21:31, edited 5 times in total.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Mar 2015, 20:47

ata wrote:Interesting. Are you from T-50 developing team? I mean, you are so confident, there is no way that you're just internet reader. I have ideas why you're talking about something you have no idea at all, but could you please provide us your reference first?


Simple physics.

In order to steer an esa antenna you must have multiple (many sources say at least 10) transmit modules in both the X and Y axis. Having multiple modules only in one axis (as is on the T-50 and proposed SU series) will only allow a side-to-side sweep and severely limit the range as the energy cannot be focused. Without an up-n-down (Y axis) sweep means that you will only get a compass heading to the contact and no elevation bearing to use as a further guide to follow on sensors.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests