wrightwingHowever, its possible that LM designers used some other RCS optimizing techniques that I’m unaware of and if someone know anything about that, please post your ideas, datas, links to articles and so on, so we all may see what’s new in the world of stealth.
What happened was that advances in technology and shaping occurred, allowing more aerodynamic shapes that also had lower RCS. The computing power to design curved VLO designs simply wasn’t available, when the F-117 was designed.
wrightwingThanks. Much appreciated.
http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
Page 2
There’s a lot of vanilla info there, but that’s where the 48,000lb thrust figure came from.
wrightwingNoone is going to fight at supersonic speeds. Not today, not tomorrow and not in 20 years.
Ok, fair enough. The PAK FA won’t be doing cobras at 500-600 knots either.
I was trying to point out a fundemental misunderstanding of the purpose of vectored thrust that many in the Flanker/PAK FA camp seem to have. It’s primarily to allow controlled flight after the regular control surfaces no longer have enough lift/air flow to accomplish that task. Supersonic trim, and additional control authority at high altitudes being some of the other functions. It’s not to have aircraft doing somersaults, etc… at combat speeds.
wrightwingInteresting. I’d assume that as a growth path projection for a medium term future, considering the current engine rumblings.
Got a link handy for that USAF presentation?
I was looking for it, and if I can find it, I’ll repost it.
wrightwingWhere from do we know that the F-35 has up to 48k lbs of thrust?
That figure was on a slide from a USAF presentation. Perhaps a typo. Perhaps not, but that’s why I included it to provide the range of numbers that had been seen.
wrightwingPogosyan wasn’t particularly impressed with what the Raptor did. Also, considering the PAK-FA is clearly any evolution of the Flanker, it is bound to be more maneuverable. 3D TVC will be used by the self-defense suite, something that’s highly automated and advertised about the PAK-FA, likely far ahead of anything the Raptor has. I assume this auto-defense and 3D TVC combo will allow the PAK-FA to perform very extreme terminal counter-missile maneuvers.
Unless the PAK FA is flying at low speeds/post stall regime, the TVC isn’t going to make much difference. You’re certainly not going to do a Cobra, etc… at supersonic speeds to avoid a missile. However being a 3D design, the RCS/IR signatures will be higher, making the necessity to avoid incoming missiles a greater priority.
We know it will be more capable than the PESA Irbis, which is already claimed to be mostly as effective as the APG-77, if not more significantly powerful in raw procession, while less capable in LPI.
Claimed? That’s hardly definitive. Less capable in LPI? Try not capable. The PESA Irbis would be more of a HPI radar. When I see functioning(as advertised) examples of production models, rather than technology demonstrators, then perhaps comparisons can be drawn.
A. The R-37 can mission kill a fighter. That’s plenty. It also allows the PAK-FA to hunt larger aircraft better. Big winner here.
Only limited numbers of R-37s could be carried. You’re going to waste one on a fighter, and let an AWACS get away? That doesn’t seem like a very efficient use of resources. Against 5th Gen fighters, it’d be a huge waste. High numbers of shorter range missiles will be far more useful.
B. The R-77 is exported to countries that can use it. What can you say AGAINST its performance? Would you also seriously assume at the 170KM range R-77PD is suddenly then going to perform worse?
What’s the real world performance of any R-77 variant? Have any even been fired in combat, against a non-cooperative target? I’m skeptical of effectiveness claims, when there’s no data available to use for comparison.
The AIM-120D will have a longer range in any event, even if all other aspects were equal. The AIM-120 series has been highly effective, and that’s just the early versions without greatly improve ECCM, 2 way datalinks, HOBS, lofted profiles, etc…
C. They are not in service because they are in last development stages, and the aircraft designed to carry them are only in small numbers – nor is there any rush to get them into service. Is NATO invading Russia next week?
So in essence they’re vaporware. Lemme know if and when they reach IOC.
C1. What are these new generation of weapons? I don’t know, go ask Zelin or Ivanov. They seemed to mention them – they didn’t give details. I can’t remember the “Izdeliye” numbers – but they were basically R-77 and R-73M improvements to the 5th generation.
Weapons that don’t exist, and there are no details for, yet they’re being claimed to be superior? Again, it’s very premature to start making such claims.
wrightwingWell it’s certainly not bad news, but we’ll have to see what happens, to determine if the line will stay open past those 12 aircraft.
wrightwingManeuverability: 3D TVC and Sukhoi’s ingenious design to best the Flanker line makes sense here.
TVC only comes into play in post stall flight regimes, and the Raptor can hardly be considered a slouch there. It won’t increase the turn rates(at least not sustained turn rates). The Raptor also bests the Flanker line, so that’s not necessarily a guarantee to best the Raptor.
Avionics: AESA Irbis will be significantly more powerful than the APG-77. How powerful the V-1 will be remains to be seen. The electro-optical system on the PAK-FA, derived from the OLS-35 on the MiG-35, will also offer a huge advantage. New RWR systems upgraded from Su-35 aircraft remain to be disclosed.
We have no idea how capable the AESA Irbis will be. Russia doesn’t even have a functioning example of a production AESA, much less one that’s at the generation of the APG-77(v)1. The IR/RWR capabilities remain to be seen too, so it’s perhaps a bit premature to say that a system that isn’t in service, will be superior.
Weapons: The weapons bay can accommodate Kh-58U / R-37 size weapons. The R-77PD is also no worse than any AIM-120D variant. Also, new generation weapons far more advanced than AIM-9X / AMRAAM / R-73/77 are already in plan for the PAK-FA. Weapons like the Kh-38 also offer very powerful anti-ground strike. The only parity for the US A2A arsenal WOULD be the JDRADM when it comes to the new A2A missiles that are yet to be revealed.
A-How many R-37s(whose primary mission isn’t against the Raptor, or fighters in general)?
B-what sort of demonstrations of effectiveness have the R-77PD had, to make the claim they’re the equal of any D variant?
C-what are these new generations of weapons, and when can we expect to see them? The R-37 and R-77PD aren’t even in service yet.
wrightwinghttp://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/lm-defends-f-35-jsf-agility-against-critics/
I boldened some interesting parts.
– Once again a 30k lb empty weight figure for the F-35, where are thos weight reductions?
– 40k lb of thrust
– TWR almost 1:1
– 50° AoAWhat can we conclude by that? I assume Beesley used rounded figures for the weight of aircraft and the engine thrust. Yet a half fueled F-35 just achieving a ~1:1 TWR is hardley impressive. While he correctly refers to the Lightning II’s significantly larger fuel load, even aircraft with full fuel load still achieve better TWRs. Sustained turning performance is a combination of various things either and while he criticises the “oversimplification” of the RAND study his own remarks are quite simplified as well.
50 degrees a hard number, but claimed out of context. It much looks like max. AoA not the typical soft limit and the question is will the operational pilot be able to make any use of this?
He also said this with regards to the AoA, which you didn’t highlight-
He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.
The other numbers are very much rounded figures given that we know the F-35 has more than 40k lbs of thrust(between 43k and 48k).
The weight reduced A model should weigh under 30k lb.
Assuming for arguments sake, the A model’s empty weight is ~29,000lbs, plus 9,000lbs of fuel, and 1,200lbs of AAMs, that works out to 39,200lbs. If we go with the 43,000lb thrust figure, then the T/W is ~1.1:1. If the thrust is 48,000lbs, then the T/W is 1.22:1. Neither of those figures is too shabby.
wrightwingRaptor killer in what way? 1 on 1 in your dream land flying head-to-head? :rolleyes:
Realistically, I expect the PAK-FA to be cheaper, so afforded in higher numbers than the F-22 while being slightly less stealthy, with equal or better avionics and better armament, and better manueverability. The platform IS 10 years newer.
We already know that the weapon bay is going to be pretty large, since folding-fin Kh-58U which is extremely impressive.
What do you base the superior avionics, weapons, and manueverability on? By the time the PAK FA reaches IOC, the F-22 will have at a minimum, the APG-77(v)1, AIM-120D+, AIM-9X Block 2, and the JDRADM will be coming on line too. I suspect there’ll have been engine upgrades by then too, among other systems.
wrightwingWhere in that did he mention Predators? You’re making assumptions based on your own prejudices. It’s a common mistake, but that doesn’t make it any less mistaken.
Go & look at some of the stealthy UCAV designs out there.
There’s never going to be a nuclear armed UCAV in the strategic triad though.
wrightwingThe F35 is stealth. Yes. But the best RCS is head on frontally and in X band. It’s not invisible.
It’s lowest RCS is to the front, but it is all aspect VLO, and not only to X band.
Yes, always supposing the enemy is inferior in capability and numbers… The point is, the F35 in WVR, needs HOBS or is dead meat even against a F16 with JHMCS. In order to carry HOBS, as things are today, it needs to mount the AIM-9X externally. This cancels the stealth. And how much the RCS is increased by external stores, is something one can only guess. Nobody from us, can predict how the “touchy” RCS, will change from the external pylons/missile. How will this affect the radar reflection and brake the perfect “VLO” shape? Maybe more than one would like. All the enemy needs, is being able to shoot back at you.
The F-35 is far less likely than the F-16 to get in an WVR situation, and with the DAS/JHMCS, it will have the advantage. The AIM-9X is getting LOAL, and the AIM-120D has HOBS capabilities too, for over the shoulder shots.
The SDBs are GPS guided correct? What about moving targets or advancing enemy infantry? And the worst of all… Ok, you are USA, you dominate in air, sea, land, so 8 SDBs are enough per sortie. But come again to a scenario of an enemy of equal strenght or an enemy like China that uses huge numbers to overwhelm you. Ask the G.I. down there fighting for his life… What would he prefer to come to his rescue? 1 F35 with 8 SDB or 1 Super Hornet with 24 (?) SDBs or higher yield bombs or more versatile bombs (hit various types of targets)? You may say, “but the Super Hornet may never arrive in the area”. Well, with an F22 sweeping the “road” in front of it, it will arrive. The G.I. will reply “to hell with stealth! I am getting killed down here, i don’t care if the F35 can come all alone and throw its 8 SDBs! I want the enemy advance to be stopped ASAP, i don’t care if you have to escort and babysit the striker, i want the biggest payload you can give me”. So why use the “stealth” F35 for CAS (if you are not USAF with endless numbers and inferior enemy)? Because the enemy is inferior so that 8 SDBs are enough. This doesn’t apply for most other airforces around the world that can’t afford the USAF resources.
The F-35 can carry 24 SDBs too. It only needs to be VLO for first day of war type missions. For missions like Afghanistan, etc… it can operate just fine with external stores.
You have to remember- with the new capabilities that VLO offers, different tactics will be utilized, to fully exploit them. Having stealthy wingmen, is going to pose a much bigger challenge for any would be foe, and the F-35 will have significant advantages in situational awareness, giving them much greater leeway in deciding when and where to engage/disengage.
wrightwing1. A combat loaded Typhoon with 4 semirecessed AMRAAMs and 2 winders will easily have a performance of a clean Viper
2. F-35 will NEVER have a performance of a clean Viper. Not in this or your upcoming future lives.Now, return to you nonsense.
And this would be based upon what information?:rolleyes:
wrightwingThank God for that!
Nobody takes a few seconds thow to think if it will be better then the aircraft it will be called to confront…….:p
Oh, I’m sure there are some people that have put some thought into this. You also have to look at the whole system, that is the F-35.
Stealth
DAS/EOTS
JHMCS
AESA
ESM
AIM-120D/D+, AIM-9X, JDRADM
More sensor fusion than any competitor, which when combined gives superior SA.
combined with flight performance that at a minimum is very competitive.
wrightwingYes. I assume exactly that. I also assume he is lying not for his own pleasure but because he is forced to..
Proof?(or is that just your hunch?)
Here’s a very respected test pilot, and his character is being questioned due to your unwillingness to accept his findings. The USAF obviously believes his findings.
Sign In
