Andraxxus, you’re making hasty conclusions because you’re basing everything on the original -100 engines. The F-15C with -220s will do Mach 2.45 at 40,000 ft (1,620 mph) on a standard day, and Mach 2.35 with launchers. So the F-15 with -220 engines in the mid 80s is faster than the MiG-29. Envelope pictures below.

By the way, the F-15C can accommodate the -229, but USAF chose not to install them. Performance would be pretty scary.

Paul Metz has flown F-22 at 1600+mph,

Berkut, I think his line is “it’ll [F-22] do 1,600 mph” and I think this was from a TV interview in the early to mid 2000s. It’s difficult to track down since it was before the days of youtube. From this line we don’t know if it’s a predicted speed based on calculations or actual test flight results.

As I’ve said, two sources I consider reliable, Jay Miller and F-22 program manager Jeff Babione, point to max speed of Mach 2.2. Again, with supercruise of Mach 1.8 the F-22’s max speed frankly doesn’t really matter, and the same applies for the T-50.

T-50 need to operate at 2600 km/h at 24000m+ altitude to break envelope of Patriot PAC3 MIM-104F altitude 79500 feet (24200 m).

:stupid: So you’re saying the T-50 will operate at an altitude beyond its life support and crew escape system limitation of 23 km? And 23 km doesn’t even mean the aircraft will operate that high, due to design safety margins that should be built into crew escape systems. I can point to a random system on the F-15 that works 65,000+ feet, and that means the aircraft can operate that high?

EDIT: Do I need to mention how idiotic it would be to assume safety above 79,500 ft when the PAC-2 and SM-6s fly much higher? :stupid:

EF carries limited internal fuel. it cant even sustain Mach 2 let alone Mach 2.35. Show me official link of EF top speed and Altitude?

MIG-31 replacment is Mach 4.3 class fighter not Mach 3 PAK-FA.

Wow… So why did you ask about the Typhoon’s max speed then? Because I presume that since it uses considerable amounts of composites you’re interested in knowing its max speed for comparison, then you totally change topic to something completely unrelated and said “NOPE limited internal fuel on Typhoon. So Mach 3 PAK FA”. You haven’t provided a shred of solid evidence. Are you even listening to your drivel? How does that have any logic?

I’m about to report both JSR and Isengard for sheer stupidity. I’ve seen ignorance and delusion before, but rarely of such magnitude.

Well, the Su-35S has a 6% larger airintakes.. i might have an impact on top speed, it might not..

I was simply replying to JSR’s ridiculous “logic.”

Su-27 is much lighter (less avionics, no OBOGS, no TVC,) and much shorter life span fighter. Su-35 can fire 5 long range cruise missiles. Su-35 specification are likely for export. T-50 has much bigger design advantage over Su-35.

The T-50 will also be heavier than the Su-27. And none of what you said has any support for your fantasy of Mach 3+ PAK FA.

Then again in JSR world gun+TVC=AAM shootdown.

One thing to keep in mind is that the PAK FA’s original RFP asked for a max speed of Mach 2.35, and this eventually dropped to Mach 2 due to materials in December 2004. Also note that the PAK FA’s configuration and shape was also decided around that time too. A Sukhoi paper from 2006 outright stated that Mach 2.35 is about the max practical speed for composite usage.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,15626.0/all.html?PHPSESSID=vmmeien6ttp0886kkk6sd6g4l7 From flateric

Front-line fighters have their own critical performance requirements for the use of composites in the design. In this case, the share of composites applications is most affected by the maximum airspeed – more precisely, a Mach number.

The largest share of composites application with a maximum weight effect can be realized in the design of the front-line fighter aircraft with a maximum flight speed of 2.1 M, as the range of temperatures of airframe skin surface lay within the range of operating temperatures of the existing composites.

However, in this case, there are areas with increased operating temperature, where the use of composites is practically impossible, like nacelles of powerplant based on augmented turbofans, especially in the afterburners area. Due to the large thrust-weight ratio of modern front-line fighter and dimension of modern powerplants the mass fraction of metallic nacelles in the airframe is quite large.

The absence of metal armor and less stringent requirements for repair in the field can significantly extend the use of composites in the construction of the front-line fighter in comparison to attack aircrafts, so composites can be widely used in the fuselage, wing and empennage.

Domestic front-line fighters are intended for operations from non-prepated runways, and that limits the application of composites
in the lower and side surfaces of the mid-fuselage and aft-fuselage, as well as lower part of horizontal tail. But forward fuselage, in contrast to attack aircrafts, can be built mainly from composites.

Erosion problems with the leading edges of the wings and tail of the front-line fighters are as valid as the for the ground attack aircrafts. The difference in the sweep angle of the leading edges of the wing and tail is compensated by an increase of the maximum flight speed at sea level.

For front-line fighter with a maximum speed of flight M=2.1-2.35, there are additional restrictions on the use of existing composites in the area of air intakes and air duct of power plants due to deceleration of airflow to subsonic speeds with heating.

For supersonic interceptor with a maximum flight speed of M=2.35 use of existing composites in load-bearing structures is almost impossible, because their level of heat resistance does not cover the interceptor’s operating temperature range. Here composites
can be used successfully only in airframe parts, protected from aerodynamic heating, such as equipment bays, and crew cabin.

Development of the new composites with high level of mechanical and thermal stability and higher performance than the metal alloys is a complex scientific and technical challenge, since the strength of composites more determined by the strength of the polymer matrix and the strength of its connection to the reinforcing filler, the mechanical properties of all polymers with increasing temperature faster fall than mechanical properties of the
metal alloys. Possible progress in heat resistance composite materials is associated with the use of metallic, ceramic and carbon matrix, but their mechanical properties close to those of metal alloys, price is excessively high, and manufacturability is lowered.

While it’s true that some composites like the BMI used in the F-22 can tolerate greater heat, but even then the F-22 is pretty close to its thermal limit, as there are pictures of the F-22’s leading edge paint being peeled and canopy chipped. The Sukhoi paper seems to say that the additional complexity and cost of going above Mach 2.35 isn’t worth it. It’s possible that they’ve raised the PAK FA max speed requirement again, but there’s been zero reliable evidence suggesting that, and quite honestly there’s no good reason when MiG-31BMs are being modernized, and the RuAF has plans for a dedicated interceptor to replace it.

As I said, when Metz said 1,600 mph for the F-22 I don’t know if that’s achieved in flight test or if it’s simply a value predicted through calculations and wind tunnels. Recent reliable sources generally indicate Mach 1.8 supercruise and Mach 2.2 max speed, based on F-22 program manager Jeff Babione. Also, Advanced Tactical Fighter to the F-22 by Aronstein, Hirschberg and Piccirillo (the definitive book on the ATF) stated that heat stress at Mach 2.5 is much worse than at Mach 2, which is the same conclusion as Sukhoi, and that may imply the ATF max speed was relaxed for the same reason the PAK FA’s max speed requirement was lowered.

http://www.flightglobal.com/features/Lockheed-Martin-F-22-Raptor-Special/the-last-f22/

its not hard to accept the innovative vertical rudders can only take so much pressure

I don’t know what your fixation with the vertical tails is, care to explain?

Did i say max speed is related to range?. Its the supersonic speed range that is double for T-50 compared to Flanker. not subsonic. Since T-50 is smaller plane than Flanker but more powerfull engines so it is reasonable that its top speed will be much higher than Flanker.

:stupid: Nice, so the Su-27 has max speed of Mach 2.35, while the Su-35S is the same size but with more powerful engines but with max speed of Mach 2.25. Care to explain that?

No, There is no such thing as isentropy in real life. Even adiabatic process is a mere simplification for calculations and doesn’t exist in real life. Compression is compression, entropy and heat is both scalar and material properties, geometry itself has no effects on either of these. More you compress, more heat and entropy you will generate this is not avoidable.

Range = not range, a point.

Only efficiency you can speak of is frictional losses in flow. From rectengular cross section to circular, compared to paralelogram cross section to circular plus S-ducts. Other than the improved CFD analysis F-22 potentially use, I see no reason F-22’s inlets should be more efficinent in that area too.

I’m speaking of an isentropic compression ramp, which is essentially a curved surface turning into the flow. This theoretically generates an infinite number of Mach waves based on the surface geometry, so the compression done by this ramp is isentropic. Again, this is ignoring viscous effects, so you’re right, isentropic process in real life is impossible. This is in contrast to a finite number of straight ramps at discrete angles, generating a finite number of oblique shocks.

Not directly. For such thing to work, You need bigger than needed inlet area, recover what you can and bleed the excess mass flow away. Maybe it will work for +/- M0,2 range at best. Does it sound efficent to you?

Seems like I misstated a few things. True, you need bigger than needed inlet area to account for the bleed, but most aircraft has a bleed air system, and evidently, this is the approach used by the F-22 and F-35 to trap the normal shock at the throat. At least on the F-35, the bleed air is used for ventilation and cooling. As for its efficiency, it was considered acceptable by Lockheed Martin, and keep in mind that the YF-23 and the prospective F-23 by Northrop would also have a fixed inlet. That said, I don’t have the pressure recovery charts, and I don’t claim that it’s the best approach simply because it’s used on the F-22 and F-35.

2D vs 3D analysis is not for making one better than the other. Ideal inlet is circular, and requires 2D analysis on cylindrical coordinates, as used by most early aircraft.
Rectangular inlets and analysis on cartesian coordinates born due to necessity, as it allowed multiple ramps to move independently to control multiple shocks, which was not possible with circular inlets.
Now 3D inlets came out of necessity as both circular and rectangular inlets are bad for stealth. Its not necessarily efficent, (and has great potential to be more inefficient, due to difficulties in design and implementation) its just another method. F-35’s inlets are also 3D design.

I believe 3D inlets give more options to control shock geometry. For instance, the XB-70 has 2D mixed compression inlet while the SR-71 has 3D mixed compression. But you’re right, 3D doesn’t necessarily mean more efficient.

According to my mk1 eyeball inspection, T-50’s inlets attempt to change geometry from trapezoid to 2D rectengular without disturbing airflow, then compress it 2 inlet ramps. Which brings the question, if F-22’s inlets are nearly as efficient as variable geometry ones (not even talking about “more efficient” claims), why Russians would go such lengths to put variable ramps on T-50?

It’s an interesting question, to be sure. In the end it may boil down to engineering tradeoffs. How much benefit would you get out of these ramps at typical operating speeds? The Chinese didn’t feel those ramps were necessary for the J-20, and it seems like Japan’s ATD-X also doesn’t have variable ramps.

in long range air combat, sure. it’s a matter of someone spotting the target (be it AWACS, satellite, forward aircraft…) and relaying the target data. then it comes down to pumping missiles at the target
really just the same principle of any SAM system or the F-22 and F-35: detect, engage, keep shooting until its down
and then UAVs and UCAVs have the natural advantage, because they’re cheaper and relatively expandable

you see the same thing with tanks: they keep getting better, but so do anti-tank weapons
so when a country spends years and millions to develop a new tank, a few years later another country brings out its latest infantry based RPG
to the point where well equiped infantry can destroy the latest multi-million Dollar tank with ease and at low cost
it becomes even worse when you look at IEDs blowing up expensive Humvees

to compare that to fighter jets, if a cheap UCAV or UAV with optical missiles can sneak up on, or swarm a $150 million F-22 or F-35, they can perfectly well shoot them down
the UAV might not be much, but it’s just there to bring the missile within range
I’d bet the latest Python missile can already take out any stealth aircraft. what platform you launch it from becomes largely irrelevant

an on AI, the F-22s hardware and software is already ancient compared to the F-35s
in the same way, the F-35s tech is already old compared to some of the latest stuff out there, because it’s based on 90’s tech
that’s like comparing the best 90’s phone to the latest 2015 smartphone. talk about emberassing
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

Geez, if these UCAVs are the ultimate answer then why is Russia investing in the T-50 and China in the J-20? Sorry, but “cheap” UCAVs aren’t the aerial analogues of IEDs, especially in a non-permissive environment.

Inb4 JSR starts squawking excuses.