Page 20 of 76

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:37
by zero-one
sergei wrote: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"



Your English is so darn difficult to understand, and dont tell me that its because english is not your mother tounge, because Im asian and English isn't my primary language as well.

Anyway,

Why will you load both aircraft with 50% fuel?
Is that how you go into combat? Ofcourse not.

Imagine this combat scenario.

No body goes into combat saying, "hey lets load both aircraft with 80% fuel and send them into combat".

That doesnt happen.

So let me explain it slowly, i'll even put a script for you.

Lets say, a base in Ukrain hosting USAF F-16s and F-35s are ordered to attack a base near the Russian boarder.

The distance to the target is 500 nautical miles.
The F-16 can't reach that target so the F-16 needs to carry an additional 50% of fuel using external fuel tanks.
The F-35A on the other hand only needs 82% internal fuel to reach the target.

Thats how combat is derived.

But okey lets test the F-35A against the Su-30 and lets load them both with 40% fuel and 6 missiles.

F-35 vs Su-30

Su-30

Empty:40,565 lbs
Fuel(40%): 8,290 lbs

weapons:
4xR-77: 1540 lbs
2xR-11: 460 lbs
150 rounds: 450 lbs
Total: 2450 lbs

Combat Load: 51,305 lbs
Thrust(dry/AB): 33,820/55,120
Wing Area: 667 feet

TW Ratio
Dry:0.659
AB:1.07
Wing Loading: 76.91
Wing Loading plus body lift of 40%: 46.13 lbs/sq ft

_____________________________________________

F-35A
Weights
Empty: 29,300 lbs
Fuel(40%): 7,392 lbs

Weapons:
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
180 rounds: 216 lbs
Total: 1,932 lbs

Combat weight: 38,642

Thrust
Dry: 28,000
AB: 43,000
Wing Area: 460 feet

TW Ratio
Dry:0.72
AB: 1.11
Wing Loading:84 lbs/ sq ft.
Wing Loading plus body lift of 45%: 46.13 lbs/sq ft

Both aircraft can reach considerable ranges with 40% internal fuel.

However the F-35 will have the advantage in both thrust to weight ratio and thrust to drag ratio because of it's internal weapons carriage.

When body and tail lift are taken into account, both aircraft's wing loading sits at approximately at 46 lbs / sq feet when loaded this way.

All Fighter statistics are taken in clean configuration, (no external weapons)

Once you hang weapons, external fuel tanks, jamming pods, sensor pods and countermeasures, the "kinematic" performance as we call them, drops.

This is true for all fighters, but for 5th gen fighters which have the option to carry only internal weapons when needed, the kinematics do not drop considerably due to the lack of weapons carriage drag.

An F-35 performing a pure air-air mission will always go out in a clean configuration (no external ordnance)
And according to pilots, an internally armed F-35 has the following attributes compared to an F-16C.
-Better maneuverability
-Better subsonic acceleration
-Better supersonic persistence
-Better departure resistance
-Better departure recovery.

Why am I comparing it to an F-16?
Because according to Ukrainian Flanker pilot Lt. Col. Dmytro Fisher said:

“I think the F-16 is a little less powerful, but more maneuverable. It was such an honor to fly with Col. Toomey, and the adrenalin is still pumping, it was an experience of a lifetime."


Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/73996/safe ... -x-HdoaySM#ixzz3AM9NLHAj

In conclusion, an F-35A going into a dogfight will enjoy many advantages in kinematic performance alone.

Now combine that with Stealth, integrated avionics, sensor fusion and advanced electronic warfare capabilities, then it becomes clear that the F-35 will have a significant advantage over most aircraft.


You're saying that the F-35 cannot be highly maneuverable because it does not have Thrust vectoring or canards?

Thrust vectoring (according to Su-35 and F-22 pilots) are only useful in extreme slow speed maneuvers, but in high speed dogfights, TV is not used.

Canards, in an unstable design canards can add great pitch authority however they also produce a down force that increases wing loading, this is the disadvantage of canards in unstable aircraft which is why Sukhoi removed canards on the Su-35.

The F-35 is an unstable design with a large smooth underbelly designed to create bodylift which in turn increases maneuverability.

The engine cowls and forward fuselage is chined in order to produce vortex lift while turning which reduces wing loading and again increases maneuverability.

The F-35 uses a trapizoidal wing design which reduces drag and maintains energy in a turn.

The F-35 has a canted tail design which again increases lift and decreases wing loading and aids the aircraft's maneuverability.

The F-35 has the single most powerful engine in the world which gives it a very high Thrust to weight ratio and internal carriage which eliminates or reduces weapons carrige drag


All of these things increases the F-35's maneuverability, its not just about canards and Thrust vectoring

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:39
by mrigdon
ata wrote: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.


I'll go out on a limb and say it would be impossible to detect a lower respiratory infection in a pilot flying an F-35.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:50
by zero-one
ata wrote:

..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 :)


First the F-35s dont need to use Radar ata all, they have EOTS and DAS, both are passive IR sensors and DAS has 360 degree coverage around the aircraft, these sensors can be used to queue and guide AMRAAMs to their targets even without Radar support.

Second the F-35 uses AESA radar which has LPI(not LRI) capability, which means low probability of intercept.

This means that the F-35 can use their radars more freely than the Su-35s who are still using PESA systems taht are easier to track and detect.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:53
by ata
blindpilot wrote:
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


Well, if to talk about money, then as far as I know F-35 marketing for non-US countries was like you pay first, then we're going to develop the plane. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Moreover, there are a lot of "western" aircrafts with great sensors, radars etc which are not Flankers or F-35. But there are 430 Su-30 ordered/sold around the world (not in Russia). How many Rafales? Eurofighters? Would China buy F-35 if they can or rather try to build their own? Who knows... But they ordered Su-35 by the way just recently. The same about India, where FGFA project is still under development.
What could it say about planes itself? I believe nothing. It would tell me more about politics, economic plans but not about planes.
I've said already here that Su-30/35 is "good enough". In different words the weight of real-world circumstances is likely the same (or comparable) as stealth-sensors concept in this comparison. But this is only my opinion.
I can remember a lot of times when great concept was ruined by real life. When Romans we fighting with barbarians they had perfect well-organised, prepared, great armed army. They lost. Do you remember 300 spartans? Tiny pass changed history. It was what I call real-life influence. When Hitler invaded Russia he planned to win in few weeks. Because by his concept he had much-much better tanks and planes. And it was not far from reality. You know the end of the story. When Napoleon tried to do the same he almost succeeded, he even captured Moscow. But he forgot (or didn't mind) Russian winter. It destroyed him.

As I said I'd like to never test if your concept works. But the guys here are so aggressive even here that I'm worried they would be happy :)

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 17:55
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:

..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 :)


First the F-35s dont need to use Radar ata all, they have EOTS and DAS, both are passive IR sensors and DAS has 360 degree coverage around the aircraft, these sensors can be used to queue and guide AMRAAMs to their targets even without Radar support.

Second the F-35 uses AESA radar which has LPI(not LRI) capability, which means low probability of intercept.

This means that the F-35 can use their radars more freely than the Su-35s who are still using PESA systems taht are easier to track and detect.


This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:18
by sergei
I have a question:
In which mode the radar of F-35 work when track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km - is it LPI or other mode?

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:31
by eloise
ata since your English is bad , can you at least try to use Google translate ? :shock:
ata wrote: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)

according to USAF , F-35 have frontal RCS of about 0.0015 m2 ( real value may be smaller ) ,

and we also know that ,they done the same thing in HaveBlue program about 30 years before F-35
Image
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
ata wrote:. 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.


Firstly ,it LPI not LRI

Secondly , it very hard ( or near impossible )for RWR to detect and separate AESA radar signal from background noise because AESA radar change frequency very fast and scan in irregular pattern + the compression of pulses , unless the RWR know the logic of the transmitter (radar ) , it not possible for the RWR to recognize the signal it received as a radar ,instead the RWR will treat the AESA radar signal it received as background noise ( picture posted 1-2 pages ago )

Thirdly , there are 3 main ways a RWR can geolocate a radar for aircraft to attack it ,
Image
however none will work again air target using AESA radar
here is why :
1- triangulation method required target to be stationary , and take very long time
2- Azimuth / Elevation method will not work because you dont know enemy fighter altitude ( for a ground target you know the altitude is 0 ) thus cant use the Sine and Cosine function to work out the distance to target
3 - Time different arrival method required at least 3 aircraft stay at significant distance from the other ,but doesnt work again AESA radar due to it very small side lobe , and thin beam

there are some additional methods to determine distance by RWR included :
4- phase rate change : doesnt work again air target because it required target to be stationary to be accurate
5- determine distance by signal strength : required to threat radar characteristic to be known , and still doesnt work because F-35 can reduce radar transmitting power at short range to reduce probably of detection
6- RF doppler processing : doesnt work again air target because both side are moving ,and you dont know the moving speed of enemy

conclusion : very hard to detect fighter AESA radar , and even if you can detect it , you sill cant attack it
ata wrote: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

modern fighter radar have look down/ shot down mode , so ground clutter doesnt effected them too much , moreover Su-35 RCS is too big to hide in ground clutter
ata wrote:..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.

if the second group is too far , they wont be able to detect F-35
First group dont turn on their radar , but they still have huge RCS
your tactic will only work if , you know the direction F-35 fly to , from start , and the first group are also LO aircraft

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:37
by johnwill
With regard to the little hissing contest between Sergei and Eloise about acceleration, let's just look at some numbers. Eloise is of course correct about drag being an essential term in the acceleration equation, but there is something both are missing, engine thrust at the flight condition. Both are using nominal thrust at sea level, zero airspeed, which is very different from thrust at the flight condition.

To show how important drag and actual thrust are, let's take a look at Eloise's graph comparing mach number vs. time for several airplanes. Using the Su-27S as an example, it can accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.11 in 40 seconds. Speed of sound at 20,000 ft is 1037 ft/sec, so the airplane velocity increases 321 ft/sec in 40 seconds. That is .25g, or (thrust-drag/weight), a long way from Sergei's thrust/weight of 1.067 he shows for the Su-27.

If the graph can be believed, it is also very clear the F-16 easily can beat the Russian airplanes at acceleration in WVR combat conditions, as they seem to be optimized for best performance above 1.2 mach, beyond WVR conditions.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:53
by eloise
sergei wrote:I have a question:
In which mode the radar of F-35 work when track target with RCS = 1m2 from 150 km - is it LPI or other mode?


AESA achieved LPI characteristic due to how it work : changing frequency many time per second + irregular search pattern + compression of pulse , it not a specific mode
so i say APG-81 can track target with RCS = 1 m2 from 150km with full LPI characteristic
Image

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 18:56
by ata
eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D
In fact, it seems you really don't understand me, because I've said already my thanks for numbers and that it answers mostly all my questions. I'm not going to change your mind, so why you want to change mine? Are you sure in you concept? Great! I'm not trying to call it in question anymore.

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:07
by eloise
ata wrote:eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D

the thing is you are on an American forum, so if you cant properly explain your idea in English , it only bad for you because most people here ( i think 99%) use English
many spelling and grammar mistakes in your post can be fixed if you spend only 5-6 seconds, putting your post into Google Translate before submitting it ( that will be better for you and everyone else )

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:11
by zero-one
ata wrote:
This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.


Actually, the Heavy F-35s and the 1st wave of Su-35s can detect each other because their radars are on.

Let me try to illustrate,

Legend:
>* non stealthy heavy F-35
> stealthy F-35
@ Su-35

I had to use dots instead of spaces but disregard them

..............>
.................>

>*..................... @..................@
>* ................... @...................@
>*....................... @..................@
>*......................... @....................@


.................>
...................>

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:17
by eloise
johnwill wrote:With regard to the little hissing contest between Sergei and Eloise about acceleration, let's just look at some numbers. Eloise is of course correct about drag being an essential term in the acceleration equation, but there is something both are missing, engine thrust at the flight condition. Both are using nominal thrust at sea level, zero airspeed, which is very different from thrust at the flight condition.

To show how important drag and actual thrust are, let's take a look at Eloise's graph comparing mach number vs. time for several airplanes. Using the Su-27S as an example, it can accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.11 in 40 seconds. Speed of sound at 20,000 ft is 1037 ft/sec, so the airplane velocity increases 321 ft/sec in 40 seconds. That is .25g, or (thrust-drag/weight), a long way from Sergei's thrust/weight of 1.067 he shows for the Su-27.

If the graph can be believed, it is also very clear the F-16 easily can beat the Russian airplanes at acceleration in WVR combat conditions, as they seem to be optimized for best performance above 1.2 mach, beyond WVR conditions.

ok yeah thanks, i forgot that jet engine thust are not constant at different speed and altitude

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:41
by sergei
eloise wrote:
ata wrote:eloise,

I'd be happy to chat in Russian, but I guess only sergei will be able to handle it. So, if you don't understand what I mean, then you can simply ignore it :D

the thing is you are on an American forum, so if you cant properly explain your idea in English , it only bad for you because most people here ( i think 99%) use English
many spelling and grammar mistakes in your post can be fixed if you spend only 5-6 seconds, putting your post into Google Translate before submitting it ( that will be better for you and everyone else )


You may not believe me but when write I write through the Google translator

Re: F-35 vs Su-30/35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 19:47
by ata
zero-one wrote:
ata wrote:
This doesn't change that Flankers will be able to detect heavy F-35s at long distance. First group (by initial points) is hunting after GCI announce, so, they are using radars actively. Then just before going down they can turn radars off to be guided by second group.


Actually, the Heavy F-35s and the 1st wave of Su-35s can detect each other because their radars are on.

Let me try to illustrate,

Legend:
>* non stealthy heavy F-35
> stealthy F-35
@ Su-35

I had to use dots instead of spaces but disregard them

..............>
.................>

>*..................... @..................@
>* ................... @...................@
>*....................... @..................@
>*......................... @....................@


.................>
...................>


:) yes, I've got the order from first time, but thank's for picture anyway :)
So, 1st wave and heavy F-35 see each other clearly, then 1st wave is doing what I described, what F-35 would do? Both stealth and non-stealth.