By: mabie
- 23rd May 2010 at 13:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are 10 years away from 2020 and I can already see this......
I think the only sure thing about the jet is its got good aerodynamics.. all the rest have to be proven/demonstrated and are really speculative at this point.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 23rd May 2010 at 13:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It really looks like low drag got priority over agility this time, unlike Su-27.
New
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku
- 23rd May 2010 at 14:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: dionis
- 23rd May 2010 at 19:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cant you read? I said the thread was speculation! I dint claim to post the most accurate stats but ASKED for an informed opinion. ****** Look I think this board would be a better place if we did NOT have people barging in insulting people. your attitude is not necessary. I have edited my post so as not to flame.
What informed opinions are you looking for? Some LM or Sukhoi engineer that wants to be put away for treason? Or some eyeball-RCS radar testing from keypub expert? SERIOUSLY.
Want some more likely to be true facts? Here.
T-50:
-More weapons onboard than F-35.
-Ability to use larger weapons.
-Better radar coverage (multiple radars) and larger radar = highly likely better A2A engagement capabilities.
-Likely far faster both max and mil thrust. At least some advantage here is a given to the T-50.
-Longer range.
-Thrust vectoring allows for enhanced maneuverability.
F-35:
-Carries SDB which allows for good "small time" ops like counter-terror
--But SDB isn't exactly something that can't be created by someone else.
That's about as educated as any "opinion" gets here.
By: haavarla
- 23rd May 2010 at 20:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Otaku;1584435]It's also a style icon...
Sure is Otaku:)
One has to give credit where credit is due..
It sort of groving on me as more pics coming in.
Thanks
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 23rd May 2010 at 22:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyway in my very un-educated opinion ( compared to other folks here who are actually involved in the aviation field), i too fail to see how the F-35 LO shaping is better than T-50's, i meen look how many bumps the F-35 has on it , bumps in the intake , bumps for cannon and heat exchanger , bumps under the fuselge and wing roots , bumps for the tail-hook( on F-35A/B i'm not talking about C!), the shape of the fins , the amount of angle alignment on the front part ...they apply REDUCTION measures for these bumps , they use serrated panels on the airframe& engine petals and so forth...and they use that "magical" composite skin impregnated RAM...but will this be enough?
Educated eyes see it differently than you. :)
You are comparing a prototype airframe to a prodction airframe, you can bet that the production T-50/PAK FA will see some noticeable changes from the prototype (just as there were from YF-22 to F-22A & X-35 to F-35) - some of which are likey to improve stealth, some that are likley not to.
'Bumps' in and of themselve are not as big a deal as you seem to think - but they have to be purposefully shaped & structured (just like everything else)...
By: Aurel
- 23rd May 2010 at 23:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if the T-50 and F-35 both perform as advertised I would like to have them both in my airforce, as part of an high/low mix.
The Russian have way more expertise in IR sensors and missiles, the US in LPI radar modes and rcs reduction measures. Oh and I would like to have Swedish datalinks on both of them.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd May 2010 at 23:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as has been posted, the russians have said their goal is an rcs of 0.5
I have done a bit of research about it, looks like they are talking overall RCS figure, whatever that means, something like integral value from all angles? Certainly does not allow for extraction of frontal aspect RCS of the bird, at least I cannot start much with it.
By: Erkokite
- 24th May 2010 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have done a bit of research about it, looks like they are talking overall RCS figure, whatever that means, something like integral value from all angles? Certainly does not allow for extraction of frontal aspect RCS of the bird, at least I cannot start much with it.
Perhaps an average of RCS over all angles. Keep in mind they give 0.3 m^2 for the F-22, which is not consistent with data on its frontal RCS. Or who knows? Maybe they are referring to a worst case angle, but I think this is unlikely as it would give too much indication of the aircraft's weaknesses. Perhaps the most likely explanation of all is that the number is completely made up as misinformation.
By: Adrian_44
- 24th May 2010 at 03:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re: T-50 versus the F-35
The T-50 is a competitor to the F-22 -an air superiority aircraft, while the F-35 is an attack aircraft. It has a slightly larger RCS from the direct front but, from the sides it has a lower RCS than the F-22. A typical apples versus oranges debate.
The F-35 borrowed heavily upon the technology from the F-22 program. While it doesn't have stealth through materials, it does use techniques the F-22 does not use to reduce the RCS. Things such as protecting the gap between the fuselage and access panels has wire embedded in the edge of the two sections to prevent the foreign radar signal from entering the gap and being reflected back to the point of signal origin. Other places where stealth can not be used like the F-22, the F-35 has wire grids, layers electrically charged (at different voltages) to prevent from penetrating the aircraft's skin, reflecting off the insides of the aircraft, back out to the point of signal origin. The F-35 is tremendously different from the F-22 in philosophy of reduction of RF energy. Some parts of the F-35 are similar to parts of the B-2 in RF reduction techniques. The cost of maintenance of the F-35 is far less than that of the F-22. The cost of maintenance of the F-22 is less than the F-15! One reason so many countries are putting up with the crap associated with the F-35's development is because its operational cost is so much less than other aircraft for the life of the program.
Janes Book of Aircraft (the big annual book) has some great articles on the F-35 aircraft and the program.
By: exec
- 24th May 2010 at 08:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have done a bit of research about it, looks like they are talking overall RCS figure, whatever that means, something like integral value from all angles? Certainly does not allow for extraction of frontal aspect RCS of the bird, at least I cannot start much with it.
According to Sukhoi, the FGFA will have a radar cross section (RCS) that will be 40 times less than that of the Su-30MKI. While the Su-30MKI has an RCS of about 20 square metres, the FGFA will display an RCS of 0.5 square metres, making it almost invisible to enemy radar.
We know that Flanker's frontal RCS is about 20 m2.
So - do you think that they are comparing frontal RCS of the Flanker with 'overall' RCS of the PAK-FA? Doesn't make much sense.
By: TooCool_12f
- 24th May 2010 at 08:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The T-50 is a competitor to the F-22 -an air superiority aircraft, while the F-35 is an attack aircraft. It has a slightly larger RCS from the direct front but, from the sides it has a lower RCS than the F-22. A typical apples versus oranges debate.
The F-35 borrowed heavily upon the technology from the F-22 program. While it doesn't have stealth through materials, it does use techniques the F-22 does not use to reduce the RCS. Things such as protecting the gap between the fuselage and access panels has wire embedded in the edge of the two sections to prevent the foreign radar signal from entering the gap and being reflected back to the point of signal origin. Other places where stealth can not be used like the F-22, the F-35 has wire grids, layers electrically charged (at different voltages) to prevent from penetrating the aircraft's skin, reflecting off the insides of the aircraft, back out to the point of signal origin. The F-35 is tremendously different from the F-22 in philosophy of reduction of RF energy. Some parts of the F-35 are similar to parts of the B-2 in RF reduction techniques. The cost of maintenance of the F-35 is far less than that of the F-22. The cost of maintenance of the F-22 is less than the F-15! One reason so many countries are putting up with the crap associated with the F-35's development is because its operational cost is so much less than other aircraft for the life of the program.
Janes Book of Aircraft (the big annual book) has some great articles on the F-35 aircraft and the program.
little correction, you should say:
"the operational costs is expected to be less".. for now, the only thing certain is that the aircraft is late and costlier than expected... how much it will cost and how it will perform is just speculations for now, as it's still in development stages
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 24th May 2010 at 09:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GAO expected cost per flight hour now exceeds that of the F-16 legacy fighter,
one of the aircraft it is intended to replace http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf
Doesn't actually say much tho, F-15 is high and F-16 is low, and if the CPFH turn out to be closer to F-16 then F-15, it's a job well done, even if it in fact was a requirement to be less then F-16.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 24th May 2010 at 11:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We know that Flanker's frontal RCS is about 20 m2.
So - do you think that they are comparing frontal RCS of the Flanker with 'overall' RCS of the PAK-FA? Doesn't make much sense.
Do we know? I personally don't.. :confused:
Could be one of those overall RCS values, as well..
By: exec
- 24th May 2010 at 11:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do we know? I personally don't.. :confused:
Could be one of those overall RCS values, as well..
As I said - 'overall' RCS figure makes no sense. For example - average Flanker's RCS from the side is closer to 40 m2, nose on - 20 m2. The most important is frontal sector RCs, so I think they're refering to frontal RCS which we know that is ~20m2.
By: wrightwing
- 24th May 2010 at 13:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are 10 years away from 2020 and I can already see this :
Give the "thing" top notch Aesa radar , long range 5th gen IRST , long range IR missiles (200km+) , very good to excellent ECMs and you end up with an aircraft specialized in killing stealth platforms :cool:
Cheers .
What good would it be to have IR missiles with a 200km range? Which sensor is going to guide them close enough for the seeker to detect the target? The IRST on the T-50 certainly won't do that, nor will its AESA radar, and you're certainly not going to get a passive shot at anywhere near that range.
No airborne sensor is going to have that sort of detection range, and any ground based sensor would be limited to a more defensive role, rather than something that could be used over enemy territory. Then factor in that the F-35s will have very good ECM, DIRCM, lower RCS, better IR situational awareness, JDRADM AAMs, and higher numbers of airframes. Russia and India are looking at maybe 200-250 ea, and those will be spread out due to large areas that need coverage, further reducing their ability to be massed.
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 23rd May 2010 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as has been posted, the russians have said their goal is an rcs of 0.5
Posts: 629
By: mabie - 23rd May 2010 at 13:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the only sure thing about the jet is its got good aerodynamics.. all the rest have to be proven/demonstrated and are really speculative at this point.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 23rd May 2010 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It really looks like low drag got priority over agility this time, unlike Su-27.
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku - 23rd May 2010 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's also a style icon...
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 23rd May 2010 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Superiority factor over Su-27 in near to fight:
T-50 – 2.19, F-22 – 2.20, F-35A – 1.67
Superiority factor over Su-27 in distant to fight:
T-50 – 2.48, F-22 – 2.0, F-35A – 1.85
http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 23rd May 2010 at 19:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What informed opinions are you looking for? Some LM or Sukhoi engineer that wants to be put away for treason? Or some eyeball-RCS radar testing from keypub expert? SERIOUSLY.
Want some more likely to be true facts? Here.
T-50:
-More weapons onboard than F-35.
-Ability to use larger weapons.
-Better radar coverage (multiple radars) and larger radar = highly likely better A2A engagement capabilities.
-Likely far faster both max and mil thrust. At least some advantage here is a given to the T-50.
-Longer range.
-Thrust vectoring allows for enhanced maneuverability.
F-35:
-Carries SDB which allows for good "small time" ops like counter-terror
--But SDB isn't exactly something that can't be created by someone else.
That's about as educated as any "opinion" gets here.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 23rd May 2010 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure is Otaku:)
One has to give credit where credit is due..
It sort of groving on me as more pics coming in.
Thanks
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 23rd May 2010 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Educated eyes see it differently than you. :)
You are comparing a prototype airframe to a prodction airframe, you can bet that the production T-50/PAK FA will see some noticeable changes from the prototype (just as there were from YF-22 to F-22A & X-35 to F-35) - some of which are likey to improve stealth, some that are likley not to.
'Bumps' in and of themselve are not as big a deal as you seem to think - but they have to be purposefully shaped & structured (just like everything else)...
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 23rd May 2010 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if the T-50 and F-35 both perform as advertised I would like to have them both in my airforce, as part of an high/low mix.
The Russian have way more expertise in IR sensors and missiles, the US in LPI radar modes and rcs reduction measures. Oh and I would like to have Swedish datalinks on both of them.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd May 2010 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have done a bit of research about it, looks like they are talking overall RCS figure, whatever that means, something like integral value from all angles? Certainly does not allow for extraction of frontal aspect RCS of the bird, at least I cannot start much with it.Posts: 567
By: Erkokite - 24th May 2010 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps an average of RCS over all angles. Keep in mind they give 0.3 m^2 for the F-22, which is not consistent with data on its frontal RCS. Or who knows? Maybe they are referring to a worst case angle, but I think this is unlikely as it would give too much indication of the aircraft's weaknesses. Perhaps the most likely explanation of all is that the number is completely made up as misinformation.
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 24th May 2010 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We get it! Russia/europe good! United States bad! You win.
Posts: 567
By: Erkokite - 24th May 2010 at 00:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Who are you talking to?
Posts: 451
By: Adrian_44 - 24th May 2010 at 03:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re: T-50 versus the F-35
The T-50 is a competitor to the F-22 -an air superiority aircraft, while the F-35 is an attack aircraft. It has a slightly larger RCS from the direct front but, from the sides it has a lower RCS than the F-22. A typical apples versus oranges debate.
The F-35 borrowed heavily upon the technology from the F-22 program. While it doesn't have stealth through materials, it does use techniques the F-22 does not use to reduce the RCS. Things such as protecting the gap between the fuselage and access panels has wire embedded in the edge of the two sections to prevent the foreign radar signal from entering the gap and being reflected back to the point of signal origin. Other places where stealth can not be used like the F-22, the F-35 has wire grids, layers electrically charged (at different voltages) to prevent from penetrating the aircraft's skin, reflecting off the insides of the aircraft, back out to the point of signal origin. The F-35 is tremendously different from the F-22 in philosophy of reduction of RF energy. Some parts of the F-35 are similar to parts of the B-2 in RF reduction techniques. The cost of maintenance of the F-35 is far less than that of the F-22. The cost of maintenance of the F-22 is less than the F-15! One reason so many countries are putting up with the crap associated with the F-35's development is because its operational cost is so much less than other aircraft for the life of the program.
Janes Book of Aircraft (the big annual book) has some great articles on the F-35 aircraft and the program.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 24th May 2010 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We know that Flanker's frontal RCS is about 20 m2.
So - do you think that they are comparing frontal RCS of the Flanker with 'overall' RCS of the PAK-FA? Doesn't make much sense.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 24th May 2010 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
little correction, you should say:
"the operational costs is expected to be less".. for now, the only thing certain is that the aircraft is late and costlier than expected... how much it will cost and how it will perform is just speculations for now, as it's still in development stages
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 24th May 2010 at 09:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GAO expected cost per flight hour now exceeds that of the F-16 legacy fighter,
one of the aircraft it is intended to replace
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf
Doesn't actually say much tho, F-15 is high and F-16 is low, and if the CPFH turn out to be closer to F-16 then F-15, it's a job well done, even if it in fact was a requirement to be less then F-16.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 24th May 2010 at 11:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do we know? I personally don't.. :confused:
Could be one of those overall RCS values, as well..
Posts: 408
By: exec - 24th May 2010 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I said - 'overall' RCS figure makes no sense. For example - average Flanker's RCS from the side is closer to 40 m2, nose on - 20 m2. The most important is frontal sector RCs, so I think they're refering to frontal RCS which we know that is ~20m2.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 24th May 2010 at 13:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What good would it be to have IR missiles with a 200km range? Which sensor is going to guide them close enough for the seeker to detect the target? The IRST on the T-50 certainly won't do that, nor will its AESA radar, and you're certainly not going to get a passive shot at anywhere near that range.
No airborne sensor is going to have that sort of detection range, and any ground based sensor would be limited to a more defensive role, rather than something that could be used over enemy territory. Then factor in that the F-35s will have very good ECM, DIRCM, lower RCS, better IR situational awareness, JDRADM AAMs, and higher numbers of airframes. Russia and India are looking at maybe 200-250 ea, and those will be spread out due to large areas that need coverage, further reducing their ability to be massed.