Sukhoi PAK FA

[asianobserve]

that is only theory, a high intensity conflict, where the other side has similar level of technology shows that is fantasy, the americans launched their cruise missiles at the Russians and Drones in Syria and the Russians downed most of the cruise missiles, and all the time they are downing drones, when F-35 launches its weapons from farther distances it gives more time to down them, simple like that.
In low intensity wars like in jungles, drones do not have range, you need troops with drones as recce, if they send long range drones SAMs can work too, so at the end of the day a well armed adversary will destroy the weapons and drones and keep the F-35 away

Who has F-35 tech in service now? With stealth, advanced fused sensors and new smart weapons, the F-35 has better chance of surviving in a modern battlefield than flying tank A-10.

Against Taliban & Co. However stealth may not be an advantage against A-10, but sensor fusion and new munitions are definitely more advantageous.

 

[asianobserve]

deflecting your rudders ailerons or tailplanes means you are breaking planform alignments, got it? F-22 will deflect much less thanks to TVC nozzles, F-35 has no TVC nozzles, so despite you think it has Su-57 or F-22 agility, it has not such agility, on air to air combat Su-30MKI, Su-35 or Su-57 will beat it, it has small wings, low lift, why? the designers needed a small wing for V/STOL, a large wing makes drag when the Harrier is taking off vertically and same is F-35, so the F-35 is fat due to the need to carry internal weapons bays and has a small wing to reduce drag at vertical take off.
got it?
F-22 has a large wing, Su-57 too, lots of lift and TVC nozzles makes it more maneuverable, big wings make for less wing enhancements devices like F-15, small wing makes for poor fighters, low aspect ratio makes it unfitted to replace the high capacity loitering of A-10 at low speeds, got it?


F-35 is crap, at the most will replace F-16 in the attack role but with a more delicate fuselage

Well TVC-equipped fighters also use their ailerons, elevators and rudders in conjunction with TVC when maneuvering. So that's 4 sources of drag versus only 3 in non-TVC fighters.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Who has F-35 tech in service now? With stealth, advanced fused sensors and new smart weapons, the F-35 has better chance of surviving in a modern battle field than flying tank A-10.

Against Taliban & Co. Howevet stealth may not be an advantage against A-10, but sensor fusion and new munitions are definitely more advantageous.

too much fantasy, do you understand that aircraft have flight hour prices?
F-35 is expensive to fly, if you send a drone, they are easy to down, and can be jammed as the case of the iranian captured american drone.


If you send an F-35 it is very expensive it can not loiter at low speeds because its wings are small low aspect ratio, that type of wing is not good for agility and loitering at low speeds and altitudes.

Now if the F-35 goes stealth, it carries less weapons, if its weapons fail, you need to send it once more, more money spended, got it low loitering capability, high speeds of F-35 means it is expensive to operate, got it? then A-10 was cheaper and can not be jammed, it is slow has a high aspect wing, and it has armour, F-35 is a waste of money because if the same mission can be done by B-52s or B-1Bs because they need fighters that attack at long range, better to send Tu-160s or Tu-22Ms.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Well TVC-equipped fighters also use their ailerons, elevators and rudders in conjunction with TVC when maneuvering. So that's 4 sources of drag versus only 3 in non-TVC fighters.

please do not say wrong conclusions, F-22 will deflect much less, Su-57 even has vertical fin area reduction, so what you say sorry, you are giving wrong conclusions not supported by aerodynamics

 

[asianobserve]

TVC nozzles are also used for RCS and air drag reduction, so yes F-22 has better stealth and less drag that F-35; PAKFA Su-57 will deflect much less its feathers than F-35, so yes TVC nozzles can also extend range

TVC is not radar signature reduction equipment. In fact, its changing position especially 3D vectoring increases radar signature. That's the reason why LM opted for only 2D vectoring with highly shaped TVC paddles over 3D vectoring.

 

[asianobserve]

too much fantasy, do you understand that aircraft have flight hour prices?
F-35 is expensive to flight, if you send a drone, they are easy to down, and can be jammed as the case of the iranian captured american drone.


If you send an F-35 it is very expensive it can not loiter at low speeds because its wings are small low aspect ratio, that type of wing is not good for agility and loitering at low speeds and altitudes.

Now if the F-35 goes stealth, it carries less weapons, if its weapons fail, you need to send it once more, more money spended, got it low loitering capability, high speeds of F-35 means it is expensive to operate, got it? then A-10 was cheaper and can not be jammed, it is slow has a high aspect wing, and it has armour, F-35 is a waste of money because if the same mission can be done by B-52s or B-1Bs because they need fighters that attack at long range, better to send Tu-160s or Tu-22Ms.

You said modern battlefield. Please do tell me and be honest, in a modern battlefield against peers, if you are a pilot will you fight in an F-35 or A-10 against ground targets if you are made to choose planes? Be honest.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

TVC is not radar signature reduction equipment. In fact, its changing position especially 3D vectoring increases radar signature. That's the reason why LM opted for only 2D vectoring with highly shaped TVC paddles over 3D vectoring.

from a frontal view F-22 will deflect less than F-35, stealth is radar position dependant

 

[asianobserve]

from a frontal view F-22 will deflect less than F-35, stealth is radar position dependant

The decision of LM to chose 2D over 3D is already the answer. Before F-22 the US slready experimented with various kinds of highly advanced 3D vectoring nozzles.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

You said modern battlefield. Please do tell me and be honest, in a modern battlefield against peers, if you are a pilot will you fight in an F-35 or A-10 against ground targets if you are made to choose planes? Be honest.

if you are going to fly at low speeds and close A-10 is better at low speeds F-35 is not agile its low aspect ratio wing means it can not fly low and slow lack of armour means it can not replace A-10

the wing of A-10 is high aspect, good for low speeds and low altitudes, F-35 has wing for higher speeds and requires more speed to keep flying low making it less maneuverable

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The decision of LM to chose 2D over 3D is already the answer. Before F-22 the US slready experimented with various kinds of highly advanced 3D vectoring nozzles.

F-22 has 2D flat nozzles is because it cools the exhaust gases of the nozzles, but reduces thrust and increases weight, further more F-22 has large vertical tails because it has no yaw thrust vectoring control unlike Su-57

F-22 has very large vertical tails because it lacks 3D thrust vectoring nozzles

 

[asianobserve]

if you are going to fly at low speeds and close A-10 is better at low speeds F-35 is not agile its low aspect ratio wing means it can not fly low and slow lack of armour means it can not replace A-10

Why would you fly low in an aircraft to attack ground targets in a modern battlefield? The 1991 Gulf War taught the Brits hard lessons against low altitude use of Tornados. That was against Iraq.

You can fly low against terrorists. Here A-10 is more practical not because it is more survivable (terrorists does not have air defense) but becaise it's cheaper to operate. But even better than jet-powered A-10 will be Super Tucan type CAS aircraft. But we're discussing the modern battlefield here.

 

[asianobserve]

F-22 has 2D flat nozzles is because it cools the exhaust gases of the nozzles, but reduces thrust and increases weight, further more F-22 has large vertical tails because it has no yaw thrust vectoring control unlike Su-57

F-22 has very large vertical tails because it lacks 3D thrust vectoring nozzles

Exactly what the decision of LM points at. LM chose 2D vectoring versus 3D vectoring despite the disadvantages in order to maintain radar and IR stealth (vis 3D), which is more important in F-22 design. But software additions more than negates agility penalties of 2D versus 3D vectoring. Software even brings non-vectored aircraft closer to TVC agility.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Exactly what the decision of LM points at. LM chose 2D vectoring versus 3D vectoring despite the disadvantages in order to maintain radar and IR stealth (vis 3D), which is more important in F-22 design. But software additions more than negates agility penalties of 2D versus 3D vectoring. Software even brings non-vectored aircraft closer to TVC agility.

software does not bring an aircraft close to TVC nozzles handling, only in video games or movies, in real life it does not.

The canted fins of F-35 gives V tail agility to some degree, why? the canted vertical fins of F-35 has a small horizontal force element, on a V tail the tail has horizontal and vertical inputs

However since the angle is close to 75 deg its horizontal vector is less powerful than the vertical rudder like control vector, but it is the same on Su-57

that canting of the fins can increase the horizontal force of F-35 but it is not unique, F-22 and J-20 also have that aid

in the next picture you can see J-20 using its vertical canted tail to give some lift

and it is the same on the F-35

it is bringing the tail up

 

[asianobserve]

software does not bring an aircraft close to TVC nozzles handling, only in video games or movies, in real life it does not.

The canted fins of F-35 gives V tail agility to some degree, why? the canted vertical fins of F-35 has a small horizontal element, on a V tail the tail has horizontal and vertical inputs
View attachment 42610

However since the angle is close to 75 deg its horizontal vector is less powerful than the vertical rudder like control, but it is the same on Su-57

that canting of the fins can increase the horizontal force of F-35 but it is not unique, F-22 and J-20 also have that aid

Look again at the F-35 and F-18 maneuvers I posted earlier. Those aircraft certainly rxhibit agilities close to thrust victored aircraft. And flight controls software are only getting more advanced. The F-35 for its part is getting iphone-type software drops.

Besides, in modern battlefield, A2A, the one who see first shoots first. And the one who shoots first (and hard to be seen) gets more opportunity to shoot again. Also, in A2A combat you do not want to end up in WVR combat. You in fact avoid and if close to getting to, run away from, WVR combat.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Look again at the F-35 and F-18 maneuvers I posted earlier. Those aircraft certainly rxhibit agilities close to thrust victored aircraft. And flight controls software are only getting more advanced. The F-35 for its part is getting iphone-type software drops.

Besides, in modern battlefield, A2A, the one who see first shoots first. And the one who shoots first (and hard to be seen) gets more opportunity to shoot again. Also, in A2A combat you do not want to end up in WVR combat. You in fact avoid and if close to getting to, avoid, WVR combat.

is not the software itself, on F-35 is the vertical canted fins that can increase the pitch of the tailerons

 

[asianobserve]

is not the software itself, on F-35 is the vertical canted fins that can increase the pitch of the tailerons

Yes, there are advantages to having canted tails in terms of maneuverability but its negligible. F-15, F-16, Su-27, Mig-29, Rafale all have non-canted tails but they are super maneuverables.

Interestingly, it is only the Su-27 that has comparable slow speed nose-pointing ability to F-35 without TVC. But Su-27 is non-stealthy and conventional highly aerodynamic design. F-35 on the other hand due to its primary purpose of being stealthty and due to the fact that it has to be suitable for USAF, Marines and Navy variants, has a not so aerodynamic shape which should limit its agility. But as you can see it matches the extreme maneuvaribaility of Su-27 and comes close to TVC aircrafts in slow speed maneuverability. That's software doing all the work. And LM is set to continue on improving F-35's software by software drops.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Su-27 aerodynamically speaking is much more advanced.
Su-30MKI has al the refinements that F-15 never got, originally they wanted to make it like this

Plus remember the USAF still operates old airframes built before the year 2000, while India and China operate Flankers built in the 2000 onwards.

Firstly, that is not the original F-15 but rather F-15 STOL/MTD which stand for Short Takeoff and Landing/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator, in a sense it is very similar to F-16 VISTA and F-16CCV, developed to assess the usefulness of technology like TVC, canard ..etc

The fact is, neither F-15 or F-16 get these extra control surface and TVC because it was deemed that the advantage given by these doesn't outweight the disadvantage due to added weight and complexity. For F-15 especially, it even uses a hard wing without leading edge slat and leading edge extension. However, by staying very light comparatively to its thrust rating, F-15 has much better acceleration than Su-30.

For an old fuselage like F-15, Su-35 with Irbis still is a target, electromagnetic waves work the same wave in radars of WWII or in a modern PESA or AESA, the only thing that has changed is the number or transmitters or receivers and the digital processing power.

Well the physical properties of the wave itself doesn't change, but the power, the sensitivity the processing power of radar does change, and it has significant impact on detection range. Take for example, the internal noise of AESA is only half that of PESA

Irbis will burn through most jammers, since it is so powerful jamming it will be very hard and still a conventional fuselage like F-15 has a RCS very big, armed with 14 missiles and it is more observable, in fact it increases its RCS many times.

Well, no.
Irbis-e while relatively powerful for a fighter radar, still hopelessly weak compared to most medium/long range surface radars, and even those radar are not immune to jamming.
Besides, burn through is not a fixed condition, it depends on the signal-noise ratio between the jammer vs the radar return that mean the further it is from a radar, the easier it is to jam it, since radar return have to travel 2 ways while jamming return have to travel one way only

Alternatively, cutting down RCS is also a very good way to reduce burn through distance.

Of course, F-15 is not stealthy or low RCS by any mean, but neither is Su-30s. They likely both can detect the other from very long range, yet F-15 will detect Su-30 from longer range due to its much better radar. Even if the detection range excess its own missile engagement distance, the advantage in detection range can be translated to time to accelerate, climb to give its missile more range and velocity

you have admitted F-35 is too delicate for replacing A-10
A-10 has an advantage F-35 has not, when an aircraft will target a position it needs to know if the target is friend or foe, visual identification is necessary, because number one today anti aircraft weapons are developing anti drone capability, either downing them or jamming them, furthermore if the target its close to friendly lines and position mistakes can happen. A-10 is a WWII style aircraft, so it needs armour.

F-35 can not replace A-10 basically it is a joke, is like saying Tu-22M can replace Su-25, a funny joke, but A-10 can not be replaced with a machine that a rifle can down it, F-35 it is very delicate, a few bullets or damages will render its stealth useless

F-35 is never intended to do CAS the exactly the same way A-10 does, so armor is irrelevant for it. Visual identification can be done with EOTS from pretty far away. Even if we assume there are many air defense that will shot down the SDB and drones released by F-35, in these environment, A-10 itself will be shot down, so it is even worse.
Basically, complain that F-35 can't do A-10 task because it is not as hard armored as A-10 is the same as saying Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke can't replace Iowa because their armor isn't as thick

Another big misconception is that A-10 is armored like a tank and bullet proof, it isn't. It got a small titanium bathtub to protect the pilot, but the airplane itself isn't really bullet proof

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Yes, there are advantages to having canted tails in terms of maneuverability but its negligible. F-15, F-16, Su-27, Mig-29, Rafale all have non-canted tails but they are super maneuverables.

Interestingly, it is only the Su-27 that has comparable slow speed nose-pointing ability to F-35 without TVC. But Su-27 is non-stealthy and conventional highly aerodynamic design. F-35 on the other hand due to its primary purpose of being stealthty and due to the fact that it has to be suitable for USAF, Marines and Navy variants, has a not so aerodynamic shape which should limit its agility. But as you can see it matches the extreme maneuvaribaility of Su-27 and comes close to TVC aircrafts in slow speed maneuverability. That's software doing all the work. And LM is set to continue on improving F-35's software by software drops.

F-35 is not supermaneuverable, it has a few slow tricks, but is not super maneuverable, in that category are all aircraft with TVC nozzles like F-22, Su-57, Su-35/30MKI/27M and X-31, F-15, F-18 and F-16 with TVC nozzles.


post stall is when the lift is almost gone and the aircraft needs TVC nozzles to control.

really agile fighters are Rafale, Eurofighter and Su-35 with canards.

F-35 has a very high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio.

Even F-22 without thrust vectoring is not that good, and same is the same for Su-57, they are too heavy, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon have very low wing loading and high thrust to weight ratio, for that reason Rafale could resist F-22

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The fact is, neither F-15 or F-16 get these extra control surface and TVC because it was deemed that the advantage given by these doesn't outweight the disadvantage due to added weight and complexity. For F-15 especially, it even uses a hard wing without leading edge slat and leading edge extension. However, by staying very light comparatively to its thrust rating, F-15 has much better acceleration than Su-30.



Well the physical properties of the wave itself doesn't change, but the power, the sensitivity the processing power of radar does change, and it has significant impact on detection range. Take for example, the internal noise of AESA is only half that of PESA



Well, no.
Irbis-e while relatively powerful for a fighter radar, still hopelessly weak compared to most medium/long range surface radars, and even those radar are not immune to jamming.
Besides, burn through is not a fixed condition, it depends on the signal-noise ratio between the jammer vs the radar return that mean the further it is from a radar, the easier it is to jam it, since radar return have to travel 2 ways while jamming return have to travel one way only
Alternatively, cutting down RCS is also a very good way to reduce burn through distance.


Of course, F-15 is not stealthy or low RCS by any mean, but neither is Su-30s. They likely both can detect the other from very long range, yet F-15 will detect Su-30 from longer range due to its much better radar. Even if the detection range excess its own missile engagement distance, the advantage in detection range can be translated to time to accelerate, climb to give its missile more range and velocity



F-35 is never intended to do CAS the exactly the same way A-10 does, so armor is irrelevant for it. Visual identification can be done with EOTS from pretty far away. Even if we assume there are many air defense that will shot down the SDB and drones released by F-35, in these environment, A-10 itself will be shot down, so it is even worse.
Basically, complain that F-35 can't do A-10 task because it is not as hard armored as A-10 is the same as saying Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke can't replace Iowa because their armor isn't as thick

do you know that energy can not be destroyed nor made? do you know that even jamming a radar some of the energy will still remain jamming is basically interference diffraction, always some energy will remain even if you increase the number of slits, Irbis was made in the time of AESA because radio waves need similar energy to jam you can have an AESA but if the power peak is low the PESA will go though, yes there might be a decrease in range but F-15 is not stealth and with more AAM well its RCS go higher

Further more steering is lower, for such a reason Su-57 has side radars, why do you think Russia sent Su-35 against F-22s and vaunted F-22 stop bothering Su-25s? well because nothing is stealth, all surfaces will reflect, diffract absorb radio waves, F-22 has only better chances but Su-35 can still beat it.

Su-57 even better than Su-35 still can fall pray to Su-35, so Russia opted for cheaper answers to the scam of stealth

 

[StealthFlanker]

TVC nozzles are also used for RCS and air drag reduction, so yes F-22 has better stealth and less drag that F-35; PAKFA Su-57 will deflect much less its feathers than F-35, so yes TVC nozzles can also extend range
deflecting your rudders ailerons or tailplanes means you are breaking planform alignments, got it? F-22 will deflect much less thanks to TVC nozzles

TVC can reduce trim drag, that correct. But in term of RCS, not quite, when you deflect the TVC you also change the platform alignment, while the horizontal stabilator can be shielded from ground radar by the fuselage, the engine nozzle isn't
The most stealthy aircraft like X-47 or B-2 doesn't use TVC to reduce RCS at all. To change direction, B-2 actually deploy air flap/brake on one side.

F-35 has no TVC nozzles, so despite you think it has Su-57 or F-22 agility, it has not such agility, on air to air combat Su-30MKI, Su-35 or Su-57 will beat it, it has small wings, low lift, why? the designers needed a small wing for V/STOL, a large wing makes drag when the Harrier is taking off vertically and same is F-35, so the F-35 is fat due to the need to carry internal weapons bays and has a small wing to reduce drag at vertical take off.
got it?
F-22 has a large wing, Su-57 too, lots of lift and TVC nozzles makes it more maneuverable, big wings make for less wing enhancements devices like F-15, small wing makes for poor fighters, low aspect ratio makes it unfitted to replace the high capacity loitering of A-10 at low speeds, got it?
F-35 is crap, at the most will replace F-16 in the attack role but with a more delicate fuselage

Not really
TVC while very useful for post stall maneuver, isn't really that useful for high speed dogfight. In post stall maneuver aircraft is not turning, just nose pointing. In traditional STR and ITR, TVC nozzles will be locked at 0deg position to achieve the greatest thrust to overcome the drag
Besides, there is an advantage in having small wing and a single centerline engine, which is very quick roll rate, for example, F-16 can roll much faster than F-22 at low AoA.

While F-35 has higher wing loading, it does not neccesary indicate low amount of lift, the thing is, the sweep angle of F-35 wing is less than that of Su-30, F-22 and Su-57. This mean at any given AoA, the lift coefficient is higher, which counteracts the higher wing load. It is also the same reason why F-16 could be much more agile than F-106 and F-4 despite higher wing loading than both. The disadvantage is that lower sweep cause higher drag at supersonic region

The small wing of F-35 has nothing to do with short take-off performer, in fact, for shorter take off distance, you would prefer a bigger wing, since bigger wing mean higher lift generation for any given lift coefficient.
Just look at the wing size between F-35A and F-35C. F-35C has much bigger wing as it needs to take off from a carrier. The small wing of F-35 is actually for reaching the acceleration specs.