LMFS wrote: Backman wrote:There is some of the data out there. But if you take the su 35's data and then extrapolate that the su 57 is lighter, smaller and more powerful, with better kinimatics, then you can start to make some assumptions about the performance vs the F-35
We don't really have the weight of the plane. VLO design is heavy in general. I can personally agree on some assumptions but I would not turn them into dogma because we might be wrong. Who would say that a plane with same size as F-15, the F-22, weights 7 tons more, empty?
My take, based on evidence I consider solid:
> STOL performance: yes, confirmed by designers and plane spec., F-35 does not have that.
> Rate of climb: not known but for some claimed data (384 m/s IIRC) which I don't know if were official
> Service ceiling: unknown but likely higher than F-35
> Acceleration: subsonic is not so clear, F-35 is claimed to accelerate faster in that regime than Su-35 and the numbers look good, its very powerful engine and smallish wing area with little sweep help there. Su-57 has a bit more power than Su-35 but the verdict ultimately depends on weight and drag, which we cannot calculate accurately. Supersonic: I really hope the Su-57 is not as bad as the F-35, which sucks in that regard.
> Turn rates: we have not seen the Su-57 being flown as hard as the Su-35 for instance, for this I think we have at least solid values on ITR from airshows. The Americans came up with their "Dojo's drift" BS maneuver by which they accelerate the plane and then pull the stick as hard as it gets and then some more... and still the turn rate is like half, at best, of what we have seen the Su-35 doing on some isolated occasions. STR is not really known
> Post-stall: the F-35 has this capability too, despite US mocking Russians for developing it in the first place. Obviously with fewer control surfaces and without TVC it cannot compete in that regard.
> Supercruise: current capability is unclear, as there are claims about the F-35 too.
> Range/ endurance: Su-57 should have the range of the Flanker, all being normal. But the plane is a bit smaller in some dimensions, there are different opinions as to whether it has the same fuel. The F-35 is not bad in that regard, ca. 2800 km on internal fuel is quite nice for a plane its size. It almost matches Su-30/33
> 8+ t claimed for the F-35, actually more than a Su-35 or even Su-34. It will probably need more runway than a transport plane to take off in those conditions, but that is what they say. Internal capacity: the Su-57 wins hands-down.
Also, many of those values depend on the engine so the second stage should be way ahead of the current planes.
Good points.
A couple things though. On weight, the su 57 is a clear winner vs the su 35. the su 57 uses more composite material. The vertical stabilizers are mostly composite. They are tiny as well.
And I also think that the LEVCON's and the all-moving verticals haven't been close to exploited, air performance wise by the pilots. Once the pilots get acquainted with the su 57, there's no reason to think that it wont do everything that the su 35 does except better plus some new tricks up its sleeve.
The list that the picture i posted was made by a F-16 .net poster by the name of Fastestbird. He made the point in the F-35 vs Pak fa thread. Its a good long thread with many good points made in it. Fastestbird made the list 3/4 of the way down this page. Edit aw i cant post links yet On the 7 day probation period. Just add the www and paste it http://.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&sid=1215022957e56a0976f9d01f896aa832&start=1125
He also posted 2 videos which he uses to try and prove some of the points about the performance of the jets. Its worth a look.
Some of Fastestbirds evidence for his claims
Here you can see PAK FA chief test pilot comparing PAK FA with Su-35S.
Su-35S is drastically upgraded Su-27. Far more maneuverable, with better thrust to weight ratio, TVC engines etc. He said that the acceleration on that plane is great. For example, when we look at the official data, Su-35S has 8% better acceleration time than base Su-27 from 600 to 1100km/h while at the same time having 1050kg of fuel more (Su-35S-5750kg vs Su-27-4700kg).
In contrast to Su-35S, PAK FA has more powerful engines, better T/W ratio, greater wing surface/lower wing loading, better acceleration/climb rate, better turning characteristics, in essence significantly better than Su-35S according to test pilot Сергей Богдан.
And all that using interim engines. Final version of the engine will have 15 to 25% higher thrust, lower specific fuel consumption and about 30% lower specific weight according to manufacturer.
Regarding climb rate and subsonic/transonic/supersonic acceleration.
Is there any chance that plane (F-35) with lower T/W ratio, higher wing loading, worse L/D ratio, fixed intakes, can perform better than the plane (PAK FA) with superior characteristics in that field?
I don`t think so.
PAK FA is F-22 class fighter that is designed to fly very high and fast (did I mentioned that variable intakes help a lot). It is also designed to supercruise at speeds that are probably higher than F-35 top speed, it is designed to "live" there for a long period of time. There is great SEP reserve compared to F-35 in supersonic region when PAK FA is using burners. When F-35 has no more SEP at 1,6 Mach, PAK FA continues accelerating to +2 Mach. This is clear indication of superior transonic/supersonic acceleration.
Regarding maneuverability.
F-35 is often compared to clean F-16 block 50 regarding agility/maneuverability. Pilots like USAF Lt Col Lee Kloos are saying that F-35's acceleration is "very comparable" to a Block 50 F-16 and it probably is, but mostly in subsonic region. The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."
So that’s certainly not the configuration by which the two aircraft should be compared. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Instead, it is a much better comparison with the usual configurations Kloos and other F-16 pilots used in combat. And in that configuration, per Kloos, the F-35 outperforms the F-16.
In other words F-16 block 50 would be very dangerous for F-35 in guns only scenario. Start putting some missiles and F-35 takes the advantage. And I do agree. That is absolutely more realistic scenario! The problem here is we are not comparing F-35 to F-16, we are comparing F-35 to PAK FA.
For the argument sake, let say that F-35 can mach F-16 block 50 in turning game with guns only.
We know that the PAK FA is much more capable plane than basic Su-27 and upgraded Su-35S.
Now let`s compare base Su-27 and F-16 block 50.
Flight manual data - Sea level, 50% of fuel:
F-16 block 50 has 24,8°/s ITR and 21,5°/s STR
Su-27 has 30,2°/s ITR and 21,75°/s STR
We can see that Su-27 has the edge and at the same time has greater range (it has better fuel fraction). In order to have the same range as F-16, Su-27 would need about 38% of fuel. In that case Su-27 would have about 32,4°/s ITR and 22,7°/s STR.
Start putting weapons on both planes and F-16 suffers even more because for the same amount of payload smaller plane will have proportionally higher increase in wing loading and drag.
How does F-35 compare to PAK FA with all the things above in mind?
Not good!
As we already know PAK FA is superior to Su-27 and we can see that Su-27 is superior to F-16 block 50.
Again, start putting weapons on F-35 and PAK FA and the gap between the two widens. The smaller plane with worse wing loading suffers even more with the same amount of payload and at height.
When talking about nose pointing/supermaneuverability there is no contest!
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
thegopnik
USAF pilots are trained not to choke under pressure, but F-22A's make them choke anyway. 
