My PAK-FA analysis

[amalakas]

Then perhaps you should place more weigh on LM and the US DoD before Aviationleak or some Australian civilian outfits.

Perhaps.. not. Why should I? Althought LM has delivered way more than what it promised (I have some experience with that) when it came to the F-16 development, It is still a company that placed a lot on the future of the JSF design.

The half-fuel load figure is significant. If two fighters have similar turn characteristics but one has superior fuel load, that one will be able to sustain the fight longer, increase the odds of being able to compel his opponent into fighting under his own rules, to exit and re-enter the fight at will. Like it or not, fuel is life. Regarding g-turn rate -- it is about thrust, the ability of the flight control system to exploit aerodynamic forces created by that thrust, specifically to changes in direction, and the load that those forces must carry throughout the maneuver.

Gambit, I believe you are partly correct, but wrong in an important way. The greater fuel load can in cases provide a pilot with a (great) advantage. But G-turn rate and wing loading is crucial. I am sorry.
The very design decisions of the JSF show this, the F22 is superbly designed for supersonic agility,the JSF throws away supersonic performance to maximise subsonic cruise efficiency (which explains the larger fuel load decision) - classical bomber optimisation rather than air combat optimisation.
The JSF cannot match the turn rates and loading of other combat planes. Period. It has great thrust yes. And larger fuel load yes. And Besides, when I was talking about the "inferior" charac/cs of the JSF, I mostly said, it will have a problem dodging enemy fire. More over
it seems it is not ablt to match the supersonic performance needed for chasing down supersonic opponents like the Su-27/30, F-16/18,Rafale and EF2000 or supersonic cruise missiles, or supersonic cruise missile launch platforms like (potentially) the SU -34.
Again, this is important for countries denied access to the F-22.
More over in engagements,as the JSF will be twisting and turning to avoid fire, it'll expose itself even more for more shots (as all planes do) but cruicialy now, it does not have the agility of say an F-16 or and EF2000 to do so..
Granted, it'll be able to attempt dodgings for longer as it carries more fuel, but I see an inherent risk there. Again especially for countries that only field F-35s. Besides some countries have layered ground defences and a vast area. (India and Pakistan/ china come into mind)
The F-35 may be able to hold its own against F16s and 18s, (of some revision and under certain conditions) but I am not so sure about higher performance aircraft.

Damages to the F-35's public perceptions was in part abeted by those eager to take cheap opportunistic potshots at the US in any possible avenue without bothering to verify their sources, most importantly the technical ones. Above the core philosophy of having low radar reflectivity is the one that say we are reluctant to engage in any conflict, strategic or tactical, that will result in a high casualty and attrition rate. This has been the ideal for any military -- kill as many of the enemy as possible at as few as possible the cost to one's own. But if we must engage in any conflict, we should exploit as much of our technological prowess as possible to minimize that casualty and attrition figure.

I told you before, I don't take potshots at the US. I am sure the F-35 / F-22 pair makes excellent sense to the US strategic/tactical thinking. I am not arguing that.
I am saying that if you strip the F-35 away from the US modus opperandi, (export market) then things are different.

The difference here is that I have established fighters to prove my point, whereas you are asking the readership to impute whatever capabilities they want, preferably yours, into the PAK-FA. Your argument consists mainly of 'if' and 'could' and 'potential'. All based upon a take-off, go-around and land flight barely one hour long.

It's not like that at all.I'm sorry. Your argument is flawed for a number of reasons but at the top is the fact that the T-50 is not operational yet. No matter what I say or you say, it could end up being the best fighter plane so far, or another paper exercise.. that has nothing to do with this discussion. And this discussion is about what a successful PAK-FA design that meets the design requirements as set will bring to the table. Why can you not see that ? Strange.

Air dominance = The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to reassess their tactical positions, usually at their expense and into inferior positions, over contested grounds.

Air superiority = The ability of an air force to achieve total airspace control over contested grounds, leave, return and achieve the same goal. Do so consistently. If there are any losses, said losses will not be in sufficient numbers to adversely affect said ability.........

Yes.. and a number of NATO/Allied countries that were denied / couldn't afford the F-15 built their operational requirements on the F-16 with confidence and certainty (proved by exercises and simulations over the years) it can achieve air superiority on the battlespace. You cannot deny that. I don't think the F-35 even if trusted to do so, will make it, for all the reasons mentioned by either side before.

How can anyone incorporate that into the training regiment without actually firing live missiles at live targets, aka pilots, to assess the hardware-human coordination?......

You know very well the exercise range instrumentation is quite capable to factor in missile flight characteristics and reliability. It has consistantly done so when simulating russian missiles.

Why should I not be?

Well, don't you see a problem with that ?

I have nearly 20yrs in defense related experience, particularly avionics, from military active duty to civilian life in weapons testings and development, including Soviet avionics. I have seen avionics so badly assembled that even a drunken American FAA inspector blotto-ed out of his wits would not pass. Our testings indicated inconsistent across the board performance, from being greater than %90 of claims (excellent) to barely functional. I heard plenty of horror stories on how we found the conditions of Soviet NBC repositories and equipments. Russian aviation is barely more than a shadow of its Soviet self. I see no reasons to place great credibility on the many claims out there regarding the PAK-FA.

I am sorry, I am not convinced. You don't act it or look it or sound it, I you are talking about yourself that is and I understood correctly.
I have worked with military hardware of both US and USSR origins,
and german and French. This information alone would suffice for such an educated man as yourself to figure out where and how that was.
I remember examining an SU-27 as to my usuall F-16 blk 30/M2000, I have actually used the tracking systems of an S-300. And Tor M1 and Patriot. I have great respect for what the russians can do and how.
And pardon my saying so, but if the US had so little respect for russian made planes, they would have never come up with the F-22. Simplistic but true.

I do not idolize anything russian made, but neither do I anything US made. .

 

[sancho]

From the reports i have read i will have 360 dagree coverage.

Does it say how? The nose and wing arrays are headed to the front and only the arrays on the nose/cockpit sides are headed to the sides. Not sure about the performance of these, but I guess without arrays in the tail sting, the back side can't be covered.

Firstly, the PAK-FA is still a prototype meaning more composites are possible, this is what i have read. I have also read that the FGFA will have more composites; however, i doubt it's reliable. My guess is they will have equal an equal share of composites.

That's why I asked, I read similar reports, but nothing really reliable. Only 40% of composites would be disappointing for FGFA imo, not only because of RCS reduction reasons, but also because of weight reductions.

 

[Thomas]

2) The F-35 is "dissappointing" because it's a 5th gen fighter and has a sustained turning performance of 4.95 g at 0.8m at 15k feet .. now if you think that is good, then not much to say really.

3) The point above has a profound effect on the plane's ability to dodge incoming missiles. But ofcourse your argument will be .. "noone is ever going to get a lock on it" .. Fine by me mate..

Curious where you got your information on the above? From what I have read from numerous sources it can sustain 9g turns.

 

[sancho]

Sukhoi PAK FA: First Observations

Part 1 of a comprehensive overview on Sukhoi’s ambitious 5th generation fighter

06:51 GMT, February 10, 2010 On 29 January 2010, the Sukhoi PAK-FA (Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsy, literally "Future Front line Aircraft System"), which could variously be described as a technology demonstrator, the first prototype of the future T-50 fighter, or an intermediate step between the two, took to the air for the first time from the freezing runway of Dzemgi Air Force Base (shared with the KnAAPO plant) at Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the Russian Far East Siberia (see also defence.professionals | defpro.com). A fundamental step has at last been accomplished in the development of the long-expected Russian response to the American F-22 RAPTOR air dominance fighter.

The aircraft, with Sukhoi test pilot Sergey Bogdan in the cockpit, remained airborne for 47 minutes, enabling an initial evaluation of its controllability, engine performance and primary systems operation, including retraction and extraction of the landing gear. “The aircraft performed excellently at all flight-test points. It is easy and comfortable to pilot”, said Sergey Bogdan.

“Today we’ve embarked on an extensive flight test programme of the 5th generation fighter,” commented Mikhail Pogosyan, Sukhoi Company Director General. “This is a great success of both Russian science and design school. This achievement rests upon a cooperation team comprised of more than a hundred of our suppliers and strategic partners. The PAK FA programme advances Russian aeronautics together with allied industries to an entirely new technological level. These aircraft, together with upgraded 4th generation fighters will define Russian Air Force potential for the next decades.

“Sukhoi plans to further elaborate on the PAK FA programme which will involve our Indian partners”, Mr Pogosyan added. “I am strongly convinced that our joint project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening the defence power of Russian and Indian Air Forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market”.

Some Russian sources have suggested that the T-50 will enter service in 2015 (e.g. Russian 5th-generation fighter deliveries delayed until 2015), but this is but wishful thinking. Only another flyable PAK FA prototype and a ground test item exist thus far, while Sukhoi has indicated they will complete five prototypes for initial testing. These are scheduled for completion in 2011-12, with the company expecting to then produce an initial batch of pre-series aircraft for operational trials by 2015. A more credible projected IOC date for the T-50 would thus be towards the end of the decade - i.e. some 12-15 years after the F-22. Such a delay would be roughly in line when not with the scientific and technological potential of the Russian aerospace industry, then certainly with the Russian MoD’s financial muscle and the irredeemable time loss of the “black years” following the collapse of the USSR. There are persistent rumours of the PAK FA programme being largely financed directly by Sukhoi (some 75%, with the remaining 25% being provided by India), and in any case it is quite obvious that it could only progress thanks to the substantial revenues from export sales of Su-27/-30s.

Much has already been written and speculated about this first Russian 5th combat aircraft, but virtually nothing is known for certain. The few photos and the couple of videos documenting the first flight are all that is available for a first assessment of the aircraft’s characteristics, analysing its overall external configuration and trying to deduct the Russian Air Force’s requirements on which the PAK FA design can be assumed to be tailored.


Operational Considerations

As expected, the twin-engine PAK FA is a large aircraft, with roughly the same physical size and weight class as the Su-27/-30 family it is aimed to replace. The aircraft’s general configuration strongly suggests a design optimised primarily for the air superiority role, even though the T-50 will almost certainly eventually go along the same road as the Su-27 and evolve into a very capable multirole fighter-bomber. This emphasis on air-to-air combat is arguably due to both the Russian Air Force perceiving its main roles in a very different way than the USAF, and the fact that the Service’s deep strike requirements are satisfactorily covered by the very capable (although admittedly not stealthy) Su-34s currently being delivered.

Even though it is nearly automatic to think of the PAK FA/T-50 in terms of a direct confrontation vs. the F-22, and this may indeed have been the original goal when the programme was first launched in the late 1980s, in the current global strategic scenario it is perhaps more likely that the Russians are rather interested in maintaining an air superiority edge over China’s current J-11s/SU-27s/-30s and future J-12. Also, the expected future worldwide usage of the F-35 JSF attack aircraft with its low observability qualities requires an interceptor capable to deal with this peculiar threat.

Further considerations can be done as regards the expected future place of the T-50 in the Russian Air Force’s inventory, and thus the overall combat aircraft programmes in Russia. When first information on the PAK FA project started to circulate, the programme was widely reported to be intended to replace both the Su-27 and the MiG-29, thus leading to a single-type combat aircraft fleet not unlike the French Air Force’s with its RAFALE. Whether this was purely “disinformacija”, or the Russians were actually planning in that direction back then, it is impossible to ascertain. The fact is, the T-50 given its size and expected avionics complexity will most definitely be an expensive aircraft both to procure and operate, and it is very difficult to imagine how the Russian Air Force could ever be able to acquire it in large number - not to mention the type, for all of Mr Pogosyan’s rosy forecast, having a rather limited potential export market. Current Western and unofficial Russian estimates are of a production run of some 250 aircraft for the Russian Air Force, and even this may prove to be overoptimistic. The combination of the T-50 as the spearhead of a tactical combat fleet composed largely by modernised 4th generation types, as suggested by Mr. Pogosyan, does certainly make sense - but it is rather doubtful whether it could really last for “decades”, apart from the Su-35. Also, the upgrade programmes currently underway do not involve the MiG-29.

Hence, and although the notion of the Russian MoD and national industry being able to sustain the simultaneous development and eventual procurement of t w o different 5th generation fighters does admittedly defy imagination, the eventual launch of a programme for a smaller and less expensive “lo” fighter in a “hi/lo” mix with the T-50 looks virtually compulsory. Failing to do so would leave the Russian Air Force critically crippled in quantitative terms, and would consign the future export market for “affordable” fighter aircraft to Western and Chinese designs.

>> Part 2 of the article will be published on Thursday, 11 February 2010.


----
By Sergio Coniglio

defence.professionals | defpro.com

 

[amalakas]

Curious where you got your information on the above? From what I have read from numerous sources it can sustain 9g turns.

If I remember correctly it was in the press coming from the test bed plane (240-3). Don't remember which magazine to be honest it stuck with me because I thought it is a bit low.
Also the dry thrust of the engine does provide the JSF with high initial acceleration but if my engine physics is correct may mean that loses out on high altitude.. but that is with a grain of salt.. don't quote me on that..

 

[Thomas]

Here is the straight talk from the chief F-35 test pilot.

YouTube - Jon Beesley on post SWAT F 35 design

 

[Thomas]

 

[gambit]

Curious where you got your information on the above? From what I have read from numerous sources it can sustain 9g turns.

He got it from a flawed report that RAND retracted but was helpless to prevent its propagation.

 

[amalakas]

He got it from a flawed report that RAND retracted but was helpless to prevent its propagation.

Ahhh Gambit ... I missed you ............

Heard of Wheeler & Sprey ????

 

[Thomas]

Ahhh Gambit ... I missed you ............

Heard of Wheeler & Sprey ????

Every major arms program has it's critics. There were a lot of critics of the light fighter program the F-16 came out of. Funny how the designers of it became known as "the lightweight fighter mafia". Have you heard of them?

I tend to believe what the pilots that actually fly the F-35 have to say about it.

 

[amalakas]

Every major arms program has it's critics. There were a lot of critics of the light fighter program the F-16 came out of. Funny how the designers of it became known as "the lightweight fighter mafia". Have you heard of them?

I tend to believe what the pilots that actually fly the F-35 have to say about it.

Had this been 1980 I'd be right there with you. But this being 2010 I tend to be a bit more sceptical. Besides it's not the dark ages.. It's not witchcraft these programs are being accused for , people are voicing genuine concerns here and there..

 

[Thomas]

Had this been 1980 I'd be right there with you. But this being 2010 I tend to be a bit more sceptical. Besides it's not the dark ages.. It's not witchcraft these programs are being accused for , people are voicing genuine concerns here and there..

voicing a concern does not make it become truth. hard evidence based on experience does. That is why I give the manufacturer and pilots the benefit of doubt.

 

[gambit]

Ahhh Gambit ... I missed you ............

Heard of Wheeler & Sprey ????

See post 196. Since you asked, that mean you did not read my sources. No surprise here since you have shown to be rather careless with sources yourself.

 

[amalakas]

See post 196. Since you asked, that mean you did not read my sources. No surprise here since you have shown to be rather careless with sources yourself.

Well, yes.. 2 reasons, i am not writting a journal paper and second sources for such issues can be biased. That is why i try to keep putting what i think and what i understand forward, people then (like u) are free and most most welcome to comment and correct me if I am wrong.

 

[gambit]

See post 196. Since you asked, that mean you did not read my sources. No surprise here since you have shown to be rather careless with sources yourself.

Well, yes.. 2 reasons, i am not writting a journal paper and second sources for such issues can be biased. That is why i try to keep putting what i think and what i understand forward, people then (like u) are free and most most welcome to comment and correct me if I am wrong.

Then what is point of you even expressing your opinions if you are not going to consider the possibility that you are wrong when others presented their opinions and sources to back them up? Do you even know how to debate? So now you admitted that you do not consider others' opinions and their sources, but you have the gall to accuse me of this...

.. you are more like a spokesperson rather than someone who absorbs information and makes up his mind about things..

You need to make up your mind. Either be reasonable enough to at the very least read others' arguments, and no one demands that you believe them. Or do not enter any debate AT ALL if you refuse to perform this courtesy.