Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

[johnwill]

Vilters is right about structural weight increase not necessarily important to increase g limit. Original requirement for F-16 was 7.33g, up to 9g at lighter fuel loads and non-critical speed/altitude. Before the test airplanes were built, it was shown the limit could be raised to 9g everywhere for air to air loadings with the addition of 22 pounds of aluminum. No brainer.

As he says, there is more to the picture than structural weight. All of the internal systems are designed to a vibration, acceleration, thermal, acoustic, etc environment. Change that environment with added acceleration, and all the system certifications go out the window. That is not a minor problem.

[disconnectedradical]

Howver, while the Raptor may have a 9G limit, I believe it can reach this G limit easier and at a wider speed and altitude envelopes than most if not all planes. Including the Su-57

That’s not always true, F-22 sustains 3.7g at 30,000 ft at Mach 0.9 based on 2010 SAR report, which is a bit less than an F-15C with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 (no external tanks) and -220 engines. I don’t know why you assume somehow F-22 reaches g limit easier than Su-57 or vice versa.

[talkitron]

Here is an analysis of the Su-57 by an expert on the Russian military (but admittedly not an aerospace engineer).

https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpre ... following/

I would not discount the Su-57. It is not a 5th generation stealth aircraft design gone bad due to failure to execute. The program has legs, and it’s going to amount to something. Even though the U.S. is about as dominant as it gets for an aerospace power, it’s important to remember we exercise analytical humility in looking at why other countries may choose a different design, based on the context of how they see air defense and their requirements. The fighter will allow Russia to attain qualitative air superiority over a 4th generation air force, and work with its own integrated air defense to counter penetrating stealth aircraft. It is a reflection of the Russian philosophical approach to the tactical aviation component of its Aerospace Forces (VKS), intended to support the strategic air defense mission first, and engage in standoff strike as part of offensive aerospace operations.

[popcorn]

IMO it's a pretty fair article. The T-50 isn't going to be a transformational platform like the F-22/F-35 which I consider the defining trait of a 5gen aircraft.

[icemaverick]

For the most part it was a fair analysis but there are some areas where I think he was mistaken or at least could have been more eloquent with his words.

As a consequence the design choice is misattributed to Russian inability to design a stealth aircraft, or some innate deficiency in the aerospace sector, for the simple reason that it’s inconceivable Russians might understand all the same things about modern air combat, and pursue a different design philosophy. This is mirror imaging. The Su-57 is not the result of a failure to execute.

It's not the result of a failure to execute per se. They understood their limitations in terms of funding and technology and they did the best with what they have at their disposal. That being said, of course they would love to have a stealthier design.

There are significant gaps in industrial capacity between the U.S. and Russian aerospace sector, materials, precision molds, additive processing, electron beam welding, yielding tight tolerances etc., but this is not the primary input into the Su-57 design.

Right here, the author comes to the crux of the matter. The Russians will not build a true competitor the F-22 and the F-35 because it is beyond their current capabilities.

The U.S. has placed most of its 5th gen eggs into the basket of stealth optimized platforms meant for beyond visual range combat, air defense penetration, and offensive counter air (if I’m wrong please yell at me). A substantial amount of money has been invested in this philosophy.

Is this really true? The F-22 has exceptional maneuverability by most accounts. The F-35A is widely described as having the best characteristics of both the F-16 and F-18. Furthermore, they have excellent sensors, world-leading network-centric warfare capabilities and the US has also invested a lot of money into developing the best weapons/accessories as well. Their engines are more efficient than any other US designs. They are also designed to be more serviceable (these aircraft are both in the earlier stages of their operational service so the kinks are still being worked out on that front).

It's not a matter of placing eggs into one basket or the other. When you have enough money, you can put your money into all the different baskets without skimping in one area or another. If you have $100K to invest, you have to be quite selective about where you allocate your money and you will probably go for the most bang for your buck while minimizing risk. When you have $1 million you have a lot more options at your disposal.

The Chinese have to a large extent copied these designs, because that’s what they do.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. They could easily copy Russian designs too as they have done in the past. Yet, it seems that the Chinese have chosen to follow the American design philosophy. Now why would that be the case?

It seems that everyone developing new aircraft these days are following the US philosophy as opposed to the Russian one. Turkey, Japan, India, UK, Korea, Germany and France all have 5th gen platforms in various stages of development. Why do they tend to resemble the F-22 and F-35 more so than the Su-57?

Russians think differently about stealth and the role of tactical air power in general. It is there to be one element of an integrated air defense network, and to support the ground force at the tactical-operational level, not to conduct aerospace blitzkrieg.

It's not that they necessarily think differently....it's that they know they are far more limited compared to the US aerospace industry. The Chinese are a growing economic and military power that may one day even surpass the USA in terms of GDP. They could easily rip off the Russians even more easily than they can the Americans. But they are not going down that road. Russia doesn't have the same options as China. They have a GDP less than that of Italy and they are unlikely to be able to challenge the USA economically and technologically any time soon.

Despite having access to all the same information on stealth, they developed different requirements for the aircraft.

They sure did but it's not because they didn't want to. They did it because they had no other choice. There is no way Russia would be able to afford an aircraft at the same technological level as the F-22 and F-35. Furthermore, their export customers are also far more cost-sensitive than the USA's. When your buyers are third world countries, there is going to be a lower price ceiling.

As a General Staff dominated by combined arms officers they might have set the wrong requirements, but the cause is not an inability to grasp how stealth works, or build an airframe that reduces the RCS to fire control radars.

So he says that the Russians are capable of building a stealthier platform but implies that they chose not to. But then he goes on to say the following....

Russia’s aerospace sector also knows how to make good airframes, though not with the same tolerances, close fits, or materials.

And this is precisely the reason why Russia cannot build a stealthier platform. Extremely low tolerances, close fits and advanced materials are key ingredients of stealth technology!

The author is correct that the Su-57 should not be written off. It will be superior to all or most 4/4++ gen designs. Using the right tactics and if supported by the right assets, it could also cause problems for F-35s and F-22s. But he seems to be spinning it as though the Russians chose to build a less stealthy aircraft because of philosophical reasons rather than economic and technological limitations. I disagree with him on that point.

[zero-one]

That’s not always true, F-22 sustains 3.7g at 30,000 ft at Mach 0.9 based on 2010 SAR report, which is a bit less than an F-15C with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 (no external tanks) and -220 engines.

I know the relationship between a 5G envelope and a 9G envelope is not linear.
But just as you used a 3G envelope to dispute my statement about a 9G envelope, I'll use this 5G envelope to illustrate what I was getting at.

Its difficult for me to believe that somehow another aircraft can out G a Raptor given the massive superiority it has in G performance.

I don’t know why you assume somehow F-22 reaches g limit easier than Su-57 or vice versa.

As it is the Su-57 still has inferior engines. And as ScorpionAlpha1 said on occasions
viewtopic.php?t=13114

The beauty of the F-22 is it's the best accelerating jet in the world; nobody will out accelerate it. It will also reach it's max speed faster and can spend more time there than anybody else.

So that gives me the impression that when it comes to power/drag, the Raptor is really in a different class.
Granted this was said before the Su-57 was operational, but it's difficult to believe that it will be superior with inferior engines.

I could be dead wrong, but these are just my opinions.

[disconnectedradical]

That’s not always true, F-22 sustains 3.7g at 30,000 ft at Mach 0.9 based on 2010 SAR report, which is a bit less than an F-15C with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 (no external tanks) and -220 engines.

I know the relationship between a 5G envelope and a 9G envelope is not linear.
But just as you used a 3G envelope to dispute my statement about a 9G envelope, I'll use this 5G envelope to illustrate what I was getting at.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... c-2010.pdf

Page 8 shows 3.7g sustained at Mach 0.9 and 30,000 ft for F-22. This is F-15E with -220 engines and 4 AIM-7 sustains about the same in same conditions. F-15C is a bit lighter so it should sustain a bit more.

[spazsinbad]

WHOOSH! F-22 Raptor Demo Team 2019 MCAS Beaufort https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxMn0L4UuHQ

[zero-one]

Page 8 shows 3.7g sustained at Mach 0.9 and 30,000 ft for F-22. This is F-15E with -220 engines and 4 AIM-7 sustains about the same in same conditions. F-15C is a bit lighter so it should sustain a bit more.

Its a bit conflicting as the graph I have, shows the Raptor's 5G envelope to extend well beyond 50k and actually touch the 60k mark at mach 2 ball parks.

One thing I found was that the source for the unclassified performance was dated 2004 and the others were on 2007. The Raptor may have still been under heavy restrictions at that time.

Paul Metz also mentioned that at high altitude,the F-22 is in a class of its own in turn performance
https://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Hard to believe that he was pertaining to just 3.9Gs

[hornetfinn]

The U.S. has placed most of its 5th gen eggs into the basket of stealth optimized platforms meant for beyond visual range combat, air defense penetration, and offensive counter air (if I’m wrong please yell at me). A substantial amount of money has been invested in this philosophy.

Is this really true? The F-22 has exceptional maneuverability by most accounts. The F-35A is widely described as having the best characteristics of both the F-16 and F-18. Furthermore, they have excellent sensors, world-leading network-centric warfare capabilities and the US has also invested a lot of money into developing the best weapons/accessories as well. Their engines are more efficient than any other US designs. They are also designed to be more serviceable (these aircraft are both in the earlier stages of their operational service so the kinks are still being worked out on that front).

It's not a matter of placing eggs into one basket or the other. When you have enough money, you can put your money into all the different baskets without skimping in one area or another. If you have $100K to invest, you have to be quite selective about where you allocate your money and you will probably go for the most bang for your buck while minimizing risk. When you have $1 million you have a lot more options at your disposal.

I would say definitely not true. When compared to any current roughly equivalent fighter aircraft both F-22 and F-35 have:

- Equal or better maneuverability especially in combat configurations
- Long range with internal fuel and still having full maneuverability
- Great sensors and data fusion system, giving unprecedented SA
- Great electronic warfare systems which is magnified by their very low RCS
- Really good networking capability especially with their own kind

Of course there are areas that could be improved in every fighter, but overall I'd say both F-22 and F-35 were designed as really balanced aircraft with very good capabilties overall. Especially so with F-35 which also has incredible range/payload capability and great weapons system. There is really no better multirole fighter in existence or in drawing board.

[disconnectedradical]

Its a bit conflicting as the graph I have, shows the Raptor's 5G envelope to extend well beyond 50k and actually touch the 60k mark at mach 2 ball parks.

One thing I found was that the source for the unclassified performance was dated 2004 and the others were on 2007. The Raptor may have still been under heavy restrictions at that time.

Paul Metz also mentioned that at high altitude,the F-22 is in a class of its own in turn performance
https://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Hard to believe that he was pertaining to just 3.9Gs

Pay attention to the chart title. There's difference between instantaneous and sustained. I'm showing sustained turn. With TVC, F-22 can generate a lot more pitch rate so much better instantaneous turn. If anything, your chart is inaccurate because it shows F-15 can’t do 5g at Mach 1 but the sustained turn rate chart from manual clearly show that it can even at 10,000 ft. Though maybe it’s considering that F-15 is carrying tanks.

That F-15 chart is just for 4 AIM-7. A perfectly clean F-15 or F-16 can compete with F-22 in some areas like maximum climb rate or sustained turn. When 4th gen fighters put on 2 tanks like normal operations then the F-22 does sustain more, but clean F-15 can sustain more than F-22 in some conditions. F-22 isn't magical and doesn't do ridiculous things like 510 m/s climb rate you once mentioned. Also, KPP requirement is not related to restrictions or not, it's just a requirement.

I don't have F-15C with -220 full manual but this is clean sustain turn chart, which show 4.0g at 30,000 ft and Mach 0.9. With 4 AIM-7 the turn shouldn't drop too much because those missiles are conformal.

[zero-one]

F-22 isn't magical and doesn't do ridiculous things like 510 m/s climb rate you once mentioned.

I remember saying that as rough estimate in an attempt to translate the words of Paul Metz who said
"Sorry, I can't quote the numbers but suffice is to say that we are talking high supersonic climb speeds."

I never said that was an actual figure, what I did say was IF the F-22 can climb at Mach 1.5 then that would translate to 510 m/s.

But a lot of people simply dismissed it as, what he actually meant was the F-22 can climb while traveling at supersonic speeds. Well okay, I think even a Mig-21 can do that, but what ever.

Also, KPP requirement is not related to restrictions or not, it's just a requirement.

The chart you posted had the following columns
-SAR baseline prod estimate (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Current APB Production Objective/Threshold (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Demonstrated Performance (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Current Estimate (as of 2004 or 2007)

It doesn't really tell us the current limitations the F-22 has if it exceeded previous estimates.
The graph I posted came from LM courtesy of Lt.Col Matthew H. Malloy. So its not some fan made estimate.
You've made a pretty good hobby of downplaying the F-22 in every way you can, but the evidence is clear.

[disconnectedradical]

Also, KPP requirement is not related to restrictions or not, it's just a requirement.

The chart you posted had the following columns
-SAR baseline prod estimate (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Current APB Production Objective/Threshold (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Demonstrated Performance (as of 2004 or 2007)
-Current Estimate (as of 2004 or 2007)

It doesn't really tell us the current limitations the F-22 has if it exceeded previous estimates.
The graph I posted came from LM courtesy of Lt.Col Matthew H. Malloy. So its not some fan made estimate.
You've made a pretty good hobby of downplaying the F-22 in every way you can, but the evidence is clear.

Facts are facts. Your graph is clearly not showing an F-15 with just missiles because even with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 it can sustain 5g at over Mach 1. Actually with that load the F-15 sustains about 3.6g at 30,000 ft and Mach 0.9 so I stand corrected but with just 4 AIM-7 it should sustain more than 3.7g.

On the other hand, you’re using an interview from APA that’s even earlier than 2004.

Maybe I look like I’m downplaying F-22 because you have a hobby of making exaggerations about it. I’m using facts and flight manuals.

[zero-one]

Facts are facts. Your graph is clearly not showing an F-15 with just missiles because even with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 it can sustain 5g at over Mach 1.

The F-15 isn't the issue here. Maybe the Graph was referring to a fully combat configured F-15 and F-22, which is why the Eagle's 5G envelope was limited to what was shown there.

But it still doesn't dispute F-22's 5G envelope which is far far larger than what you point it out to be.

On the other hand, you’re using an interview from APA that’s even earlier than 2004.

So we're calling Paul Metz a liar, is that what it is? He said the F-22 climbs at high supersonic speeds. But you interpret that as, it can climb while traveling at supersonic speeds. If thats the case then it is a sly play on words because thats not special at all. An F-4 can do that.

Maybe I look like I’m downplaying F-22 because you have a hobby of making exaggerations about it. I’m using facts and flight manuals.

So what am I using? You don't consider them as facts because it doesn't fit your narrative.
You're labeling the chart provided by LM as inaccurate
You're also implying that Paul Metz is either a liar or that he said something very ordinary (climb while supersonic) and played it up to make the F-22 look good.

[F-16ADF]

I am not here to take sides in this debate. But the 2010 SAR doc does not state F-22 fuel load (unless I missed it). I think the F-15C with PW F100-220 at 41Klbs 4 Aim-7 4 Aim-9 CL pylon chart is at around 50% fuel (or slightly more, non MSIP jet?). Also, we must remember the F-15 is stable non RSS. Hence, it suffers from trim drag subsonic and further supersonic. The F-22, since being RSS FBW, does not suffer from trim drag subsonic and suffers smaller amounts supersonic than a non RSS stable jet.

I spoke to Loco a few years ago (he flew the F-15C prior to the Raptor). He would not get into specifics, but he did say the F-22 enjoyed a considerable performance advantage against the F-15. So much so, he said that doing DACT against the Eurofighter and Rafale in the F-15 was a 'challenge'. In the Raptor, doing BFM against the 2 Eurocanards, he said the tables were reversed-