My PAK-FA analysis

[amalakas]

Your entire argument hinges on QWIP technologies ability to track targets marginally hotter or colder than surrounding air? How wide is that margin? Do you know? You are willing to speculate that it is 40-50 nm - based on what?

You also assume no further research into LO until PAK-FA is in production?

No I don't know how wide the margin is, I wish I did. I am speculating there is hope for about 40-50 nm as the current IRST sensors on the SU-35 /Mig-35/EF2000 are rumored to be be able to track a fighter sized plane from about 30nm head on and almost 50nm from rear. These are traditional IRST. a QWIP such system can be optimized for up to 15 micron band detection ranges and tuned to particular spectrum colors, meaning it can be searching and tracking engine plumes, profile temp differential, and missile launch flares, it that materialises, then yes..about 40-50nm head on detection and tracking can be achieved, and it could cue in IR guidance and mid course guidance missiles launced from the T-50.
If the missiles carried by the T-50 are ramjet powered then combined with supercruise there is no launch flare and plume.. which means no warning for the other plane. It looks like the PAK-FA will have two (2) such sensors front and aft of the cockpit.. so perhaps , just perhaps the designers are tryiing something else ..

 

[chantpapipart2]

The Russians Are Coming: The T-50's Flight to the Future

Introduction


In late January 2010, the PAK FA made its maiden flight, ushering in an end to an era of US dominance of stealth, fifth generation fighter aircraft. Military analysts of every shade and nation spent endless times speculating and awaited the first flight with sleepless nights and over bitter arguments about its final configuration, for the PAK FA was kept so secretive that none other than a very choice few knew what it would look like.


Combat aircraft are the spear tip of any military power, and play a pivotal role in air warfare. And in today's day and age, any nation that has the decisive advantage in the air war, dominates the ground war, and by extension, the political arena. The PAK FA, also known as the T-50 and possibly to be known in its final version as the Su-50, is an aircraft that not only Russia, but the world needed. For the unipolar world that ushered in an American Empire has increasingly become an unfair and unjust world where American arrogance and exploitation is increasingly creating fiction, not only with the Muslim world but with such powers that have had the most to lose and least to gain, such as China, Russia and Brazil.


Even some of the US's allies in Europe, staunch in their support are increasingly feeling like surrogates rather than allies, slaves rather than friends. An example within the military aviation industry is the F-35, a promised cooperative project by the US with its allies, has turned into a chain of dependence, where vital software codes and maintenance legacies will now remain in the purview of the US, with their Allies permanently dependent. It is no wonder that many Western Europeans of various shades have cheered at the PAK FA, even though it is Russian. Freedom perhaps cannot exist in a monopoly.


The PAK FA is an answer to the US F-22, a fifth generation fighter that till now had no equal. A comparative analysis will follow later in this paper, but for now it suffices to say that it contends with the F-22 on stealth, aerodynamic performance and sensor sophistication and capability, as well as in cost, maintenance and practicality.


It must be understood that the T-50 is not merely a combat aircraft, it is an investment in technology and engineering that has implications for Russian industry, and has economic implications for Russia as well as for Su-50 customers who may thus be able to avoid conflict by deterrence. As a superficial example, two squadrons of this aircraft with Iran would dispel all possibilities of an Israeli strike on that nation.


Guesstimates on Performance


There is scant data on the PAK FA, but educated estimates can be made from carefully analyzing pictures and videos. Following are some basic guesstimates on the present prototype aircraft by this author:


Length 19.5m
Height 5m
Wingspan 14m
Empty Weight 18.5t
Wing area: 75 m2


Performance


Much of the performance analysis is unreliable as the actual power-plant is unknown. However, it should be in the range of a max speed of 2.5 Mach, service ceiling of 20,000 m and rate of climb greater than 350 m/second.


Armament


Guns: 1x30mm
Hardpoints: unknown, speculated to be 8 hardpoints.


Radar


The aircraft is known to have five radar modules with known primary radar to be an AESA. Innovative wing leading edge radar of lower frequency (perhaps L band) would be able to locate stealth aircraft like the F-22, a capability that the F-22 does not have.




General Analysis


Basic Aerodynamics


The wings on the PAK FA are large and well-swept, optimized for supersonic flight and for high(er) altitudes. In comparison to the F-22, given even remotely comparable engines, the PAK FA should be able to fly faster, for longer and supercruise more effectively (with lower fuel consumption and greater speed).


The all-wing shape of the PAK FA follows the same principles that was so successful with the Su-27 FLANKER and the MiG-29 FULCRUM and not only provides lift, but also provides ample space (along with the large wings) for massive fuel and/or weapons bays. Reducing drag, increasing range and payload and creating lift and stands in good light compared to the F-22s design.


Air Intakes


CARET inlets of the air intakes are useful for “wave riding”, generating increased lift for the airframe. This allows lower RCS and increased airflow. With the long length of its horizontal wedged edge (of the inlet) additionally helps lift.


Large, moveable Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX) over the inlets are highly innovative and perhaps plays a role in making the PAK FA super-maneuverable. It is not a flap-like structure but perhaps more like an aileron and behaves in someways perhaps like a canard.


This is an interesting innovation and also provides a solution for the PAK FA in managing air-flow over the wing and onto the slanted stabilizers, solving problems of a twin-tailed delta configuration.


Angled Twin Stabilizers



The twin all-moving stabilizers are innovative in that they can be smaller and have the same effect as a larger conventional stabilizer. Given that the PAK FA also has 3D Thrust Vector Controls (TVC), this makes the PAKFA a fundamentally more stealthy design given that large stabilizers contribute to RCS significantly. Other advantages include reduced weight, stability in hard maneuvering and the ability to go supersonic in a turn.







Large Tires




The large low(er) pressure tires, a bane for space on an airframe implies that the Russians are still staying real, for in any future conflict with a comparable power, airbases could easily be destroyed and operating from semi-prepared strips would provide the Russians (and any other operator) with a key advantage over American designs, whose runways have to be carefully combed for the smallest intrusion.


Technology and Basic Industrial Manufacturing


The PAK FA is built using new methods that the Soviet Union did not have – electro-chemical milling rather than traditional welding methods. While this has been in use since the late 1950s in the West, this method has only now found its way to Russia. This would allow far better finish which has major implications to stealth and minor implications to reducing drag. Along with RAM coatings and the extensive use of composites, this spells a major industrial leap for Russian industry.


Sensor Fusion


Electronics and avionics have traditionally been an area that Russia lagged behind in. However, the PAK FA makes ground here as well. Other than having five radars, informed sources understand that it has a high degree of sensor fusion, combining sensor fusion, Electronic Warfare (EW), data linking and the general Man-Machine Interface (MMI) are said to now be in the league of the US fighters. How far this gets confirmed is yet to be seen but this author believes that given the Russian IT sector's pivotal role globally, this is a leap they have long made and are but only now implementing in their aviation industry.


RCS Reduction


The PAK FA is the first non-American stealth VLO fighter. The F-22's frontal Radar Cross Section (RCS) is compared to a metal marble, the F-35's to a golf ball and it is this author's speculative contention that the PAK FA's could perhaps be compared to a baseball. The Russians are not looking to make the aerodynamic tradeoffs to stealth that the US has made, for a variety of reasons including the effectiveness and costs of such stealth. Given that stealth in the real world would be far less effective than the advertised “metal marble” because the enemy may not always come exactly head on, nor use the radar's that the F-22s were tested with. Nor would any future competent enemy only have one radar on (but rather a plethora of ground and airborne radars at various frequencies). Further, wear and tear in a real world operational scenario are likely to reduce stealth.


The PAK FA thus would save weight and enjoy superior aerodynamics while trading off some stealth. It's S-duct may not fully hide its fan blades from every possible angle but rather perhaps allow a maximum of 5% of it to be exposed from very specific angles. These may still be RAM quoted and netted.


The PAK FA abandons stealth from the rear quarter altogether. Detractors would scoff at such a tradeoff but, considering the aerodynamics and high altitude and high speed effectiveness of PAK FA, the aircraft may not need stealth in the hind quarters, as it could always out run any enemy. Case in point, the F-35 which also remains exposed from the rear quarters would have no such capability. For air combat after a merge however, this would still be an issue for the PAK FA, but RCS reduction then becomes of little relevance, given that IR missiles and IRSTs would then be more effective in any case.


The Russians seem to have carefully watched the US fighter programs, taking the best elements without buying Lockheed Martin propaganda and stealth as the final panacea to fighter combat.


Comparison


The PAK FA compares most favorably to the F-22, surpassing it on a number of parameters while sacrificing certain parameters to the F-22. The relationship is not dissimilar to that between the early FLANKER and the F-15. Primarily, the F-22 is stealthier while the PAK FA is likely to exceed the F-22 in the critical arena of a high-high combat profile. The PAK FA also has a bigger weapons bay and greater fuel capacity. In terms of operational capability and cost, the PAK FA wins hands down to the high cost and complicated maintenance of the F-22, while the PAK FA is said to be an improvement over the maintainability of the Su-27. It could cost a third of an F-22 by its greater simplicity and managed tradeoffs as well as greater production run (being procured by both Russia and India if not any other country).


Until the US produces the next generation of aircraft, this spells the end of their monopoly in 5th generation aircraft and is likely to usher in other players such as China and perhaps give enough hope to Europe to produce its own fighter rather than sink to the humiliation to their sovereignty that the F-35 provides.


The Euro-canards now appear out-dated and out-classed, a situation unlikely to sit well with Western Europe. Given the attitude of the US towards her allies vis-a-vis the F-35, Europe now finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It is the contention of this author that Europe will get together and build a fifth generation fighter, for the spirit of Europe has not been one to see its technological edge corrode or to be demeaned by external powers.


Implications for the Subcontinent


Given that by 2018 the Indian Air Force could be receiving the PAK FA, there are serious implications for India's neighbors, particularly Pakistan. Vis-a-vis India, Bangladesh may as well stop operating an air force, for the gap in capability between the two countries is now too great to bridge.


For Pakistan, this implies that the massive resources and labor that she has spent in closing the gap between her and India will again widen as nothing in the PAF arsenal would compare to the PAK FA. The future of air combat is increasingly moving to high speed high altitude fights, something that the JF-17 design is ill-suited for. The J-10Bs may be of relevance, but would be completely outclassed by the PAK FA. Consider the simple fact that the J-10s powerplant would merely be a fraction of PAK FA's and would have no stealth to speak of in comparison.


The future of the PAF will depend on whether she can again innovate in collaboration with China to build a fifth generation aircraft without breaking the bank. Investments in R&D and a strong commitment from the military and the government would need to start now, if such a project is to succeed. A single engined fifth generation project would also be something that many other smaller powers would be looking for and could be viable in the international arms market. This plane could be built around a WS-15 with a small weapons bay and perhaps built around a high sweep delta. While such a plane may sound impossible now, given that the JF-17 has hardly started production and that China may have little interest in pursuing it for its domestic use, thinking forward could save Pakistan from being threatened again as it was after the Mumbai incident.




Conclusion


Just as the US is being challenged in global economics and is seeing a resistance to its political imperialism and empire building, the world of military aviation also mirrors this challenge in the shape of such aircraft as the French Rafale, the Chinese J-10 and the Indian Su-30MKI. The PAK FA represents the pinnacle of this challenge and puts the ball squarely back to the US court. Can the US now move on to another generation of combat aircraft? With a failing economy, ever decreasing competitiveness, ever increasing dependence on government spending and increasing dependence on indirectly taxing the rest of the world through dollar depreciation, spending billions on a new fighter project may be outside the realms of the US Empire. As such, this may spell the beginning of the end of the US as the center of a uni-polar world. That is exactly what the PAK FA challenges and symbolizes in its capabilities.



The Russians Are Coming: The T-50's Flight to the Future - Grande Strategy

 

[sancho]

You can't design to counter something that's mostly classified and unknown. Both aircraft are designed to get a first look first kill, with that said, the PAK-FA will have excellent irst, possibly the best, but will it see the F-22 first? That's open to debate.

Now the 'superior aerodynamics' is the wrong words because the Raptor is already one of the most agile fighters on earth, the PAK-FA will match the Raptor in manuverability, or it might be slightly better, but 'superior' probably not.

Hi ptldM3, do you know the video? How reliable are these infos and does the report say anything apart those points that were comented in english? What do you think about the radar and the X/L band arrays and why not full 360° with another array in the tail sting?
Do you think the FGFA could integrate more composites?

At Su 30 MKI, IAF could integrate TVC and canards to counter the disadvantage in maneuverability, because of more weight. But Pak Fa has these features already and the only way to increase maneuverability, should be to reduce weight somewhere right?

I agree with you on IRST and aerodynamics, wondered how they could claim better performance in that field only becaus of 3D TVC instead of 2D and maybe the LERX.
However, I still wait for further developments and hope that
especially the fuselage with the weapon bays and the engines will look way more stealthy than at the moment.

 

[sudhir007]

Major Work Ahead On T-50 Stealth Fighter | AVIATION WEEK

Russia has begun flying a stealthy fifth-generation fighter to rival the U.S. F-22, but Western analysts question whether Sukhoi can develop and deliver the aircraft by 2015 as promised.

Sukhoi’s T-50, which made its 47-min. first flight on Jan. 29 from the KnAAPO facility in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, is the prototype of the PAK FA “future front-line aircraft,” the first new-generation fighter for the Russian air force since the Su-27 Flanker entered service in 1984. India plans to co-fund development and co-produce the new aircraft.

The aircraft is clearly shaped for stealth, with the chined forward fuselage, planform edge alignment, internal weapons bays and small vertical tails. The T-50 shows resemblances to the F-22 Raptor, but also reflects its Su-27 heritage in the wide “centroplane” that blends the fuselage and wing.

Sukhoi says “the T-50 will demonstrate unprecedented small cross section in the radar, optical and infrared range owing to composites and innovative technologies applied in the fuselage, aerodynamics of the aircraft and decreased engine signature.”

U.S. analysts are impressed, but not yet panicked by the T-50. “Don’t go overboard and call it the Raptorski,” says a Washington-based official. “It is essentially a Flanker in the shape of a fifth-generation fighter at this point. It still needs supercruise engines, advanced radar and a lot more work before military planners can start saying how it’s going to compete with the F-22 or even the F-35.”

Work on the T-50 began in the early 2000s, and the fighter is somewhere between a technology demonstrator and a development aircraft. How much effort is needed to finalize the production aircraft is not clear. Sukhoi’s Su-27 was substantially redesigned from the T-10 prototype, which first flew in 1977; but despite some rough edges, the T-50 looks closer to a finished product.

The YF-22 prototype first flew in September 1990, and the first development aircraft in September 1997, but the F-22 was not declared operational until December 2005—a longer cycle time than proposed for the PAK FA. And there are only three prototypes: the T-50-0 static-test article; T-50-1, now flying; and T-50-2, which will be used for ground testing. The two YF-22s were followed by nine development F-22s.

U.S. defense analysts see a flying planform that incorporates low-observable attributes in edges and shaping that are notable for a prototype. But, they caution, the work needed to finish a stealth design is great. There is obvious use of composites in the T-50; but many areas are metal, and analysts are unclear whether this is just for the prototype, with plans for more composites in production aircraft.

Seemingly similar in size to the Su-27, which it will replace, the T-50 like the Flanker has widely separated engines. This makes the three-dimensional thrust vectoring effective in roll, as well as yaw and pitch, and provides room in the center fuselage for fore and aft weapons bays. There are side bays for short-range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) under the inboard wing sections. The centroplane also provides plenty of room for internal fuel. There are hardpoints for external stores under the inlets and wing.

Unusual design features include the small all-moving vertical stabilizers, made possible by thrust vectoring, and the movable wing leading-edge extensions. These act like foreplanes and provide the three-surface control afforded by the canard on the Su-30. The delta-wing planform, similar to the F-22’s and likewise coupled with powerful engines, will provide supercruise capability.

 

[gambit]

Ok Gambit

You are really tiring me with this because you are so hung up on the stealth thing you refuse to see the overall picture.

And you utterly missed the point. You made several unsupported opinions on post 164 back on page 11. This is not about radar low observability but about supporting your opinions and I brought that issue up only as an example as to how you should, for the readership's benefit, show sources. For example...

The F-35 is a sitting duck to all current generation fighter planes once it is picked up on radar.

That is a broad statement that is applicable to ALL aircrafts. Of course the F-35 would be vulnerable once it is statistically determined to be a valid target by an aggressor radar. ANY aircraft would. So how does this make the F-35 a 'disappointing' aircraft? Because you said so? It is funny that on one breath you demand that we give great leeway to the T-50, even though it made only one flight that we know of. You ask that we give it great 'potential'. But on the next breath you downplay the F-35 even though the aircraft is still in the testing phase, albeit further along than the T-50. Be consistent.

The F-35 does NOT have the ability to out fly and out turn incoming missiles especially if they are coming in multiple volleys (suggested strategy)

Care to show SOURCES to support that? By that I am asking that you show, not just me, but the readership, that other fighters have CONSISTENTLY outmaneuver several missiles to the point that statistically said fighters would have better than even odds of survival.

The current generation of fighters has much better ability to outrun an incoming missile especialy ones launched from afar..

How insightful...Not...!!! Missiles have limited fuel and if they must maneuver, it will cost them range. Unless the situation is extremely favorable, no sane pilot is going to launch at greater than %80 of the missile's effective range, in other words, if the missile has a maximum range of 100km, the pilot would prefer not launching until he is within 80km or less to target. This is just in case the target maneuver and/or discharge countermeasures such as chaff and flares. Try spending some time serving in an air force and ask a few questions. We can wait until your discharge.

Awacs my be chased and shot down by 4th/4.5 gen planes with long range missiles and hence gaps may be created in the situational awareness of the F-22 CAP mission

Can be? AWACS 'can be' struck down by a meteor as well. So how does this make the F-22 and the F-35 'disappointing'? Care to show the readership a SOURCE that show AWACS have been shot down on a regular basis?

I can go on further but I think the point is made -- that you have nothing to support your arguments.

 

[amalakas]

Just quickly

1) AWACS have not been shot down or attacked so far because the US has never been up against a significantly capable airforce ever.
But I do expect capable airforces to go after them and deny them full coverage of the battlespace.

2) The F-35 is "dissappointing" because it's a 5th gen fighter and has a sustained turning performance of 4.95 g at 0.8m at 15k feet .. now if you think that is good, then not much to say really.

3) The point above has a profound effect on the plane's ability to dodge incoming missiles. But ofcourse your argument will be .. "noone is ever going to get a lock on it" .. Fine by me mate..

4) 4/4.5 gen fighters can outfly the F-35 based on the available flight characteristics of it. And the issue with the F-35 Gambit is NOT how the US is going to use it..but the other countries that will buy it.
I hope you understand what I mean.

5) The F-35 is supposed to supplement the F-22. and operate after the F22 has achieved air superiority. Fine by me . . I believe that..
How many countries will have F35s and not F22s ????

6) No one disputes how missiles can be used effectively, but in all SCENARIOS in which the F 22 went up against the teen fighters, there were F-16s and F-15s been "killed" at maximum effective distance for the AIM -120 .. justified in the fact that the "supercruise" of the F-22 offers additional kinetic energy to the missile for unprecedented performance and edge of envelope shoot downs.
Besided Gambit .. F-22 doctrine so far does not expect the enemy pilot to actively attempt to evade the fired missile..
if you look up the quotes for the RED FLAG which went along the lines , the F-16 pilots were informed by radio they'd been shot down..no warning for incoming missiles ever mentioned.
impressive .. I know..

7) I don't give a particular leaway to the PAK -FA nor am I prepered to accept its anything more than what it is right now. I said it can potentially change the game, not dominate it ..

8) I do believe that the T-50 when is service will be a better flying machine than the F22. Call it a gut feeling, can't prove it yet, but I don't think anyone can yet. It's just a feeling.

9) Will it be a better fighter ? Probably not, it is after all cheaper.

10) Will it be enough ? I don't know.

 

[Thomas]

F22 is the bench mark.

PAK FA will be the first to challenge its total supremacy.

It may lack the toe to toe RCS but will compensate thru other advantages.

ie 3D TVC, 2 pilots, massive ,radar range.. more misslers more jammers etc.

curious why you think the Indian version of the T-50 has an advantage with two people in the cockpit? There is a reason why the F-22 has no need for two. can you tell me what it is?

 

[amalakas]

curious why you think the Indian version of the T-50 has an advantage with two people in the cockpit? There is a reason why the F-22 has no need for two. can you tell me what it is?

I was wondering about that too. The F-22 does not need a second flyer in the cockpit....
Why would it be an advantage for the T-50?

 

[Thomas]

I was wondering about that too. The F-22 does not need a second flyer in the cockpit....
Why would it be an advantage for the T-50?

The F-22 has a pretty awesome tracking and EW (electronic warfare) capability. so much information from so many sensors plus fly the aircraft could be over whelming to a pilot. In times past a second chair in the cockpit was needed to help track targets and engage EW while the pilot concentrated on fighting. F-22 Sensor fusion technology eliminates that. it places all that information on one screen. Or with all F-22's being upgraded with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, on the pilots visor.

But it doesn't stop there. "Tactical Targeting Network Technology" enables the F-22 to serve as a mini AWACS. relaying real time targeting information to other none F-22 aircraft and naval ships. The F-35 also has this capability.

Much has been made of the T-50 AESA radar have a 400km+ range. well it is true it does have currently a longer range then the AN/APG-77. However if the T-50 powers it's AESA up. The AN/ALR-94 EW suite on the F-22 will detect it. since it has a 400km+ range as well.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

simply ..... at that time there is no match for F-22...... its been operation for a decade now.. pak-fa has just born

 

[ptldM3]

Hi ptldM3, do you know the video? How reliable are these infos and does the report say anything apart those points that were comented in english?

The people interview were people that that were involved with the PAK-FA project, i would say it is reliable.

There was nothing too interesting in the video, one of the designers of the radar said that the PAK-FA has radar features that even the F-22 and F-35 don't have, and the carbon plastic composites where said be better for radar than conventional composites because instead of using steel, such as carbon fiber, it uses plastic composites.

What do you think about the radar and the X/L band arrays

I'm not familiar with radar bands, i beleive the X band is a short frequency, high resolution, and X band i wouldn't know anything about it, maybe someone else can answer that.

and why not full 360° with another array in the tail sting?

From the reports i have read i will have 360 dagree coverage.

Do you think the FGFA could integrate more composites?

Firstly, the PAK-FA is still a prototype meaning more composites are possible, this is what i have read. I have also read that the FGFA will have more composites; however, i doubt it's reliable. My guess is they will have equal an equal share of composites.

At Su 30 MKI, IAF could integrate TVC and canards to counter the disadvantage in maneuverability, because of more weight. But Pak Fa has these features already and the only way to increase maneuverability, should be to reduce weight somewhere right?

I agree with you on IRST and aerodynamics, wondered how they could claim better performance in that field only becaus of 3D TVC instead of 2D and maybe the LERX.
However, I still wait for further developments and hope that
especially the fuselage with the weapon bays and the engines will look way more stealthy than at the moment.

Manuverability can be achieved in different ways, are you looking for slow speed maneuverability or high speed maneuverability? Fifth generation fighters will have both. Something as simple as powerful engines will give an aircraft good manuverability and or T/W ratio which would result in superior performance in a dog fight. Roll rate, sustained turn rate, low speed manueverability are all important and most of the time all have some trade off's (not always). For example, an aircraft will a large wing area will likley have a slower turn rate compaired to something like an F-16 or Mig-21. However, widely spaced vectoring engines may make up for an inhairently slow turn rate. The performance of an aircraft is more complicated than most realise.

 

[gambit]

1) AWACS have not been shot down or attacked so far because the US has never been up against a significantly capable airforce ever.
But I do expect capable airforces to go after them and deny them full coverage of the battlespace.

Sorry...We have no control over that.

2) The F-35 is "dissappointing" because it's a 5th gen fighter and has a sustained turning performance of 4.95 g at 0.8m at 15k feet .. now if you think that is good, then not much to say really.

3) The point above has a profound effect on the plane's ability to dodge incoming missiles. But ofcourse your argument will be .. "noone is ever going to get a lock on it" .. Fine by me mate..

4) 4/4.5 gen fighters can outfly the F-35 based on the available flight characteristics of it. And the issue with the F-35 Gambit is NOT how the US is going to use it..but the other countries that will buy it.
I hope you understand what I mean.

Really...

Fighter of The Future

For all of the Pentagon’s recent claims, the F-35 was always intended to be a complement to the F-22 in the Air Force.

The F-22 would be the high-speed, very stealthy high-end guarantor of air supremacy, while the F-35 was cast as the lower-cost backbone fighter that could hold its own in a dogfight and swing to a variety of missions, but have special strengths in ground attack.

The F-35’s air-to-air capabilities were developed to give it an edge against the most maneuverable of foreign fighters, since it will be the primary aircraft for most allied air forces.

The Air Force version of the F-35 will have the ability to sustain a nine G turn—equal to that of the F-15 and the F-16. The Navy and Marine Corps models will have 7.5G turning power, and a Lockheed Martin official said those versions will shine in the “low speed” dogfight.

However, according to Northrop Grumman, which supplies major sensor systems on the F-35, “maneuverability is irrelevant” for the F-35. The AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which projects a 360-degree image of surrounding air and terrain on the F-35 pilot’s helmet visor, helps the pilot see and target air and ground threats with high fidelity. It eliminates the need for night vision goggles, which have limited field of view and must be compatible with cockpit lighting. With the DAS, the F-35 pilot can literally look “through” the airframe structure—even beneath the aircraft—and shoot at targets that aren’t in front of him. Air-to-air missiles can actually be fired at targets to the rear. According to Northrop Grumman, instead of having to slug it out in a turning battle, “the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning.”

This crucial fact you fail to understand -- In a fight, you win by forcing your opponent to fight by your rules, not by fighting under his. If an aircraft's canards give it superior turn capability, that is a rule advantage. If it has engines with superior response -- thrust for high climb rate -- then that is a rule advantage. If it has superior armament, the F-14's Phoenix for example, then that is a rule advantage. Basically...Any aircraft can have mediocre performance or design specs in some areas but also have superior performance or design specs in other areas compared to other, new or older, aircrafts. Even today, the MIG-21 is a formidable low speed, high maneuverability fighter that no one, save the F-16 pilot, wants to meet in that condition...Look up 'Constant Peg'. But no one want to enter the 21st century military with the -21.

Another example is the F-15C and E series. As a fighter, the C model is preferred, but as an all-around platform, every air force will select the E. The issue is not about being the 'jack-of-all-trades' but on whether or not the skills and the tools to perform those trades have been elevated or not. This is why the F-16 is so successful, because just like the C-130, the aircraft's basic design allow the particular air force to custom tailor the force to meet particular needs. The MIG-21 is a formidable low speed maneuverable fighter, but its other skills and tools are so lacking compared to modern fighters that it will always be fighting under others' rules. If the F-35 have superior radar low observability capability that along with superior countermeasures that will consistently remove the pilot from his opponents' rule advantage, then everyone is going to want the F-35, provided they got the cash, of course.

This is why none who ever served in an air force really take these 'fanboy' so-called 'analysis' seriously. The less relevant experience a person has, the more the tendency to inject his own personal biases into his 'analysis'.

5) The F-35 is supposed to supplement the F-22. and operate after the F22 has achieved air superiority. Fine by me . . I believe that..
How many countries will have F35s and not F22s ????

Same 'complimentary' argument can be made for the F-16 as well.

6) No one disputes how missiles can be used effectively, but in all SCENARIOS in which the F 22 went up against the teen fighters, there were F-16s and F-15s been "killed" at maximum effective distance for the AIM -120 .. justified in the fact that the "supercruise" of the F-22 offers additional kinetic energy to the missile for unprecedented performance and edge of envelope shoot downs.
Besided Gambit .. F-22 doctrine so far does not expect the enemy pilot to actively attempt to evade the fired missile..
if you look up the quotes for the RED FLAG which went along the lines , the F-16 pilots were informed by radio they'd been shot down..no warning for incoming missiles ever mentioned.
impressive .. I know..

Unbelievable...!!! Ever consider the REALITY that if we ever do decide to launch a live missile, and I mean propulsion only, not explosive warhead, at a live pilot, that would constitute a 'destructive' test SCENARIO? Do show the readership an air force who has such callous disregard for its airmen during peacetime. Like I pointed out, the lack of relevant military experience can really make a person look foolish. The reason why these simulated air combat scenarios often have their 'kills' at such maximum missile distance is because since we will not have 'destructive testing' on our pilots we might as well assume the worst case -- that he could be surprised, or disoriented, or distracted, or damaged, or whatever -- that he will not be able to outmaneuver a missile. This also put the emphasis on how NOT to place oneself in a situation where one would be fighting under others' rule advantages.

7) I don't give a particular leaway to the PAK -FA nor am I prepered to accept its anything more than what it is right now. I said it can potentially change the game, not dominate it ..

8) I do believe that the T-50 when is service will be a better flying machine than the F22. Call it a gut feeling, can't prove it yet, but I don't think anyone can yet. It's just a feeling.

9) Will it be a better fighter ? Probably not, it is after all cheaper.

10) Will it be enough ? I don't know.

More like a desire to take potshots at the US at any opportunity. Looky here...The burden to provide sources is unavoidable. Do try better next time.

the pak fa may not have the same RCS as the F22 or even the F35 ..
but it doesn't need to..
all the russians needed was to make a plane that shortens that first look first kill doctrine behind the F22.. and I think they have..
the F22 is still going to get first look.. but now it is likely that by the time the F22 tracks the inbounds on its radar and fires.. the pak fa will be close enough to cause considerable damage .. or even worst will have already used its IRST to make some lock and have launched its IR/semi active/active volley of missiles too

If the PAK-FA need to expend 1/4 to 1/3 of its armament to take down one opponent, it will always be fighting under other people's rule advantage. Like bullets from a rifle, missiles are non-retractable items.

 

[Thomas]

I found this quite interesting on the F-35

Fighter of The Future


"However, according to Northrop Grumman, which supplies major sensor systems on the F-35, “maneuverability is irrelevant” for the F-35. The AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which projects a 360-degree image of surrounding air and terrain on the F-35 pilot’s helmet visor, helps the pilot see and target air and ground threats with high fidelity. It eliminates the need for night vision goggles, which have limited field of view and must be compatible with cockpit lighting. With the DAS, the F-35 pilot can literally look “through” the airframe structure—even beneath the aircraft—and shoot at targets that aren’t in front of him. Air-to-air missiles can actually be fired at targets to the rear. According to Northrop Grumman, instead of having to slug it out in a turning battle, “the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning.”"

 

[amalakas]

Really quickly Gambit

you have an nack for twisting things around.

1) What you posted for the F-35 is not the actual data for the plane.
The actual data has been released recently and led to the doubts in the australian contribution to the JSF program. The most recent data states only about 4.5G sustained turn rate. It was released around march last year. Aviation week had an article on it look it up

2) Its funny how when I talk about plane characteristics you dismiss it and then you carry on talking about various strenghts and weaknesses of different designs.. Wasn't that what I was on about all along Gambit.

3) No the same cannot be said about the F-16 F-15 pair..
The F-16 can stand by itself as a frontline fighter and achive air superiority without the presence of F-15s I don't honestly think the F-35 can if you do enlighten me please.


4) What I meant about the RED FLAG was not how test ranges work Gambit, but how the training was conducted without taking into consideration the fact that some opponents may possess the ability to detect a launch and try to evade a missile... I am speachless to the awesomeness of your sarcasm.. you really put me in my place. wow..


5) I have no desire to take potshots at the US .. I actually think they have done a superb job with all the planes they have ever produced.

6) I think you should reconsider your stance buddy .. you are overly aggressive and to be honest with you, I don't see much sense in what you write in our little exchange in this forum.. you are more like a spokesperson rather than someone who absorbs information and makes up his mind about things.. If I were to extrapolate your line I'd begin to believe that no one should ever attempt to draw conclusions without seeking advice from LM and the pentagon first.

Oh and and as far as your sarcastic comment about the AWACS goes .. I was merely referering to the fact that the airforces that could afford to have the PAK FA will most likely be organised and proper airforces not some backwater nation with about 40 flyable planes with no weapons or training.. That's all. I am sorry I do not approve conclusions about the effectiveness of a war machine when it is up against ...well nothing really ...

 

[gambit]

1) What you posted for the F-35 is not the actual data for the plane.
The actual data has been released recently and led to the doubts in the australian contribution to the JSF program. The most recent data states only about 4.5G sustained turn rate. It was released around march last year. Aviation week had an article on it look it up

If I were to extrapolate your line I'd begin to believe that no one should ever attempt to draw conclusions without seeking advice from LM and the pentagon first.

Then perhaps you should place more weigh on LM and the US DoD before Aviationleak or some Australian civilian outfits.

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics: AINonline

Rand subsequently backtracked on the presentation, but the issue was still reverberating ahead of the Paris Air Show when AIN sought comment from Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley.

But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

The half-fuel load figure is significant. If two fighters have similar turn characteristics but one has superior fuel load, that one will be able to sustain the fight longer, increase the odds of being able to compel his opponent into fighting under his own rules, to exit and re-enter the fight at will. Like it or not, fuel is life. Regarding g-turn rate -- it is about thrust, the ability of the flight control system to exploit aerodynamic forces created by that thrust, specifically to changes in direction, and the load that those forces must carry throughout the maneuver.

Wing loading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.[1] The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability.

If you have a lot of reserved thrust, you can use that power to compensate for varying degrees of wing loading, as pointed out by Beesley in response to RAND and assorted F-35 critics, including the Australian ones...

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

Beesley can speak from some experience in the debate. He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

A basic example of this compensation is the take-off and landing speeds of the U-2 and the F-104. The U-2's wings are extensions of the F-104's but their greater surface area create that dramatic difference in take-off and landing speeds with the F-104 higher. Same principle applies in air combat maneuvering (ACM). So how does this apply to the F-35 and why this make RAND and the Australians misguided critics? They either simply ignored or intellectually dishonestly discarded the basic philosophy that founded the F-35 as a 'weapon system' and not just merely being an aircraft.

The F-35's core philosophy is about having low radar reflectivity. Next down is to compromise that low radar reflectivity only when battlefield conditions minimizes the need for that capability. That is why both the F-22 and F-35 have provisions for external stores whereas the F-117 does not. The F-35's wing loading design is so far the best compromise between keeping faith with its core philosophy AND battlefield opportunities. Our combat experience with the F-117 proved that when necessary, maintaining extreme radar low observability at the expense of weapons loaded can still deliver very favorable tactical and eventually strategic results in a war. The difference here is that the F-35 contains far more superior capabilities other than being radar low observable than the F-117. So if we are to grant as valid RAND and assorted critics their gripes about the F-35, then it stands to reason that if we strip away the low radar observability requirement, have no doubt that this alternate universe F-35 will still be their superior.

New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet | LiveScience

While both Wheeler and Sprey are respected academics, other attacks on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program have come from less reputable sources. In the Australian media, the JSF was assailed by allegations that the fighters were "clubbed like baby seals" during a table top war-game held in Hawaii by the U.S. Pacific Command. Later, when the source of the report was revealed to be an erroneous backup slide for a RAND Corporation presentation, RAND not only disavowed the slide in question, but also issued a strong denial that the report was ever designed to be a detailed simulation of the capabilities of any warplane- much less the F-35. However, the damage to the public perception remains.

Leaked Rand analysis questions USAF fighter strategy, sparks inadvertent F-35 crisis

Despite the report's impact on the F-35 programme, the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter is mentioned only briefly on a back-up slide. The F-35 was not singled out for criticism, but neither did its appearance in the war game measurably improve the blue force's odds of success.

"Rand did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat," Rand says. "Neither the game nor the assessments by Rand in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

Damages to the F-35's public perceptions was in part abeted by those eager to take cheap opportunistic potshots at the US in any possible avenue without bothering to verify their sources, most importantly the technical ones. Above the core philosophy of having low radar reflectivity is the one that say we are reluctant to engage in any conflict, strategic or tactical, that will result in a high casualty and attrition rate. This has been the ideal for any military -- kill as many of the enemy as possible at as few as possible the cost to one's own. But if we must engage in any conflict, we should exploit as much of our technological prowess as possible to minimize that casualty and attrition figure.

2) Its funny how when I talk about plane characteristics you dismiss it and then you carry on talking about various strenghts and weaknesses of different designs.. Wasn't that what I was on about all along Gambit.

The difference here is that I have established fighters to prove my point, whereas you are asking the readership to impute whatever capabilities they want, preferably yours, into the PAK-FA. Your argument consists mainly of 'if' and 'could' and 'potential'. All based upon a take-off, go-around and land flight barely one hour long.

3) No the same cannot be said about the F-16 F-15 pair..
The F-16 can stand by itself as a frontline fighter and achive air superiority without the presence of F-15s I don't honestly think the F-35 can if you do enlighten me please.

Air dominance = The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to reassess their tactical positions, usually at their expense and into inferior positions, over contested grounds.

Air superiority = The ability of an air force to achieve total airspace control over contested grounds, leave, return and achieve the same goal. Do so consistently. If there are any losses, said losses will not be in sufficient numbers to adversely affect said ability.

Air supremacy = He flies, he dies.

In theory...You can achieve air supremacy with WW II era aircrafts, but you have to do it with an absurd amount of aircrafts and pilots. You have to bear inhumane casualty rate, like the commies with their human wave tactics. You will have so many P-51s and P-38s that they will overwhelm any F-15 groups. Anyway...It is possible to achieve air supremacy with the F-16 alone, but this is where the criticisms about the F-35's air combat capabilities misses the point. War is still about contested Earth territories, not about airspace supremacy. The air force provide assaults on the enemy from the third dimension and that make air supremacy subordinate to Earthly objectives. But in order to achieve air supremacy in the shortest possible time with minimal mapower, you must have a dedicated platform that will defend your other platforms that are dedicated to ground assaults, platform like the A-10 or the Aapache helo.

The F-35 is about air assaults with some measure of air-air combat capability for self defense WHEN it is complemented by a dedicated air combat platform like the F-22. No different with the F-15/F-16 pairing. Or the F-16/A-10 pairing. For US, the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-16, F-18 and AV-8 Harrier. For any country that does not have nowhere the power projection capability of the US, the F-35 will be a very capable standalone air superiority fighter over home territories. But then again, if this air force meet US with our dedicated air combat F-22, it will be a very short time from dominance to supremacy for US. So your criticism regarding the F-35's air combat capability is valid only up to a point.

4) What I meant about the RED FLAG was not how test ranges work Gambit, but how the training was conducted without taking into consideration the fact that some opponents may possess the ability to detect a launch and try to evade a missile... I am speachless to the awesomeness of your sarcasm.. you really put me in my place. wow..

How can anyone incorporate that into the training regiment without actually firing live missiles at live targets, aka pilots, to assess the hardware-human coordination? Some missiles may be more susceptible to seduction/distraction countermeasures than others. How can you test that? Chaff/flare have different flight characteristics than the aircraft that launched them. Some missiles are more sophisticated than others at calculating those flight characteristics differences. Some are not. How can you test that without shooting a missile at a live target? Once a pilot is on the defensive against a launched missile, he is effectively no good to the attacking force, either against ground or air targets. He will jettison external stores, including bombs intended for a ground target that is crucial for the war, to stay alive. The outcome of this encounter, based upon actual combat experiences the world over from many air forces, is highly uncertain. That is why these simulated combat situations, like Red Flag, throw up their hands and say the missile won at its maximum distance. So of course people with no actual military experience assume that it is standard that missiles are launched at maximum distances and have %100 kill ratios.

you are more like a spokesperson rather than someone who absorbs information and makes up his mind about things

Why should I not be?

Constant Peg

For more than a decade, until just before the November 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, a secret Air Force aggressor unit flew Soviet MiGs in more than 15,000 sorties against US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots.

We know more about Soviet fighters than they do about ours. Not just from fighters that we possess but also what we can extrapolate of Soviet technology. We have been doing this since we took apart Belenko's MIG-25 back in 1976.

AR 381-26 Army Foreign Material Exploitation Program

Foreign Material Exploitation Program

The program for-

a. Determining and prioritizing the Army needs for foreign material and technology. Tasking the collection community to acquire the required technology.

b. Producing and disseminating scientific and technical intelligence to satisfy intelligence or R&D requirements submitted to the Army's FMEP manager.

c. Maintaining collected foreign material acquired under this regulation in an accountable and useable state until material is no longer needed.

d. Disposing of the material or residue in accordance with appropriate regulations.

Every branch of the US military have a foreign technology exploitation division tasked with studying foreign military wares and how to counter them. Constant Peg was a project with a very narrow focus. Its shutdown did not mean the end of the larger vision. When the Soviet Union ignobly and spectacularly collapsed, former Soviet satellites became owners of much Soviet military hardware, from rifles to computers to aircrafts and even large missile platforms. Possession is 9/10th of the law. They called US because they need money to keep their survival and we went shopping with the world's largest shopping cart -- C-5 Galaxy. I have nearly 20yrs in defense related experience, particularly avionics, from military active duty to civilian life in weapons testings and development, including Soviet avionics. I have seen avionics so badly assembled that even a drunken American FAA inspector blotto-ed out of his wits would not pass. Our testings indicated inconsistent across the board performance, from being greater than %90 of claims (excellent) to barely functional. I heard plenty of horror stories on how we found the conditions of Soviet NBC repositories and equipments. Russian aviation is barely more than a shadow of its Soviet self. I see no reasons to place great credibility on the many claims out there regarding the PAK-FA.

Oh and and as far as your sarcastic comment about the AWACS goes .. I was merely referering to the fact that the airforces that could afford to have the PAK FA will most likely be organised and proper airforces not some backwater nation with about 40 flyable planes with no weapons or training.. That's all. I am sorry I do not approve conclusions about the effectiveness of a war machine when it is up against ...well nothing really ...

AWACS detection range greatly exceed those on fighters. At best, the enemy can only guess the general direction of the AWACS based upon its transmission. Any fighter gunning in said direction would be detected and interceptors called in.