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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
It is unclear on any more details, and I don't know Russian so I cannot read Lenta.ru.


If it was testing I doubt it had a full load on it, big difference from actual combat. The F-35 will be able to supercruise in the same range, if not more, under combat conditions and with persistence. Remember, the US defined supercruise as Mach 1.5 sustained with no afterburners in combat. Also, Cobzz, were you factoring altitude in the speed launch of the missile? Because Raptor pilots claim 60K at Mach 1.5-8 significantly balloons the range of the AMRAAM.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by WestPoint23]




posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


1.Non of those men who's names you typed speak go into detail about the Su-35BM AND contradict Carlo's article, so you lost that argument badly.

2. Look closely at the rangeS of the AIM-120C/D and the R-77 and upgradeS R-77 has longer range and faster:
AIM-120C/D: en.wikipedia.org...

R-77 Family: en.wikipedia.org...
www.ausairpower.net...
Su-35BM can supercruise weather you believe it or not: www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 2-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Disregarding your first point as I have not read the article in question nor the entirety of this discussion..


2. Look closely at the rangeS of the AIM-120C/D and the R-77 and upgradeS R-77 has longer range and faster:
AIM-120C/D: en.wikipedia.org...
R-77 Family: en.wikipedia.org...
www.ausairpower.net...


First, let me say that I'm not going to contest this claim -- I think it's a well-established fact that many of Russia's missiles have those characteristics.
However, they're also paper-statistics.
What fails to be taken into account is the agility and guidance of these systems, where in both cases the [admittedly more modern variations] of the AMRAAM surpass the Vympel with flying colors. Essentially, yes, if you shot both missiles at the same speed at the same altitude and their target was flying straight, the Vympel would perform just as well as the AMRAAM, and at a 'longer range'.
However, in a battle involving evasive manuevers, countermeasures, and etc., the AMRAAM will typically be the victor.

As WestPoint is by far my superior in the technical arena, please refer to him for a more detailed explanation.


Edit to add:
It is because of the F-22's proven ability to fly at greater altitudes and speeds than many of its probable competitor's that the AMRAAM can be stated to have 'longer range'. It's more than just a matter of propellant when it comes to taking such things into account!



Su-35BM can supercruise weather you believe it or not: www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 2-12-2008 by 121200]


From your own source:

The MFI, designed as a supercruising challenger to the F/A-22A, is claimed to supercruise at Mach 1.8 to 1.9 using a pair of Al-41Fs. The MFI prototype first flew in early 2000. Russian and EU sources claim the MFI's Al-41F engines have 3D thrust vectoring capability. Current indications are that the MFI will remain a demonstrator, with the Sukhoi bureau winning a 2002 tender to develop Russia's new fifth generation fighter.

What your sources say are that a future undetermined aircraft will likely have the capability to supercruise. Now, near as I can tell the Su-35BM uses Saturn AL-31 fans. Which are not those listed above.

While I searched and found plenty of forums detailing the Su-35's capability to supercruise, I've yet to find a definite, factual source.

Any help would be appreciated.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Iblis]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
The MFI, designed as a supercruising challenger to the F/A-22A, is claimed to supercruise at Mach 1.8 to 1.9 using a pair of Al-41Fs. The MFI prototype first flew in early 2000. Russian and EU sources claim the MFI's Al-41F engines have 3D thrust vectoring capability. Current indications are that the MFI will remain a demonstrator, with the Sukhoi bureau winning a 2002 tender to develop Russia's new fifth generation fighter.


MFI program has ended, except for cannibalization of program fragments for integration into PAK-FA. The supercruise factor for the Mikoyan 1.44 is only speculation as it was never equipped with full-fledged AL-41s. Those engines were, and are, in development. The specs for them are similarly predicted, not certain. Current status of the engines isn't really known, although engines based on the AL-31 core have approached the specs projected for the AL-41 core. The naming of the AL-41F1A intended for use on the Su-35BM reflects this, even though it actually uses an upgraded AL-31 core if memory serves. Supercruise capability for Mikoyan 1.44 is likely if it had the projected thrust, but as of yet unproven. IIRC.

Note: The 1.44 was, however, designed to include the Two-axis asymmetric "quasi-3D" system employed on other Sukhoi jets and projected full-3D engines such as those on the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35.



While I searched and found plenty of forums detailing the Su-35's capability to supercruise, I've yet to find a definite, factual source.



A supersonic flight without afterburning was carried out at the maximum engine mode for the first time in the native history as a part of tests that is the feature of the 5th generation aircraft.
By now, 20 flights have been performed. The tests are successful, no complaints to the engines operation.


Straight from the NPO Saturn site. It would be fair to assume that the people responsible for the engines running Su-35BM (Saturn 117S, not yet the AL-41F1A) have a fair amount of information on the various goings-on within the project. Linky

Pr0



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Disregarding your first point as I have not read the article in question nor the entirety of this discussion..


2. Look closely at the rangeS of the AIM-120C/D and the R-77 and upgradeS R-77 has longer range and faster:
AIM-120C/D: en.wikipedia.org...
R-77 Family: en.wikipedia.org...
www.ausairpower.net...


First, let me say that I'm not going to contest this claim -- I think it's a well-established fact that many of Russia's missiles have those characteristics.
However, they're also paper-statistics.
What fails to be taken into account is the agility and guidance of these systems, where in both cases the [admittedly more modern variations] of the AMRAAM surpass the Vympel with flying colors. Essentially, yes, if you shot both missiles at the same speed at the same altitude and their target was flying straight, the Vympel would perform just as well as the AMRAAM, and at a 'longer range'.
However, in a battle involving evasive manuevers, countermeasures, and etc., the AMRAAM will typically be the victor.

Please provide these socalled claims about the AMRAAM because I haven't found any, which lets me believe your making this up.









Su-35BM can supercruise weather you believe it or not: www.ausairpower.net...

[edit on 2-12-2008 by 121200]


From your own source:

The MFI, designed as a supercruising challenger to the F/A-22A, is claimed to supercruise at Mach 1.8 to 1.9 using a pair of Al-41Fs. The MFI prototype first flew in early 2000. Russian and EU sources claim the MFI's Al-41F engines have 3D thrust vectoring capability. Current indications are that the MFI will remain a demonstrator, with the Sukhoi bureau winning a 2002 tender to develop Russia's new fifth generation fighter.

What your sources say are that a future undetermined aircraft will likely have the capability to supercruise. Now, near as I can tell the Su-35BM uses Saturn AL-31 fans. Which are not those listed above.

What planet are you living on the Su-35BM uses AL-41's not 31's.



.



[edit on 3-12-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I don't know why I'm bother, because it is quite obvious you cannot see past the Lockheed press releases and perform any sort of critical review of what you read.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.


Weapons?

Really?

Or are you taking future weapons here?


As for avionics - you really are not giving the Irbis the respect it deserves.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said.


Look at the other thread at the top of the aircraft forum.

Learn from your mistakes and quit wheeling out Lockheed PR as gospel.



Originally posted by kilcoo316
As far as the radar goes, it may be slightly larger but it is generations behinds the APG-81 in terms of capability.


Do you have detection ranges?

The -77 is supposed to be good for 200+km vs. a 1 m^2 target.

The Irbis is supposed to be good for 400+km versus a 3m^2 target.


I'll leave you to work out the equivalents, *hint* it doesn't look good for the -77. The -81 is smaller, so again... you can work out where that is heading.

(I've done a quick calc on it, and am surprised by how much the Irbis outclasses the APG-77, so I'll check it again, but it should be ballpark)

If the Irbis does what it claims to do, and the specs for the -77 are reasonably accurate - you should really be paying alot more respect to the Irbis than you are!



Originally posted by kilcoo316
Especially when you consider the other electronic suites the F-53 has which complement and enhance its radar set.


Which do diddly squat unless you have them active = noise.

Which do diddly squat if the other guy is using passive detectors (IRST or offboard)




Originally posted by kilcoo316
Also, as far as persistence goes, the Su-35 may carry more fuel but consider the drag factor and the efficiency of the engines.


Carries much more fuel, carries another engine, carries more missiles.

In my book that equates to better persistence.




Originally posted by kilcoo316
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.


There is no magic that happens to a planes performance going from Mach 0.99 to Mach 1.01. I wish you'd quit throwing the undue emphasis on supercruise. It is a useful addition, but not the be all and end all.




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.


Yeah... because you go into a WVR fight with all your missiles on the rails and full fuel tanks





Meanwhile the F-35 will most likely not be detected and will have complete situational awareness of the battlefield.


Ach, this old chestnut again. The F-35 will have all the offboard sensors of the day to fuse together to provide a complete tactical picture.

Meanwhile the other team has 2 or 3 fellas on the ground pointing at contrails and getting on the radio.



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


Yeap... because Lockheed are going to shoot their only seller (with the F-22 sales ban) down by saying its crap.


(which harks back to reading something critically)



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Quick little thing on the Irbis-E.

This radar is pretty well the most powerful Passive radar mounted on a combat jet. And I mean that in a couple of ways. I suspect it would be reasonable to assume that the Irbis is, in fact, pretty close to as powerful as the Russians say it is, despite the mass of people who are probably thinking of throwing rocks through my window at the thought of a Russian actually telling the truth about what they make next to the pristine, shining beacons of truthfulness that are American defense corporations who depend on sales for life. *gasp for air* The fact is the Irbis doesn't have the whiz-bang features of AESA, but there is one thing aside from a complete design revamp that can make a radar more powerful:

Adding more power. How do you like that for an anticlimax? As it turns out, the Irbis uses a crazy amount of power. Consider: The radar is rated for 5 kW. China was offered re-upgraded versions of the Su-30 MKK: Su-30MK3, a step up from the Su-30MK2 upgrade recently fitted to some of the Chinese -30's. For this upgrade the Irbis-E was offered. The fact is, however, this radar wouldn't work because the Su-30 can only provide ~half the power needed by the Irbis-E. It occurs to me that there is a fair amount of respect for the Zhuk-MSE currently run by the Su-30. If the Irbis takes twice as much power as the MSE, it would suggest that it's filling the air with a crazy amount of radio waves.

What does this translate into? Obviously, better radar resolution, and therefore longer detection ranges. But it also seems to me that saturating the atmosphere with electromagnetic radiation that is picked up by radars may or may not make it easier for others to detect things running the Irbis. How much? Hard to say.

I suppose the point here is that making inferences off the power consumption of the Irbis with knowledge of effectiveness vs. power consumption of other Russian radars would suggest that this thing is fairly powerful.

Just my 1.5867 cents.

Pr0

[edit on 12/3/2008 by Darkpr0]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I don't know why I'm bother, because it is quite obvious you cannot see past the Lockheed press releases and perform any sort of critical review of what you read.


As for avionics - you really are not giving the Irbis the respect it deserves.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said.


Look at the other thread at the top of the aircraft forum.

Learn from your mistakes and quit wheeling out Lockheed PR as gospel.



Originally posted by kilcoo316
As far as the radar goes, it may be slightly larger but it is generations behinds the APG-81 in terms of capability.


Do you have detection ranges?

The -77 is supposed to be good for 200+km vs. a 1 m^2 target.

The Irbis is supposed to be good for 400+km versus a 3m^2 target.
What's your sources?, because last I checked the 77 can detect a 3m^2 target from 240km


[edit on 5-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I don't know why I'm bother, because it is quite obvious you cannot see past the Lockheed press releases and perform any sort of critical review of what you read.


"Lockheed press releases"? If you have any information showing Jon Beasley and countless other pilots to be liars, please by all means... Otherwise I think the people who actually fly the F-35 and F-22 on a daily basis have a pretty good idea of what each jet is capable of. And yes, most senior officers, including career pilots, are honorable men who are just proud of the machine they operate. If you are uneasy about what these people have to say then I think the problem might be on your end. They are the ultimate authority, not Carlo, not RAND or some half assed Wiki article. I'm surprised you would even attempt to compare the APG-77/79/81 to a PESA, and even post figures no less! I'm not even going to entertain that.

Link (Scroll Bottom)

Just so you know, I don't presume your information comes from some impartial omniscient third party source.



Originally posted by kilcoo316
Weapons? Really?


Yes, really. There is more to weapons than maximum paper facts, but I digress. This is not as relevant as to who employs the weapons and in what manner.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Learn from your mistakes and quit wheeling out Lockheed PR as gospel.


Point out my mistakes, and your deflective responses are really wearing thin. Remember I was around when the Raptor could supposedly not maneuver and go above Mach 1.5 in super cruise. I have no problem waiting until IOC to see people do double takes.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Do you have detection ranges?


Even if we had accurate figures, which we don't, they mean very little when you consider them in isolation. The actual scenario of an air to air conflict is much much more intricate and dynamic. I trust you at least give me the benefit of doubt and don't assume I post without thinking something out.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
(I've done a quick calc on it, and am surprised by how much the Irbis outclasses the APG-77)


How can you say this with a straight face? Serious question now.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Which do diddly squat unless you have them active = noise.


Besides the APG-81, which has LPI (but you don't believe in that either), all the other sensors are passive.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Which do diddly squat if the other guy is using passive detectors (IRST or offboard).


Fighter IRST systems in isolation are not that combat effective, several reasons for this. And off-board sources open up a much more longer discussion.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Carries much more fuel, carries another engine, carries more missiles.


That sentence is self contradicting. How can a heavier fighter, with significantly more drag, with two engines and lower T/W ratio have more persistence? AA-1 (not the weight modified variant) still handles and accelerates impressively with full internal weapons and fuel load, as evident by the clean (one centerline tank) chase F-16s. It will be able to super cruise, not at or above Mach 1.5, but enough to matter. Throw in external tanks (they reduce no advantage) and or tankers then we can talk about persistence. In any case, a C-130 may have more persistence, however if it can't achieve a winning kill ratio against advance air and ground threats, it becomes a nice statistic.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeah... because you go into a WVR fight with all your missiles on the rails and full fuel tanks.


Kinematic performance does not only matter in WVR. The Su-35 will be target at long ranges where it is most vulnerable due to lack of SA and the above mentioned physical limitations.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Ah, this old chestnut again. The F-35 will have all the offboard sensors of the day to fuse together to provide a complete tactical picture.


I firmly believe SA is the single most important factor when it comes to efficiency and success in today's modern aerial battlefield. Not only is this a historical fact but common sense. One can have the best performing aircraft, yet if they have no idea about what's going on around them it wont be too long before that story comes to a non happy ending.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeap... because Lockheed are going to shoot their only seller (with the F-22 sales ban) down by saying its crap.


Wearing even thinner now. Indeed it is advantageous to the many many first class air forces who will select the F-35, to have a terrible aircraft. And these first class air forces and their brilliant personnel are so easily swindled by Lockheed, even when they have pilots flying the machine. Yes, clearly these nations and their top level personnel who are aware of every single fact and capability of the F-35 program are wrong. Clearly RAND, Carlo and other third party sources are right. Clearly Lockheed, and all the subcontractors, who have a reputation for crappy aircraft and systems, cannot deliver. Must be nice to live so blissfully and harp about critical reading.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Ach, this old chestnut again. The F-35 will have all the offboard sensors of the day to fuse together to provide a complete tactical picture.

Meanwhile the other team has 2 or 3 fellas on the ground pointing at contrails and getting on the radio.



You HAVE to be kidding here. You SERIOUSLY think that they can come up with a plane with an RCS the size of the F-22 and F-35, and they're not going to do anything about it leaving contrails?
They can come up with all this advanced tech but can't do anything about a contrail?



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Zap, I think you and westy missed the point about that sentence (unless you are being ironic) as westy cut the important part from his quote.

SA is exactly as westy says, but the way I read it (and agree with) is that there seems to be an assumption from the US side that the other side wont be doing exactly the same. The USA is not alone in appreciating the importance of situational awareness and in making huge efforts to make sure it happens. The USA has a big lead in the area, for sure, but these things tend to even out over time. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction remember. And if you are talking about taking on nations of equal stature rather than just being the playground bully, you should expect them to be trying to do the same to you.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yeah, there was some irony there. I just typed it up after a long long day at work and very early in the morning.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
And, lo, our hero swoops in once again to save the day by being a royal pain in the ass!

Just kidding. I would never be a pain in the ass to save the day. It's entirely for my own entertainment.


Originally posted by waynos
The USA is not alone in appreciating the importance of situational awareness and in making huge efforts to make sure it happens.


I'm going to go ahead and agree with the situational awareness being vital to winning battles. How could you win a situation you're unaware of? Anyway, my idiocy aside, I'll also give a nod to the Americans having a lead on getting said situational awareness. Ground-based radar, ship-based radar, AWACS, satellites, GPS, and so on. All ways of getting information about the situation, and it's all pretty vital to getting the big picture.

However, waynos is correct. A big assumption that tends to come up here is that the Americans are the only ones putting any sort of priority on situational awareness, and it's not a valid one to make. If situational awareness didn't matter, why put a massive, power-sucking beast that is the Irbis-E on the Su-35? Why put the advanced OLS on the MiG-35? Why put datalinks into aging aircraft? Why remove their dependency on GCI altogether? Obviously someone here understands the need to get information about the situation to pilots.

One thing I particularly want to talk about is the GCI I just mentioned. Traditionally, the Soviet and Russian air defense systems were based around just that: defending the air. Emphasis on defending. Just look at their forces. While North America said that dedicated interceptors were obsolete long, long ago with the rise of ICBMs, the USSR and Russia today still have reasonably modern dedicated interceptors (MiG-25 Foxbat, MiG-31 Foxhound). Despite claims of North America, they're still very much effective when someone is moving aircraft toward you with the intent of exploding you to death. But they're not terribly effective on offense. Maybe some long-range high-value asset whacking, but AWACS and tankers are pretty much always wearing a big "kick me in the asset" sign which can be replied to by any other A2A aircraft anyway. But hopefully you can see the point here: Russia's strategy implies that the conflict will be taking place near or over the homeland.

With that little conclusion in mind it makes sense that their aircraft would have depending on GCI for so long. It was available and did the job. Interestingly enough, though, GCI depends on ground-based installations. I would personally speculate that the large amount of progress made on new SAM sites (S-300 and derivatives, S-400 currently being deployed) is a relic of this ground-based defense system. While obviously this system is not something you can just plop down over enemy territory a la airborne radar, it does function perfectly well while defending one's own country without going to other countries to do it. Consider, then, the density and quality of Russian SAM sites which could contribute to situational awareness. Add to this the dedicated ground-based radar systems which will be keeping tabs on the airspace. That's not a bad picture of situational awareness when you stack on GLONASS and AWACS platforms run by the Russian Air Force.

So to those who assume that the United States will instantaneously have a complete perfect picture of the situation, all in wonderful widescreen HD with 7.1 surround sound and Dolby Digital Audio: you may not be the only ones.


Pr0


[edit on 12/6/2008 by Darkpr0]



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join