pfcemSo if it’s that easy, why aren’t you willing to provide it yourself?
I am not going to waste my time searching for & reposting a link that has already been posted in this forum (quite possibly in this very thread). IF you had/have been following the discussion here you would most certainly have seen & read the link I am referring to. I can however make no claim as to your ability to recall having done so if you did.
Were they of the same generation, I would agree. They are not. The PAK FA (Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi – Prospective Aircraft System of Frontline Aviation, which will “feature high maneuverability and stealth to ensure air superiority and precision in destroying ground and sea targets“) is a technological leap in every dimension for the Russian aircraft industry, and avionics will be one of the most important of these.
Sorry, your argumanet simply does not fly.
Precisionin destroying ground and sea targets is not the same as true highly-capable air-to-ground avionics.
If you can’t even be bothered to counter the reasons I gave for my belief with reasons of your own why they would not be the case then I am rather perplexed as to how you expect your opinion to be supportable, let alone persuasive.
I did counter your reasons with reason of my own.
I will add another. If the PAK-FA is suppose to be so capable at air-to-ground, why even bother with the Su-34?
pfcemI did a check and EF got a insignificant longer time vs F-22, but the weight difference makes it unrealistic to assume the same fuel consumption to make it to +30.000 ft before they can start the supercruise competition, so i won’t add any numbers.
I assume the same SFC, thrust setting, and percent of fuel load for climb etc, for both engines.
LOL.
A F-22 & a Eurofighter Typhoon at the same thrust setting won’t be flying at anywere near the same speed. The F-22 would be, depending on what numbers you believe they would be flying at near military power, 37-50% faster
Try again with the two aircraft at thrust settings where they are both flying the same speed…
The F-22 can always slow to the Eurofighter Typhoon’s supersonic cruise speed (although truth be told it quite possibly gets better fuel economy going a bit faster) but in order for the Eurofighter Typhoon to accelerate & maintain the F-22 supecruise speed requires it to use afterburner. 🙂
pfcemThat applies to Raptor exactly, as well.
No, the USAF has learned from its mistakes & its systems testing now is done over a much wider set of circumstances.
I have heard exactly the opposite.. that the AIM-7s were restricted for WVR use. That would mean, no AIM-7s were fired outside the missile’s effective envelope.
WVR is ‘outside’ the effectivie envelope or early AIM-7s!
Early AIM-7s were not very maneuverable & had quite significant minimum effective range.
pfcemThat would be a rather mindless mistake, especially as all those TWR calculation should take up a fair amount of his attention.
Considering the amount of data he deals with day-to-day, the fact that the 41,100 lbs hover thrust was big news & that he was ‘speaking off the cuff’ & ‘calculating’ in his head rather than actually sitting down & purposely working out the numbers it is understandable.
pfcemPhantom+Sparrow was thoroughly tested and it wouldn’t enter the AF without certain certificates, issued by USAF/DoD, the same organization that certified F22…catch my drift?
I can’t tell (I can guess though) how the F22 will be brought down, but I’m fairly sure it WILL be. By that I mean in a hypothetical symmetrical war and that’s what F22 has been made for.
How could Willy Messerschmidt ever dream that most of his 262s will be shot down during landing.
I’m saying, if you’re smart you’ll leave a space for unforeseen and that’s precisely the USAF didn’t do with Phantom.But, JB don’t worry. I know you’re not a FANiac 😉
The problem was not so much the doctrine or that is was or was not tested (it was) but that it only worked within a rather narrow set of circumstances. Actual combat seldome restrict itsself to such narrow circumstances.
The two most key factors to the failures in Vietnam were poor systems handling by inexperienced crews & too often missiles being fired at targets outside the missile’s effective envelope.
pfcemEven when restricting this claim to frontal aspect RCS? And that still doesn’t explain where the word play was supposed to be.
The word play is/was that Boeing wanted possible F-15SE customers to know that the frontal RCS of the F-15SE could be as low as the US DOD would allow it to be (lower than any currently exported aircraft).
pfcemI’d really love to see a source for that.
I’d ask you to provide a source for your claim about the Su-34/F-15E avionics comparison (and I mean actually provide it, not tell me to go look for it as it’s not my job to spend my time trying to support your argument); while I’m more than willing to suspect the claim may be true for pre-production Su-34s, they seem to be on something of a rolling upgrade path in many ways as time has moved on considerably since the design of the V004 and there are plans to integrate AESAs, better engines, new mission systems et cetera in future.
It was posted by someone else on this forum, possibly even earlier in this very thread. It was an article from a Russian source.
***
Moreover the comparison is flawed because the avionics of the Su-34 will be a generation behind those of the PAK FA. It is specifically designed as a front-line tactical fighter – it wouldn’t have been chosen otherwise – and will by all reports be fully capable against ground targets as well as air targets. Its AESA should give it an automatic advantage in ground mapping (better signal processing and clutter rejection et cetera), and they’ve got nowhere to go but up when it comes to ground targeting OLS systems, having already gained experience in that direction from systems such as the OLS-K on the MiG-35 and, of course, their license of the Damocles system, which is a leg up from UOMZ’s Platan unit on the Fullback.
It is unlikely that an air-to-air oriented fighter (being built as “the answer to the F-22”) will have superior air-to-ground avionics than a dedicated strike aircraft.
***
Would I ask if I had? 🙂
We all have the results, they are no secrect (except for the nitty gritty details). 😉
But pfcem seems to be very confident, he surely has some..
More importantly the USAF is (& it has the nitty gritty details to back up its confidence).
pfcemIMHO, it’s not so much of a physical limitation, as to an operational limitation. If the plane supercruises for any significant amount of time, the airframe is heated up by air friction to a point where it starts radiating substantial amount of infrared radiation. Such that it loses its stealth, and become vulnerable to infrared seeking missiles.
Not a problem unless the F-22 runs out of fuel or has some sort of (multi-redundant) system failure. The skin of the F-22 is cooled by fuel. This is an integral part of the F-22’s IR stealth, keeping the airframe significantly cooler thus reducing its IR signature.
pfcemThey said they’d hope to be allowed to export stealth at the same level as the F-35. Where’s the word play?
No, Boeing knows full well that it is a physical & technological impossibility for the F-15SE to obtain the same level of stealth as the F-35.
pfcemExcept that they haven’t had much intention to actually beat the ALR-94.
Not the point. The point is completely contradictiory to your BS, the ALR-94 has been tested vs the best ECM systems in the world. It works.
And again, where are these results and tests?
The details are classified. All you need to know is that if the ALR-94 did not work you & everyone else would know about it.
This word confuses you? Or rather, the “lack of” guarantee that the ALR-94 could actually even successfully engage an advanced ECM system with an AMRAAM.
There is no guarantee that an AMRAAM will be sucessful even in the complete absense of ECM…
Umm no. You are missing the point. Around 2020, you can expect PAK-FA modernization to take effect too.
No, you are missing the point. Which is that the F-22 of 2020 will be much improved over the F-22 of today & there is no guarantee that the PAK-FA of 202 will even match the F-22 of today.
What? You mentioned a bogus IRST – that doesn’t exist
And then you want to talk about the PAK-FA IRST, which we know nothing about at this point. Except that it will definitely be better than the OLS-35 on the MiG-35 / Su-35 aircraft.
Again, I just copied & pasted your own words. It is you who mentioned a bogus IRST.
Russia also doesn’t waste as much money as the US does. They CAN best the F-22, maybe not in every aspect, but enough to make it as good if not better.
Sorry, you can dream all you want but the reality is there is not enough time or money in the PAK-FA program to match the F-22.
The PAK-FA is going to carry weapons like the Kh-58 folding fin ARM variants, so it’s going to have very good A2G options.
I was referring to the air-to-ground capabilities of the PAK-FA avionics. Russia even says that its Su-34 avionics do not match the F-15E in air-to-ground capabilities and it is a dedicated air-to-ground aircraft so I have my doubts the much more air-to-air oriented PAK-FA will surpass even that.
pfcemLooks like they got this ‘3rd-generation warplane’ claim according to their domestic definition and in reality they are talking about a 5th gen aircraft.
Yes, note that all of its ‘second-generation fleet’ are 4th generation fighters.
pfcemCan you give the source about Pogosyan’s admitted similar PAK-FA – F-35 stealth capabilities and inferior than the F-22. It’s the first time I heard from you!It will be the Russians answer to the Raptor.Russian sources always says that no one characteristics of the PAK-FA will be inferior than its competitors and It will be the best.They always says that:)
From a link posted on this forum not that long ago…
pfcemI was going to ignore this blatantly obvious peace of trolling trash but have since decided to repeat & eloborate on SOC’s responce.
The 310nm subsonic + 100nm supersonic is just a requirement. It is known as “Mission 1” (aka primary) combat radius requirement. A little off topic but note that all you see about the F-35’s range/combat radius is also nothing more than its “Mission 1” combat radius requirement (“Mission 1” obvioulsy being different for the two aircraft).
I think it fair to assume that “Mission 1” supersonic speed is at the program KPP THRESHOLD speed of Mach 1.6. I am going to assume that the actual supercruise KPP THRESHOLD is 900 kts (Mach 1.57) because actual speeds & distances are most commomy in knots & nautical miles, the rather than ‘Mach number’.
Next to recognize/realize is that it is a mission radius so it includes an outgoing leg + 20 minutes of combat + a return leg. Which means that for the F-22, “Mission 1” is to (from take-off) fly 310nm @ Mach 0.9 [actually it is ‘500 kts’ or Mach 0.87 but commonly rounded to Mach 0.9] + 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 20 minutes of combat (which for most fighters includes use of afterburner – although given the F-22’s high supercruise speed may not) and return to base (another 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 310nm @ Mach 0.9). That is a total of 820nm (620nm @ Mach 0.9 + 200nm @ Mach 1.6) + 20 minutes of combat (also fair to say to be @ Mach 1.6 or at least at equal or higher throttle as when supercruising @ Mach 1.6).
The speed of sound is prety well constant throughout the Tropopause (~36,000-66,000′) @ 660mph (573.5 kts). For those who are wondering, the now ‘publicly official’ supercruise speed of Mach 1.78 is thus 1174.8 mph or 1020.8 kts.
So that is 200nm @ 900 kts in ~13 1/3 minutes. Add the 20 minutes of combat & you get a “Mission 1” requirement of ~33 1/3 minute @ 900 kts and even at that the mission includes 72 minutes (620nm) @ 500 kts.
Shorten the subsonic cruise leg and the available time/distance at supersonic speed increases…
pfcem“Boeing says the coatings could contibute to an equivalent amount of front-aspect stealth as that offered by Lockheed’s F-35.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15&channel=defense“First, Boeing says the F-15SE can match the frontal-aspect stealth performance of the export version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The precise level stealth allowed to be exported to foreign countries is still to be determined by the US authorities who govern technology transfer rules.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/boeing-unveils-the-stealthy-f-.html
Nope, misreporting/misinterpreting what Boeing has actually said. I challenge you to find an actual quote (not what some reporter says it has said) from Boeing that even mentions the F-35.
They stated their hope that the US administration will allow them export it in a stealth configuration on a level with the F-35 (even if only considering frontal aspect perhaps), calling it “a level playing field”. Which should mean they are confident of being able to achieve that level of stealth.
No, it was playing word games with the intent of expressing that the F-15SE’s frontal RCS could be as low as the DOD is likely to allow.
pfcemPff. The guy first dises something from Boeing and then declares three LM designs as his big love.. How obvious, cheap and stupid.
But for housewives and fanboys almost everything works. 😎
That’s funny…I did not hear any mention of anything from Boeing anywhere in the clip.
Perhaps you are referring to the F-4. Well I guarantee if you ask any pilot who has flown the F-4 and later US fighters (F-15, F-16, F/-18 for example) & you will get a quite similar response/impression of the F-4. It was a great fighter in its day but was surpassed decades ago.
Sign In
