ActionJacksonwhereas in BVR the F-35 is limited to one missile per target due to its low missile count, and each AIM-120C probably can’t get more that 40% pk against a sophisticated threat. Also for a BVR shot to be effective, the missile has to receive updates thoughout its flight, so do they take into account that the F-35s and the other friendly planes have to guide the missile for up to 1 or 2 minutes?
Consider a 4 v 4 where if two aircraft on either side get destroyed without that side being able to fire back, the remaining two retreat. F-35’s fly with 3 up front running passively (3 shooters), and one hanging back to paint targets with radar.
With a 40% single shot kill probability, the probability of 3 F-35s with 4 missiles each killing 2 of the 4 enemy is 98.04%. I like those odds. Chance of killing 3 enemies is 91.65% and all 4 is 77.47%.
If they are firing from just outside 20 miles, then the enemy has about 30 seconds, the faster they are flying the less time they have.
ActionJacksonJDAM for SEAD ? what a lousy SAM battery
With the recently mentioned 0.000028m RCS, even the s-400’s gravestone radar only has a 30km range against the f-35’s frontal aspect. Coulda been anything else within the Russian inventory.
ActionJackson13 aircraft for 2 weeks and 110 sorties… Is it usual number or fairly low?
It’s hard to say. One of the pilots in the interview session mentioned that the F-35’s were used initially in the scenario for SEAD, then 4th gens (typhoons and F-15’s) took over after the advanced threats were all removed. 3/4 of the Typhoons were available for 2 sorties a day each.
Couple take-aways from the interview.
– Against the most advanced SAM systems they were training against, 4th generation fighters had no way to attack them outside of using cruise missiles (assume S-400 or advanced S-300), but F-35s did with internal weapons.
– Against SAM systems where 4th generation fighters would have had to use HARMs (~90 miles range), the F-35 was able to drop 2000lb MK-84 bombs on the targets
– In an environment where 3 Advanced SAM systems existed (assumed S-400), and the force of Typhoons, F-22’s, F-15’s, F-35s were flying against much higher numbers of enemy aircraft (assume 108 (4.5 x 24) Su-35, Su-30), the F-35 flying with SEAD loadout achieved a 15:1 air to air ratio and lost 2 aircraft total to air and land threats over the course of the scenario.
ActionJacksonF-117 may have had some aspects that had better, general shaping than the fighters, especially from the side. Directly front on from a radar at the same altitude, it’s angles are far less swept the the f-22 and f-35. It was also using very old RAM and had numerous forward facing surface joints which are source of defraction.
ActionJacksonCant seem to find the 2016 thread, and seeing how it’s a new year….
Couldn’t help to but to open with this article, a fantastic example of journalistic failure.
This poor columnist is claiming APA is working with the U.S. SecDef. Makes you wonder what B.S. Airpower Australia is telling this journalist to get him to believe that.
APA hasn’t posted any new articles on their site since 2013. Carlo’s university profile says that his areas of study have changed from electronic warfare to automated human behaviour analysis or something similar. They left the game after their public humiliation during the parliamentary defence review.
ActionJacksonYou do realise that, especially in the case of the facet design, lowering RCS in one aspect, you invitably increase it in the other aspect? Your “LO shaped enclosure” will be LO for one radar, but will be a shining sun for any other, placed not straight in front of the aircraft.
Absolutely idiotic statement.
You finally realised what the whole principle of stealth design is about? Directing radar down and away in a limited number of directions… it’s called planform alignment. The only radars that should get a direct view at an EOTS surface will be below the aircraft within 20km or so… ie. dead radars.
Thanks for the post though, maybe next time you could ask someone to write an intelligent one.
ActionJacksonF-35 EOTS is always exposed to radar waves.
No, it’s sits within a LO shaped, reflective enclosure. Radar does not reach the internal components.
Guess what stealth aircraft use same approach as F-117?
Not the T-50 and besides, if the OLS is not in use when the T-50 is trying to find enemy stealth aircraft then the pilot is doing something wrong.
Also the F-1117 is not that stealthy from the front compared to the F-35. Golf ball vs pea according to the same official.
ActionJacksonAll items within your PAK FA design philosophy list are irrelevant to the conversation on SA vs VLO and also considering the PAK FA can expect a 50% loss around 80% of the time in near peer combat before any of those attributes will get to be used.
PAK FA will have better rate of climb …. better than a 40G missile travelling at M3.5-M4.5? Lose the detection range battle within the NEZ and this is all that matters.
PAK FA will have higher service ceiling …. flying higher than an enemy aircraft actually improves their IR and radar detection advantage due to clutter when looking down. Missiles still reach you at higher altitude just fine. Deceleration due to gravity is small compared to typical missile deceleration due to drag and high dynamic pressure. Maximum missile range against a target at higher altitude is actually higher than range against a target at the same altitude due to reduced time when the missile is in dense air
PAK FA will have better acceleration subsonic/supersonic …. can it reach mach 3.5 to 4.5 of the Aim-120D or Meteor?
PAK FA will have greater top speed …. can it reach mach 3.5 to 4.5 of the Aim-120D or Meteor?
PAK FA will have better sustained and instantaneous turn rates subsonic/supersonic …. can it pull 40G at Mach 3? Can it dodge multiple 40G missiles using ACMs at high altitude coming from different directions?
PAK FA will have ability to exploit Post Stall region …. stalling in front of an incoming BVR missile would be unwise
PAK FA will have ability to supercruise …. can it reach mach 3.5 to 4.5 of the Aim-120D or Meteor? Also, super-cruising blindly towards a stealthier enemy flying slower with a smaller IR signature only decreases your reaction time to the missile shots and increases their NEZ due to slower turn rate at high supersonic speeds and higher rate of closure to the shooter
PAK FA will have better range/endurance … great, it can travel a long time before being shot at first
PAK FA will have ability to carry more payload internally and externally … great, it can carry more things it won’t get to use before being shot at first
PAK FA will have ability to carry high caliber A-A and A-G missiles with greater range internally …. I question that. So far the only evidence provided is fan art
ActionJacksonYes you make some interesting points.
But comparing a prototype plane against production version F-35 is not fair.
Iam sure alot of the pivot protrusions will disappear in production version.
Iam also sure that 100s if not 1000s of engineers at Sukhoi have some idea regards stealth. If not through their own efforts but also through some information espionage on the F-35 and F-22 like China.
When sukhoi officals say the Pak-fa is close to the F-22 but done in a different manner, one must believe to some degree this is true. Otherwise alot of them would loose their jobs quickly. Russians have always been good at materials science. Looking at the Korean and Japanese fifth gen models their inlets are looking more like the Pak-fa then F-35.
Sure it’s a prototype….still. Rather than thinking of how long both aircraft have been in development, think of how long before they are in full service. The F-35 has just begun IOC and Pak FA will reach a similar level in 2 years. Personally I think the initial in service 2019 PAK FA will be carrying external stores, and will look exactly like it does now. I’d say it’ll be 10-15 years before it catches up to what the F-35 is now. By this time, the F-35 will be toting defensive (and close range offensive) lasers or 12 internal missiles.
The Russians may well know what’s needed to create a proper stealth aircraft, but have just gone the inexpensive approach to only use the T-50 in conjunction with ground based defensive systems only.
ActionJacksonmore like peculiar points, both are detected by off board systems and directed perfectly against each other,
I didn’t say perfectly directed to the right point, nor would they need to be. A within 6 degree heading from ground based UHF radars, spotters, passive sensors or potentially OTH radars with unknown range would be enough to direct both aircraft at each others’ low RCS frontal arcs.
Yet somehow PAK-FA are required to detect F-35 with its own radar, but not the other way around.
speaking of PAK-FA own radar, -it comes with GaN, to say nothing of IRST, that would pick up a large fcs fighter at 50+ km, even if the GaN radar somehow didnt, the latter is actually a reasonable assumption, i think most fighters will stay silent in A2A.
When we compare a “tennis ball” PAK FA to something the size of a “pea”, a 130X power/aperture product advantage would be required for the tennis ball sized target achieve detection range parity. Does GAN offer 130X increase in power over GaAs, or just double (and even then, only as long as you have double the input power to support it)? As far as I know, the undisputed global leader in GaN amplifiers, Cree, has only managed 100W HPAs in a size useful for fighter AESA TRMs, only 6 times more powerful than the 15W HPAs that were the vogue around the time of the AGP-81s manufacture.
At last check Russian manufacturers were only producing prototype 40W HPAs at roughly three times the size of the Cree 100W components. Personally I’m going to put my money on US built radars having better sensitivity, jamming protection and efficiency due to being multiple generations ahead of Russia in AESA radar manufacture, component miniaturisation and having far greater R&D resources.
As far as IRST detection, claims of 50km, 100km ranges against ANY aircraft target are only being quoted by 3rd party news sources and fanboys, especially those in denial about radar stealth. Think about why countries (US, China, Russia, Japan, France) would spend numerous billions building LO aircraft, avoiding detection by a 10 million dollar radar sensor only to have it negated by a $500k – $1 million IR device. Surely the ultimate aircraft would have a giant gimballed telescope on the front. The reason countries still pursue radar stealth is that those detection ranges are fantasies.
The first thing to be seen by IRST is going to be the exhaust plume. IR videos of F-22 displays show the exhaust plume being so masked by the airframe than the IR from the hot ground reflecting off the aircraft is more visible than the exhaust behind it. The F-35’s fuselage provides even more masking than the F-22’s from the frontal aspect and both provide much more than the T-50.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251002[/ATTACH]
Nozzle to airframe comparison. The white area represents the degree to which the IR plume is obstructed by airframe.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251003[/ATTACH]
Nozzles at closed setting…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251004[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251005[/ATTACH]
i also think in such a dynamic environment as A2A, frontal radar cross section is meaningless, illuminators will come from all angles, and the fighters them self will wiggle like waveya during the entire engagement
Maybe you should draw a map and model the scenario and see how that plays out? You’ll quickly find that excellent frontal stealth, decent side and rear stealth does indeed offer more advantages in the big picture than the typical fanboy comparison of 1v1. The F-35’s enemy’s forces are never going to instantly surround the F-35s as you seem to think, and having the SA and VLO advantage allows the better stealth aircraft to choose advantageous positions and ingress angles and selectively attack targets with greater effectiveness to help ensure they can continue to play to their strengths.
ActionJacksonThought I’d just pop these up here. Side aspect surface angles of the PAK FA showing the range at which beams projected from ground based radars have a 0 degree angle of incidence with the surfaces for various altitudes.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250985[/ATTACH]
F-35. As you can see, the F-35 maintains a high level of consistency with surface angles despite it’s “legion of curved and protruding surfaces”.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250986[/ATTACH]
debate about what would probably be a RCS difference of a pairs of tenths or even hundredth of square meters RCS?
Actually, in light of the recent statement by USAF officials that the F-35’s frontal RCS is in the ballpark of 0.000028m^2 (smaller than a pea), 10th’s or even hundreds of m^2 difference in RCS has a massive impact on detection range. If we consider an air to air radar with similar range to the Irbis-E or APG-81 searching for LO and VLO targets, we get the following detection ranges:
Irbis-E can detect a 0.01m^2 from 90km (APG-81 possibly more), so:
Detection range for 0.2m^2 is 190km
Detection range for 0.02m^2 is 66km
Detection range for 0.000028m^2 is 20km
So contrary to the belief that overall “stealth-like” shaping is “good enough” with little regard for the actual angles involved and that the small details are only just “fancy bells and whistles”, it’s actually not when you consider the sensitivity of the sensors involved and how the radar range formula actually works. To achieve true VLO, there has to be no compromise on the details and all forms of radar reflectivity must be taken into account.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250987[/ATTACH]
If you take a while to look at some super hi-res photographs and appreciate all of the minute details that have gone into the F-35’s construction – The edge alignment, and not just the gross angle of the leading edges either, but every gap and surface edge between different materials, the blade-like edges and their RAM treatments, the attention to creeping wave propagation over the air-frame and canopy – you get a sense of the maturity of the design.
F-35 blade-like pitot. Also the angles at which screws on the ladder door are tightened to prevent burring and scratches is a stealth consideration. This is the level detail required for true VLO.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250988[/ATTACH]
How long until the PAK FA enters service (2 years?) and how much longer until it reaches F-35 VLO maturity levels? Will it ever? What is the consequence of not having the lowest level of frontal stealth in the world (answer above: 66km vs 20km) when both aircraft are queued directly toward each other by off-board systems. If we assume one side gets the first shots in before the other has time to react, how does it play out?
Consider a 4v4, both aircraft types with 6 BVR missiles, both within their respective NEZs on approach. 50% loss of aircraft (2) prompts the remainder to retreat. F-35 group gets the drop on the PAK FAs (detection range advantage due to frtonal observability + sensor combo advantage) and fires first volleys.
With a single shot PK of 10%, F-35s destroy 2 PAK FAs 70% of the time before they are detected
With a single shot PK of 15%, F-35s destroy 2 PAK FAs 89% of the time before they are detected
With a single shot PK of 20%, F-35s destroy 2 PAK FAs 96% of the time before they are detected
With a single shot PK of 30% (historical performance figure), F-35s destroy 2 PAK FAs 99.8% of the time before they are detected
Chance of destroying all 4 with a 30% single shot PK is 95%
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250989[/ATTACH]
1 – protruding metal cylinders (these have a higher frontal RCS than the entire F-35)
2 – non-sawtooth surface edge causes direct creeping wave reflection return
3 – as above
4 – side facing 90 degree surface, also a slight dihedral corner reflector (causes resonance)
5 – dihedral reflector between nose and bottom of OLS ball…also
5a – if ball is electronically transparent, then internal OLS relector cannot have required tilt angle to be made stealthy when in use. Not to mention the other internal components, all with an RCS greater than a pea.
5b – if ball is electronically reflective, then it will have an RCS in the area 0.02m^2 all by itself
PS..
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250992[/ATTACH]
1 – Side facing corner reflector
2 – This is the surface of the inner intake that is angled at around 75 degrees (almost vertical), if the observer in this photograph was a ground based radar at long range (200km +) then the PAK FAs RCS would be extremely high from this aspect.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250996[/ATTACH]
3 – Still no evidence of internal weapons carriage or testing available? How many years until they confirm they’ve tested internal weapons release? No need to point out what a huge impact these have on side aspect RCS.
4 – I noticed that even with the new composite surface on the latest T-50’s the issue with these huge “ogives with very little RCS difference to huge cyclinders” with side facing 85 degree surfaces haven’t been fixed. Reinforces my assumption that the T-50 is for flying within a friendly IADS only (defensive fighter only) and not for IADS penetration. Poor shaping plus good RAM may give good RCS results, but excellent shaping with good RAM is a minimum requirement against modern radar systems. A cylinder will never have a better RCS than a heavily canted flat surface of similar size from angles relevant to how stealth aircraft operate.
PPS..
If stealth was about frontal profiles, ignoring edge detraction and surface angle and “fancy” stealth measures, then a cone-sphere would have the same RCS on both ends. This test which takes into account specular reflection as well as creeping wave return shows the pointed end of the cone having an RCS almost 100 times smaller than spherical end (this would be much smaller if creeping waves were attenuated by magram), though both have the same area. BTW it also shows in the cone sphere with gap test what the effect of non sawtooth edges are on many of the T-50’s surfaces (canopy base and canopy frame as a few examples) . Return on the pointed cone end is actually higher than spherical end due to surface discontinuity return.
The conversation on frontal reference area demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the topic, I’d suggest further research before continuing.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250995[/ATTACH]
ActionJacksonYou are implying that the ratio’s are the exact same and that the Raptor is taller in the exact number that the Pak Fa has a bigger top down profile. And then you are implying that the top down footprint is more important than the incoming profile. The YF 23 is shaped more like the Pak Fa and it got better all around stealth than the Raptor.
OMG… I said OPPORTUNITY COST. Not production cost. Meaning, they deemed the advantages of the slimmed down option did not outweigh the advantages of the protrusions.
Again. I was talking about opportunity cost. Which has exactly nothing to do with the value cost of the jet.
The surface angles of the yf-23’s side surfaces were significantly more canted than the f-22’s.
The angle of the f-22’s side surfaces are 55 degrees from horizontal, the yf-23 was around 35 degrees. This accounts for the difference in allround RCS.
The PAK fa has some surfaces canted at 65 degrees like the f-35 and j-20, however it also has surfaces at 75 and 85 degrees like non-stealth fighters have (this has not changed at all with the new prototypes with the new engine cowling either) so from a stealth shaping perspective the t-50 is more analogous to a clean rafale. Both have frontal RCS reduction measures with some side RCS reduction. Neither have any rear RCS reduction.
Another thing you’ll notice on the actual VLO aircraft is sharpened (blade-like) leading edges and meticulous attention to reducing surface discontinuity reflections, neither of which have been addressed in the latest PAK FA examples.
Size is tertiary when it comes to RCS. Hence why from the most important aspects, a zumwalt destroyer has a lower RCS than an Su-27.
ActionJacksonShall we call it (a very conservative) -25dB for 5mm.
Sure, if you can provide any credible evidence stating that the exact material discussed in the patent has a RDP suitable for application at a 3 times greater depth than the test examples….. and that 3 years of development of that exact material has increased its heat tolerance by 400%.
But… consider that even a 25dB reduction in signal return still gives the T-50’s 10 degree sector side aspect an RCS > 3m^2, ie. Still detectable from 200km+ by the last 3 generations of mobile field radars.
One issue with your source is that article includes a diagram stating the effectiveness of the material at the lower end of x-band is merely -7dB. LO aircraft with a 20 – 30dBsm advantage due to shaping + similar materials (all US and Chinese examples) are detected at 1/3rd – 1/5th the range.
ActionJacksonEven more so the flanker fanbois as the chinese dub the Su-30 as merely a 3rd generation fighter.
ActionJacksonThe video of the multiple rocket launch (smaller terrier missiles…etc) was taken from about 70km.
Sign In
