MarcellogoWhat is that thing?? the huge one with red 63 or 65 on it?:confused:
MarcellogoThe words of Sun Tzu are as true today as they were 2000+ years ago. “Let he who would have peace prepare for war. “
If anyone has designs on your country and can see you’re prepared to fight over it they are more likely to leave you alone than if you are obviously underarmed.
Sun Tzu? He knew Latin?:rolleyes:
MarcellogoI wasnt talking about the RAM-jet intake of the R-77 RAM-jet powered variant but rather about the body of the missile itself.
After doing some looking up, the RAM-jet powered version is called the R-77-PD but thanks for the correction.
So no stealth features? Got it. Thanks.
So, let me get this straight, the 0.1-1.0 M² of the Su-T50 and the 0.3-0.4 M² of the F-22A are only measurements from the front and back? Why not include the sides aswell?
Educated guess.Because they are respectively the best and the worst one?
Typical fighter missions doesn’t usually contemplate to show sides to enemy radars for a significant time :unless you are forced into a dogfight you just show your front approaching the target and your rear flying away after having fired/drop your weapons.
Also A2A missile ranges are differentiated between head-on and tail-on engagement, with a consistent advantage in the first case.
That’s is the reason because any VLO aircraft after F-22 doesn’t even try to have a similar 360° degree stealth coverage:it just isn’t worth the extra costs and effort.
Marcellogo5th generation aircraft needs to have greater fuel capacity and a lot more sensors and avionics internally. You have stealth coatings and internal weapon bays on top of that. It can only get heavier compared to 4th generation aircraft of similar roles. The T-50 will be heavier than the Su-27 despite being smaller. I believe the T-50 weight is supposed to be slightly under 20 tons (something in the neighborhood of 18,000 kg), in the same weight class as the F-22.
By the way, the weight gain from the YF-22 to F-22 partly comes from not using as much composites as originally planned, and that is partially due to ballistic impact testing.
Well, let’s use an F-15E with -229 engines as a reference then. Here it is loaded with two 2000 lb bombs, four AIM-9s, LANTIRN, and CFTs.
Standard day max speed is about Mach 1.7, acceleration from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 at 40,000 ft is about 120 seconds. In this configuration the F-35A is quite close to the Mudhen, with perhaps slightly lower top speed, but better acceleration and far superior AOA limit. I’ll be honest here, I don’t like the F-35 aerodynamically, but at least compared to legacy US platforms, the F-35 will be superior even at modest strike loads.
Sorry for late reply, was busy.
ATM I have not seen not any report or evaluation about the PAK-FA mention any substantial weight increase when compared with Su-35. In every case it can be, let’s wait and see.
A more definite dissent is about the two being in different categories.
They have same engines, similar fuel load capacity, same missions.
The dimensional differences you take to affirm one being smaller are due respectively to:diverse wing form (for wingspan) but with a way greater wing area for the PAK-FA, very large vertical conventional tail against small inclined all moving vertical stabilizers, conical and well protruding radar dome and rear stinger against shorter diamond shaped ones on the PAK-FA.
To be honest, i’m much more uncertain about this last than on the other two dimensions, best thing would be to measure the distance between where the cockpit start to the engine nozzles.
Just add that also between the original Su-27 and the SU-35 there was a definite increase as Su-35 weight even more than two seat Su-30 and naval Su-33.
About the between the twoF-22 weight increase: good grief what they have put instead of composite? Lead?
Because you know there are about four tons of difference between the two, a little too much for outer skin alone.
P.S. And guess what: YF-22 is longer and taller than F-22
More seriously, what I’m posting here is the result of quite long discussions i partecipated on several threads. I fear that keeping with this here would derail topics, PM?
MarcellogoThank for the replies.
Aargh, computer fault just a second before my reply was send.
Sorry, being late now here, it would now be shorter than I was thinking of.
First, T-50 and Su-35 have different external dimensions, but the former although apparently smaller has a way larger wing area, they have two different versions of the same engine, very similar fuel capacity and payload, so putting them in two different categories seems me quite a far cry.
F-15C 12700 kg, F-15E 14300kg, XF-22 14970kg, F-22 19700kg what’s happened there instead? F-35A also is 13199kg, more than a F-15C.
About the F-35 may I ask to put also maximum velocity and climb rate into a comparison between it clean and a fighter of the late seventies loaded?
Original one had more complete if not better explanation of my points, pardon me in advance if this one would seems you a little too cut short and maybe rude in comparison:sleeping:.
MarcellogoIMHO, you need to define “variant” a bit better. You are talking about modified fuselage (and modified wings as a result), modified internal bay etc etc, and entirely different avionics suite. I ask; is Tu-22M3 a variant of original Tu-22?
In simplest terms, you are asking for a fifth gen version of the Flanker; interceptor (Su-27P) air superiority (Su-35), multirole (Su-30), naval (Su-33) and ground attack (Su-34). All the qualities flanker has (long range with internal fuel, good payload, powerful radar, maneuverability) is related primarily to the Flanker’s size. If you try to do it with a 12-13 tons, with a 5th gen avoinics package and VLO airframe, you will have to make severe design trade-offs. Such design will be a F-35 copy. If you want a fifth gen flanker, it will weigh 22+ tons empty and cost more than T-50 or F-22.
Speaking of F-35; everyone talks sh!t about F-35, but I really don’t know how F-35A could have been better for A-A roles within its size/weight constraints. Its fat, but it has to be. It carries MORE fuel than F-15, even more than F-14, not to mention the internal bays. It is ugly, but this comes with being VLO. In fact, any suggestion that would make F-35A better in A-A role will necessarily end up with a much larger airframe.
If we are talking solely about performance, F-35 should have never existed at all when there was F-22. Then again, F-16 shouldn’t have existed when there was F-15. F-5 shouldn’t have existed when there was F-4. If we are talking solely about costs, F-22 program cost 66,7 billion$. USAF could have bought 2223 F-15Cs instead of building F-22. It makes F-22 the single most useless weapon on the face of earth. There should be a balance between quality and quantity and F-35 is not a bad plane in that respect.
It also depend a lot from the possibility of evolution of a given design.
Russian were indeed extremely lucky in the eighties with the blended wing /engine pod design of their own Fulcrums and Flankers as it will turn out being nearly the ideal one for what will become the main requisites of both the 4,5 and the 5 gen fighters.
Eurocanards were ideal for the 4,5 but they can’t deal with the 5gen requirements at all (weapon bays and double tail are a no go there) while the more conventional fuselage of US ones (that worked extremely well on f-15E) lead to a huge weight hike on the F-22 and turned the F-16 successor into a flying brick.
Marcellogono technology are perfect or invulnerable to countermeasures
, the counter stealth technology have their own disadvantages too
Low band radar are too big to put on Fighter or Ship , and too inaccurate for weapon guide, optical sensor have extremely narrow FoV at max range, slow scan rate, affected significantly by weather
This is quite obvious, no one there are saying that LO technologies and AESA radars are to scrap, right the contrary, any future aircraft project must have them.
Still it is not anymore like during the first gulf war, it would no more possible now to send an aircraft against a modern, updated air defense network by stealth alone.
Each one of the technologies you mentioned has consistent drawbacks, when compared wit the divine simplicity of engaging a conventional target with a good old X-band radar, but the combined use of some of the ones you mentioned together, each one covering one part of the whole engagement process, would do the trick quite well.
Counter-counter measures are obviously possible, Jamming is simpler if you have a low RCS but still, being based on active emission, is a two edged sword.
Flying low would help against VHF radars but is F-35 able to fly nap of the heart like F-111,Su-24 and Tornado?
Question was: is possible to criticize F-35 without being branded as Haters or at the contrary defending it without being branded as LM propagandist?
Your reply seems me sound and constructive, hope mine to be at same level
MarcellogoLast post illustrate well difference between criticism, even a sharp one and indiscriminate hating.
Maybe some of the thing said can be not 100% correct but they all make sense.
Hope eventual replies would be of the same level…
MarcellogoI think that we would need to made a distinction between F-35 HATERS and instead critics and/or sceptics.
Fact that the first ones are so extreme and amateurish in the end damaged more the good faith critics (like i consider myself also) than their specular F-35 fanatical enthusiast crowd (no one in particular there).
Certainly the F-111 and more broadly the MacNamara ghost are strong in this one like in most of the super upa dupa gimmicks that US have introduced or planned to do in the last two decades, but when someone suggest than solution would be to bring back f-22 production…
Marcellogoyour arguments are rather confusing
on the one hand you fully aknowledge that the US government has a history of building up proxy armies, which do horrible things, including against US civilians, and will lie about it to the public
yet you refute the idea of ISIS being such a proxy army serving US interests out of hand, even though it fits the profile perfectly, and would explain why the Allied air campaign isn’t stopping ISISyou have to admit that there is at least the possibility that ISIS could be a US proxy army
and that the goal could be to simply keep this countries in a state of conflict, destroying their infrastructure and sapping resources
which would explain why the US military expects this campaign to last years (by comparison the US took the major Afghanistan area’s in just 2 months without many boots on the ground, and Iraq also in 2 months)
This is not a reply to you only, but to all the ones that have made this thread derail and became a butthurt contest with conspirationist theory added.
Being this an AVIATION FORUM one would instead expect to discuss how happened that the fabled western air dominance and all the PGW used has failed.
Inmy own country there was quite a sensation on media when the members of this ill-fated coalition had to officially admit in their last official meeting that on about the 75% of their missions, no weapon was dropped.
Now, it is confirmed?
It refers to the whole of air mission (ans also thid would be really bad) or just to the combat ones?
Fact that something went horribly wrong is quite evident. May we discuss about what it was exactly instead of bitching around?
MarcellogoThanks for the reply Deino.
In regaurds to the PESA radar most of those western sourced articles are going to have some anti Russian propaganda but then it was a recent article published after Putin & Xi spent so much of the victory day parade talking to each other makes me think there could be something going on with the engines & maybe a few aircraft for the PLAAF to try out the usefullness of thrust vectoring.
Again with this.
It is not that having an AESA antenna makes any type of radar automatically better than a PESA or even a conventional one.
It is the base emission power that make the main difference, turning a radar AESA is useful to optimize the outcome as there is not any loss between the transmitter and the phase shift modules but it cannot enhance it.
So there is not any way than any N001 derivative can just compete with the TWO 10kw processor the IRBIS-E radar of the Su-35 has, even if it would be equipped with the best phase modules in the world (i.e. something China just doesn’t have).
MarcellogoPAK FA with the Type 30 engine will fly in 2017 according to Lenta.
http://lenta.ru/news/2014/12/04/2ndstage/
However, Pogosyan had stated that Type 30 will only be available in 2019.
Maybe it have to be read as: Objekt 30 would begin flight test in 2017 and we plan to start mass production in 2019?
MarcellogoSeveral comments and questions.
Comments:
1: The average RCS that Sputniknews reported to be around 0.1 to 1.0 M^2 most likely depends on the success of the Type-30 engine, RA materials themselves in the form of paint, filler or structural components, final design of the canopy, OLS and the nozzles that are fitted to the Type-30 engine.
2: The relative scarcity of the news is because of several factors including the onset of Cold War 2 and the fact that testing some of the more secretive elements of the Su-T50 like the Himalaya ECM/EW system arent that captivating for the public and it prevents a testing-timeline estimate which from the perspective from lets say, the US, can give them a very rough idea of what the Himalaya ECM/EW system is capable of.
Questions:
1: At the moment of writing this post, its 01-06-2015 and thus, halfway through 2015. The first examples/prototypes of the Type-30 engine are (were?) supposedly being assembled in 2015. So are they in the progress of assembling or have they even finished building the first of the Type-30 engines?
2: The R-77M1 with the GaN AESA seeker-head is going to be built in 2017 but will the missile be different from the “regular” R-77 asides from the seeker-head and proppulsion for the RAM-jet powered variant? Is the missile body itself going to be made stealthier to prevent the missile itself from being detected at longer ranges?
Many thanks beforehand for at least taking the time to read my post.
about 0.1 to 10 smt RCS they refers to the frontal and rear aspect, in previous pages there was a discussion about it : main difference with F-22 stated ones (0,3 to 0,4) is due to the fact that Raptor was designed with a 360° angular RCS coverage while all others planes around , F-35 included privilege frontal arc.
Naturally, anyone can have more than a reason tho doubt the correctness of the numbers stated by a source like Sputnik but the pattern would be the more the less so.
MarcellogoHey guys, aren’t you fed up?
ATM yes, discussion was quite interesting and useful to highlight what were the conceptual differences between the F-22 and other future VLO fighters.:applause:
Now, we can stop it without remorse, not only because it is clearly gone OT but also because the best of it was just written down and keeping with it would add nothing to the discussion except some bickering about who has the longer stick.
MarcellogoWell it’s not like Stealth and the F22 are not needed over Syria right now.
For fighting against the powerful ISIS air force?
IMHO it would much more needed to have some more CAS aircrafts or almost anything that would assure almost a normal mission generation rate and/or a normal payload.
Numbers i’ve seen about the missions flown by the different USAF plane were all in favor of the A-10 and B-1B ,F-15E were good, F-16 not so much but the Raptor ones were just ridiculous.
Sign In
