F-35 vs Su-30/35

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

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post24 Nov 2011, 03:46

spazsinbad wrote:bossovich, your mind is easily changeable then if this is all it took: "... An unnamed source stated that earlier this year a presentation was given by an industry air combat threat assessment expert [unnamed] to defense officials of a NATO country [also unnamed]..." AND "...Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation..."

With my computer here I'm simulating a lot of things. No?


An unnamed industry source told me the F-35 can do the kessell run in 12 parsecs and make point 2 past light speed...

Shouldn't have any problem playing the "kinematic games" with SU-30/35's that Mr Palmer (or is that Mrs?) has been told by APA is so important in air combat...

And Eric doesn't just "associate" with them. He damn near quotes them verbatim on a daily basis. Oh and of course he's not beset by groupthink, despite swallowing their nonsense without question. We are...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Nov 2011, 16:04

Another thing to consider, when folks talk about supposed kinematic advantages- it's no advantage if you don't know when to fly fast, or where to shoot. It's not as if any threat aircraft will always be flying around supersonically. Even the F-22 stays subsonic until it needs the speed, and it has much more supersonic endurance than any Flanker.
Offline

thestealthfighterguy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 01:18
  • Location: Your six-O-clock

Unread post01 Dec 2011, 02:25

Better than the F-35.... AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that's a good one. Must be one of the RAND boys that didn't know the F-22's real specs so they made them up. SOme of the people working on the F-35 don't know what she'll really do but this guy know it all. Thanks for the laugh! :lmao:
Stealth, so the bad guys don't know your there till they start blowing up. Have a nice day!
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post02 Dec 2011, 07:41

Word is KnAAPO delivered some unspesified # of Su-35S to Lipetsk Training facility..
Still waiting for any official news.

I would like to throw in that four new build Su-27SM3 has also been delivered from KnAAPO to Krymsk Airbase this week.

And by next week, six new Su-34 will be delivered from NAPO to Voronezh Airbase.
Offline

sufaviper

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2011, 16:30

Unread post06 Dec 2011, 04:41

If F-35 has Viper like kinematics (when both are carrying similar load outs), which I think has become accepted as reasonable. Then you have to think about the 2008 Red Flag when USAF F-15's and F-16's took out IAF SU-30MKI's, . . . with guns. I'm not terribly worried. The SU's are probably better kinematically is some areas of the envelope (thrust vector helps, and the large effective wing area), but with everything else included (avionics, EW, Situational Awareness, Stealth, ect.) I think the F-35 will be fine. And don't foget, F-35 isn't meant to be the king of the skys, that is why F-22's will be flying top cover.

Sufa Viper
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post06 Dec 2011, 05:17

The F-35 test pilots actually stated that its maneuverability is between that of an F-16 and F/A-18 so the answer is yes the F-35 is decent from a kinematic point of view. It lacks external stores so a drag reduction allows for it to perform hard maneuvers without bleeding off too much energy due to drag from external weapons and pylons. As such it should perform quite well against a generation 4.5 Sukhoi and the advantage in SA allows for first look, first shot, and first kill.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7724
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Dec 2011, 05:39

All the latest frontline fighters either deployed today or in development today are all capable of achieving kinematic performance that meet or exceed the capabilities of their human pilots to exploit. They are all fairly evenly matched in this regard, with the exception of the F-22's exceptional super cruise capability.
Superiority in avionics, sensors, signature management are some of the key enablers and differentiators that matter more given the general parity in kinematics performance. Then, of course, there's the larger picture of how a platform achieves synergy with other assets in the force structure.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post06 Dec 2011, 07:53

Second Su-35S, fresh out of KnAAPO:

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircra ... _su-35.wbp

It looks like it has more complete sonsor suite, OLS etc.

Right under the cockpit and right behind the cockpit glass.
Offline

flighthawk128

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 23:25

Unread post24 Dec 2011, 23:31

Uhhh... Is it just me, or is everyone ignoring the fact that the F-35 has better stealth than any fighter jet ever built on this planet??? The point is to see as far as possible using radar, and shoot it down. Okay, probably not as efficient as the F-22 or F-14, but that is because it is new. After some tweaking, maybe with the new scramjet AMRAAMs, it'll do, I think. This factor will beat pretty much any Sukhoi, as long as it doesn't get too close, or run out of missiles.
Offline

falcon17

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2011, 04:00
  • Location: Orlando

Unread post24 Dec 2011, 23:51

The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.

EO-DAS situational awareness system for F-35:

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solut ... targeting/
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Dec 2011, 07:51

falcon17 wrote:The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.



That's 90km for a .01m^2 target. The Irbis would likely not spot an F-35, till it was 30-40km, on a good day.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post25 Dec 2011, 16:37

wrightwing wrote:
falcon17 wrote:The F-35 has the latest technologies which would easily surpass a sukhoi. First of all the F-35 has a 360 degree situational awareness and a powerful radar so good luck sneaking up on it. And if my wingman spots something before I do he can relay the data to me and warn me of it. Also when your within about 90 kilometers (irbis-E detection range for stealth birds if memory even serves me right) the F-35 would have probably picked you up long before and splashed the sukhoi the second the F-35 got a good lock. I'm just going off the information the users on here and other sources have provided me.



That's 90km for a .01m^2 target. The Irbis would likely not spot an F-35, till it was 30-40km, on a good day.


At which point it's probably already been splashed by a Slammer. Have a nice day!! :wink:

flighthawk128 wrote:Uhhh... Is it just me, or is everyone ignoring the fact that the F-35 has better stealth than any fighter jet ever built on this planet??? The point is to see as far as possible using radar, and shoot it down. Okay, probably not as efficient as the F-22 or F-14, but that is because it is new. After some tweaking, maybe with the new scramjet AMRAAMs, it'll do, I think. This factor will beat pretty much any Sukhoi, as long as it doesn't get too close, or run out of missiles.


Excuse me? The F-35 is not an RCS slacker, but its RCS is, from what I've read, approximately ten times that of the F-22. This means that a bandit's detection range of an F-35 will be around twice that of an F-22. The Raptor is by far the best air dominance fighter in the world based on combat performance (OBOGS hiccups aside :evil: ) and I sincerely doubt that the F-35 will be able to match it in this role. By the time the JSF gets to Raptor level, the Raptor will be approaching 6th-generation technology and the NGAD should be entering service.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post26 Dec 2011, 08:38

Excuse me? The F-35 is not an RCS slacker, but its RCS is, from what I've read, approximately ten times that of the F-22


Well, overall, the F-35 has a larger average RCS due to some of its aspects (side and rear due to certain lumps, bumps, and nozzles).... but from the front, I would say that if the F-35 is using similar leading edge material its frontal RCS would be less than the F-22. The F-35 has a lot less total leading edge length due to its smaller size and DSI intakes. I would not be surprised if that cat comes out of the bag sooner or later.
Offline

flighthawk128

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 23:25

Unread post26 Dec 2011, 19:36

Actually, the F-35 is 5th generation stealth technology. The F-22 is 4.5/4.75ish gen. The composite materials on the F-35 is actually better than F-22's, though the RCS is slightly larger because of the added bulk from being a multi-purpose aircraft. But the whole point of the F-35 is not to engage in ACM (Air Combat Maneuovres) or dogfighting. It's to be able to see the target (Flanker) from as far away as possible and shoot it down without ever being in the range of or seen by the opposition. The F-22 was designed for pure performance and to be an air superiority fighter, rather than a multi purpose aircraft. The stealth helps in shooting them down from far away, but it was really designed for dogfighting, and stealth inhibits that. That's why the designers at Lockheed made the stealth of the F-35 even better than the F-22.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post26 Dec 2011, 21:49

flighthawk128 wrote:Actually, the F-35 is 5th generation stealth technology. The F-22 is 4.5/4.75ish gen. The composite materials on the F-35 is actually better than F-22's, though the RCS is slightly larger because of the added bulk from being a multi-purpose aircraft. But the whole point of the F-35 is not to engage in ACM (Air Combat Maneuovres) or dogfighting. It's to be able to see the target (Flanker) from as far away as possible and shoot it down without ever being in the range of or seen by the opposition. The F-22 was designed for pure performance and to be an air superiority fighter, rather than a multi purpose aircraft. The stealth helps in shooting them down from far away, but it was really designed for dogfighting, and stealth inhibits that. That's why the designers at Lockheed made the stealth of the F-35 even better than the F-22.


There's very little doubt the F-22 has better stealth performance than the F-35, though you are correct the F-35 has better materials and technology overall. But its reduced stealth performance has nothing whatsoever to do with it being multi-role or bulky. If anything, the reduced kinematic performance allowed by its multi-role mission has allowed the F-35 to incorporate some tricks that wouldn't work in some parts of the F-22's higher-stress flight regime. F-35 was designed for export, and I bet there are still some tricks in the F-22 that will not be exported even to our closest allies. Just from what's obvious though, the greater wing sweep and tail cant angles of the F-22 gives a return lobe even farther from the transmitter than the F-35. The F-22 has flat exhaust ports, while the F-35's exhaust is highly faceted, but nevertheless round. The F-22's gear and missile doors are machined to micrometer tolerances to seal against electromagnetic penetration, while the F-35 doors fit looser and allegedly have some sort of energized wires around the edges to absorb radar by other means. The F-35 almost certainly has the better engine air intakes though. But overall while I believe the F-35 exceeds the RCS reduction that was required for it, I doubt it's anywhere near the signature reduction of the F-22. And while I've never seen it stated anywhere, I think experience with the F-22 has made it clear the F-22 was overdesigned for stealth; a high price was paid for those last few dB signature reduction, with little to no payoff in combat effectiveness. So the F-35 specifications were relaxed to an RCS reduction that gives the most bang for the buck. The F-35's stealth design and materials however are cheaper to manufacture, much cheaper and easier to maintain, and more than good enough for actual combat use. They're probably also harder to reverse engineer, or at least include elements based more on older technologies already compromised. Look at the RQ-170 that went down in Iran recently. It is subsonic, has a grid over its engine air intake, no evident stealthing of the exhaust except that it's a very likely high-bypass engine with an inherently low heat signature. And while it's curvy, the curves are just smoothed facets; it owes nearly all its stealth technology to the F-117. The same F-117 of which one went down over Kosovo in 1999 and which the Russians and Chinese almost certainly got a great look at and some material samples from, but have nevertheless been unable (or at least unwilling) to copy. The loss of an RQ-170 gives nothing new away in terms of stealth technology. The issue of potential loss over enemy territory has certainly been likewise addressed in the F-35, though exactly how much or how it was done in the F-35 I don't know. One element is inherent, though: knowing how stealth is done is easy compared to knowing how to manufacture what you need to do it, which is itself easy compared to knowing how to pay for that kind of precision manufacturing on that scale.

And despite the fancy airshow tricks it's capable of, the F-22 was not designed primarily to dogfight. It was designed to have a speed and altitude advantage (stealth helps there too; no need to ever stay low and slow and make use of ground cover) over anything else in the air except the MiG-25, which it can out-range and easily out-fight. The F-22's most important advantage after stealth is that its missiles will be coming downwards onto nearly any target and thus not losing a lot of kinetic energy on approach, with a Mach 1.5+ head start on top of that, and from an optimal range and angle for maximum probability of kill, a launch location which the F-22 has the luxury of chosing almost at will. The thrust vectoring nozzles are there to help the plane maintain proper pitch when the air is too thin for the elevators to work effectively, not to make it more maneuverable in a dogfight. Novice F-22 pilots are most often "killed" in training when they mess up and pitch the plane high enough to actually use the thrust vectoring nozzles in a simulated dogfight. (The YF-23, which was an even better air superiority design, just used gigantic ruddervators that remained effective in thin air, and had no thrust vectoring capabilities.) The X-31 proved that thrust vectoring was of marginal use in a dogfight; it enabled very few maneuvers with any dogfighting utility at all, robbed the plane of kinetic energy, and for even the good maneuvers to be useful they had to be done suddenly and violently as a complete surprise to the enemy pilot. Conventional aerodynamic maneuvering was far more powerful and could compensate for the suddenness of thrust-vectored maneuvering if it wasn't a complete surprise. (Notice how planes conventionally pull 9+g; but even if 100% of the engine thrust went to maneuvering, no fighter ever built has a thrust to weight ratio enabling more than about a 1.2g vectoring-based maneuver. And you can't simply add 1.2g to a 9+g conventional maneuver because the pilot would black out.) While F-22 pilots certainly train for dogfighting (and the F-22 is certainly good at it), air superiority fighters fight primarily in the medium range and are designed primarily for combat in the medium range; dogfighting is just what they do in an emergency when something goes wrong and an enemy gets too close.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests