Sukhoi PAK FA

[StealthFlanker]

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

F-35 is supermaneuverable aka it has ability to point its nose in post stall condition (thanks to its rudder and horizontal stabs).
And frankly, the only reason F-35 T/W looks low compared to Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen is because it carry much more fuel internally, if they are all fueled to fly the same distance then its T/W is actually quite competitive

 

[StealthFlanker]

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
View attachment 42618

No one ever said anything about destroying energy and the principles of jamming is not destroying energy either so don't even try to make a strawman argument.
The most simple jamming is noise jamming, which is basically drowning the receiver of enemy radar in noise so that they can't distinguish information, it like trying to find a rabbit on a field at night and someone shines a concert light at your face. Another very common kind is range-gate stealer whose function is to pull the radar tracking gate from the target position through the introduction of a false target into the radar’s range-tracking circuits..etc i don't see how your slit example is remotely related.
Besides, you don't need equal energy to jam, because:
1- Radar signal travel 2 way while jamming signal travel 1 way
2- Not all output energy by the radar will be captured by the target.

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?

They sent Su-35 because they have more SU-35 than Su-57, simple as that.
and really in Syria neither Russian or US try to attack each other assets or kill them, so fighter mostly operates with Luneburg lens.
Also, the side radar of Su-57 is mainly for SAR/ground mapping function rather than air to air, the side radar as barely 358 T/R modules, while even the APG-80 of F-16 got about 1000 T/R

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

Sorry but this is utter nonsense, there isn't anything completely invisible at all distance, but there are stealth assets such as stealth aircraft and submarines which are mostly detected at very short distance.which is basically the point : reducing the detection distance so you can attack enemy before they can attack you

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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.


for example, F-16 can roll much faster than F-22 at low AoA.

from a front view the nozzles are hidden, that tailerons too, do you understand that stealth is radar position dependant ? most aircraft hide the nozzles from that view but once the wings or tailerons deflect break frontal planform alignment got it?

did you consider most combat is the region of Mach .9 Mach 0.7 where the F-16 is inferior to F-22? plus at Mach .6 once F-16 goes beyond 25 deg becomes inferior so it basically is inferior to F-22

 

[asianobserve]

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

"It has few slow tricks" - like supermaneuverability. As far as I know supermaneuverability is the ability of an aircraft to do post stall maneuvers. That vidro of F-35 doing pedal turn looks like a post stall maneuver. And F-35 will only get more software updates including its flight control.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

1- Radar signal travel 2 way while jamming signal travel 1 way
2- Not all output energy by the radar will be captured by the target.

Jamming signal is also absorbed by the atmosphere, plus Su-35s overlap their radar detection ranges via data link, there is no possibility to jam all the signal

the signal has areas where radar is eliminated others where remains, Irbis also works with other radars from ground stations, and at short ranges F-22 is very detectable, because F-22 might be difficult at 120km, but at 20km it can be detected even by the IRST of Su-35

 

[StealthFlanker]

from a front view the nozzles are hidden, that tailerons too, do you understand that stealth is radar position dependant ? most aircraft hide the nozzles from that view but once the wings or tailerons deflect break frontal planform alignment got it?

Literally, unless they fly directly head to head on a straight line then that could be the case, but in reality the chance of that happening isn't very high, you are always slightly higher or slightly lower or slightly to the left or to the right of the enemy. Against ground radar which are the most powerful radars on the battlefield, the is no chance of that happening either.

did you consider most combat is the region of Mach .9 Mach 0.7 where the F-16 is inferior to F-22?

If you can show a chart of F-22 rolling faster than F-16 at Mach 0.7-0.9 then go ahead but I can bet that there isn't any. The whole reason that chart limited to below Mach 0.6 is because TVC advantage only shown at AoA which is not exactly what you want at high speed

 

[StealthFlanker]

Jamming signal is also absorbed by the atmosphere, plus Su-35s overlap their radar detection ranges via data link, there is no possibility to jam all the signal

the signal has areas where radar is eliminated others where remain

Whatever you think the absorption of jamming signal in atmosphere is the absorption of radar signal will square that, since it literally travel twice the distance.
and cooperative jamming exist so really, there is no reason the cant jam the whole frequency range

Irbis also works with other radars from ground stations, and at short ranges F-22 is very detectable, because F-22 might be difficult at 120km, but at 20km it can be detected even by the IRST of Su-35

Which is kinda irrelevant, it like saying well a rifle can shot very far but at arm length I can kill a rifle man with a knife, it doesn't matter.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Literally, unless they fly directly head to head on a straight line then that could be the case, but in reality the chance of that happening isn't very high, you are always slightly higher or slightly lower or slightly to the left or to the right of the enemy. Against ground radar which are the most powerful radars on the battlefield, the is no chance of that happening either.




If you can show a chart of F-22 rolling faster than F-16 at Mach 0.7-0.9 then go ahead but I can bet that there isn't any. The whole reason that chart limited to below Mach 0.6 is because TVC advantage only shown at AoA which is not exactly what you want at high speed

at 30 deg F-16 is inferior do you understand that? even at 25deg? you are dreaming it is know F-22 will out turn and out roll F-16 keep dreaming, F-16 will not beat F-22 in turns, the fact Rafale will beat an F-16 in turns and rolls but barely will keep with F-22 keep your dreams that is the reason the graph has after 20 deg its ability drops and drops drastically after 25 deg of AoA the F-22 will beat F-16 because AOA means also turn rate

 

[StealthFlanker]

at 30 deg F-16 is inferior do you understand that? even at 25deg? you are dreaming it is know F-22 will out turn and out roll F-16 keep dreaming, F-16 will not beat F-22 in turns, the fact Rafale will beat an F-16 in turns and rolls but barely will keep with F-22 keep your dreams that is the reason the graph has after 20 deg its ability drops and drops drastically after 25 deg of AoA the F-22 will beat F-16 because AOA means also turn rate

If you have F-16 block 50 flight manual, you would have known that even at CAT I F-16 is AoA limited to a maximum of 26 degree AoA, because it got the tendency to depart from the controlled flight at higher angle of attack ( since airflow to its single vertical stabs will be blocked by the airframe at in that region), the thing was not even designed for high AoA maneuver to begin with. So no shit it will perform worse than F-22 in the region that it was literally not designed to operate

 

[MiG-29SMT]

If you have F-16 block 50 flight manual, you would have know that even at CAT I F-16 is AoA limited to a maximum of 26 degree AoA, because it got the tendency to depart from the controlled flight at high AoA, the thing was not even designed for high AoA maneuver to begin with. So no shit it perform worse than F-22 in the region that it was literally not designed to operate

Sustained turn rate of F-22 is 28 deg / sec, F-16 is 21 deg/sec

The Bank angles is given by the AoA

So you got in a terrible mistake F-22 by having better roll rate at higher AoA means it will turn better any way try to say F-22 has an inferior turn rate or roll rate is the most comical assertion you can hear

 

[StealthFlanker]

Sustained turn rate of F-22 is 28 deg / sec, F-16 is 21 deg/sec

Firstly, the so called "28 degrees/second" sustain turn rate that you often hear quoted for F-22 isn't its conventional turn. The 28 degrees/second being sustained here is actually its nose pointing rate in post stall situation, F-35 actually achieve very similar feast.

s. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC, this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second

https://www.heritage.org/defense/re...rgues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent
To access F-22 actual conventional sustain capability, i can look into F-22 selective acquisition report

So at 30,000 ft and Mach 0.9 the F-22 can actually sustain about 3.7G (higher altitude the air is thinner, therefore lower G, this is the same for all aircraft)
For comparison, F-15C with 4 AIM-7, 4 AIM-9, and centerline pylon can sustain 3.65G in the same condition. So to be frank, F-22 and 4.5, 5 gen agility aren't no where as awesome as these internet hypes.

The Bank angles is given by the AoA

So you got in a terrible mistake F-22 by having better roll rate at higher AoA means it will turn better any way try to say F-22 has an inferior turn rate or roll rate is the most comical assertion you can hear

Bank angle and AoA (angle of attack) are two completely different things, how can you confuse them?. Angle of attack is the angle between the body's reference line and the oncoming flow.

Bank angle is the angle at which the vehicle is inclined about its longitudinal axis with respect to the horizontal.

I have never said F-22 having better roll rate at high AoA make it turn better, in fact a roll and a turn are quite different. Besides, when I said " F-22 does have inferior roll rate compared to F-16 at low AoA" it is not an assessment or a guess. It is a fact, supported by flight test data as shown on diagram

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, the so called "28 degrees/second" sustain turn rate that you often hear quoted for F-22 isn't its conventional turn. The 28 degrees/second being sustained here is actually its nose pointing rate in post stall situation, F-35 actually achieve very similar feast.





Bank angle and AoA (angle of attack) are two completely different things, how can you confuse them?. Angle of attack is the angle between the body's reference line and the oncoming flow.

Bank angle is the angle at which the vehicle is inclined about its longitudinal axis with respect to the horizontal.

I have never said F-22 having better roll rate at high AoA make it turn better, in fact a roll and a turn are quite different. Besides, when I said " F-22 does have inferior roll rate compared to F-16 at low AoA" it is not an assessment or a guess. It is a fact, supported by flight test data as shown on diagram

when you understand that, talk to me, F-22 has much better STR than F-16

 

[MiG-29SMT]

So at 30,000 ft and Mach 0.9 the F-22 can actually sustain about 3.7G (higher altitude the air is thinner,



Bank angle and AoA (angle of attack) are two completely different things, how can you confuse them?. Angle of attack is the angle between the body's reference line and the oncoming flow.

. As the angle of bank is increased, the horizontal component of lift increases, thereby increasing the rate of turn (ROT). Consequently, at any given airspeed, the ROT can be controlled by adjusting the angle of bank.

To provide a vertical component of lift sufficient to hold altitude in a level turn, an increase in the AOA is required. Since the drag of the airfoil is directly proportional to its AOA, induced drag increases as the lift is increased. This, in turn, causes a loss of airspeed in proportion to the angle of bank.
https://www.flightliteracy.com/aerodynamic-forces-in-flight-maneuvers-part-one/

 

[StealthFlanker]

when you understand that, talk to me, F-22 has much better STR than F-16

Quit the mysterious act, it getting quite clear now that you actually don't understand what you have been writing.
Firstly, of course I understand these photos and they clearly do not say what you think they do.
Once again. Bank angle and angle of attack are completely different things, even though they are both measured in degrees.
Secondly, when bank angle increase, you need higher AoA to maintain level flight. But the revert is not true. The reason why you would need higher AoA is actually quite simple, at higher bank angle you need to generate more lift so that the force component to keep your aircraft from fall down (back arrow in this diagram) would be enough

aircraft fuselage and wing will generate more lift at higher AoA up until stall point when there is flow separation, this is illustrated by the lift coefficient chart

But because there is limit to lift coefficient, when you increased bank angle too much, increasing AoA is simply not enough to generate lift, and therefore you need to fly at faster speed otherwise you stall, because lift is a function of speed as well as lift coefficient

why does the revert is not true you ask? Simple, try to make a vertical turn instead of horizontal. The amount of G and AoA is therefore completely independence of bank angle.

As to you are complete wrong in assuming that " F-22 STR is much better than F-16 because it can reach higher AoA" ?. Well it is even more simple, a sustain turn is a turn where the engine thrust will be able to counter the drag generated by the turn and can maintain a constant speed and altitude for the aircraft making the turn. When you increase AoA, your Lift coefficient will increase, but so is so drag coefficient, so no one, absolutely no one will attempt to pull a sustain turn at high angle of attack.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Quit the mysterious act, it getting quite clear now that you actually don't understand what you have been writing.


But because there is limit to lift coefficient, when you increased bank angle too much, increasing AoA is simply not enough to generate lift, and therefore you need to fly at faster speed otherwise you stall, because lift is a function of speed as well as lift coefficient

.

Try harder next time


The rate of turn, normally measured in degrees per second, is based upon a set bank angle at a set speed. If either one of these elements changes, the rate of turn changes. If the aircraft increases its speed without changing the bank angle, the rate of turn decreases. Likewise, if the speed decreases without changing the bank angle, the rate of turn increases.

Changing the bank angle without changing speed also causes the rate of turn to change. Increasing the bank angle without changing speed increases the rate of turn, while decreasing the bank angle reduces the rate of turn.

https://www.flightliteracy.com/climbs-and-turns/



All what you have said about F-22 having not better STR just to win a conversation shows your lack of Humility.

F-22 has better STR just by having higher AoA handling to keep a bank angle or increase it, increase the bank angle increases the turn rate, in order to increase the bank angle you increase the AoA, having better AoA handling F-22 surpasses F-16 specially if F-16 carries external weapons stations increasing drag.


It is known the MiG-29 will out turn a F-16, Rafale is much better than both and F-22 is as good if not better than Rafale at high STR .

enjoy it bring a proof a minimum of 28 deg/s is not the turn rate of F-22 when it is known F-16 has one of 21 deg/s MiG-29 23.5 deg/sec and thrust vectoring will increase at least 1% the turn rate So a MiG-29 easily will have a 26 deg/s turn rate with thrust vectoring and carryin big AA-10s under the wing.

F-22 easily will reach a 28 deg/s turn rate

 

[StealthFlanker]

Try harder next time


The rate of turn, normally measured in degrees per second, is based upon a set bank angle at a set speed. If either one of these elements changes, the rate of turn changes. If the aircraft increases its speed without changing the bank angle, the rate of turn decreases. Likewise, if the speed decreases without changing the bank angle, the rate of turn increases.

Changing the bank angle without changing speed also causes the rate of turn to change. Increasing the bank angle without changing speed increases the rate of turn, while decreasing the bank angle reduces the rate of turn.

https://www.flightliteracy.com/climbs-and-turns/

The more you talk, the more clear it is that you don't actually understand what you talking about and have just been copy- paste like a parrot.
In a horizontal level turn, increasing bank angle mean you increase the horizontal component of the force ( see the horizontal arrow). Higher bank angle here means more force contributed into changing your aircraft direction into that horizontal turn => faster turn rate

But that is only true for a horizontal level turn. For a vertical turn, the lift component is already in the direction of the turn, there is no need to bank whatsoever.

All what you have said about F-22 having not better STR just to win a conversation shows your lack of Humility.
F-22 has better STR just by having higher AoA handling to keep a bank angle or increase it, increase the bank angle increases the turn rate, in order to increase the bank angle you increase the AoA, having better AoA handling F-22 surpasses F-16 specially if F-16 carries external weapons stations increasing drag.
It is known the MiG-29 will out turn a F-16, Rafale is much better than both and F-22 is as good if not better than Rafale at high STR .
enjoy it bring a proof a minimum of 28 deg/s is not the turn rate of F-22 when it is known F-16 has one of 21 deg/s MiG-29 23.5 deg/sec and thrust vectoring will increase at least 1% the turn rate So a MiG-29 easily will have a 26 deg/s turn rate with thrust vectoring and carryin big AA-10s under the wing.
F-22 easily will reach a 28 deg/s turn rate

Once again, this is not about winning the argument, it is about the fact that you don't actually understand what you have been saying, and you have been quoting very random numbers without even the slightest understanding of them
Firstly, having higher AoA handling does not lead to higher STR. Because a sustained turn is not done at high AoA since increasing AoA will also increase drag, and in sustain turn, your engine have to be able counter the effect of drag generated by the turn

Secondly, F-16 sustained turn rate is 23 degrees/second not 21, and Mig-29 will not out sustain an F-16, not even remotely close. And again, TVC on aircraft does not contribute to high speed turn rate (unlike missile as missile have huge T/W ratio), especially a sustained turn. TVC is specially designed for post stall maneuver and reducing cruise trim drag
Directly from flight manual:
At sea level, F-16C reached a maximum STR of 23 degrees/second.
9G sustained turn is first reached at around Mach 0.65 and there is no G limitation at any speed

On the other hand, Mig-29 first reached 9 G sustained turn at 465 knot IAS ( aka Mach 0.7) and by 590 knot IAS (Mach 0.89) it is already limited down to 7.5G due to structure limit

Last but not least, I have already proved that F-22 str is not 28 degrees/second. It is actually quite clear in the selective acquisition report that F-22 STR is quite similar to F-15C

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The more you talk, the more clear it is that you don't actually understand what you talking about and have just been copy- paste like a parrot.
It is actually quite clear in the selective acquisition report that F-22 STR is quite similar to F-15C

you are quiet boring, so enjoy your eternal conversation, F-22 has a much better turn rate than F-16 only a guy like you can say such non sense so enjoy your self think you are right, reality hurts but the Americans made a better fighter in F-22 than F-15 or F-16 see you


The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 “red air” fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio.”

Noteworthy even though the outcome of the mock combats is quite impressive, it comes as no surprise. As we have already explained in fact the F-15, featuring an unmatched air-to-air kill ratio of 104 to 0, is a true “air superiority master” and when the Eagle integrates with 5th generation capabilities of the F-22 stealth fighter enemy aircraft have almost no chance to win an air-to-air engagement

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...zing-41-1-kill-ratio-during-mock-combat-64906

 

[MiG-29SMT]

At sea level, F-16C reached a maximum STR of 23 degrees/second.
9G sustained turn is first reached at around Mach 0.65 and there is no G limitation at any speed

Uhmm... combat at sea level

Now let’s have a closer look at the agility of the MiG-29. How does the MiG-29 compare in agility? It has a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate compared to a modern F-16’s 26 deg/sec. Thanks to the MiG-29s incredible aerodynamics in combination with its old school mechanical control system, it has an unmatched agility


https://migflug.com/jetflights/once...he-mig-29-is-the-perfect-fighter-jet-to-have/


next time remember STR is altitude and weight related a sea Level the MiG-29 is much Better, but of course you think F-16 has better turn rate than F-22 and is even as low as F-15

 

[StealthFlanker]

Uhmm... combat at sea level

Now let’s have a closer look at the agility of the MiG-29. How does the MiG-29 compare in agility? It has a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate compared to a modern F-16’s 26 deg/sec. Thanks to the MiG-29s incredible aerodynamics in combination with its old school mechanical control system, it has an unmatched agility


https://migflug.com/jetflights/once...he-mig-29-is-the-perfect-fighter-jet-to-have/


next time remember STR is altitude and weight related a sea Level the MiG-29 is much Better, but of course you think F-16 has better turn rate than F-22 and is even as low as F-15

Jesus, the more you talk, the clearer it is that you obviously don't have the slightest idea of what you talking about.
Firstly, not only STR but ITR is also affected by altitude and weight. Because air density affects how much lift you can generate and to pull a certain amount of G, you need to generate lift equal to G value*weight. Heavier airplane means you need to generate more lift.
Secondly, the fact that Mig-29 have better instantaneous turn rate than F-16 has nothing to do with the so called unmatched agility, literally all 4 gen aircraft will have better ITR than F-16. Why?, because F-16 was designed to have an unmatched sustain turn rate, roll rate and pretty much top of the line in acceleration and to do that F-16 has to sacrifice its high AoA fighting capability and its ITR performance.
Why do I say F-16 sacrificed these capabilities? ok i will explain
Now as I mentioned earlier, for aircraft/wing, when you increase their AoA, their lift coefficient (CL) will increase until it reaches the stall point where there is airflow separation
The point just before the stall point where lift coefficient reached the highest value is called the CLmax.
The max instantaneous turn rate is often done at CLmax point, because that is the point where maximum amount of lift can be generated

Looking at F-16 flight test data, one can see that CLmax reached the value of 1.8 at AoA of 28 degrees
So logically to achieve highest ITR, F-16 should make the turn at AoA of 24-28 degrees

However, one can also easily look at F-16 artificial AoA limit by flight control system:
At 9 G, F-16 AoA is limited to 15 degrees which if put in the test data chart earlier only raises a CL value of 1.2 instead of 1.8 In other words, F-16 is artificially limited to only 66% of its max lift potential. So why such a limit is in place?. As I explained before, there are two reasons, the first one is that F-16 has the tendency to depart from controlled flight at high AoA . The second one is that, due to the artificial limit, the pilot will be stopped from over pull his aircraft and expense too much energy.

The disadvantage of such solution is also obvious, F-16 ITR is lower than most of its 4 gen counterpart, take for example: at an altitude of 15k feet, Mirage 2000 can achieve 24 degrees/second ITR whereas F-16 ITR is only 19.8 degrees/second. On the other hand, at the same altitude, F-16 can achieve 14.2 degrees/second STR whereas Mirage 2000 can only achieve 12.5 degrees/second STR.

 

[bhramos]

......................................