Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Backman wrote:Its just funny that at the same time, they are quietly reintroducing a 4th gen aircraft in the F-15x.
nemrod, Hole and Backman like this post
They start a new and updated f-15EX not the old one. Just like su-35 on your picture is an highly updated su-27.
nemrod likes this post
It was an abject lie made by US leaders because they never hesitated in the past to produce as long as it is possible all means to reach air supremacy. It was planned to replace all F-14, F-15, F-111's fleet with the F-22. The F-16, A-10, Harrier's fleet with F-35. It was planned to build around 2.000 F-22, but when they realized that the S-400's radar can detect any stealth, they decided to stop the F-22 by 10% of their initial plans.GarryB wrote:
The US plan was to replace all their F-15Cs with F-22s but that ended when the cold war ended, so plan B...
Indeed, because Russians more than any others understood quickly the uselessness -around the 70's- of stealth aircraft, the best example was during the Serbian war in 1999. When 2 F-117 and one B-2 were downed. Recently, last year when Iran attacked US air basis in the Middle East they sent a fleet of F-22, and F-35 to retaliate, when US realized that their fighters were all detected, US leaders decided to give up any retaliation against Iran. Iran detected stealth aircraft with Chinese, and Russian radars origin.GarryB wrote:
The Russian plan was to upgrade existing fighters... Su-27 and MiG-29 ...The Russian plan was to upgrade the fleet and introduce some stealth aircraft to see if it has value and is worth the cost.
Backman and Kiko like this post
nemrod wrote:It was an abject lie made by US leaders because they never hesitated in the past to produce as long as it is possible all means to reach air supremacy. It was planned to replace all F-14, F-15, F-111's fleet with the F-22. The F-16, A-10, Harrier's fleet with F-35. It was planned to build around 2.000 F-22, but when they realized that the S-400's radar can detect any stealth, they decided to stop the F-22 by 10% of their initial plans.
nemrod, zepia and lancelot like this post
Backman likes this post
lancelot wrote:F-35 is not in the class of F-16. The engine has a lot more power output. Thus the maximum usable payload is higher.
The main problem with the F-35 in my opinion is how it was designed for the air support mission. It can't supercruise properly and it has limited agility compared with modern aircraft.
The first batches had trouble competing with an F-16 in clean configuration let alone an aircraft with thrust vectoring or with canards.
The F-22 has severe issues with maintenance costs as does the B-2. They are not cost effective aircraft. F-35 is supposed to be more cost effective. But no one knows the long term costs of the platform. Also the first batches of F-35 are basically unusable for frontline service and will quite likely end up either as either trainers or in rear guard duty.
Now that Russia has multiple layers of radar networks at long wavelengths I think it is pretty much safe from stealth aircraft.
kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18. So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.
The F-35 is a committee design
Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.
LMFS wrote:kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18. So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.
I don't know why this notion has spread so much, the F-35 has much more fuel than any F-18, at least internally:
F/A-18C: 4930 kg
F/A-18E: 6667 kg
F-35A: 8278 kg
Having a huge engine and weapons ways in parallel with it, the cross section is very big and that allows to accommodate a lot of fuel. At least they were smart enough to take that advantage from the design compromises they made.
The F-35 is a committee design
Yeah this is maybe the shortest and most precise way of defining it. Politics grew so large in this program that no amount of money or ingenuity could save it... absolutely contradictory requirements in the same plane just for the sake of making it too big to fail and an endless money source for a nation wide welfare system. As Gandhi (supposedly) said, in the world there is wealth for everybody's needs, but not for everybody's greed... that pretty much defines the differences between Russian and US MICs I think.
LMFS wrote:Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.
The "fat" factor is relevant in supersonic, not so much in subsonic flight. The wings with little sweep are actually the best to generate lift and the loading similar to a F-16, so not very good but not bad either. The plane is well thought by the engineers that received the order to design it, it was just political level that screwed them with requirements impossible to reconcile in the same aircraft.
Isos wrote:I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.
From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.
And since it carries only 4 AA missiles you can easily beat it with 4th gen fighter equiped with good jammers.
kvs wrote:So I am just another MSM lemming
Isos wrote:...
And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.
This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.
GarryB wrote:Its problem is the jack of all trades problem when you try to get it to do too many things.
The replacement of the harrier was the death blow.
The body shape to allow a large internal fan means it is chunky where it should be sleek.
LMFS... it was not that long ago we were discussing single engine or twin engine for light fighters and you seemed to suggest a single engined fighter can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with much better aerodynamics...
they should have made two types that had different body shapes... one subsonic VSTOL and one supersonic and a real fighter.
lancelot wrote:Isos wrote:...
And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.
This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.
The AIM-9X Block II is supposed to have "lock-on after launch" capability via a datalink.
But AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet. Also the AIM-9X failed miserably in Syria.
I think you can have a single engine stealth fighter with decent agility and performance.
They just had to not put the space for the large vertical lift fan in the center of the aircraft.
The fan establishes a minimum section but that alone is not the main problem. It removes the prime location for the weapons bays, centered and before the engine, so they need to be taken to the sides of the main engine, massively increasing the cross sectional area, in turn demanding a bigger engine in turn increasing weight etc. Then payload requirements were increased. Additional requirements about max size for the lifts of carriers and the fact that the fan needs to compensate for the power of the engine forced to the engine forward, further making a fuselage which is short and thick.
Smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better aero than F-35, no doubt. That is why I made my layout exercise and I stand by what I got. The main lesson is to keep cross sectional area down, bays in front of the engine and to satisfy the unquestionable weight/volume increase demands of the 5G (weapons bays & range) by extending the middle section of the fuselage. Maybe my model is too ambitious in terms of payload but I think it is a workable approach while F-35 is a fighter just in the name.
Or they should have waited for the unmanned version where cockpit can be substituted by the fan with great advantages of all orders. Bays return to its right position, lifting force is taken forward as much as possible, allowing the main engine in turn to move rearwards too. That solves most of the problems with the STOVL layout or at least reduces its downsides to the unavoidable volume and weight needed for the lifting devices without further compromising other aspects of the plane.
Modern jet will detect the launch of the missile directly in dogfight situation and release automatically flares.
Lock on after launch increase the probability that the missile locks onto flares. The pilot can't know what the missiles is locking onto. The locking will happen with the flares around.
Locking before launch means you are sure to lock on the real target and it's easier to keep the track.
F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.
From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.
x_54_u43 dislikes this post
RTN wrote:F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.
From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.
For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.
Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ
RTN wrote:For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter
Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.
Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ
magnumcromagnon likes this post
I don't think you have evidence to say that Russians are afraid to do single engines due to the low technology of their engines, there are plenty of examples of recent Russian fighters that were using or planned to use just one engine.
Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece. In any case, Putin says the Su-57 is the best fighter in the world, so what?
From 10:45.LMFS wrote: Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece.
Why do you think Russians have better philosophy?Isos wrote: I'm not saying they have better technology, only better philosophy.
Off the shelf price yes. But Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) of Russian fighter, helos is almost 2x as expensive as western ones. Russian after sales support is below average compared to U.S and Germany.Isos wrote:Rafale is 3 times more expensive than a sukhoi and is doing all the tasks that 3 or 4 russian jets do.
How does that help? Unless you want to spend 3x more money on servicing these Sukhois. Rafale is a beast. It has EW systems a generation ahead of anything that Su 35 has.Isos wrote:I would better love to have 3 sukhoi than 1 rafale.
x_54_u43 dislikes this post
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS