F-35 vs Su-30/35

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

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 10:43

eloise
F15
The APG-63 has a range of 100 miles (87 nmi; 160 km) no near 400km
F14
The APG-71 system itself is capable of a 700 km range, but the antenna design limits this to only 370 km -
Very close but still less.
F22
The APG-77 201–241 km at best and unofficially 193 km for a 1 m2 target
F35
APG-81 80-85nm for Su-27 whose RCS greater than 10

"Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km"
False statement ,that it were true This information should look strictly contrary-just as looking your information for Zaslon-m

F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

"this is what they achieved "
And ?


"It shown how APG-81 deal with Su-27 at that distance , but it doesnt say APG-81 only able to start tracking Su-27 at that distance , and you dont know the jamming condition in that simulation either"
If there were any conditions that you have not forgotten about it to praise.
And you think that the pilot simply ignored the appearance on the radar 2 hostile objects If it see them from 300km?
"Pfft they are too far away, I do not care, they do not see me."

"Rafale and typhoon have 2 engine but dont use TVC "
Ignore the technical ability of France and Germany to do so,I'm not interested in doing they are in this field of study or not.

To maximize the effect of the TVC engines on the aircraft must be much farther apart than Rafale and typhoon .

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofight ... 06.arp.jpg
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_ ... 19_045.jpg
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1 ... 282%29.jpg

"F-35 will be carrying AIM-9s internally"
He was not able to do it.Only Aim-120.

"can you give the source for this "

http://vympelmkb.com/products/prod01/

"if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ? "
Turn ON your brain-because they launch it themselves.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 11:36

sergei wrote:zero-one

"so why on earth will we load them both with 50% internal fuel"
Viper against an F-35A
F-35A Fuel: 9,000 lbs Fuel
F-16C Fuel: 6,000 lbs Fuel
Because we want to test the proposition comparability manoeuvring and acceleration characteristics 2 aircraft.

F16 Combat radius: 550km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
F35A Combat radius: 570km with 4000lb =4 GBU16
Has some advantage only at high bomb load but not in "Weapons: 2,000 lbs (6 missiles)" air-air configure.
Of course we can take a fully fueled F-35A he will seriously surpass the F-16 in range but in terms of maneuverability and acceleration? No chance.
And if you fill the same amount of fuel in the aircraft 6000lb ? Guess who wins in the range.



What? Those range figures you gave? What was their fuel state? And where did you get the nu,bers by the way? i got mine from the reference page of F-16.net.

Okey lets just put it this way, according to F-16.net, an F-16 block 50 has a range of 312 nautical miles (360 miles) in hi-lo-hi flight configuration with 3,000 lbs of bombs and 100% internal fuel, thats 7,000 lbs.

Alright, now the F-35As published combat radius on internal fuel is 613 nautical miles.

In short, in order to match the F-16 block 50's range, the F-35A only needs 50.8% internal fuel.

So lets calculate
Mission profile: combat radius requirement 360 miles, load 3,000 lbs.

F-16 block 50
Empty: 18,900 lbs
Fuel (100%): 7,000 lbs
Weapons: 3,000 lbs
Wing area: 300 feet
Thrust 29,000 lbs

wing loading: 96.33 lbs/sq feet
T/W ratio: 1
________________________________________________
F-35A
Empty: 29,300 lbs
Fuel (50%) 9,000lbs
Weapons: 3,000 lbs
Wing area: 460 feet
Thrust 43,000 lbs

wing loading: 89.78 lbs/sq feet
T/W ratio: 1.04


Again, how does the F-35 have "no chance"? Looks like it actually has the upper hand
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 14:28

zero-one

It seems one of the first posts from me you read inattentively.

Fully loaded F-16 is inferior in terms of manoeuvrability and acceleration half-empty F-35. This one does not even doubt.
Just look at their take-off weight.
To more or less compare 2 very different aircraft we have to load them in proportion ie 50% of fuel, 50% of arms .
Next, we compare the obtained results half-empty F-35 less manoeuvrable and fast but its range is superior opponent 2 time.
What does this mean? That one plane makes work faster but at a short distance,another plane does business slowly but in a much greater distance.All this affects the choice of what kind of plane you send and for what objective,and what time do you have for an operation.
If you look at what these aircraft originally developed then there should be no questions.


P/S
By the way I would like to know how it is certainly possible to achieve high manoeuvrability without methods inaccessible to the F-35.
P/P/S re-read my post "PostFri Mar 27, 2015 10:45 am"
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 14:42

blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:10

sergei , your comment shown that you have very limited knowledge about radar or how they work
here are some link about radar range equation : have a read ( carefully ) , try to understand it before you comment anything , they said the same thing with different number so it may be a bit hard to understand if you not good at math :?
Image
where

S = signal energy received by the radar
Pavg = average power transmitted by the radar
G = gain of the radar antenna
σ = radar cross section of the target
Ae = effective area of the radar antenna, or "aperture efficiency"
tot = time the radar antenna is pointed at the target (time on target)
R = range to the target

According to this relationship, reducing the radar cross section of a vehicle to 1/10th of its original value will reduce the maximum range at which the target can be detected by nearly 44%! While that reduction alone is significant, even greater reductions in RCS are possible.

An aircraft that reduces its front aspect signature by a factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent.

it take 95 % RCS reduction to reduce radar detection range by 50 %, and a 99 % reduction in signature reduce radar detection range by 67 % .

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/el ... 0168.shtml
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=Ut ... ge&f=false
http://anagnostou.sdsmt.edu/2007Fall/RC ... Ch2.17.pdf
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=rz ... ge&f=false

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=0W ... ge&f=false
sergei wrote:F15
The APG-63 has a range of 100 miles (87 nmi; 160 km) no near 400km
F14
The APG-71 system itself is capable of a 700 km range, but the antenna design limits this to only 370 km
F22
The APG-77 201–241 km at best and unofficially 193 km for a 1 m2 target
F35
APG-81 80-85nm for Su-27 whose RCS greater than 10
"Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km so according to radar equation APG-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km"
False statement ,that it were true This information should look strictly contrary-just as looking your information for Zaslon-m

Now after you understand the basic of radar equation above , here are the radar tracking range they calculate from available public information ( you can also calculate Zaslon-M range from public figure by yourself based on the radar equation)
Image
Image
here is the Su-35 Irbis-e range based on public figure
Image
( btw the most modern F-15 now using APG-63v3 and AN/APG-82 , which have much better range than APG-63v2 )

sergei wrote:And ?

that was 30 years before the F-35 , F-35 can atleast achieve the same level of RCS reduction , and as i have explained it not hard to keep your enemy within 45 degree from your nose ,and you should also remember that at wide angle Su-35 will have very high RCS too


sergei wrote:And you think that the pilot simply ignored the appearance on the radar 2 hostile objects If it see them from 300km?

no , but closer target equal higher threat level

sergei wrote:To maximize the effect of the TVC engines on the aircraft must be much farther apart than Rafale and typhoon

really ? , why ? F-22 TVC is not very further apart , Aim-9X still have TVC despite the fact that it only have 1 engine :|
do you really think that put TVC on 2 engine further apart will have better effect on turn rate than if they were close together ?
btw you havenot answer my question : how long does it take for Su-27 or Su-35 to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2 when it is aimed with 4 missiles ? ( or 10 missiles since russian fan boy often like to brag about how many AAM their su-27 can carry )

sergei wrote:"if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ? "
Turn ON your brain-because they launch it themselves.

no , you should turn On your brain
the only available information was recorded by USAF is the number of missiles kill , and distance to target , the assessment that targets dont try to evade Aim-120 is a make up statement by APA , not a fact
Last edited by eloise on 28 Mar 2015, 15:21, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:14

ata wrote:blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.

to be able to change people mind about something , you must atleast have more knowledge than them about the topic , but from what you have comments it show that you know very little about fighter , radar or aerodynamic
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:23

"have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35"
Let's check

F16
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.079

Su-27
Loaded weight: 51,650 lb Thrust with afterburner: 55,100+ lb
Thrust/weight:1.067

Su-35
Loaded weight:56,660 lb Thrust with afterburner: 64,000 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.295

F16 have 0.012 better ( but not much better - only 1.112%) acceleration than Su-27 ,
F16 have 0.216 worse acceleration than Su-35(That's what I call a significantly worse - 20%)

Summing= Half-truth for Su-27, completely untrue for Su-35

What with the manoeuvrability?

F-16 Wing area: 300ft Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Su-27 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft
Su-35 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft²

No, and here F-16 lost

But perhaps climb ?Let see.

F-16 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min
Su-27 Rate of climb: 59,000 ft/min
Su-35 Rate of climb: >55,000 ft/min

Sad but F-16 lost again :?
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:36

sergei wrote:"have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35"
Let's check

F16
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.079

Su-27
Loaded weight: 51,650 lb Thrust with afterburner: 55,100+ lb
Thrust/weight:1.067

Su-35
Loaded weight:56,660 lb Thrust with afterburner: 64,000 lb
Thrust/weight: 1.295

F16 have 0.012 better ( but not much better - only 1.112%) acceleration than Su-27 ,
F16 have 0.216 worse acceleration than Su-35(That's what I call a significantly worse - 20%)

Summing= Half-truth for Su-27, completely untrue for Su-35

What with the manoeuvrability?

F-16 Wing area: 300ft Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Su-27 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 77.3 lb/ft
Su-35 Wing area: 667ft Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft²

No, and here F-16 lost

But perhaps climb ?Let see.

F-16 Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min
Su-27 Rate of climb: 59,000 ft/min
Su-35 Rate of climb: >55,000 ft/min

Sad but F-16 lost again :?

:doh:
1 ) acceleration is not just about thrust/weight , you have to take into account drag as well ( dont be lazy , take out the flight manual )
example : Image
2 ) F-4 have much lower wing loading than F-16 does that mean F-4 turn better than F-16 ? :roll:
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:45

eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 15:53

eloise
F-4E
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 0.86
F-16
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 1.079

F16 Win
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 16:02

sergei wrote:eloise
F-4E
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 0.86
F-16
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft²
Thrust/weight: 1.079

F16 Win

sergei
Firstly, acceleration of an object according to Newton is :
acceleration = force/ mass
for a fighter, the resultant force on it is :
engine thrust- drag :| understand ?
hence thrust/weight is not the right value to consider when you want to know what fighter accelerate better, the right value is
(thrust-drag) / mass so when calculate acceleration rate you have to consider drag index and airfoil of the aircraft
Secondly, i asked you, F-4 have lower wing loading than F-16, does that mean it will turn better ? ( iam not talking about acceleration here)
Last edited by eloise on 28 Mar 2015, 16:19, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2003
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 16:16

sergei wrote:eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.

alright , firstly let start with something simpler :
if a car need around 5 gallons of fuel to go 10 km, how much fuel it need to go 20 km? ( radar equation is somewhat based on the same principle, just read it carefully then you will understand )

secondly, radar equation is not from any producers, it not advertising but rather physics rule

last but not least, it true that radar equation is not perfect, it doesn't take into account things such as clutter rejection threshold, signal to noise ratio.. etc but if you take into account these things, the situation will favor stealth fighter even more
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 16:45

ata wrote:blindpilot,

Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know.


Sure, this is a key. I'm very appreciated for your answers. I've got enough information. There is no way for me to change anyone's mind here, and I won't even try. Again, thanks you a lot.


You're welcome.

To be clear the statement above is for specific classified specifications such as actual RCS, and capabilities of EW, and radar modes and functions.

So
1. As to classified performance you are left to the generic opinions of those who have actually used systems and planned stealth attacks etc. in real world combat. You can work on changing their opinions I suppose, but I would probably assume their opinions are based on real understanding. That's just me.

2. The public knowledge data and statements of design philosophy are readily available and understood. That's where discernment of the meaning of that data can answer some of your questions very well. Just read through the many threads here and you might pick up some answers.

The SU-35 is not a 4th +++++++ plus plus gen aircraft. That's marketing commercial talk. Actually you could say that 5th Gen is commercial speak. I have no problem with that statement.

The SU-35 is a 1970's Soviet era design, with replacement parts and new toys bolted on. But it is still that basic 4th gen airplane. One problem with that is the add-ons that are bolted to the design, are known to be, proven to be a generation or so behind current western electronics.

Follow the money. How many SU-35s have been sold to other countries, or to Russia itself for that matter? That's with bargain basement discount prices. How many countries have bought the F-35 at very expensive prices?

Forget bought and ordered! There are already five countries other than the US services that have actual aircraft you can touch, and many more ordering more F-35s. There are more non US F-35s flying now than Russian T-50s. There are more F-35s flying now than SU-35s plan to have in the near futrue, and the F-35s at "LOW" rate of production will be building more F-35s a month than Sukhoi will ever build in a month of the SU-35s.

I agree politicians can be stupid, but you have to decide that a lot of very smart people, who have been honest in the past, have joined a pretty big conspiracy to not see what the money is telling you.

So no you probably won't change a lot of minds. What does that tell you?
BP
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 17:11

eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:eloise
I repeat once more


F35 use Apg-81 radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = ** m2 from ***km ,
according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from ***km ,
tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 270 km

I have no problem with understanding how low RCS affect the detection range.
The problem is that you have one figure and table(Apg-81 can track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km ),but this value is not the maximum range of the radar and you can not just pick up and continue the line on graph(of course you can but for any professional or simply an attentive person is simply false advertising and extrapolation)

Let see it
APG-81 detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 337.5 km,
APG-81radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400+ km
I find that it is very hard to believe.

alright , firstly let start with something simpler :
if a car need around 5 gallons of fuel to go 10 km, how much fuel it need to go 20 km? ( radar equation is somewhat based on the same principle, just read it carefully then you will understand )

secondly, radar equation is not from any producers, it not advertising but rather physics rule

last but not least, it true that radar equation is not perfect, it doesn't take into account things such as clutter rejection threshold, signal to noise ratio.. etc but if you take into account these things, the situation will favor stealth fighter even more

I assumed that we are discussing the range of the APG-81 if so give me max range APG-81
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 17:14

zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:Perfect, thanks a lot.
I have questions.
1. When 1st wave is close to reach fire distance, why they are still going all in the same line and at the same altitude (I guess)? If they know to be fired, it's quite a stupid tactic, I believe. Especially is they know there are 3 more waves and it's possible to manage them to organise better group than what you described.


The 1st wave of Su-35s can't see the Stealth F-35s, for all they know the only things they can see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock', they need to get close enough to fire their R-77s at optimum range which is why they stay in formation as long as possible.

Attacking in separate waves is a common Soviet tactic used, it was used in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars by Soviet advised enemy forces. now if you have a better tactic, please elaborate.

ata wrote:2. When stealth F-35s to guide the AMRAAMs, will the keep stealth mode? How do they communicate with missiles?

Oh yes they can, the F-35s are equipped with advanced LPI capable data links like MADL that are very difficult to track.

ata wrote:
3. Non-stealthy F-35 would be visible for Su-35 from much more than 100+ km. It means second wave still able to guide the missiles. I have no idea why they all must misfire?

Possible, but remember the F-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the Su-35s to track and target anything precisely.

ata wrote:
Also, in real life stealthy F-35 will be detected by ground system as well (and it will be known that 4 from 8 are stealth), so Flankers could make different tactic from the beginning.


Again as I said, we will have minimal support from 3rd party units, its unfair already that I gave the Su-35s initial support from GCI at the beginning, and no Growler or E-3 support for the F-35s at all.

Again if you have a better tactic for the Flankers please elaborate so that we may continue this chess match


Blindpilot already said this modelling is wrong, anyway, I want to answer.
The problem here is that we have not enough "proven" information. The same I have no proven details (except official commercials) about modern Flankers the same you have no even official details about F-35 (some is known, but key things like RCS is not known at all). We also have no understanding about LRI, I mean I didn't make deep research, but it doesn't seem to impossible to detect it. Of course "front attack"' is'n working for LRI but I can imagine that if I'm able to scan LRI signals from not only one point (let's say two/three radars flying in one group) should be possible to make some math to recognise the source. But it's just my guessing. Not something to be used in this discussion.
So, any modelling in such a case is like playing DOTA, could be interesting, but nothing about real life.
Anyway, to answer you, I would prefer this tactic: When first wave detect emeny they are going down...

Let me explain how (I guess) that could work. Radar distance-resolution depends on impulse length (which normally limits it's power). Should be (again, I only guess) LRI has worse distance resolution than "normal mode", but even for any mode if jet flies at altitude comparable with object size it should be dig deal to detect it.

..then second group tries to keep as close as possible to heavy F-35's but to be far enough to be safe from AMRAAM. We are talking about reasonable distances, because safe zone would be 120-130+ km, while to attack with R-77 (ok-ok... even from such a low altitude) should be about 50 km. This distance will be covered in just 2-3 minutes. So F-35 can't attack second group because they're too far, and can't attack first group because they are not using radars (getting direction from second group) and only turn it on just before attack. Or even come so close (if would be possible depend of condition) to lock the target with IR missiles.
What those stealth F-35 could do in that case? I suppose: "nothing". Also, because second group would try to get quite close to heavy F-35's then at those angles it should be possible to detect also stealthy F-35 at flanks.

Your turn :)
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests