F-35 vs Su-30/35

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

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 18:26

ata wrote:....

.... And as I said before there is one F-117 downed (confirmed) with system 50 years older than modern examples. You're limited by physics anyway. You just can't build aircraft invisible at every wavelength.
And as I answered earlier keeping AD from anti-radar missiles is basics. Again, why do you think it's not solved?
I've found article in English: http://csis.org/blog/russia-announces-sale-s-400-china


You need to search the threads here for discussions on the F-117 kill. Some of us actually suffered under severe rules of engagement lunacy such as tight windows on ingress/egress and time of day predictability. Frankly as time has gone on, I am begoinning to think the F-117 kill could have been a stroke of luck that has caused adversaries to chase down the long wave rabbit hole. Physics dictate what each band can accomplish. Detect is not track, and track is not identifying and characterizing. Systems are develped against and for each band's strength and weakness. In the end much of this discussion is classified and those that know details won't say,and those that say don't know.

ata wrote:That's why I'm trying to get answers. All I got up to now are three portion of information.
1. Tactics to fly low down is shitty. Why? It's f**n shitty, that's why! The one guys was trying to find reasons, but the only one (it's hard for missile to reach object far above) seems reasonably important. And even that reason is not a big deal, in real world.

Here's an example of where those who reply get frustrated. This strategy which has some validity for interdiction bombing is a suicide strategy for air to air. No Western or Russian fighter pilot would ever do this. The energy hole you get into is reason enough to avoid it like the plague. People have tried to explain to you why this is so.

ata wrote:2. Another guy gave me some "modelling" where Flanker pilots ordered to do nothing to win. And they lost at the end. Guess what? I'm not surprised.

You (and repliers) are modeling false scenarios. That is the fundamental problem your line of questioning has. It's the wrong question.

ata wrote:3. Just once I've got some numbers which are quite impressive. It says F-35 has really low RCS. I don't know what is his source, because I assumed it's secret, and as well as the rest of that info it would be interesting to see some comments and references. It says it can detect hotel window of MGM Grand. I believe he mentioned Las-Vegas. I've been there several times, and it was always crystal clean sky "by Neveda". It happens very rarely in real life outside of that region.

As to RCS, and EW. Those that know will not say. Those that say do not know. However, there are general statements of public record and respected sources, that you can place some credence to. Keep in mind some of these sources have been dealing with Stealth and ECM for decades in real world situations.

ata wrote:You mentioned there are experienced pilots here. Plenty of them. And from tons of shitty commercial I've found those three gems. It doesn't seem great result for such a "proven concept" as everyone told me here. If you have something so perfect you need few words to "sell" it. Normally.
You, of course, you're in your right to say "who the f**k* are you to question us" like another guys did. I don't care. I'm here to get the answers for my old questions. I'm still expect those guys who started good conversation to continue it. Again, I don't care about all the rest.

The best answer remains that the F-35 is a System and not a platform. It's stealth is potentially better than even the F-22 in some aspects. But that's not the point. The sensor system is technically unmatched (360 degrees, long range etc.) but that and a $1 will not buy you a cup coffee. The EW systems including radar modes etc. is the best in the world, but that is not the point. The helmet mounted display of the situation with fused and networked data is transformational, but alone that's just a video game with lots of software to be buggy. The dynamic performance, especially compared with fully combat loaded mission loads is top of the line, but that's just neat airshow dancing.

What all these things do together, and integrated with other systems like AWACS, UAVs. Navy ships, broadband jamming and spoofing, even other 4th Gen aircraft ... is transformational.

That transformation cannot be duplicated by add on attachments to 4th gen platforms.
1.More power in a PESA radar is not the same thing as western state of the art Low Probability of Intercept, frequency agile AESA. Russian technolgy lags here, and that is a simple fact. We see it every time the US engineers get their hands on a Mig 25 in Japan, or a SU-27 bought from the Ukraine, or sharing data with Malaysians on SU-30s.
2. Post stall thrust vectoring in an airshow (whether a SU-30 or F-22) is not the same as off boresite in visual range air to air combat. It can be nice to have, but it will not outturn a close in modern air to air missile.
3. Mach 2-3 straight line speed is not as useful as the designers of the Mig 21 and F-104 thought it was. Virtually all rea world combat takes place in transonic ramges. Performance, whether cruise or turning in the Mach .9 to 1.5 zone is the only place speed matters. If you can maneuver there you can design the battlespace. If you can cruise without afterburners at M 1.5 then you missiles become more deadly as well.
4. Having a bunch of systems, IR, L Band, Warning, coffee making, video playing ... whatever... is useless if the net effect is trying to watch 6 screens at the same time. Even if they are on the same state of the art one screen display, if you are scanning/switching back and forth.
5. This need for fusion is true when it comes to the other players on your team, whether other F-35s from other countries in the same airspace, or ships of different navies or old 4th gen tag alongs.

The F-35 is a system node that makes all this into one answer. The turn rate, and acceleration, and radar range and RCS and ... and .. and ... are of no value unless the transformation is created.

This is why the F-22 cleaned house against the "undefeated F-15s" in exercises in 2005-7. Until they changed the rules of engagement it was as boring as clubbing baby seals. That's a fact those 4th Gen pilots will tell you. And that is an important fact that needs to be made and kept front and center.

Lockheed Martin and others have been doing this for decades. USAF pilots have been -in combat- with stealth for decades. Sukhoi has yet to produce its first operational stealth aircraft decades later. Western electronics developers have been building radar/electronics/computers generations ahead of Russians for decades. We see that as recently as when the USAF F-22 pilots and Malaysian SU-30 pilots got together for training.. Sukhoi is trapped by that reality as it hustles to catch up.

A specification on a pdf file or brochure or a news article that some day they are "going to" is not the same thing at all.

BP
Last edited by blindpilot on 27 Mar 2015, 20:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 18:33

Don't worry Eloise, ata is a scientist.....a really bad one who can't even do basic research bwahahaha :mrgreen:
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2006
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 18:49

sergei wrote: Tell us what kind of specific ways to achieve agility not included in the list : small wings,no thrust vectoring(one engine=no thrust vectoring)

have you heard about F-16 VISTA ?
sergei wrote:(I want to see for reference that the one engine is not the cause of low manoeuvrability / slow acceleration by it self ).

:wink: Aim-9x have 1 engine and iam pretty sure it accelerate and turn better than any figher :wink:
sergei wrote:
Like 4.6g-4.5g-5g

sustain turn performer depending alot on on altitude ,and load out
for example :
. At near the speed of sound and at an altitude of 25,000 feet, the HiMAT vehicle could substain an 8-G turn (that is, one producing acceleration equal to 8 times that of gravity). By comparison, at the same altitude, an F-16's maximum sustained turning capability is about 4.5 Gs

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news ... RC_prt.htm
:wink: i dont think anyone would say F-16 is not agile
sergei wrote:
and acceleration 60sec from 0.8M to 1.2M ?

How long does it take for Su-27 to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.2M with 4 missiles load out ?
btw this is a very detail analysis may be you should have a look
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... s-Analysis
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7418
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 18:57

sergei wrote:
popcorn wrote:@ATA,

Flanker will be detected and tracked much earlier and from much farther away.


You are free to back up this claim, at least indicating the characteristics of the radar of F-35


are you actually trying to tell us you think the 1970s era flanker with no low observability designed into it at all will somehow evade f-35 radar when it couldnt avoid radars from decades ago in the first place?

It's very simple. Stealthy airplanes can't be detected as easily on radar. (Stop me if I am moving to fast) This is why IRST is even being brought up at all in the conversation. Now we are suddenly trying to say the stealth plane will stand out before the non stealth plane??. And you want "proof" of this claim? My proof is that Flanker are easily detected on radar and have been for decades, just like thEY will be for decades more Because they were designed without that requirement.

I can't believe sergei even attempt3D this. on what planet would a flanker not stand out on radar?

I will no longer feed these things guys, quality responses from a lot of posters but as has been pointed out they are wasted on these people.

I'm glad they are happy with flankers, but that's all there will be for the next few decades more. Equivalent to what a mig-17 is now. Great turner. Airshow favorite, but a flying relic maintained by people who can't get anything else
Choose Crews
Offline

sergei

Banned

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

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 22:55

zero-one

"because they have been using "

" Combat aircraft order groups of aircraft depending on the distance intervals and elevations belittling between them can be closed, open or dispersed. Forms of combat formations of fighters can be a column, wedge, bearing, front, snake and others. The type and form of combat formations can be changed in flight commander, depending on the situation. The construction order of battle units of the regiment made en-route or terminal area the manner provided by the plan of combat flying. In different conditions of air situation and at all stages of combat flight commander IAP must be defined order of battle of fighters, providing the most efficient combat mission."

http://5ballov.qip.ru/referats/preview/ ... vvs-metoda
Offline

sergei

Banned

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

Unread post27 Mar 2015, 23:34

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.
Offline

sergei

Banned

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 00:12

zero-one
"see clearly are the 4 non-stealth F-35s at their 12 o'clock" at 400km range .....Guess who will shoot first
No fighter in the world capable of detecting something at such a distance apart Mig-31BM and Su-35
F-35 will be aware of the presence of the Su-35 but do not see it.

"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. "
R-27EP long range passive anti-radiation missile
R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model.
RVV-PE - Passive homing model or
Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM :D
You can not suppress something which is beyond your radar and to paraphrase your words " but remember the Su-35s are employing heavy EW, this makes it difficult for all the F-35s to track and target anything precisely. "


"support from 3rd party units. "
F-35 on bomb raid and Su-35 on patrol air space No information from AWACS or ground-based radars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQMuvbNbz18
Offline

sergei

Banned

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 00:38

"oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, " :doh:
The main purpose of these missiles fight at medium ranges.
AIM-120 AMRAAM Medium-range, active radar homing air-to-air missile
Launch range min. 2.0 km

R-77 Medium-Range Active-Radar Homing Air-to-Air Missile
Launch range min 0.3 km Overloading the targeted objects 12G

"the Aim-120s on the other hand are being guided via data link by the stealth F-35s that are undetected."
Even Su-30 can carry out target designation for the MiG-21

"because they blow up, 2 Aim-120s for each target,"

"Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM."

"The other main engagement scenario is against other aircraft with fire-and-forget missiles like the R-77
In this case engagement is very much down to teamwork and could be described as "a game of chicken." Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-course updates for the missile's flight, they are also flying into their opponents' missiles."
Offline

sergei

Banned

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 01:17

eloise
"irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km "
Only if the F-35 is close from the most advantageous side.

Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )
Something I gnaw doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.30 80nm+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.00 85nm+ su27

"have you heard about F-16 VISTA ?"

"The VISTA program was considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into production fighter versions."
Guess why?
The benefit of thrust vector control 1 engine is minimal ,greatly increases the system cost and can be solved by other methods.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... s-Analysis
It is not surprising that the F-35 at a higher elevation feels better than F16.
F16 Service ceiling: 15km
F35 Service ceiling: 18km
1st March 2014, 22:12 1st post
"The real question is why anyone would be satisfied with performance comparable to an aircraft fielded 40+ years earlier"
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 01:43

XanderCrews wrote:I will no longer feed these things guys, quality responses from a lot of posters but as has been pointed out they are wasted on these people.

I'm glad they are happy with flankers, but that's all there will be for the next few decades more. Equivalent to what a mig-17 is now. Great turner. Airshow favorite, but a flying relic maintained by people who can't get anything else


The more they invest in old stuff, the more they cement themselves in the old paradigm. Which simplifies the job of the US war planners since they have a pretty good handle on the CONOPS and tactics that the old stuff is capable of. Any upgrades provide only incremental benefit which can be factored into their threat assessment.

At some point, the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in and it‘s a losing proposition to keep pouring resources into building new versions of "old stuff".

The US realized this a long time ago when it eschewed uber-Teen jet concepts and boldly decided to transition to 5Gen. And why it‘s sowing seed corn for 6Gen.
Last edited by popcorn on 28 Mar 2015, 06:19, edited 2 times in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5718
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 01:44

Judas.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2006
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 02:14

sergei wrote:
No fighter in the world capable of detecting something at such a distance apart Mig-31BM and Su-35

Wrong , F-14D , F-15 , F-22 can all do that , they all have very powerful radar
also Mig-31 use Zaslon-M radar that capable of detecting target with RCS = 20 m2 from 400 km , according to radar equation R1 = R2 * (RCS1/RCS2)^(1/4) , it will detect target with RCS = 10 m2 from 336 km , tracking range is about 80% of detection range so Zaslon-M can track target with RCS = 10 m2 from 268 km . 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
so even though Zaslon-M is much bigger , it only have comparable range to APG-81 due to bad signal processing




sergei wrote: R-27EP long range passive anti-radiation missile
Kh-31AM/Kh-31PM
RVV-PE - Passive homing model or
:D

you cant employ passive anti-radiation missile again fighter because of 2 reasons , firstly modern fighter have AESA radar that very hard to detect , secondly since passive anti-radiation missile must home on the radiated source , they will be useless if enemy turn off their radar , or simply turn aways
again ground radar , anti radar missiles like AGM-88 , KH-31 can remember and hit the last known location , thus they are able to hit radar that turned off , however that tactic willnot work again fighter because they are constantly moving

another problem is that F-35 is equip with ALE-70 ( fiber optic towed decoy ) as well , thus your HoJ missiles will simplely home at the decoy 100 meter behind the F-35 , not to mention when they come close to the decoy , F-35 can just turn off the jamming on decoy and your missiles will go to waste

sergei wrote: R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model.

there is no R-77T in service , and F-35 have DIRCM as well

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

both side will try to jam enemy radar , however Su-35 much worse RCS will put it in significant disadvantage
Image
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2006
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 04:33

sergei if you want a serious discussion , you have to stop cherry pick the information , you seem to only able to read what you want to read , and intentionally left out anything that dont support your idea :?
sergei wrote:"irbs-e can track the F-35 from 40 km "
Apg-81 can track Su-35 from around 275 km ( in perfect condition )

irbs-e can track the F-35 head on from 40 km and Apg-81 can track Su-35 head on from around 275 km, both case in perfect condition ( meaning no jamming , clutter )
when there are jamming the tracking range of both radar will decrease significantly
irbs-e can probably track F-35 from 15-20 km in jamming condition
Apg-81 can probably track Su-35 from 165-200 km in jamming condition
and that have not take into account the fact that F-35 jammer will be more effective ( the reason have been explained before )
sergei wrote: Only if the F-35 is close from the most advantageous side.

this is what they achieved about 30 years ago in Have Blue program
The main emphasis is laid on the radar reflection from the front sector, which has been defined as a region of 45 degrees to each side of the longitudinal axis of the machine. .

Image

it not so hard to remain head on within 45 degree angle and while it true that F-35 RCS gonna get bigger when you dont view it from the front , the same is true for Su-35 , in fact alot worse because Su-35 is not optimize for LO
sergei wrote: Something I gnaw doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwAOupjMeM
1.30 80nm+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY
6.00 85nm+ su27

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


sergei wrote: "The VISTA program was considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into production fighter versions."
Guess why?
The benefit of thrust vector control 1 engine is minimal ,greatly increases the system cost and can be solved by other methods.

why does short range missiles have TVC then ? they only have 1 engine too, Rafale and typhoon have 2 engine but dont use TVC
Guess why?
TVC can improve instantaneous turn rate but not sustain turn rate , missiles doesnt need to have high sustain turn rate but aircraft does
Last edited by eloise on 28 Mar 2015, 07:58, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2006
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 04:41

sergei wrote:zero-one


F-35 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.

Lets assume both aircraft expanded their BVR missiles and moving into merge with 4x AIM-9s. For F-16
-2x LAU-129 launchers for wingtip (drag index 1) (previously carrying the expended AIM-120s)
-4x LAU-129 launcher+adapters for 2,3 7 and 8 (drag index 6)
-4x AIM-9M missiles on stations 2,3,7 and 8 (drag index 5)
-basic drag index includes two wingtip AIM-9s, removing both -> drag index -8
-F-16 “C” basic drag index = 7

Calculating those will give us drag index = 45. If F-16 was carrying wing EFTs and dropped them, there would be additional +8 drag index for each NNJET pylon, additonal centerline tank pylon (after dropping the tank itself) would add +7 to the drag index. I will simply take the F-16’s data from Drag Index 50 graph.

As F-35 will be carrying AIM-9s internally there will be no drag penalty. Its launcher/adapter mechanism is also integrated, so I will only add 88x4 = 352 kg to the weight.

Comparing armed F-35 armed with 4x internal AIM-9s versus F-16 armed with 4 AIM-9Ms and 2 empty pylons. At sea level;
Image
At very slow speeds, F-16 still has slight advantage, but at above M0,6 F-35 actually sustains turns BETTER than F-16 blk50. On ITR part, F-35 gets advantage as the speed increases, topping out at 24,4 deg/s versus F-16’s 22,5 deg/s.
Same aircraft, at 30k feet:
Image
On average; F-35 has 1,2 deg/s superiority to F-16’s Sustained turn performance at subsonic and transonic realm. While supersonic F-16 has better STR. Their ITR is mostly comperable, however at supersonic F-16 enters PhiMax state which degrades ITR performance.

sergei wrote:"The real question is why anyone would be satisfied with performance comparable to an aircraft fielded 40+ years earlier"

because F-16 is still one of the most agile aircraft nowadays ,it matched Typhoon below 10K ft and have much better acceleration than Su-27 , Su-35

sergei wrote:"oh is the R-77 limited for BVR shooting? coz the AMRAAM does pretty well in a knife fight, " :doh:
The main purpose of these missiles fight at medium ranges.
AIM-120 AMRAAM Medium-range, active radar homing air-to-air missile
Launch range min. 2.0 km

R-77 Medium-Range Active-Radar Homing Air-to-Air Missile
Launch range min 0.3 km Overloading the targeted objects 12G

can you give the source for this
sergei wrote:"Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, [b]were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM."[/b]

if the missiles was launched at beyond visual range how do they even know if the target was maneuvering or not ?
sergei wrote: Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-course updates for the missile's flight, they are also flying into their opponents' missiles."

that why we need stealth
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 07:19

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.


Bwahahaha.....you are comparing apples to oranges. It should have been F35A fuel = 6000 lbs, F16C fuel = 6000 lbs (or 9000 lbs each). Then you will have a fairer comparison of maneuverability and acceleration.

Talking about range with 6000 lbs of fuel in each plane...it depends whether they are clean or carrying ordnance? With 2 x 2000 lb bombs and 2 X AMRAAMs, the F35A has the edge...internal carriage.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests