It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


F-22 and F-35 superiority

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And Emile, I made no mention on oil so why bring it into the conversation?

I quite comprehanded what does your mean in this post:

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Right, so you're going to sacrifice loiter time?

The difference between mil power and afterburner at that distance is that afterburner will hinder the amount of time the aircraft has to fight. No only is supersonic speeds getting you there faster and at the same time, but also you have more time to fight.

Sure you can kill all your fuel for the sake of the argument, but in the end it's not worth it. If afterburner was the same as super cruise, why invest in super cruise?

The difference between a Trent 900 and a PW-119 is the type of engines they are and what they're used for. You of all people should know that such an analogy doesn't work in this situation. Why compare an airliner high-bypass engine with a military turbo-jet? Because of the thrust rating?

Shattered OUT...

Yes, supersonic speed without afterburner used means less fuel comsume, but the key here is cruise with supersonic, no matter you use afterburner or not. Remember Ruusia is not an indigent oil nation.
As many time we concerned, that Max combat radius of F-22 is not with its super cruise, so the super cruise only can be defined as supersonic with enough loite time. So we have to ask, how long will be enough? 15 min.? 20 min.? or 30 min.? This is not the way to define a glossary or specification. That's why the F-22 is not a genuie super cruise fighter/aircraft compare with SR-71 or Concord.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:42 AM
very funny, before here I saw F-35 was changed its stealth to low observability, now I saw a new definition was called marginal super cruise

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:39 AM

Originally posted by C0bzz
Could I ask a question?

Can four Su-30s band together with there four radars to detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges? I've been searching and searching and searching, and all I've found was the mini-awacs feature.


Hmm, interesting thought there....

Like an airborne multistatic radar "system" [the system comprising the 4 transmitters and 4 recievers, one of each on the 4 aircraft].

Thus, with four different emitter points and 4 different reciever points, the effectiveness of a LO airframe in deflecting radar energy away from a transmitter is reduced somewhat (as it will only deflect radar wave 1 away from radar emitter/reciever 1, and possibly towards recievers 2,3 & 4).

However, I am not aware of any systems that currently work in this way, although it may be a future development.

edit: Just to clarify - a pukka multistatic approach WILL increase range against VLO targets, and will increase resolution.

I'm not a software engineer by any means, so this is a bit outside my area - I see two approaches to the problem:

1. Share all raw radar info between all fighters in the group, which would require a datalink with much more bandwidth than is currently possible.

2. Share all the (friendly) aircraft's exact position in time, and their exact radar states at that moment in time (i.e. frequency, mode, scan direction etc). By using radarwaves variable with time (i.e. the emitted waves vary in time), it should be possible to match any returns to the aircraft the original wave came from.

Using the wave characteristic/time variance, the position of the original aircraft when it sent out the initial radarscan can be determined, and thus the detected aircraft's position.

It may also be possible to overlay the recieved 'picture' from the 4 different emitted wavelengths - thus even though the returns from radars 1, 2, 3 & 4 don't provide enough returns individually to register an aircraft, collectively they may well do.

But, it would need some hardcore computer geeks to sort that all out

[edit on 3/9/07 by kilcoo316]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by emile
very funny, before here I saw F-35 was changed its stealth to low observability, now I saw a new definition was called marginal super cruise

afaik the british lightning had it aswell.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Willard856
Four radar focused on the one piece of airspace to detect a stealth platform doesn't make a lot of sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, the probability of detection doesn't change just because you have four radars looking at that piece of sky.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in explaining this, so it would be my fault. I'll try again.

Let us assume that for whatever reason you know the general direction and approximate range of whatever it happens to be. Let us also, for the sake of theory, assume that it is just inside maximum radar range. The radar on the aircraft is capable of returning a signal at that range, but the shape and other factors make the enemy aircraft less likely to be detected. Thus, you have a shot of detected a stealthed something at long range, possibly even outside missile range. However, that is all very unlikely.

Actually, it'd be much like the recent fabled Typhoon detecting the Raptor at very long range. It was most likely just a lucky shot in the dark, some radar return just happened to bounce right or something odd. But nonetheless, it does happen. And as you get closer and closer, these chances get more and more likely (since the waves aren't as spread out and are much more densely packed). And if you have four Flankers detecting at the same time, the chances get much higher (I think the figure was 15 times?) that a lucky detect will happen at longer range. It doesn't necessarily have to be kilometeres and kilometers past the average mark, but just something higher than average detect range.

Most modern radar operate in seperate channels anyway so that you don't interfere with your buddies returns, and vice versa. So the saturation theory is wrong too.

Well, by the saturation I really meant something more like: The presence of more radars looking for a particular aircraft makes detection more likely. The only reason I didn't say it like that was because I thought I'd be stating the obvious.

If a Slotback II detects an F-22 at X range, then for every other Slotback II (assuming same aspect, altitude, environmental conditions, power output etc) should also detect the F-22 at X miles.

Not really. It would depend on orientation of the F-22 relative to the radar, it would depend on orientation of the Flanker relative to the F-22, the angle at which you're facing the F-22, and so on. There are many, many different factors that all play a role in detection, but stealth is meant to decrease these factors to the point where detection is incredibly unlikely.

Also, the whole idea of focusing radars on a certain piece of airspace to detect a stealth aircraft suggests a level of knowledge of the location of that aircraft already. While there have been some advances in this area, it is far from perfected, and if four aircraft are all sanitising the same piece of airspace, there is a hell of a lot of sky that isn't being sanitised. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm not trying to say that it's a good idea, the question was if it happens, which is what I'm trying to answer.

But again, for this to be the case, the Flankers have to be focused on a certain piece of airspace, and breaking up your flight like that leaves you exposed, which generally isn't a good thing.

Yes, breaking would be a bad idea, but the theory was more for interest's sake. Although I imagine that you wouldn't necessarily need to break, perhaps another flight could enter the situation. But you are right, you generally wouldn't want to spread out so much in a combat situation.

Newer systems will address this limitation, but until they enter service, the above scenario isn't realistic. Where datalinking has its biggest advantage now is in enhancing situational awareness, and allowing non-voice tactical employment.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

Tactics are important. On fighter sweep we fly line-abreast, put two Su-35 60 km then Su-30MK 40 km more each side – see side radio reflections of Pidgeon and pass target location to shooter with best position.

Original Link

It appears as though they can pass the firing information along through the data link.

Ah, the mythical R-172. Once it enters service it will be a talking point, but until the Russians solve the myriad of targeting, flyout and carriage issues, the missile is nothing more than a paper tiger IMO.

If it's only a paper tiger, why are aircraft still made to support it?

Inter/Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL)

Thank you.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:40 PM
Seems like this Grisha is making a tidy sum for himself via aye?!

Anyways, Darkpro,

The ability to pass firing solutions through TKS-2 IFDL hav been around since the days of Cope India 04.Like the Good Col. said, the IAF Su-30MKIs have used eh very same system to pass firing solutions to a/c as lowly as the MiG-21 Bison (a good enough radar platform to fire the R-77AE).

I think that Willard was reffering to the ability to pass guidance data for a SARH missile(R-27ER etc) AFTER launch.
So like I said:

staggered echelon formation>>lead a/c gets firiing solution>>hands it down to tail a/c which launches in the general direction>> target spots echelon formation lead and launches BVR salvo>> lead breaks off and engages ECM manuevers while passing already launched SARH guidance to wingman.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think that Willard was reffering to the ability to pass guidance data for a SARH missile(R-27ER etc) AFTER launch.

Ah. That would be my bad.

I don't do R-27 stuff anyway

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:31 PM
Daedalus is correct, I was referring to a silent shooter scenario. Once two-way datalinking air to air missiles begin to proliferate, there will be some interesting new tactics evolving. But as far as I am aware, there is nothing that can achieve this now, except possibly for a lock after launch IR missile, where an emitting aircraft datalinks the target coordinates to a silent (EMCON) aircraft, who then fires a lock after launch IR missile from closer range. Daedalus, are you saying the R-27 does have the capacity to be guided by the non-firing aircraft in the scenario you painted?

Darkpr0, sorry, I was assuming your question was around the tactical utility of the scenario you presented, rather than a theoretical exercise. My bad. So with that in mind, and in my opinion, four Flankers with melded radar against a LO/VLO aircraft presenting the same aspect for all four Flankers won't have an increased probability of detection. Four Flankers sanitising the same piece of airspace from different aspects will have a higher probability of detection if the target aircraft is optimised for forward hemisphere RCS reduction, compared to the first scenario. But this is true even if there is only a singleton Flanker in the right position. But hey, I'm far from an EW expert, and the APG-73 isn't exactly the BARS...

As for the R-172, just because an aircraft can carry it doesn't been the missile works as advertised. It is a great idea, but until it becomes operational, it is paper tiger. Like the numerous versions of AA-12 that people keep bringing up (Carlo has a lot to answer for).

Speaking of Carlo, and the good Colonel's articles on Aus Air Power that Daedalus refers to, a bigger load of twaddle I haven't read in a very long time. The articles display a total absence of understanding of modern tactical air combat. The only thing he got partially right was the fact that Australia's ground based air defence capability sucks big time. And even that was only partially right as the Rapiers are no longer in service in Australia, leaving us with the almighty RBS-70 to defend us. How embarrassing (both the articles, and the Australian GBAD capability).

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:57 PM
The real story is in numbers and economics. I work for a Chinese company for over 10 years and their high tech industry is really bad off. The only thing they can do is copy stolen technology. They do not have the depth to create advanced technology alone. They have sleak designs (stolen), but internally they are a generation behind.

But they can produce in large numbers and beat you down by attrition like what the US did to Germany in WWII.

The Chinese beleive they are the supreme race, but those standing outside looking in say they are 2 steps behind the West at best. Environmentally they are in shambles. They are struggling with water supply, pollution and infastructure growing pains. They are too many people to control and there is little control of industry. During the Olympics this will be apparent to all, even though China is working hard to put on a good show. Just don't drink the water.

As for economics, China has the US by the "soft place". We keep buying their imports and they keep stockpiling the profits. In any confrontation, both country's will suffer, but China has the upper hand with $900b in US bonds in their vaults. I do not beleive in a direct CHINA/USA showdown militarily unless a Taiwan meldown occurs. The Pacific ocean makes a good buffer zone and China knows it would not survive a nuclear exchange with the US.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by eagledriver]

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Kr0n0s


I'll assume you meant Mig-29's and not Mig-25's. Although I don't think the Su-35 or Mig-29 would be a match for the F-22, I do think that Russia is the only potential enemy of the U.S. capable of fielding an aircraft that could compete with the Raptor in the near future

Lol, ya i tend to make more typos at 4 am than I normally do.
I did hear what Putin said about his hopes for the Russian Aircraft industry but he has a long ways to go if he wants to even catch up to Boeing and Lockheed.
Even the French Aribus's newest GIANT airliner, lost out to Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
Makes no differenct to me though because I dont and wont fly, when i go across country i drive.

Russia is making a very good comeback though. At one time they were just behind Mexico in their economy but they have made a remarkable recovery. I dont know how they did it so quick but knowing the Russians its probably a little shady

How could Airbus' newest GIANT airliner loose against Boeing's Dreamliner?????? If you really don't know what you are talking about, just don't say anything.

For staters, Airbus is not FRENCH, it's a european consortium.

As for the two aircrafts, they are two totally different planes intended for two totally different tasks. They are not playing in the same league at all, and therefore cannot be compared. One is a big carrier intended for Hub-to-Hub mass transport, and the other is a much smaller aircraft developped following the Point-to-Point philosophy.

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by wildcat
Highly unlikely, Russia can barely afford it's own future weapons research. Now China is a different story. They can afford building a new superior fighter craft and then sell it to Russia.

The problem is that Russia is sitting on vast Oil and Gas natural reserves, and with the current prices sky-rocketing, they are enriching themselves by the day... And since they are not investing much in welfare, they have a LOT of money to invest in military R&D...

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Fransje

You don't think Russia had a lot of money to invest in R&D during the cold war? Russia now is a shell of what they used to be. If they didn't have nukes, they wouldn't even have a seat on the world stage. All of you who say Russian tech is on par with American tech are living in a dream world.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:54 PM
Keep in mind that although what is known of Russia's Air Force is in shambles, that they (the Russians) too have their black world aircraft as well. Squabling over the F-22 vs Su-whatever is like monkeys arguing over banana's: useless.

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Vanguard223
You don't think Russia had a lot of money to invest in R&D during the cold war? Russia now is a shell of what they used to be. If they didn't have nukes, they wouldn't even have a seat on the world stage. All of you who say Russian tech is on par with American tech are living in a dream world.

Conveniently enough, the method used by Russia to advance their air force is more budget-efficient than the American solution, but doesn't take them as far as laying down hectares of cash does.

Recently it seems that the American method of working is to make new airframes relatively often (compared to Russia) and integrate newly discovered technologies and techniques. F-22, for example, is a massive advancement and yet only a couple of years after the latest new aircraft (Which I deem the F-18 E/F. Even though it is aerodynamically similar, we can all pretty well agree that its guts are so different as to be deemed a pretty big redesign). Yes, I'm aware that the F-18s are Navy, but the fact remains that it is an aircraft that did contribute to the advancement of aeronautic engineering, so I'd say that it counts in what we're looking at here. Ditto with the F-35, it's a massive change from the F-16. They're completely new airframes, and that takes wads of cash.

The problem is that this trick won't work for Russia who doesn't have the masses of money to work with. Instead, they opt for the optimization of airframes that are already pretty good. Not to say that the US doesn't do this of course, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 have all had their share of variants. But not quite in the way that the Flanker has. Not only did they get the Flanker up in the air in 1977, they are still making new variants of it for actual use. See the Su-35 BM. By now it'd be the Flanker G, and that's only considering the big, nasty upgrades that they've done to it. Look at all the variants since Su-27. You've got baseline Su-27, You've got the 27S, the UB/UBK, the 33, the 30 MK/MKx, the 32, the 34, the 35, the 37. All those are Flanker variants which have some sort of modification from the Su-27 that made them somewhat significant at one point or another. That's a lot of variants. Today we get the Su-35 which is the pinnacle Flanker and has some really nasty toys attached. How does this method compare? Well, it only works because Russia is slightly behind the time, but only by a little. Do they copy ideas? Sure. Of course they do. But so does everyone else. What this lets them do is make use of a pretty darn good airframe and keep it up-to-date by constantly changing the innards with stuff that works really well. Will a new Flanker knock off an F-22 like clubbing a baby seal? No, of course not. This method doesn't take them to singular superiority, but it does result in lower costs for R&D and therefore buying them. Which is good, because then they can afford the air force.

Don't knock Russian stuff. Just because they haven't got shiny, new airframes doesn't mean that their stuff is utterly inferior. It's a different solution to the same problem.

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:01 PM
Guys, Hi from Russia, nice to meet you.

Ohhh, english languige are not native to me, so please, forgive me mistakes in my posts.

Let me introduce myself first - i served in Russian Air Force in 1997-1999 and was aeromechanic there. I worked with Mi-8/17 and Mi-24 helicopters, but i always have interest to "everything, what can to fly".

I read this topic with great interest, and it's really weird to see so "low" opinion about fighters of "Su-27's family". Really here in Russia most of experts even doesnt look at Eurofighter as on serious opponent. We think only F-22 can to be serious opponent to Su-35. But IMHO its to early to think about F-22 as about "completed" structure.

And its really mistake to think about Su-35 as about "just serious modification of Su-27". Really its absolutely another plane, but its not fighter of 5th generation yet, of course (hehe... as F-22 too).

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Red-Troske]

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by Red-Troske

Welcome to ATS!

I agree with everything you said. Believe it or not, while the Su-35 probably can't match the F-22 in performance, the fact that its half the price makes it a very comparable aircraft.

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 01:32 AM
Welcome Red to the ATS forums.

I'm sure you'll find it very welcome here if you meet the right people.

Anyways, I'd have to say that the Su-35 definitely has it's strong points and I've always been a believer that an Su-35 with TVC could outmaneuver an F-22 in WVR combat simply because it's better suited to those parameters in some ways.

I have never put down the Su-27 family of aircraft, in fact my favorite aircraft of all time are among the Su-27's. However, the only problem with the Su-35 is that not enough has been produced to actually make a change, sadly no matter which way you look at it, unless the Su-35 has been produced in more numbers than just 11, it will never be a viable alternative to an advanced 4.5 generation Air Superiority fighter. Is it even for export?

Shattered OUT...

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 03:17 AM
BlackWidow23, ShatteredSkies, Hi. Nice to meet you!

Guys, you know, i really cannot to say directly about russian fighter of 5th generation. All news here, in Russia, more looks like as just rumors. Everything are so secret, but i suspect this plane will be introduced as surprise (as always...
). In foreign press i can see discuss about Su-47 (but really it's only "flying laboratory") and about MiG-1.44 (but its only flying laboratory too). Looks like russian fighter will be something absolutely another, and i really cannot to say nothing directly about it. But i can to say only one - we will wait not too long for this new monster.

If to say about Su-35 - its something like "unnecessary" plane in Russian Air Force. Of course, Su-35 are really awesome fighter, and serious possible opponent to most of NATO fighters, but its not that fighter what Russian pilots wants to have. Everybody waits here for "this new plane".

If to look to military doctrine of modern Russian Federation (ohh... many of people in Europe and in USA still thinks about Russia as about "almost Soviet Union") - we will see only deffensive strategy. Russia really have no enemies, and doesnt planning to attack nobody. USA needs exactly attack plane, what will invade in "enemy sky". Russians now need to have fighter what will work with active contact with SAM deffencive structure. Su-27, Su-27K, Su-30 and Su-34 - its best planes for it. They havent "best" RSC, but they are extremely manuverable, fast and their weapon are best in World. But its not best planes to invade to the sky of another country. Soviet Union built this "absolute agressor" in the end of 1980th - it was MiG-31, but (thanks God, at last!) commies was kicked and MiG-31 becamed another unnecessary plane too. Of course, its really outstanding interceptor, nobody untill now didnt created nothing like it, but in modern Russian Air Force it has no place.

I'm alfraid - but russian fighter of 5th generation will be "new MiG-31", but it will be "invisible" (i suspect minimum RCS as 0.0005m2 (meters quadrant), and much more fast than F-22. I really dont know why hell Russia need plane like this. Who against? We are not USA, and we doesnt need to attack nobody (we have enough of our own problems here)!

If to say about JSF F-35 - we dont need to do a much to "answer" on this plane. Its really funny story for all russians, but all engine-power structure of F-35 was copied from russian seal fighter Yak-141 (Yak-43, Yak-41). Look at here:
And here:
Really yankee placed in F-35 their own engine, but all jet-power structure of F-35 are russian.
Russians just presented idea of this tructure to USA. Some of people here says it was something like "your move! I'll watch what you will do, and my move will be after you" (nice plan, isn't it?
As i know, russian military-aero bureau now wants "to add" some ideas in F-35 becourse USA constructors cannot to create serial F-35 - they needs our help, and they will get it. And after it we will introduce to World something better than F-35, i sure (its not too good to let to USA to pay billions for development of new fighter, and to kick them with better fighter - we want to build new better plane for us only). As always.

P.S. Guys, i awaiting for your answers!

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Red-Troske]

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 07:22 AM

However, the only problem with the Su-35 is that not enough has been produced to actually make a change, sadly no matter which way you look at it, unless the Su-35 has been produced in more numbers than just 11,

Shattered, I don't know if you are already aware of this or not but there is only one Su-35 so far. It is confusing but Sukhoi have re-used the Su-35 designation and the current one is is a brand new variant that only flew a month or so ago, it is not the Su-35 of old that has been demonstrated over the last few years. Heck, I'm not even sure I understand it fully myself yet and I am not sure what the differences actually are, but Sukhoi is pushing it as an 'all-new' member of the Flanker family.

Red Troske, welcome along. Your Yak/F-35 piece is a bit like the BAe/Boeing Harrier story. ie we invent it, let them improve it, then we get it back again

Of course that is all way too simplistic to be entirely accurate but I cannot see how Lockheed are contacting Russia for help in improving the F-35? (if that is what you were saying - I take on board fully that English is not your first language).

It is however true that Lockheed used Yaks nozzle vectoring concept while the Boeing X-32 incorporated the British idea of side mounteed vectoring nozzles adapted from the Harrier, but hidden away in normal flight on the X-32.

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Welcome to ATS!

I agree with everything you said. Believe it or not, while the Su-35 probably can't match the F-22 in performance, the fact that its half the price makes it a very comparable aircraft.

According to the numbers i last heard the Su-35 ( first flew in 85/88) goes for 35- 40 or so million dollars and while i am not sure what the production models of the 'BM' version will go for you have to be blind, deaf and stupid not to be able to buy 3 or more generation 4-5 ( with same general flight specs) for the 'best' ( it will cost you a fortune more when you finally get it and then even more to make it live up to it's design specs) priced F-22.

I would take the 3 or 4( more likely 6 ) SU-35's most days of the week but i suppose this is the type of lunacy a government can get away with when they have succeeded in making people believe that you can win without ever having to present yourself ( 'stealth') as a target. Right, and good luck with that.


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in