It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-18E Super Hornet v Sukhoi PAK-FA

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
PAK-FA
The PAK-FA is a medium weight multi-role design with a generally conventional layout, but very blended, with stealthy intakes, a weapons bay, and thrust vectoring.

A prototype is under way and likely to fly in 2007. That makes a service entry date of around 2013.

F-18E Super Hornet
The Super Hornet is an enhanced F-18 with newer systems, new intakes and leading edge extensions. All ordinances (except the gun) are carried externally and it does not feature thrust vectoring.

The aircraft is already in production and being marketed for export.

The question of performance
There are no reliable stats for the PAK-FA but it is probably respectable in basic performance. I would guess that the F-18 has superior range and weapons loading, but that the PAK-FA will be more agile (thanks to TVC) and that weapons load may not be the crucial factor.

Stealthiness
The F-18E is often claimed to be remarkably stealthy and what not by its fans. But this seems a bit silly. It’s fuselage is not particularly molded, it’s tail fins angled not very much and it carries its weapons externally. The intakes are no doubt an improvement on older models of F-18 but it is all the same far from stealthy.
The PAK-FA however is very molded, has internal weapons carriage and generally cleaner lines. We can only speculate on plasma stealth and whatever clever solutions Sukhoi may or may not have up their sleeve, but in basic airframe terms the PAK-FA will already be far more stealthy than the F-18E.

Air-air
Both will feature advanced weapons systems. The PAK-FA’s will probably be slightly less sophisticated than the F-18Es but given the stealth factor, the PAK-FA will probably acquire the F-18 first. The F-18E carries AMRAAM and AIM-9X missiles, the PAK-FA will probably carry ramjet models of AA-12, basic AA-12 and AA-11. The ramjet missiles will give the PAK-FA a massive range advantage. Close in, the AIM-9X and AA-11 are pretty similar in usage. Both have helmet mounted sights, advanced seekers and various launch modes. The AA-11 is probably longer ranged. With the agility advantage of the PAK-FA, my money would be on it, pilot’s skill accepted.

Air-ground
The F-18 no doubt can carry more ordinance, but in so doing it is increasing its radar signature. The weapons bay of the PAK-FA can probably carry two PGMs which is a useful weapons load. US systems are probably more effective, but both are likely to do the job asked of them.

Conclusion
The F-18 suffers from the fact it is a 4th generation fighter remodeled and roled as a 4.5/5th generation fighter. Whilst it is impressive, it has no hope of being meaningfully stealthy, which is its Achilles heel, and where it looses out to true 5th generation designs like PAK-FA.




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
You can't have a meaningful comparison or even assess an aircraft individually until that aircraft actually exists, can you?

Pak Fa isn't even a firmed up design yet, its just a programme with lots of different potential designs floating about, like the ATF was in the 1980's, in this respect how can 'it' be compared to anything when all its specs are merely design objectives rather than actual perfortmance figures?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
You forgot the fact that almost every new fighter program with the exception of retooled planes from the fall of the USSR has ultimately been cancelled due to lack of funds. The more apropriate opponet for the Pak-Fa and in export is the JSF, which will enter service sooner, have a variety of models, and have allot more refined stealth systems and will incorporate the latest sensors. Plus the development cost is not on the client but on the US government, so it should be a bargain.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
planeman: you may be interested in reading: PAK-FA versus whatever?

As was correctly mentioned by waynos:


You can't have a meaningful comparison or even assess an aircraft individually until that aircraft actually exists...


Let some of us interested know when the PAK-FA actually begins serial production. We can have a legit talk then.






seekerof

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Personally, I like aircraft made of things other then paper... but that's just me.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
In regards to the stealth question posed. No one has ever claimed that the F-18E/F is a stealth aircraft. However a concerted effort was made in the redesign to reduce its RCS. Similar efforts were made on the Typhoon and Rafale which also sport reduced RCS. However, they are not dedicated stealth aircraft nor are they billed to be.

Ive always been a bit amused by the mythology being built up around "paper tigers" As mentioned by several astute contributors to the aviation forum. Put one in the air and then we can really have a comparison.

[edit on 11/28/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Someone is clearly obsessed with this aircraft concept.
And he's not even pitting comparable aircraft in his conclusions. What he should be doing is weighing out the F-35 and this thing.

[edit on 11/29/2005 by CyberianHusky]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Exactly, The PAK-FA is just on the drawing bord now... We don't even know if it will ever become a real plane do we... Besides it's very foolish to compare these kind of planes... They are totally different... (This is a bit over the line but) It's like comparing an F-117 with a Raptor, just because they are both stealthy, it doesn't make them equal...



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
FA18 HAS MORE SKILLED PILOTS SO I THINK IT WILL BE BETER EVEN THOUGH ITS 4TH GENERATION COMPARED TO THE FIFTH GENERATION SU 47



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
The PAK-FA would be a pretty poor concept if it didn't stuff the POS F/A-18!



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The PAK-FA would be a pretty poor concept if it didn't stuff the POS F/A-18!
Ths Su-35BM will be more than enough to take care of the F-18 AND 35, WHY pak-fa is needed for the F-22.
www.ausairpower.net...
www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 29-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 121200
Ths Su-35BM will be more than enough to take care of the F-18


Easily (IMO).



Originally posted by 121200
AND 35,


Maybe - but I would not like to face off with one.


Kinematically, the Su-35 will be light years ahead of the F-35, it will also have a bigger radar and better combat persistence.


The F-35 has its lower RCS, but is that enough to get it under the Su-35's much larger engagement envelope? I'm sure there are a lot of people with access to much more information than me asking the same question.



Originally posted by 121200
WHY pak-fa is needed for the F-22.


Yeap, absolutely.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Easily (IMO).


Oh, here we go again. Honestly, the argument can definitely be made that the Su-35 is more impressive in the kinematic regime over the SuperBug. However as far as avionics and weapons go, the SuperHornet has that category.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Maybe - but I would not like to face off with one.


Wise outlook.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Kinematically, the Su-35 will be light years ahead of the F-35, it will also have a bigger radar and better combat persistence.



In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall maneuverability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA maneuvers as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

Link


As far as the radar goes, it may be slightly larger but it is generations behinds the APG-81 in terms of capability. Especially when you consider the other electronic suites the F-53 has which complement and enhance its radar set.

Also, as far as persistence goes, the Su-35 may carry more fuel but consider the drag factor and the efficiency of the engines. Don't be surprised if the F-35 can supercruise at low supersonic speeds with a clean external load after it burns off some fuel. It also retains the ability to carry external fuel tanks and jettison them off to "stealth up".


Originally posted by kilcoo316
The F-35 has its lower RCS, but is that enough to get it under the Su-35's much larger engagement envelope?


Much larger engagement enevelope? Fully loaded the Su-35 will not be as maneuverable, deff not LO, and will have to up that afterburner to get anywhere significant fast. Meanwhile the F-35 will most likely not be detected and will have complete situational awareness of the battlefield. It can position itself in the best possible position for an attack.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'm sure there are a lot of people with access to much more information than me asking the same question.


Yet all of them seem satisfied and confident in the F-35. It's only the outsiders looking in who huff and puff.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Easily (IMO).


Oh, here we go again. Honestly, the argument can definitely be made that the Su-35 is more impressive in the kinematic regime over the SuperBug. However as far as avionics and weapons go, the SuperHornet has that category.
Not according to experts: www.ausairpower.net...




Also, as far as persistence goes, the Su-35 may carry more fuel but consider the drag factor and the efficiency of the engines. Don't be surprised if the F-35 can supercruise at low supersonic speeds with a clean external load after it burns off some fuel. It also retains the ability to carry external fuel tanks and jettison them off to "stealth up".
Actually Su-35BM will be able to supercruise.





Much larger engagement enevelope? Fully loaded the Su-35 will not be as maneuverable, deff not LO, and will have to up that afterburner to get anywhere significant fast. Meanwhile the F-35 will most likely not be detected and will have complete situational awareness of the battlefield. It can position itself in the best possible position for an attack.

It will be manuverable, thats why the TV Engines are there, and A Su test pilot was interviewd awhile back putting to rest the western argument claims that the cobra manuver is not combat capable, he said the Early Su-27 were combat capable of the Cobra, and NOW with TV engines it REALLY will be able to do it IN COMBAT.




Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'm sure there are a lot of people with access to much more information than me asking the same question.


Yet all of them seem satisfied and confident in the F-35. It's only the outsiders looking in who huff and puff.
NOT ACCORDING TO SOME EXPERTS: www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 29-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 121200
Not according to experts: www.ausairpower.net...


Anything Carlo says needs to be taken with a grain of salt, his emotions and personal views clearly get the better of him. When one has an agenda even solid facts wont stop you from reaching the wrong conclusions. As far as "experts" are concerned, the real experts are those officially working within these programs.


Originally posted by 121200
Actually Su-35BM will be able to supercruise.


Yeah I don't buy that one bit, I'd like to see it demonstrated under combat conditions. Be careful about promotional claims, even some versions of the F-16 can "supercruise", so can some other aircraft. I.e. break the sound barrier with no afterburner, given specific conditions. But there is a lot more to consider when combat relevancy comes into play.


Originally posted by 121200
It will be manuverable, thats why the TV Engines are there, and A Su test pilot was interviewd awhile back putting to rest the western argument claims that the cobra manuver is not combat capable.


Honestly, the 1% of WVR combat engagements in which the Cobra maneuver might prove successful is irrelevant. The move itself is an indication of aircraft maneuverability but as the years go on that regime will become less and less important.


Originally posted by 121200
NOT ACCORDING TO SOME EXPERTS: www.ausairpower.net...


Like I said above, those involved with the programs and the current/future operators of both aircraft seem confident and satisfied. Carlo and his electrical engineering degree need to realize Australia is not getting the Raptor.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 


im with westy
dont get sucked into ausairpower site
its a think tank thats all
pretty pics and thats it
if they had there way
the RAAF would have special f-111s and f-22s
P L E A S E

kopps homepage
if u must
oh yeah
you made me do it

evolved f-111 and f-22 for aus

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Jezza]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
So where is the PAK F#$% All?

Still having pictures drawn of it?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
pak fa
wiki
images

basically the russians dont have the money to build or develop
it. They need india,china or someone else to finish or develop it



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by 121200
Not according to experts: www.ausairpower.net...


Anything Carlo says needs to be taken with a grain of salt, his emotions and personal views clearly get the better of him. When one has an agenda even solid facts wont stop you from reaching the wrong conclusions. As far as "experts" are concerned, the real experts are those officially working within these programs.

Well untill another reputable source comes and counters what he wrote with facts, it safe to say he (Carlo) knows what he's talking about, plus he gives his sources, so what you post is nothing but YOUR opinion, and NOT fact.




Originally posted by 121200
Actually Su-35BM will be able to supercruise.


Yeah I don't buy that one bit, I'd like to see it demonstrated under combat conditions. Be careful about promotional claims, even some versions of the F-16 can "supercruise", so can some other aircraft. I.e. break the sound barrier with no afterburner, given specific conditions. But there is a lot more to consider when combat relevancy comes into play.[

Originally posted by 121200
It will be manuverable, thats why the TV Engines are there, and A Su test pilot was interviewd awhile back putting to rest the western argument claims that the cobra manuver is not combat capable.

How many times do I have to remnd you, it doesn't matter what YOU think, it's a fact it will super cruise:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.milavia.net...









[edit on 1-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The answer is obviously the PAKFA. Super Hornet is like a stop-gap aircraft till the F-35C arrives, much beyond, 2015, well, I wouldn't want to be in the Hornet. A more accurate comparison is Su-35BM vs Super Hornet.... If all else is equal, I'd probably give the edge to the BM.


Well untill another reputable source comes and counters what he wrote with facts, it safe to say he (Carlo) knows what he's talking about, plus he gives his sources, so what you post is nothing but YOUR opinion, and NOT fact.

Armchair air power analysis needs more than a simple google of the most obvious terms - that everyone has already seen - to come up with an opinion. Abraham Gubler, Stephen Trimble, Michael PEZZULLO, Air Marshal Geoff SHEPHERD, Roy McPHAIL, Dr Roger LOUGH, David HURLEY, John HARVEY, Dr Stephen GUMLEY, Mark BINSKIN, Bill Sweetman, and numerous studies by the DTSO, the list goes on, would disagree with Kopp. And they, truely, are paid professionals, not Kopp.

It's not the job of defense to argue with some loon (Kopp) who disagrees with this or that - the job of defense is to provide capability to the government. It simply, does not matter what YOU, or Kopp thinks - it USED to, until he (Kopp) was made an amaeteur by the RAAF JSF team, and may I add, professionals on Defensetalk forum (Peter Goon); we know this, that's on the record. What does matter, however, are the professionals opinions, like the ones I outlined above, who often are the ones who are actually doing the air capability reviews; pity the reviews are not released. Like I said, they disagree, and have reasons for it, outlined next.

All the conclusions reached by Carlo Kopp are based on distorted, misleading, 'facts', that have little to no relevance in the real world. Furthermore, his review into the capability itself, of the APG-79, Super Hornet, and F-35 are simply made up, guestimations, at best - which are provided with no source. An hour in a sanitised Super Hornet does not make you a professional. No body claims the detection ranges of the APG-79 are higher than the non-existant Irbis - what is claimed, however, is that AESA, net-centric warfare, and reduced RCS offers a fundamental advantage. There is more to avionics than radar brute strength - Irbis is PESA, AN/APG-79 is AESA. PESA has one power source, AESA has thousands. PESA is easy to detect. AESA is hard to detect. PESA has massive side-lobes, AESA has tiny side-lobes.

Super Hornet has the longer ranged Aim-120C-7, or, Aim-120D. Su-35BM has R-77. The engagement profiles by Carlo Kopp are old - they don't take into account these new missiles. Furthermore, even with the kinematic advantage - remember, when speed is increase linearly, drag goes up exponentially. Therefore, a missile launched at Mach 1.5 will NOT go 50% further than a missile launched at Mach 1. Actual difference is far smaller. The mathematics behind it are quiet simple actaully.


How many times do I have to remnd you, it doesn't matter what YOU think, it's a fact it will super cruise:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.milavia.net...


From your own sources, Mach 1.05. 7% faster than conventional 4th generation? The second source is a guess, indicated by the '?', that itself is based on Carlo Kopp, with no sources, except of course....

Thrust to weight performance for the engine was cited at 11:1, and sustained supercruise speeds of Mach 1.6 to 1.8 were claimed.

Which was for the engine, not the plane.

This is a better source...

that during testing of a Su-35BM fighter equipped with these engines it was traveling at the ~1.1-1.2M airspeed at nominal power and was still accelerating, thus suggesting that the supercruise was possible at even higher speed. Further testing will show the extent of this possibility.

Lenta.ru

It is unclear on any more details, and I don't know Russian so I cannot read Lenta.ru.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by C0bzz]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join