– RCS – same from front, could be even slightly less from side, 4x greater from behind

Quite bias
Russian themselves said PAK-FA sacrifice VLO characteristics for more kinematics characteristics, while USA said opposite about their F-35, and some obvious features such as the direct intake that show engine fan blade, i dont see T-50 habe equal RCS with F-35*from front

dont really see why PAK-FA would have better RCS from side either

– IR at equal speed – same from front and sides,

unlike F-35 vs rafale or Typhoon, the PAK-FA is actually significantly bigger than F-35, it more like su-27 size, it also lack IR suppressing paint, IR signature will be bigger from front and side ( may be not to much, but still bigger)

– RVV-BD as Meteor equivalent

they are not similar at all, very different kinematics characteristics
, iam not saying Meteor is necessary better but they are for very different purposes

, RVV-SD as equivalent for AMRAAM,

ok, this is acceptable

– IRST – hard to say, should be more advanced than that but make it equal to EOTS as a start

I dont see why PAK-FA should be more advanced than EOTS, while OLS-35 is quite inferior in term of detection range, LFR range isn’t good either

. Look up 101KS-O type, plus 101KS-N, 101KS-V and 101KS-U distributed system

both PAK-FA and F-35 will have DIRCM, however, PAK-FA doesnot have similar IIR tracking, warning system like DAS, what it have is a UV missiles warning receiver

– Sh-121 radar (1,526 TRMs) range +30% compared to AN/APG-81.

the radar is actually N036, and APG-81 have 1676 TRMs, i dont see why PAK-FA should have 30% more range than APG-81

– datalink signature – no data, make the same

F-35 have stealth directional datalink, never heard of similar thing on PAK-FA

– RWR – no data, make equal for both LPI and non-LPI

doing this would similar to say, we dont know the exact turn rate of PAK-FA and F-35 so let make them equal

No, I can’t.

I don’t know the numbers for how the change in wavelength will affect the RAM’s effectiveness. Nor can I state how much resonance there will be off features on the F-35 that are approximately 8-15cm in length.

How long is the aileron chord?
How long is the rudder chord?
How long is the slat chord?
Or the EOTS pod?
Or the width of the intake?

I know once the radar wavelengths are of the order of the part feature, VLO is out the window.
..

actually it is quite abit more complicated than that


a subordinate mode of surface wave behaviors is the ‘creeping wave’ behavior and its attendant 10-lambda rule. Lambda (λ) is symbolic of wavelength. The 10-lambda rule states that if the diameter (sphere or cylinder) is 10 times the wavelength that is impacting the body, the creeping wave behavior will not occur. Creeping wave behavior contribute to RCS. So if the impacting wavelength is in the mhz range, as in meters length, then the object would have to literally be tens of meters across in order to prevent the creeping wave behavior contributing to RCS, but that is only a simple body, like the cylinder , a complicated body like an aircraft would be alot harder to predict the way that radar wave will interact with the body, the only way to know is if we have actual equipment to measure

Just because the frequency isn’t X band doesn’t mean the RCS of stealth aircraft will suddenly go up to thousands square meters, For example : here is F-117 prototype RCS measure in test again different frequency

Well his work seems thorough and accurate in method, I don’t share his assumptions, and accuracy of calculations. Let me put a wall of text and some data to point out his mistakes or areas I don’t agree.

Firstly, thanks for great answer Andraxxus , very detailed , i will post your analysis over there and see what he say

F-15 Flight manual gives stall speed at 30000 lbs exactly at 110 knots. Calculating Clmax from these gives us Clmax=1,2028 .

Incedentally, F-15’s maneuvering Clmax is given by Soviet booklet is 1,0. My calculation gave (1-0,147)*1,2028 = 1,02; not too bad.

i dont quite get this part, what is that 0.147 value?

“. As for F-35, such lifting body design is not present on F-35 to any degree (its more like F-15’s body lift than Su-27 with lifting body), has no lerx to make airflow stick to wings, and my mk1 eyeball inspection tells it uses MUCH thinner wings than the profile above. (Abominal extensions below wing roots don’t count as wings)
.

iam bit curious about this, F-35 seem to have the vortex part on the top of its wing similar to fighter with LERX? does it not?



how exactly to distinguish LERX wing and normal wing based on look? , i asked this because the part on F-15 wing look alot like Lerx, but it actually isn’t so i was really surprised

No, the F-35 Can’t Fight at Long Range, Either: Stealth fighter can’t see, shoot or survive

it would be great if you can read previous page before posting this garbage, now i have to repost

the original article here
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is dead meat in a close battle against even a dated two-seat F-16D fighter jet, according to a scathing test pilot report War Is Boring obtained.

=> author clearly didn’t know the objective and criteria of the test
, according to pilot, the F-35 was supposed to go full elevated AoA to test the software , F-16 was there for observations rather than to win

The stealth fighter lacks the sensors,

really? how? what magical sensors that others fighter have that F-35 doesn’t?

weapons

how is F-35 lacking BVR weapons? , does other competitors carrying DEW now?

and speed that allow a warplane to reliably detect and shoot down other planes in combat.

what speed you would need to shot down other planes? mach 2 like F-16? or mach 3 like mig-31?

To this end, the F-35 does have a high-tech radar, high-fidelity cameras and other advanced gear that can detect airplanes. But foremost, Lockheed optimized these sensors for spotting targets on the ground — and at relatively short distanc

please explained to me how F-35 radar have shorter range than Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, Mig-35, .. etc?
and how is APG-81 is only optimized again ground target?
How is ASQ-239 short range? or only work again ground target?
How is EOTS short range?, what make it only optimise again ground target?
DAS may have short range but what make it only optimise again ground target?

according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia.

enough said, garbage in, garbage out

Kopp estimates the APG-81 can detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away.

Nonsense, in testing APG-81 can track target with RCS = 1 m2 from 160 km, and tracking range is very different from detection range

 it’s likely that none of the opposing pilots would even want to activate their radars at all. That’s because most fighters carry gear that can sense radar waves and pinpoint their origins.

author simply doesn’t understand how RWR work

Remember, the F-35 has one huge and very hot engine

repeat same BS argument from APA, pretty sure he doesn’t know about bypass ratio

those long-wavelength, low-band radars that Russia, China and Iran are building right next to potential hotspots in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.

Author doesn’t know that low band radar doesn’t have enough azimuth angular accuracy or elevation angular accuracy to cued missiles

Pierre Sprey, an experienced engineer who worked on both the F-16 and the A-10 ground attack plane.

let me remind all of you this is the guy who think F-15 is useless with all it’s Radar and ECM, according to him fighter doesn’t need a radar or ECM or radar guide missiles

Tehran insists its Ghadir radar can spot jets more than 300 miles away

Teheran also claimed they made a stealth fighter

Russian arms-dealer Rosoboronexport claims the Rezonans-NE can detect stealth planes nearly 750 miles distant.

Firstly, they didn’t claim their radar can detect stealth fighter from 750 miles, they claim they detect normal fighter from 350 km
Secondly, according to producer

The Rezonans-N radar is a mobile highly automated coherent all-round surveillance phased-array radar employing the resonance wave reflection effect in the metric wavelength band.

which mean it use sky scattering effect to see over radar horizon, as a result it can detect low flying target even at long distance like 1000 km , but it also mean similar to all other sky scattering radar it have a huge blind area near the radar location ( like 400-500 km)


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

That means a “supercruising” fighter such as the Su-35 — that is, a fast-flying plane that exceeds the speed of sound without a fuel-guzzling afterburner 

since when Su-35 can super-cruise? and at what speed?

Unable to supercruise like its rivals, the JSF can’t launch its own weapons with nearly as much extra power

F-35 can fly for 150 miles in dry thrust at mach 1.2, not supercruise but not too bad
before anyone say why it is only 150 miles, does F-35 run out of fuel or in a dive, i posted an analysis by an aerospace engineer degree earlier, you can read at the link, there is explanation

F-35 can only carry four AIM-120

after block 4-5, it is 6 aim-120D

The more conventional Su-35 can carry a whopping 10 missiles under its wings and fuselage.

People like to bash, F-35 acceleration rate, but F-35 take 64 sec to accelerate from mach 0.8 to 1.2, Su-35 with 4 aam take 50 sec , let see how long Su-35 take to accelerate with 10 aam, and how fast it can cruise with 10 aam

In the Pacific Vision war game, which the California think-tank RAND conducted on behalf of the Air Force, F-22s and F-35s lost a simulated aerial battle over the Taiwan Strait

RAND, already said they didn’t conducted that simulation

The F-35 is a big, slow target.

if F-35 is big then F-15, Su-35, F-22, J-20.. etc would be massive
Typhoon and Rafale are not that much smaller than F-35 either

Slow you say? : F-35 can fly at mach 1.2 in dry thrust with internal load ( 6 aam or 2aam + 2JDAM) , Rafale can fly at mach 1.4 on dry thrust with 6 aam, Gripen can fly at mach 1.2 in dry thrust with 2 aam, … etc i dont see F-35 being slow at all, if you want to talk about top speed then all F-35, Typhoon, Gripen NG, Rafale are all slug compared to fighter like F-15, Mig-25, Mig-31

You think F-35 isnt agile enough? consider the fight is 500nm out from airbase, to reach that distance, each fighter will need :
F-15E = 58% fuel, = 18000kg
F-16C = 83% fuel. = 11735kg
F-35A = 57% fuel. = 18082kg
Su-27 = 40% fuel. = 20060kg (50% should easily reach

while carry that amount of fuel, all can pull 9Gs, their ITR will differ by speed;
F-15E = 17,17 deg/s @ 292 m/s,
F-16C = 16,07 deg/s @ 313 m/s,
F-35A = 17,6 deg/s @ 285 m/s,
Su-27 = 20,96 deg/s @ 240 m/s

I dont see F-35 as particularly bad here, what ITR fighter like Gripen NG, Rafale, Typhoon will achieved in same situation?

Pretty much shows how “realistic” this simulation is.

If we consider Meteor PK around 40% again agile target , 4 of them will ensure a kill most of the time
let say if each AIM-120D only have PK around 20% ( half of Meteor) , 4 of them will have total PK of around 80%, which mean if F-35 release all 4, it will be a kill most of the time
so obvious that the end result would be similar

10-15 T-50s? In total? 😉

yes, until 2025, not much will be bought

M1.2+ clean.. no further data has been revealed..

Source?, never heard about that anywhere , apart from APA crap

a) The F-35s have AWACS and ELINT support, while the Su-35Ss have nothing of that. Where are Beryev A-50Us and Tu-214Rs?

actually if you read the whole link you will see that they added support for Flanker later, both AWACS and jamming support

Adding the A-50 as AEW support to Red proved pointless as the F-35s still were invisible to its radar
After about 15 runthroughs with the Su35s being shot out of the sky I decided to add more Red support assets. The first being a A-50 ‘Mainstay’ to provide AEW coverage and the second a Su-24MP Fencer F EW variant to provide jamming capability. – See more at: http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat#gallery[m]/43/

few people having the game also tried themselves with different tactic such as adding ground radar support :

I used my own copy of C:MANO to add a quick twist. I dropped a slew of ground-based radars into Kaliningrad, and found that a new-build TALL RACK radar was able to give a moderate 3D picture of our plucky stealth fighters – enough to cue the Flankers in their general direction. This did not alter the end result, as the TALL RACK was unable to generate enough of a “basket” for the fighters to shoot into before the F-35s had gotten plenty of shots off – See more at: http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat#gallery[m]/43/

b) if the author wanted to include weapons which the F-35 will field in the future (Meteor), then it would be intellectually honest to do the same for future Russian weapons (RVV-SD, RVV-MD…), as well.

doesn’t actually matter since Su-35 doesn’t get any shot off
RVV-BD is similar to R-33, Aim-54, more suited for big, slow target
, RVV-MD is short range missiles similar to R-73 and the F-35 didn’t even go there so i dont see why it matters

the author also did a test with F-35 carry Aim-120 and results turn out the same

c) by the time the Meteor gets integrated onto the F-35, the T-50 might already be in series.. If we’re talking post Block 4, then let’s take the future Russian designs into the account…

the main criticism at the moment is that many people think 4.5 gen design like Su-35, GripenNG, Typhoon, Rafale beat F-35, so that may be the intension of author why he would test F-35 again a 4.5 gen fighters
should also consider the fact that according to recent news Russian only gonna buy like 10-15 PAK-FA, number too low to be an actual threat

d) The F-35 cannot carry four Meteors internally. The missile is only compatible with the internal A-G stations.. The A-A stations cannot accept the missile without mods of the fin span and air intakes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

Air intake doesn’t need modifications , MBDA said they will make folding fin Meteor so that it will fit F-35 AA station ( similar to the modifications between aim-120A/B and Aim-120C) , given the huge number of F-35 sales and the fact that UK themselves also bought F-35, there is no reasons for MBDA to miss out from such huge market
Japan also cooperate with MBDA to make a Meteor version with AESA seeker for their future F-35

Somewhere between the author’s conception and his hitting the keyboard. The whole thing depends on one very obvious and dubious assumption, which is that you can determine stability/instability from H-stab incidence.

. i remember you said same thing last time and he already replied ?

Wow, my analysis jumped forums? I’m honored. Someone decides that my analysis provides enough science to question their viewpoint so they decide to attack my character? That’s their problem.

My credentials are getting an Aerospace Engineering degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (#1 school in the US for an AE degree) where my studies excelled in Aerodynamics and Stability. If whoever this person is doesn’t understand trim drag then that is their shortcoming. Oh, and I don’t work for any aircraft manufacturer. I work for an avionics company.

I did find a mistake in part of the stability analysis where it applied to the F-15 however. When I calculated the max lift coefficient for the F-15 is was based on stall speed at a given weight. This, in effect, is the modified CLmax. The true CLmax produced by the wing would then have to be INCREASED by the trim drag effects and would put it fairly close to 1.7. The “effective lifting area” for the F-15 was independent from the rest of the analysis and only served to explain why the relatively HUGE wing of the F-15 fails to allow it to generate the kind of turn that the F-16 can generate.

As for the nature of the analysis, the data I had specifically tells the stability margin (CG with respect to the AC of the main wing, which can be geometrically found) so it was not hard to find the geometric CG and estimate the AC of the tailplane to find the moment arm from the center of mass. Incidence, and alpha, angle of the tail is a result of what force is needed by the tailplane to balance the weight of the aircraft with the lift produced by the wing and body surfaces. So while there is a downwash, that only causes the tail to increase it’s incidence to reach the required alpha to get the needed lift.

A perfect example of the above was explained to me by either johnwill or Gums (they both taught me so much years ago) that at 25 degrees angle of attack the tailplanes of the F-16 are near max incidence to still provided the upward force needed to stop the plane from flipping up and going into a deep stall.

So, to anyone interested in science, take my analysis and ask doubters to use science to refute it. I have relevant education combined with real world experience of others to back up my assertions. That said, I am always willing to learn new things from people with the right credentials

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&start=90

During the Indian evaluation, the Rafale has demonstrated SC M1.4 with four AAMs and two guided bombs, so it’s range at M1.4 which really has practical use for the Rafale.

Not heard of that, can you give the source that state Rafale can super-cruise at mach 1.4 with 4 AAM and 2 bomb? what is the exact range it achieved in such configuration ?