Good drawing, but the propulsion engineers get very concerned about airflow distortion at the fan face. To keep them from turning shades of purple and calling you bad names, you typically want a straight length of duct immediately in front of the fan that equals one fan diameter.

Correct.

(Assuming no IGVs are present)

The leading edge spar may be larger than the radar array in the nose, but……the entire leading edge spar isn’t the size of the array contained within. We’re talking about 2 arrays with 12 modules, with a ~4.8kw total power output for both arrays.

That is the Su-35 version of it. The average power of the Zhuk AE for the MiG-35 is apparently estimated at around 3 kW.

Besides, you are using what is supposed to be the low power settings of the array (2x12x200 = 4800). There are L-band T/R modules at powers of 0.7kW in the public domain, so assuming equal performance (prob conservative IMO), then that is 2x12x700 = 16800 or 16.8kW.

But anyway, it is an apples to oranges comparison, output power is not a direct measurement of return signal when the wavelength is changed. Less power may well be enough to get the job done significantly better – even accounting for the to-be-expected reduction in antenna gain.

The system has a very narrow elevation search coverage(+5 deg/-15 deg), so the target would optimally need to be in a co-altititude setting.

If you are at 50,000ft (15km), at a look down angle of 15deg, you hit ground at just under 60km.

That in itself should be enough to give you an idea of what they are thinking will be the typical usage patterns of this radar.

Additionally, against VLO targets, the tactically useful range is pretty limited(much lower than IRST range- i.e. 5-10nm vs. Raptor and 10-15nm vs F-35).

I’ll not argue against IRST, IMO it will be the primary sensor of the next real-war. Simply because it does not shine like a beacon on RWRs.

However, Suhkoi did not go to the trouble of adding the thing to the Su-35BM, and supposedly the PAK-FA for the fun of it.

It is there for a purpose, and the purpose is much more than IFF.

As a hardware maybe, but the A2G software for the strike-variant is in need of some extra years to reach the related capabilities.

See the extra years in need for the Su-34/32FN about that.

Hmmm….

Thinking about the Russian’s common sense approach to things that often leave us westerners floundering in our own greed/stupidity…

Modular software?

If the people doing the code know their ****, it does not take years and years to generate A2G software. Even better if those people can work on modules and integrate them into several different systems, like a Su-35BM or a PAK-FA, or a Su-34.

The method* used by Lockeed/Boeing/BAe/Dassault is not necessarily the only method – we should be careful to assume it is. 🙂

*a method extremely proficient at generating money for shareholders.

The types of radars which you’re speaking of are generally fixed sites, or are not highly mobile, which means they’d be very high priority targets for either kinetic strikes or stand off jamming. The fight is at the systems level, not the individual platforms.

Of course.

Just the same as the other guy targetting the F-35’s support platforms and leaving it having to fend for itself.

But that somehow is never considered on here.

The F-22 is good enough to fend for itself in such a situation. In comparison the F-35 is a little child that needs its hand held by off-board sensors.

Remove those sensors, and remove most the threat of the F-35.

Price for a C-17 in 2010 is $202.3 million.

Really?

That why congress paid $2.5 billion for 10 of them?

I’m sure they’ll be most interested to hear they could have cut half a billion off that…

Well considering they’ve modified Mig 21s with RAM, getting them down to .25m^2, and a clean F-18E is ~.1m^2, I wouldn’t say .3m^2 is a big accomplishment.:cool:

I would say it is not the same reference number. 😉

Actually those numbers are on the VERY conservative side. The F-22 can supercruise for over 30 minutes, giving it a supercruise range more along the lines of 500-600+nm, not to mention the subsonic legs.

Understand the difference between radius and range?

If you fly away from your base… your going to have to fly back again, unless you fancy landing your $200 million dollar aeroplane on a desert somewhere…

At a fuel fraction of only 0.24… I’d be quite surprised if the F-22 could supercruise for 30 mins.

Here, you believe LM press releases are gospel:

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

The positioning of the circles in those photographs is way off…first of all.

From someone that has trouble seeing the engines are canted in, I’ll happily dismiss that.

Second, the intake doesn’t drop down and up to shield the engine face. It does so to go underneath the wing components and the landing gear bay.

The bay is to the side. The photo, on the ground, clearly shows the upper surface of the intake duct, despite the nose of the aircraft being pointed down relative to the camera position.

Third, regardless of all you have said, the engine face will be clearly visible at many frontal angles, primarily angles slightly below the centerline and slightly to the side.

(Even the drawing you presented with the circles in a wrong place, shows that if the aircraft was viewed directly from the front…you would still get a view of part of the engine face. There’s no escaping that)

No it won’t.

Either the fuselage is in the road, or the sweep inward of the duct to avoid the wheel well will prevent a direct line of sight to the compressor face.

Have you any sense of spatial awareness whatsoever?