Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Value of stealth aircrafts

    Share
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:37 pm

    The Su-35 is must be one of the best fighters in the world, the best in gen 4++

    http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-su-35-is-the-pinnacle-2013-7?op=1
    I would be curious to see the result in an air combat beween Su-35 and F-22. As Stealth technology is a scam.


    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:49 pm

    How is stealth technology a scam?

    Sukhoi is making deliberate RCS reduction efforts through and through the T-50, is that a scam?

    BTW stealth aside (and thats a BIG factor) the F-22 is a pretty impressive bird in any case.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:06 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    How is stealth technology a scam?

    Sukhoi is making deliberate RCS reduction efforts through and through the T-50, is that a scam?


    As an US aircraft designer

    http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/low-band-radars-can-see-f-22/2766818779001/

    I have not the skills either to deny, or to confirm what he asserted. Nevertheless, this technology seems to be not enough mature, and in a conflict it would be dubious if this kind of aircraft could pass the new russian, chinese, european radars.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:13 am

    It is not a scam... but just like most things america does it is over hyped.

    You don't see the Soviets or Russians claim ERA makes their tanks invincible to all anti armour weapons.

    ERA is just one component in a set of technologies to defend Russian armoured vehicles. The cost is negligible and the weight increase is very small compared with the equivalent of armour it represents... on its own it is not much use... you can't put ERA on a civilian motor car and claim it is safe from RPGs.

    together with a range of other technologies including modern composite armour, camouflage kits like Nakidka, EO jamming systems like Shtora, Active protection systems like Drozd or ARENA, smoke grenades effective in a range of frequencies and including IR elements as decoys, spall liners, add on applique armour, all combine to make Russian tanks safer.

    Stealth reduces the range at which an object is detected and makes jamming more effective.

    The most important feature of stealth is that it allows things to fly high again.

    At one time flying high was safe because few things could reach you.

    then flying fast and high was the safest way to defeat air defences.

    Then flying low and fast became the only way to penetrate enemy air defences.

    The problem is that flying low limits top speed to about mach 1.3 or so and also dramatically reduces range.

    Adding stealth to a large bomber is very expensive but if it means that for most of its flight it can operate safely at high altitude means its range can be greatly increased.

    In the case of a cruise missile it means much more efficient use of fuel and the potential to penetrate into enemy territory at high altitude... previously high altitude meant long range detection via enemy radar but low RCS means it is possible again which should greatly increase range potential.

    For instance the Kalibr cruise missile is reported to have a flight range of 2,500km, but a stealthy model could conceivably fly double that range if it flew at medium or high altitude all the way.

    I rather suspect this sort of claim:

    The buildup is planned to include the new Raduga Kh-101 cruise missile that can carry an 880-pound (400 kilogram) payload up to 6,000 miles (9,600 kilometers).

    Is a reflection of an improved engine with better fuel efficiency but also improved flight profiles because of reduced RCS (ie high all the way) and reduced drag.

    source: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140122/186812347/Russia-Plans-Cruise-Missile-Tests-Bomber-Patrols-for-2014.html


    To conclude stealth is useful, but not the only or total solution.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  SOC on Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:52 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    How is stealth technology a scam?

    Sukhoi is making deliberate RCS reduction efforts through and through the T-50, is that a scam?


    As an US aircraft designer

    http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/low-band-radars-can-see-f-22/2766818779001/

    I have not the skills either to deny, or to confirm what he asserted. Nevertheless, this technology seems to be not enough mature, and in a conflict it would be dubious if this kind of aircraft could pass the new russian, chinese, european radars.



    Low-band radars like the VHF-band 55Zh6 can see most LO aircraft much easier, yes. Until recently, there wasn't enough acuracy within a low-band radar to make it really mean anything. Now you've got digital VHF-band AESAs like the 55Zh6 that are significantly more capable. Shorter wavelength systems, such as fire control radars, are what the bulk of LO measures are intended to defeat (things like serrated panel edges, faceting, the intake grill of the F-117, etc.). That includes fighter radars, SAM engagement radars, etc. There's only one aircraft capable of defeating both short and long wavelength systems, and that's the B-2. It's big enough to employ LO measures against the much larger VHF-band type wavelengths, and has various LO features tailored to the smaller fire-control wavelengths as well. An F-22, F-35, or T-50 is too small to do anything relevant against a VHF-band system, short of putting a meter thick coating of RAM on the things. Given the number of advanced long-wavelength systems appearing and their ability to interface directly with SAM units, the F-35 is a hilarious waste of time. The T-50, not so much, as the US has never really put much effort into VHF-band systems. You need big-ass transmitters for one, making them unsuitable for airborne or naval use.

    Arrow

    Posts : 162
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  Arrow on Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:01 pm

    here's only one aircraft capable of defeating both short and long wavelength systems, and that's the B-2. I wrote:

    But B-2 can be detected by OTH radar ?
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  SOC on Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:24 pm

    Arrow wrote:

    But B-2 can be detected by OTH radar ?

    By an OTH-B system while flying in international airspace. The OTH-B uses a different signal path geometry than a ground-based radar, which could help, and also uses a larger wavelength than a VHF-band system like the 55Zh6, which could also help for the same reasons that your X-band LO features don't affect a larger VHF-band wavelength. Plus, weren't they claiming to have picked up the wake turbulence and not the actual airplane at one point? Although either way you've "detected" it. Being in international airspace also means they fly around with all of the transponders and whatnot on I think. Pretty sure they didn't turn that crap off until they were over the Med when heading for the FRY, for example. Transponders are cheating anyway as you track without a skin paint!
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:53 pm

    Thx to all for your precious advises, and explanations.
    Indeed, without you, I ignored even the existence of OTH-B, and many other technologies you talked about.
    To Soc,
    Is it possible to adapt the OTH-B's technology into the embeded radar like Irbis-E, and Phazotron Zhuk-M, inside Su-35, and Mig-35 ?
    Does Russia get an Awacs equipped with this technology ?


    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  eridan on Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:13 pm

    it is peculiar though that USN chose to stay with UHF band for E2D hawkeyes, despite their powerful engines which could've easely fed even smaller and more hungry bands. To me that is a sign of future investment in anti-LO platforms.

    Also, MEADS could have been a step in the right direction for the ground based air defence. Coupling X band search/track radars with an UHF early warning radar in a single battery would have provided decent jump in anti-LO capabilities as well. Sadly for the West, that seems to have been put on hold. I do expect the tech, even if MEADS dies for good, to eventually come to other existing systems, but it may take a while.

    UHF, in my opinion, is quite enough against tactical aviation, as one would be quite hard pressed to put 10-20 cm thick slabs of radar absorbing structures in all/most leading edges on wings/tails etc. Against a larger craft, like B2 or some notational PAK-DA, it may not be enough.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:37 pm

    TR1 wrote:How is stealth technology a scam?

    Sukhoi is making deliberate RCS reduction efforts through and through the T-50, is that a scam?

    BTW stealth aside (and thats a BIG factor) the F-22 is a pretty impressive bird in any case.

    Meh, the F-22 might have been impressive, if it had an IRST system, side & rear-looking radars, a pressurised suit for the pilot, unlimited oxygen system and most importantly if it's production line wasn't finished & dismantled, and the plane made its way to other US allies in all sorts of different variations, continued evolving and so on.
    Right now it's a limited production run of a potentially great plane - but one that looses out heavily in every area to the PAK-FA other than stealth.
    It costs a hell of a lot and is a hanger queen too.

    Right now all the next-gen US technology seems to be getting pumped into the F-35; latest radars, Cuda missiles, new generation of sensors (including the ones that the F-22 lacks). But the F-35 is a fundamentally limited frame; if the US wants to compete with the PAK-FA and the Chinese stealth fighters - it has to evolve the F-22 yet it only has limited plans to do that.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  medo on Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:52 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Right now all the next-gen US technology seems to be getting pumped into the F-35; latest radars, Cuda missiles, new generation of sensors (including the ones that the F-22 lacks). But the F-35 is a fundamentally limited frame; if the US wants to compete with the PAK-FA and the Chinese stealth fighters - it has to evolve the F-22 yet it only has limited plans to do that.

    When we talk about Cuda missiles, as I know, Russian tests new Tor-M2 missile, which practically is also hit to kill missile and is smaller then previous Tor missiles. Considering, that PAK-FA have two side looking radars and one back looking radar, which cover 360° around planes, PAK-FA could also use those new Tor missiles with those radars as well as MAWS sensors to use them as anti missile defense.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:52 pm

    PAK-FA could also use those new Tor missiles with those radars as well as MAWS sensors to use them as anti missile defense.

    I suspect that role is already taken with the 9M100 Morfei IIR guided lock on after launch AAM.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  SOC on Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:24 am

    nemrod wrote:To Soc,
    Is it possible to adapt the OTH-B's technology into the embeded radar like Irbis-E, and Phazotron Zhuk-M, inside Su-35, and Mig-35 ?
    Does Russia get an Awacs equipped with this technology ?

    The problem is that to develop a VHF-band wavelength, you need large transmitters. Putting one inside the nose of a fighter is simply not going to work. An AWACS radar dome is also a stretch, but what you might be able to do is line the side of an IL-76 fuselage with an antenna. I'd have to poke around and see what effect a mobile emitter would have.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:18 am

    How about along the leading edge of a large flying wing subsonic bomber...

    Bears already risk stalling when they use km long cables for talking to submerged submarines in ultra low frequencies... another option might be even higher frequencies where even the slightest bump or hollow will reflect a signal...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:22 pm

    Here is the parts of its interview about mostly F-35. However as he is an expert -that Iam not- he fulminated against Stealth technology, he said this direction lead nowhere. The only concrete result is the huge Lockeed Martin benefices.

    If old radar could detect stealth figters, or Bombers why did Russia take the same US direction ? If this technology is a scam, isn't a huge trap for Russia's new emerging economy ?


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:27 am

    Think of it as being a change from wearing bright colourful uniforms and shooting at hoards of natives to fighting forces with similar equipment and changing to camouflage and body armour.

    Stealth is expensive, and can be countered but like painting your face and wearing mottled coloured clothing to make you harder to see it is useful.

    If face paint was ten thousand dollars a tube and you could only afford a small amount then it might do more harm than good.

    For stealth fighters that are going to be dogfighting then at such close ranges stealth is no longer so useful because at such close range they should be able to get some sort of lock on you....

    Stealth is useful but not so useful as some like to pretend and against third world countries the stealth is unnecessary... you can get the same job done with much cheaper aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:57 pm

    An issue about me
    .
    Many of your, laughed, or are laughing about me, and asking, why this guy few months ago considered that US hardwares were the best, and what about this turnabout.

    Indeed, untill recently I used to consider western weaponneries, and uncommonly US arms were the best.
    In fact I've been living in western country since I was born, as Iam fan of everythings about military hardware, before, untill the Internet came, I used to bought many, many newspapers, and all these newspapers conveyed what the DOD wanted to say.
    For example, in june 1982 a telex from israelis propaganda minister said they blew around 90 Migs -against 0 for Israel-, and most of them were Mig 23. This claim produced by the israelis propaganda was not followed by any visual proofs. If this air battle and victories occurs, you must at least provide some visual proofs like wreckages, serial number of the aircrafts downed, things that arabs and north vietnameses produced during their air combats against Israel and USA.
    However most of the western medias without any verification took credit to israelis claims. For us as we were obliged to buy only western newspapers how could you verify ? This hoax lead to several conclusion that enter deeply to your brain:
    - Western military hardwares are far superior against any other hardwares in the world.
    - Western pilots, as israelis are highly competents.
    - Should a war triggered between Warsaw pact and Nato, US could easily wiped of the map soviet wreckages, as, the soviets are only good to copy, to spy, but were unable to invent.
    - The technlogy, the economy, the culture, the life is the west.
    - Arabs are genetically unable to fight, not able to resist, not able to have country even though their lands are full of oil, gaz, ore, etc...

    It leads you to the conclusion that Western hardware is necessarily uncomparable, unvulnerable, and far ahead any other hardware.
    Untill recently this hoax staid in my brain, however the arrival of Internet -not at the begining for me, as I used to consider that Internet will only confirm what I knew before. Nevertheless "what I knew" was simply a shit- started to open the breach only after iraqi insurgents around 2007.
    Now Iam checking about all what I was learned, and the history prove that all what I was learned it is only a hoax, in nearly every areas.

    I came to the conclusion that yes West is really ahead of Russia, but only to one point :
    Best marketing, in fact the best propaganda. There is only in this area that





    GarryB wrote:
    Stealth is useful but not so useful as some like to pretend and against third world countries the stealth is unnecessary... you can get the same job done with much cheaper aircraft...



    It seems that as this expert, Stealth technology does not work.



    V generation fighter is only marketing brand, Iam near sure that the actual Su-35, and Mig-35 are enough for Russia, and with a good pilots are able to obliterate any F-22, or this piece of shit, named JSF alias F-35.



    PS: Sorry for my english, as this langue is not my mother tongue, my english level is not shinning.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:50 am

    Many of your, laughed, or are laughing about me, and asking, why this guy few months ago considered that US hardwares were the best, and what about this turnabout.

    Welcome to the Matrix...  welcome   russia   study 

    I didn't suddenly realise it was all BS... I worked it out over time.

    Lots of the propaganda didn't seem to fit... talking about the Soviet Union like it had a militarised society and an aggressive society... yet the west had the same and happily went to war when it seemed useful at the time... and still do.

    The main thing that got me however was claims the Soviets would be on the English Channel in a week... they simply didn't have the logistic capacity to do that... they had a forward based force structure to ensure any ground conflict occurred outside of Soviet territory, but they weren't structured for global dominance.

    Just look today at how well NATO can go to places like Afghanistan or indeed Kosovo... that is the sort of mobility the Soviets would need to fit the profile the west was claiming for them.

    Instead their ground control intercept air defence force suggests a largely static and defensive nature of their forces and their weapon development seemed from the outside to be reactive rather than aggressive.

    Of course the western view of the Soviets was coloured by the view of the West Germans... our allies for most of the cold war and for most of the time it was spam and winter and D day and strategic bombing that determined the results of WWII.

    Despite its high morals and high standards in many ways the criticisms the west levelled at its enemies could be as easily levelled at the west. the reality is that the west judges others by its own high moral standards and principles but never applies those high standards to its own actions.

    The west will talk about propaganda and censorship with regard to the Soviets, but not its own equivalents... a Soviet citizen that was happy with life under the Soviet regime was deluded, yet Soviet citizens had a better understanding that their government lied to them and couldn't be trusted... in the west we know our governments lie but when push comes to shove if the Chinese government or the Russian government says something and our western government says something else we immediately think our government is telling the truth and theirs is lying.

    One of the things about Putin is that he seems to be rather more honest about things than other politicians.

    Regarding the topic I would say the F-35 is very expensive for what it is for... it will likely do what it is needed to do... invade oil producing countries and steal oil contracts, but an F-16 could still do that far cheaper.

    but other countries have F-16s I hear you say... other countries can't stop a cruise missile attack with an intact air defence network... without that their air force will be picked off as they get airborne most of the time... or sanctions can be applied to weaken them into submission.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Comparing stealth fighters

    Post  nemrod on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:54 pm

    I had long debats with Garry, as I was reserved for a long date about the so-called success of stealth.


    Nevertheless, it is usefull -for Garry  Very Happy - to notice these quotes :


    Impact on pilot’s skill

    As stated, pilots should fly at least 30-45 hours per month. Neither the F-22 or the F-35 fulfill that requirement (F-22 can offer 15 hours/month at maximum), and no other stealth fighter on the list is likely to fulfill it either. If anything, PAK FA and J-20/31 are likely to have worse record than the F-22, if standard pattern is followed.
    Sincerly, regarding the cost and difficulties concerning the developpement  of T-50, I don't see Russia able to provide more than  15 h/month training inside this fighter. Even though Russia seems to be slightly ahead US stealth fighters, the Pak-T-50 is far to be equal to the SU-35 and Mig-35

    And


    In terms of kill probability, revolver and linear action guns have Pk of 0,31, rotary guns of 0,26, IR WVR missiles of 0,15, IR BVR missiles of 0,11 and RF BVR missiles of 0,08. BVR missiles’ Pk falls by 25% compared to values listed when actually used at beyond visual range.
    As we discussed previously about the air air to missiles, they are still nowadays, not relaible. If you have other objectives figures please...


    https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/comparing-stealth-fighters/




    Comparing stealth fighters

    Posted by picard578 on December 24, 2014

    Introduction

    A Christmas / New Year present for all of you.

    ***

    This article will compare “stealth” fighters, regardless of wether they are in service. Aircraft compared are as follows: F-22, F-35, T-50 / PAK FA, J-20 and J-31. Following article will form a basis for comparision:

    https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/comparing-modern-fighter-aircraft/

    Radar will be ignored for two reasons: its nature as an active sensor makes it tactically irrelevant in air-to-air combat even between conventional aircraft, and even if used, low RCS of fighters being compared means that IRST will still have far longer detection range.

    It should be noted that this comparision includes test and development prototypes, and as such cannot be truly accurate due to lack of data and changes to the final version. US T&D prototype of the F-22 – YF-22 – was (rightly) called “paint job with shape of the F22″.

    Comparision

    Impact on pilot’s skill

    As stated, pilots should fly at least 30-45 hours per month. Neither the F-22 or the F-35 fulfill that requirement (F-22 can offer 15 hours per month at maximum), and no other stealth fighter on the list is likely to fulfill it either. If anything, PAK FA and J-20/31 are likely to have worse record than the F-22, if standard pattern is followed.

    Numbers in the air

    Again, no precise comparision is possible due to the lack of information.

    F-22A has unit flyaway cost of 273 million USD, mission avaliability of 55,5% and sortie rate at 1 hour per sortie of 0,52 sorties/day/aircraft. Assuming 20 billion USD cost, this gives 73 aircraft flying 21 sortie per day. (Another figure I found that is unconfirmed, 70,6% avaliability, would allow it 27 sorties per day).

    F-35A has unit flyaway cost of 145 million USD, mission avaliability of 35% and sortie rate (at 1 hour per sortie) of 0,53 sorties/day/aircraft. Assuming 20 billion USD cost, this gives 138 aircraft flying 26 sorties per day.

    T-50 has an expected unit flyaway cost of 50-100 million USD, though real figure will likely be higher (up to 150 million USD). As it is a stealth fighter with RAM coating, it is likely to have avaliability similar to the F-22, as well as relatively low sortie rate. Assuming 45-65% mission avaliability and 0,4-0,6 sorties/day/aircraft, it can provide 133-200 aircraft and 24-78 sorties per day for 20 billion USD procurement cost.

    J-20 is expected to cost cca 80 million USD, though it will likely end up costing cca 150 million USD. Again, assuming 45-65% mission avaliability and 0,4-0,6 sorties/day/aircraft, it can provide 133 aircraft and 24-52 sorties per day.

    J-31 will likely cost cca 80 million USD. Assuming 45-65% mission avaliability and 0,4-0,6 sorties/day/aircraft, it can provide 250 aircraft and 45-98 sorties per day.

    (It should be noted that all these aircraft will have exorbant prices when development costs are included, as these tend to be multiple times higher than for 4th and 4,5th generation fighter aircraft. They are also hard to maintain and unreliable – no exceptions).

    For comparision, Rafale C has a unit flyaway cost of 90 million USD, demonstrated mission avaliability of 100% and sortie rate (at 1 hour per sortie) of 2 sorties/day/aircraft. Assuming 20 billion USD cost, this gives 222 aircraft flying 444 sorties per day (a 17:1 advantage over the F-35). If mission avaliability is reduced to 90%, it still gives 200 aircraft flying 400 sorties per day, a 15:1 advantage over the F-35 and at least a 4:1 advantage over the J-31.

    Quick response to attacks and on-ground survivability

    F-22 has an approach speed of 155 knots. Wing span is 13,56 meters and takeoff distance is 480 meters. While takeoff distance is acceptable, wing span is well above 10 meter maximum allowance for adequate road basing capability.

    F-35s high wing loading and weight result in high minimum approach speeds. Even the F-35C, with its comparably low wing loading (compared to other two F-35 variants – F-35Cs wing loading is similar to the F-22s) has to deflect flaps to 30 degrees in order to meet maximum approach speed limit of 145 kts, resulting in poor handling qualities. Its sink rate of 21 feet per second is considerably higher than the typical 10 fps sink rate. It also has a wing span of 10,7 meters, which is just above the maximum 10 meter wing span allowable for optimal road basing capability. Takeoff distance for air defense is 183 meters for C.

    T-50 will likely have approach speeds on order of 150 knots. It also has a very robust undercarriage with large low pressure tires, allowing excellent STOL and likely dirt strip capability. Takeoff distance is around 458 meters, though values of 300-400 meters have also appeared. Road basing capability is limited by wing span of 13,95 meters.

    J-20 is estimated to have a takeoff distance of 470 meters, but 13 wingspan meter limits road basing capability.

    J-31 has a takeoff distance of 400 meters and a landing distance of 600 meters. Wingspan of 11,5 meters however limits its road basing capability.

    Ability to achieve surprise bounces without being surprised

    F-22 does not have an IRST, which means that it has to use radar to engage the enemy at beyond visual range. This, combined with its large size (18,9 m length, 13,56 m wingspan, 5,08 m height) and high IR signature, severely limits its ability to achieve surprise bounces. In terms of avoiding surprise it is no better: while limited rearward visibility is somewhat compensated for by high cruise speed of Mach 1,7, its high IR signature despite some IR signature reduction measures means that it will be easily noticed (engine IR signature reduction measures seem incidental, just a byproduct of having to combine thrust vectoring and all-aspect radar stealth, but they exist – which is far more than can be said for any other fighter discussed here. More specifically, flat engine nozzle helps cool the air, and nozzles themselves are hidden by tail booms).

    Due to severe transonic buffeting, wing roll-off and low acceleration, F-35C is essentially a subsonic aircraft in both air intercept and ground attack missions. Even other two variants, though capable of limited supersonic flight, can not achieve supercruise as typically defined (sustaining speeds above Mach 1 without afterburner). All F-35 variants also have very high IR signature due to hugely powerful engine (with no IR signature reduction measures) required to push its brutal shape through the air, unaerodynamic airframe and lack of IR signature reduction measures. Problem is made worse by the fact that the F-35 has very limited rearward visibility, making surprise bounces from rear quadrant a certainity. Depending on amount of data Chinese have stolen, it might be possible for them to render F-35s sensors worthless by feeding them false information. Only advantage that the F-35 has over the F-22 is presence of IRST, but “IRST” in question is basically an in-build Litening pod, being optimized for the ground attack, and so has limited air-to-air performance (limited ability to detect targets at higher altitude than the F-35, limited range and resolution). As limited as it is, it still allows the F-35 to detect and attack the enemy without need to use radar, and thus to achieve surprise.

    T-50 has a frontal IRST, as well as a rearward-facing IRST. This provides it with good sensors coverage, and allows it to detect and possibly engage rear-quadrant threats well out to beyond visual range, though its own engines’ exhaust might mask targets directly to the rear. Having IRSTs also allows it to engage the enemy completely passively, thus maintaining surprise for longer (assuming that it uses QWIP technology, OLS 50 could track a subsonic fighter at 130 km via its engine exhaust, and likely at 80 km from front). High cruise speed of Mach 1,6 allows it great freedom of choosing when and how to engage and also reduces the possibility of suffering a rear-quarter bounce while increasing the possibility of achiveing the same bounce against most other fighters. However, inadequate rearward visibility will still make it vulnerable to surprise bounces in within visual range fight, and engines have no IR signature reduction measures.

    J-20 is a large aircraft (20 m length, 13 m wingspan, 4,45 m height). As a result, its ability to achieve surprise bounces is rather limited. As with the F-22, it has to rely on high cruise speed (Mach 1,4-1,6) to avoid rear-quadrant attacks due to high IR signature and bad rearward visibility. While it does have an IRST, which will enable it to attack the enemy aircraft completely passively (a crucial element in achieving surprise), location and shape of its IRST suggest that it is similar in purpose and capabilities to the F-35s EOTS – in other words, it is not a fully developed IRST, but is instead a built-in IR targeting pod optimized for ground attack. Its canopy and cockpit design seems to provide barely adequate rearward visibility. Engines have no IR signature reduction measures.

    J-31 is 16,9 m long and has a wing span of 11,5 m, which indicates moderate IR signature. It is expected to have an IRST of similar type as the J-20, though its smaller size will help in achieving surprise, especially if it turns out to be capable of supercruise. However, it is still very vulnerable to surprise bounces due to inadequate rearward visibility. Engines have no IR signature reduction measures.

    Maneuvering performance

    F-22 has combat weight of 24.883 kg, a wing loading of 317,4 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,35, and span loading of 1.835 kg/m. Wing sweep is 42*, and engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 26,82 N/cm2. As a result, the F-22 will have good instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate and acceleration, while its weight harms transient performance; it also uses thrust vectoring to improve high-speed high-altitude performance. However, low fuel fraction of 0,29 will limit endurance.

    F-35A has combat weight of 18.270 kg, a wing loading of 427,9 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,07 and span loading of 1.707,5 kg/m. Wing sweep is 34*, and engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 17,86 N/cm2. As a result, the F-35 has very bad instantaneous and sustained turn rates (50% of the F-22s sustained turn rate, or ~14 deg/s) as well as bad acceleration, while its weight still harms the transient performance. Inefficient aerodynamics and powerplant will also limit combat endurance despite excellent fuel fraction of 0,38.

    T-50 has a typical combat weight of 21.500 kg, a wing loading of 272,8 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,39 and span loading of 1.541 kg/m. At heavy combat weight (50% maximum internal fuel capacity) of 23.150 kg, it has wing loading of 294 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,3 and span loading of 1.659 kg/m. Wing sweep is 46,5*, and engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 22,85 N/cm2. Aircraft itself also has very small frontal area, about half of the F-22s. Result is that T-50 will have excellent instantaneous turn rate as well as very good sustained turn rates and acceleration, but its weight harms transient performance (though it will still be better than the F-22s). It also has a very good fuel fraction of 0,36, indicating good combat endurance. Overall it adheres very closely to Boyd’s energy-maneuverability requirements.

    J-20 has an estimated combat weight of 26.422 kg, a wing loading of 339 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 0,95 (possibly 1,1, but lower value is more likely as J-20 uses Russian AL-31F and will continue to do for forseeable future, until Chinese manage to copy it) and span loading of 2.032 kg/m. Wing sweep is 43* and engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 19,02 N/cm2. As a result it will have adequate instantaneous turn and climb rates, but limited acceleration and sustained turn rates, while transient performance will be very limited. Lack of horizontal tail will reduce interference drag and improve cruise speed and sustained turn rate, while canards will improve pitch/turn onset and instantaneous turn rates. Fuel fraction is very good at 0,35, indicating good combat endurance. Low wing loading and usage of canards combined with large LERX indicates greater focus on high-speed high-altitude performance, including maneuvering combat, and.usage of long arm canards as opposed to close-coupled ones indicates a focus on high-altitude interception. However, location of landing gear (center of gravity is always slightly in front of main landing gear) indicates that center of gravity is in front of centre of lift, or at least not far behind, thus indicating either stable or very slightly unstable aircraft. (Compare to Rafale).

    J-31, at least its pre-production variant (production variants will be heavier), has a combat weight of 17.600 kg. As a result, it will have a wing loading of 440 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,13, and span loading of 1.530 kg/m. Wing sweep is 35*. This means that it will have very bad turn instantaneous and sustained turn rates, though its sustained turn rate and cruise speed will be better than the F-35s due to flatter, more aerodynamic fuselage resulting from not having a STOVL variant.

    Armament

    (ability to achieve quick kills, vulnerability to countermeasures, ability to maintain surprise, and number of onboard kills)

    In terms of kill probability, revolver and linear action guns have Pk of 0,31, rotary guns of 0,26, IR WVR missiles of 0,15, IR BVR missiles of 0,11 and RF BVR missiles of 0,08. BVR missiles’ Pk falls by 25% compared to values listed when actually used at beyond visual range.

    F-22 uses the M-61 gun as well as AIM-9 Sidewinder WVR missile and AIM-120 BVR missile. As the M-61 needs 0,25 seconds to spin up to full rate of fire, and gun doors require 0,5 seconds to open, it will fire 37 projectiles weighting 3,77 kg in the first second. Missile bay doors also require 0,5 seconds to open. While both gun and IR missiles may allow it to surprise the enemy within visual range, it uses radar-guided BVR missiles which destroy surprise even when fired by using data from offboard sensors or RWRs, and are comparably unreliable and easy to decoy, jam, confuse or evade. That being said, AIM-9X Block III entering service in 2022 may have a range of up to 60 km. With standard loadout of 13 gun bursts, 2 WVR IR and 6 BVR RF missiles, it has a total of 4,16 onboard kills.

    F-35 uses the GAU-22/A gun as well as AIM-9 Sidewinder WVR missile and AIM-120 BVR missile, though only the latter will be typically carried. GAU-22/A needs 0,4 seconds to spin up to full rate of fire and gun doors require 0,5 seconds to open. Thus, in the first second it will fire 16 projectiles weighting 2,94 kg. Again, usage of radar guided missiles does not allow it to surprise the enemy at beyond visual range, and unlike the F-22, it can only carry an IR missile at wingtip stations, thus negating its radar stealth. With standard loadout of 11,3 gun bursts and 4 RF BVR missiles, it has a total of 3,26 onboard kills.

    T-50 uses the GSh-301 gun as well as R-73 WVR and R-77 BVR missile. GSh-301 achieves its maximum rate of fire of 1.800 rpm instantaneously, and thus can fire 15 projectiles weighting 5,79 kg in first 0,5 seconds. If standard Russian practice is followed, its BVR missiles will have RF, AR and IR variants; PAK FAs RF variant uses an AESA seeker, thus reducing the probability of seeker getting jammed or loosing track of the target. Presence of IR and AR BVR missiles allows, when combined with presence of the IRST, a completely passive engagement at beyond visual range. Assuming 12,5 gun bursts, as is standard for the Flanker family, as well as 2 IR WVR and 6 RF BVR missiles gives it a total of 4,67 onboard kills. If RF BVR missiles are replaced with IR BVR missiles, total number of kills increases to 4,84. It is also capable of carrying Kh-58UShE anti-radar and RVV-BD air-to-air missile, both with 200 km range. This indicates that SEAD/DEAD and AWACS elimination are also important missions for the T-50.

    J-20 does not seem to have a gun, and it might carry 4 BVR and 2 WVR missiles. This gives it a total of 0,62 – 0,74 onboard kills, depending on wether BVR missiles are of the RF or IR variety. As with the T-50, it has an avaliable selection of RF, IR and AR BVR missiles, which increases probability of kill for a salvo as each type of missiles behaves differently.

    J-31 can carry 4 BVR missiles. If it does not have a gun, this translates into a total of 0,32 – 0,44 onboard kills, depending on wether missiles are of the RF or IR variety.

    Damage tolerance

    F-22 has two closely packed engines, similar to the F-15. Its wings are also capable of carrying 4-g loads even after some combat damage. Fuselage fuel tanks are designed to be empty by the point 60% fuel capacity has been reached, thus avoiding possible fuel ingestion by the engine. However, at longer combat radiuses the F-22 will carry external fuel tanks, which means that possibility of ingestion is present, and there are still fuel tanks at sides of the engines. Hydraulic and electric systems are redundant. However, both main hydraulic pumps are placed near the centerline, close enough for a high single hit-kill probability. Tail actuator bay has no fire protection, potentially leaving the aircraft uncontrollable if damaged. Aeliron actuators and flight control avionics are very close to flammable hydraulic liquid. Hit into a missile bay is likely to take out the entire aircraft, a vulerability shared by all stealth fighters. A hit on gun ammunition will disable the gun but will not result in loss of the aircraft. While two engines are thought to provide an increased survivability, some failure modes (e.g. a disk burst, uncontained engine fire) will result in loss of both engines. Also, both engine control units are located at the bottom of the aircraft, as are all engine accessories.

    F-35 is far worse when it comes to damage tolerance than any other fighter listed. Both A and C variants have massive quantities of fuel surrounding the engine inlet. This fuel will be at an elevated temperature during flight, and especially during combat, as it is used as a heat sink. Same fuel is used in aircraft’s hydraulic system, including the system used to swivel the F-35Bs vectoring nozzle. A hit from a 30 mm HEI round (as used by most Russian and Chinese fighters as well as Dassault Rafale) is almost certain to ignite the fuel and catastrophically destroy the aircraft, and engine is likely to ignite it even if the hit itself doesn’t. Even 25 mm and 20 mm shells or .50 cal and 7,62 mm bullets, as well as fragments from SAMs and MANPADS can cause a loss of aircraft. And since the F-35 is primarily a ground attack aircraft, it is likely to be fired at from below – which is a problem as its primary avionics bay is located in the lower front fuselage, an area most likely to be hit by the AAA fire. Engine inlet and air intakes are also surrounded by fuel. This lack of damage tolerance is compunded by the fact that the F-35s pilot may not be capable of bailling out due to ill designed cockpit and ejection seat.

    F-35B has a lift fan which is untested against combat damage. It also melts asphalt, spalls concrete and crumbles flight decks with high-temperature Mach 1 exhaust. This means that the F-35B could damage (or, if unlucky enough, destroy) itself while landing, and will be an operational nightmare due to extreme airfield maintenance requirements.

    T-50 has two widely spaced engines whose thrust lines are canted outwards at 2-3 degrees. As a result, it can fly with only one engine active, and any hit is less likely to take out both engines. Flip side is that it increases roll inertia somewhat, increasing probability of damage, though usage of independently vectored thrust might compensate for that somewhat.

    J-20 has an advantage over all other fighters mentioned in that it has additional control surfaces in canards, leading to increased redundancy.

    J-31 has an advantage over the F-35 in that it does not have a STOVL variant, as well as having two engines.

    Ground attack performance

    (important points: gust sensitivity, radar stealth, payload, combat radius)

    F-22s all aspect radar stealth and supercruise speed mean that it can comparably easily avoid most typical air defense systems and take out high value targets, without need for low altitude flight. Requirement for rear aspect stealth has been achieved at cost of nozzle design that is both heavy and causes some thrust loss. It has a maximum combat radius on internal fuel of 1.166 km and internal payload of 900 kg (2×450 kg JDAM or 8×110 kg SDB).

    F-35 has limited side and rear stealth and no supercruise capability. This is because it is meant for low-altitude penetration, where its high wing loading reduces its gust sensitivity and allows it to achieve higher speeds than typical low wing loading aircraft could achieve. It has a maximum combat radius on internal fuel of 1.082 km and internal payload of 900 kg; however, effectiveness of delivery compared to the F-22 is impeded by the lack of the supercruise (though it is compensated for by lower aircraft cost). It should be effective in SEAD: as its radar was capable of jamming the F-22s radar in tests, it should also be capable of jamming modern frequency-agile X-band SAMs (but not VHF SAMs). However, radar can only jam targets in front of the aircraft, and F-35 has no internal jammer to compensate for compromised rear aspect radar stealth.

    T-50 is not as good as the above two in ground attack due to nonstealthy engine nozzles, lower and aft fuselage as well as a gap between air intakes; it also does not use saw tooth design. Further problems are caused by protrusions outwards of engines, intended to house WVR AAMs. As a result, it does not have as good deep penetration capabilities at high altitude as the F-22 does, and low wing loading limits its ability to hide below the radar coverage. Some info suggests that gaps are to be covered with net that has openings of less than 1/4 of wavelength of typical radars, and thus acts as a solid plate towards the radar. However, combination of high cruise speed and altitude might reduce SAM effective range so much that rear aspect stealth won’t matter anyway (specifically, to less than 1/5th of stated maximum range), and production engines might increase its rear aspect stealth (though it is also possible that Russians will opt for retaining 3D TVC nozzles over improving stealth). Production variant is also unlikely to retain current spherical IRST. It has a maximum combat radius on internal fuel of 1.250 km (est.) and internal payload of >=2.600 kg. It might be able to carry two 1.500 kg anti-ship bombs

    J-20 uses a stealthy design, and stealth coatings probably based on the F-117 (after Serbs shot down the F-117, Croatian intelligence services noticed Chinese agents buying parts of the downed F-117 from local farmers) and possibly the F-35 (project’s rather porous information security was consistently penetrated by Chinese hackers). However, its round engine nozzles mean that it does not have as good stealth performance as the F-22, though it is likely better than the T-50 due to the more even underside. It should be noted that canards are not actually a stealth penalty: a Lockheed Martin engineer who worked on the F-35 has stated that early canarded configuration was not any less stealthy than later wing-tail configuration (due to aircraft always flying at angle of attack, tail will not be masked by the wing except for a short time and only if aircraft radiating is at higher altitude than stealth aircraft; against ground radars, horizontal tail is as much of a penalty as canards). It likely has a maximum combat radius on internal fuel of cca 1.800 km and internal payload of cca 3.000 kg. It utilizes glide bombs, meaning that it can release its payload outside the radar detection range, possibly even taking into account increased RCS due to open weapons bay doors, and use supercruise to defeat rear-quadrant SAM shots.

    J-31 is mostly similar to the J-20, and it also has a high wing loading similar to the F-35, allowing it better low-level performance. New J-31 demonstrator also has a saw-tooth nozzle, showing greater focus on penetrating air defenses. It has a combat radius on internal fuel of 1.250 km and maximum internal payload of cca. 2.270 kg.

    However, if enemy uses VHF and HF radars, value of stealth is heavily reduced if not eliminated alltogether – as shown by the F-117, shot down only 18 seconds after getting discovered by the VHF radar, and another F-117 that got mission killed. In such situation, none of the “stealth” fighters are much better than the conventional ones.

    Combat radius also has implications for basing survivability. Most if not all of these fighters will require large and vulnerable air bases to functions; these have to be located outside the range of most prevalent threats. Since evolved Scud missiles may have range of up to 1.100 km, T-50, J-20 and J-31 have the adequate combat radius, while F-22s is borderline adequate and F-35s is completely inadequate.

    Counter-AWACS performance

    All fighters discussed have low frontal RCS and thus improved ability to destroy AWACS. Ideal scenario however would require a fighter to sneak up to within its longest missile range (preferably within half of it) without being detected by AWACS. Characteristics required are thus low frontal RCS and high cruise speed as well as air-to-air missile range.

    AWACS used for comparision will be E-3 Sentry with 400 km detection range vs 5 m2 RCS aircraft, and 855 kph maximum speed. Radar range calculation is (RCS1/RCS2) = (R1/R2)^4, where RCS = radar cross section, while R=range. Speed of sound at 30.000 ft is 1.091 kph.

    F-22 has 0,0001-0,0014 m2 frontal RCS (average RCS is 0,3-0,4 m2). Its longest-ranged missile is AIM-120D with 180 km range. Thus it will get detected at 27-52 km, well within half-range of the AIM-120D.

    F-35 has 0,00143-0,006 m2 frontal RCS. Its longest-ranged missile is AIM-120D with 180 km range. Thus it will get detected at 52-74 km, well within AIM-120Ds half-range. Export F-35 has an RCS of 0,25 m2 and will get detected at 190 km, just outside the AIM-120Ds maximum aerodynamic range. To cover remainig 100 km to AIM-120Ds half-range it will require 346 seconds (5,8 minutes) at cruise speed of Mach 0,95 or 206 seconds (3,4 minutes) at maximum speed of Mach 1,6.

    T-50 has 0,006-0,015 m2 frontal RCS (average RCS is 0,5 m2). Its longest-ranged missile is R-77 with 110 km range. Thus it will get detected at 74-94 km and to cover remaining 19-39 km it will need 40 to 81 seconds at cruise speed of Mach 1,6 or 31 to 64 seconds at maximum speed of Mach 2,0. (Most likely RCS is 0,013 m2).

    (Previous RCS figures are estimates from official releases, J-20 figure is APA estimate

    J-20 has 0,001-0,1 m2 frontal RCS. Its longest-ranged missile is PL-12 with 70-100 km range. Thus it will get detected at 48-150 km, which in best case is just within the PL-12s half-range.

    Conclusion

    Overall PAK FA is the best and F-35 is the worst stealth fighter, where air superiority is concerned. Rating would go roughly T-50 > F-22 > J-20 > J-31 > F-35. T-50 and F-22 seem to be air superiority fighters and interceptors, though PAK FA shows greater focus towards air superiority than the F-22. J-20 is primarly a bomber/transport interceptor, while both J-31 and F-35 are primarily (if not solely) ground attack aircraft. F-35s air combat capabilities were intentionally limited in order to prevent it from replacing the F-22. Still, F-35s purpose is often misunderstood – it is not, and never was, an F-16 replacement. While the F-16 was the top dogfighter in the US air fleet, F-35 is optimized for strikes against fixed targets and deep incursions.

    This shows different Russian and Chinese approaches. While PAK FA (T-50) is optimized to shoot down US fighter aircraft (primarily F-22 and F-15), J-20 is more optimized for shooting down US AWACS, transport and tanker aircraft, thus neutralizing its relatively short-range fighters without having to engage them in combat at all. F-22 is a compromise between two roles. T-50 seems to be the only stealth fighter made with actually realistic approach to aerial combat, in particular focus on maneuverability, passive sensors and on-ground survivability and ability to operate without large air bases (which will get destroyed), while J-20 is meant to avoid aerial combat, though it should be capable of handling itself if it comes to that.

    What is also important is that US are the only country planning to replace all fighters with stealth variants. Both Russians and Chinese seem to be planning to use their stealth fighters to supplement conventional forces, to be used for highly specific missions such as AWACS hunting, tanker destruction and strikes against heavily defended targets (especially air bases and command and control facilities), while other aircraft establish air superiority (though T-50 seems to be meant to destroy other stealth fighters as well). This strategy targets precisely the most vulnerable parts of US air power structure. US, despite experience with stealth, have not – unlike Europe, Russia and China – taken many steps to counter stealth aircraft. IR sensors still seem to be considered primarly ground attack additions, and there is little in way of development and production of counter-stealth (VHF, HF, passive) radars, unlike in China, Russia and Europe.

    Notes

    Missile guidance types:

    RF – active radar

    IR – infrared

    AR – anti-radiation

    Further reading

    http://aviationweek.com/zhuhai-2014/j-20-stealth-fighter-design-balances-speed-and-agility

    http://thepoliticallyincorrectfish.com/pif2/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/f-22_v_f-35_comparison.pdf
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:42 am

    Impact on pilot’s skill

    As stated, pilots should fly at least 30-45 hours per month. Neither the F-22 or the F-35 fulfill that requirement (F-22 can offer 15 hours/month at maximum), and no other stealth fighter on the list is likely to fulfill it either. If anything, PAK FA and J-20/31 are likely to have worse record than the F-22, if standard pattern is followed.

    Two obvious things spring to mind... pilot training includes time in flight simulators so actual aircraft flight hours are not that relevant, and PAK FA will offer less than 15 hours of flight time per month WHY.

    Because this western expert thinks Russian technology is just American technology copied so the PAK FA will be just a bad copy of the F-22 with all its problems. Perhaps the PAK FA will suffocate its pilots too?

    The fundamental flaw in this logic is that the Russians are not going for a 0.00000001 sq metre RCS aircraft like the dumb americans did. This means easier maintainence, lower costs, and more flight hours per hours of maintainence.

    BTW 15hrs/month is pathetic for any aircraft type.

    As stated, pilots should fly at least 30-45 hours per month. Neither the F-22 or the F-35 fulfill that requirement (F-22 can offer 15 hours per month at maximum), and no other stealth fighter on the list is likely to fulfill it either. If anything, PAK FA and J-20/31 are likely to have worse record than the F-22, if standard pattern is followed.

    What standard pattern?

    On what basis can you ascertain that the PAK FA will have a low monthly flight hours rate... they don't know anything about the damn plane yet.

    Ohh, that is right... the US can't build a decent Stealth plane so no one else can either.

    BTW the US couldn't build a decent gun launched ATGM either so I guess they don't exist or are worse than the US Shilalagh or whatever it is called. Rolling Eyes

    Again, no precise comparision is possible due to the lack of information.

    Translation... I am making this shit up.

    (It should be noted that all these aircraft will have exorbant prices when development costs are included, as these tend to be multiple times higher than for 4th and 4,5th generation fighter aircraft. They are also hard to maintain and unreliable – no exceptions).

    It certainly fits the writers agenda doesn't it... the existing US Stealth aircraft are all crap and very expensive, so new Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft will also likely be expensive crap... therefore stealth is crap.

    For comparision, Rafale C has a unit flyaway cost of 90 million USD, demonstrated mission avaliability of 100% and sortie rate (at 1 hour per sortie) of 2 sorties/day/aircraft. Assuming 20 billion USD cost, this gives 222 aircraft flying 444 sorties per day (a 17:1 advantage over the F-35). If mission avaliability is reduced to 90%, it still gives 200 aircraft flying 400 sorties per day, a 15:1 advantage over the F-35 and at least a 4:1 advantage over the J-31.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... for India the unit fly away cost will be $174 million per aircraft with a current availability of 0%...

    F-22 has an approach speed of 155 knots. Wing span is 13,56 meters and takeoff distance is 480 meters. While takeoff distance is acceptable, wing span is well above 10 meter maximum allowance for adequate road basing capability.

    The likelyhood of the F-22 operating from a road is zero.

    T-50 will likely have approach speeds on order of 150 knots. It also has a very robust undercarriage with large low pressure tires, allowing excellent STOL and likely dirt strip capability. Takeoff distance is around 458 meters, though values of 300-400 meters have also appeared. Road basing capability is limited by wing span of 13,95 meters.

    The T-50 will never operate from a dirt strip.

    T-50 has 0,006-0,015 m2 frontal RCS (average RCS is 0,5 m2). Its longest-ranged missile is R-77 with 110 km range. Thus it will get detected at 74-94 km and to cover remaining 19-39 km it will need 40 to 81 seconds at cruise speed of Mach 1,6 or 31 to 64 seconds at maximum speed of Mach 2,0. (Most likely RCS is 0,013 m2).

    Actually its longest range missile is the R-37M with a 280km flight range to target.

    T-50 seems to be the only stealth fighter made with actually realistic approach to aerial combat, in particular focus on maneuverability, passive sensors and on-ground survivability and ability to operate without large air bases

    So they were realistic with its design that doesn't focus solely on stealth but it has the same stealth problems as the F-22 and F-35 in terms of maintainence...?? I call it clutching at straws...

    This strategy targets precisely the most vulnerable parts of US air power structure. US, despite experience with stealth, have not – unlike Europe, Russia and China – taken many steps to counter stealth aircraft. IR sensors still seem to be considered primarly ground attack additions, and there is little in way of development and production of counter-stealth (VHF, HF, passive) radars, unlike in China, Russia and Europe.

    Wow... what a shocker... them Ruskies are designing aircraft to meet their own needs and not just blindly copying what the US is making... and making wrong BTW.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    So they were realistic with its design that doesn't focus solely on stealth but it has the same stealth problems as the F-22 and F-35 in terms of maintainence...?? I call it clutching at straws...

    Because this western expert thinks Russian technology is just American technology copied so the PAK FA will be just a bad copy of the F-22 with all its problems. Perhaps the PAK FA will suffocate its pilots too?


    Garry, it is not because they are americans or westerners that they are basically dishonnest. This website, and these authors are among of the most objective analysts. US implemented stealth technology the first, they met many difficulties, problems.

    Soviets approach is characterized by a pov concerning Stealth technologies, they did not believe in this concept, and they were right. Since 1990, the success of this concept is rather mixed. It was usefull only during the first days of war gulf I, once the iraqis understood, they built up old radars and they spotted several times US F-117. During Serbia's war in 1990's neither the F-117, nor the B2 were usefull, and during months of bombing campaign, and relative control of serbian sky, the bombing air campaign was far to be decisive.

    Now Russia and China decided to follow the same US fail's path. It is logical they will meet similar problems.
    This website is warning that the stealth approach will lead to disaster. Disaster concerning money spending -I doubt Russia can afford to spend the same amount of money as US -, these new fighters are far to be reliable, limiting training in pilots.
    This is why I post this topic.

    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:40 pm

    nemrod wrote:Now Russia and China  decided to follow the same US fail's path. It is logical they will meet similar problems.
    This website is warning that the stealth approach will lead to disaster. Disaster concerning money spending -I doubt Russia can afford to spend the same amount of money as US -, these new fighters are far to be reliable, limiting training in pilots.
    This is why I post this topic.

    Don't know about China, but Russia does not follow the path of the US.

    Russia already knew that stealth is a hard way to go, because they already test the expreiments with MiG 1.44, and they have exactly strong methods to counter US's stealth.

    The reason why Russia did not went on with the MiG 1.44 because, 1) financial difficulties in 199x and 2) Russia knew that stealth is a very hard way and it takes very long time for stealth techs to mature. So worry not.

    Furthermore, Russian stealth paints, as far as I know, is much better than the U.S.

    And unlike ground radars, fighter's radars are usually small therefore they cannot have enough resolution to use long wavelength to counter stealth. Except T-50's 10 metre L-band radar, or MiG-25/31 1.4 metre nose radar.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  nemrod on Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:27 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    ...And unlike ground radars, fighter's radars are usually small therefore they cannot have enough resolution to use long wavelength to counter stealth....

    The problem with stealth technology, it simply does not work, and could not work.
    If the F-22 -the only true fighter in US arsenal, no use to tell more about the jsf- uses its radar it betrayed itself -end of surprise-, and  will be immedialtly detected by modern and ancien chinese fighters' radars. In fact whatever its radar is mode  switch on or off, it will be detected. There is no way for this fighter to escape. In this analysis, Picard talked about the IRST. Do not forget that SU-27-30-33-34-35 and Mig-29-31-33-35 have all their own IRST.
    Moreover, as we saw above, the PK of the most sophisticated air to air missile does not exceed 15% in the better case, and in Laboratory, or exercices managed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. In most of the cases, the ultimated combat will end in dogfights. Regarding this topic, Russia with its Mig and Sukhoi fighters is very well equipped. What it is true for the F-22, it is for the Pak T-50, J-20, J-31.

    Well, in this situation, what will SU-Pak T-50 bring as novelties ?
    Radar ? Russia has its sophiscated radars able to detect every fighters in the world. Manoeuvrabilties ? Better than Mig 29, and SU-27's families, with just only 10 h/month training ? Hummm...it would be doubfull. Ground attack ? SU-24-34, and Mig-27-33 are readies.

    Well, the stealth fighters are huge scam that will only be used against poor, isolated third world countries. The reality, stealth are mere useless, just advertising.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:57 am

    US implemented stealth technology the first, they met many difficulties, problems.

    They certainly did and these experts are making the obvious mistake of assuming the Russians will make all the same mistakes and have all the same problems.

    Soviets approach is characterized by a pov concerning Stealth technologies, they did not believe in this concept, and they were right.

    The soviets were experimenting with RAM coatings in the 1970s and 1980s... what they did not like about the concept was the enormous cost with the resulting improvement in attack and invasion capabilities that they didn't need. The Soviets wanted to defend the Soviet Union... they didn't want to invade Grenada or Iraq or Iran or North Korea like the US does.

    The purpose of the PAK FA is not to be a stealth fighter that leads the charge to invade foreign countries... it is a hunter that kills aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters.

    That is why the light 5th gen stealth fighter is not a high priority... you need all stealth fighters to invade a country, which limits range and payload because everything needs to be internally carried.

    For the Russians however a few Stealth fighter hunters can be used and conventional non stealth aircraft can be used to support them and assist them which means much longer range and much more ordinance can be carried.

    Since 1990, the success of this concept is rather mixed. It was usefull only during the first days of war gulf I, once the iraqis understood, they built up old radars and they spotted several times US F-117. During Serbia's war in 1990's neither the F-117, nor the B2 were usefull, and during months of bombing campaign, and relative control of serbian sky, the bombing air campaign was far to be decisive.

    You are missing the point. These conflicts involved stealth bombers, not stealth fighters. A stealth bomber is able to calmly engage targets from medium altitude because only a tiny portion of the ground defences can see them let alone engage them.

    For a fighter you actually want a few targets with you like bombers to get the enemy aircraft to scramble so you can shoot them down from high altitude and long range.

    The US uses stealth bombers to violate enemy airspace and kill people... right now the F-117 is retired and the B-2 is the main alternative so instead they use unmanned drones. An F-117 is now redundant as a cruise missile can be made more stealthy and just as capable with a much longer range.

    For the strategic mission the B-2 needs stealth to get any where near its targets safely... the PAK DA will use stealth and long range stand off cruise missiles to do the same.

    The US F-22 and F-35 is a response to the Flanker... they needed an edge because with their existing aircraft they would likely be trading aircraft 1:1 or worse so they needed a gimmick to change the balance. that gimmick was stealth... I see you but you can't see me. Works against third world countries but not Russia or China.

    The PAK FA is not a copy of either US fighter... it is what the Russians have decided they needed to defeat the F-22 and F-35.

    Now Russia and China decided to follow the same US fail's path. It is logical they will meet similar problems.

    Rubbish. they have seen the path the US took and the problems they came up against, but they were never making an F-22 or F-35... the PAK FA is designed to fight and defeat those aircraft, not mimic them. And having seen the mistakes the US made do you really think they will repeat them?

    They have clearly gone for a rather different design focus... read the report you posted yourself above... the PAK FA is a real fighter in the traditional sense, which should give it an advantage in the air against both US and other stealth fighters. the article claims they copied all the US problems but offers no evidence to support that hypothesis.

    This website is warning that the stealth approach will lead to disaster. Disaster concerning money spending -I doubt Russia can afford to spend the same amount of money as US -, these new fighters are far to be reliable, limiting training in pilots.
    This is why I post this topic.

    That article is a western article that does not give a shit about Russia... it is talking about the US approach where the 4th gen fighters are out of production and only two stealth fighters are to be made.

    From a Russian perspective this is irrelevant... Su-35 and MiG-35 and indeed MiG-31BM and a replacement for that aircraft are either in production or to be produced as well as the PAK FA which will be a joint project for the moment with India, but likely in the future perhaps Brazil and South Africa and other countries.

    the future does look bad for the west because the F-35 seems to be turning into a dog, so the sky is falling and stealth is the reason... but the Russians have not made the same mistakes and will likely not have the same problems. They might have different problems, but they wont have the same ones.


    The problem with stealth technology, it simply does not work, and could not work.

    Of course it works... it just isn't a perfect shield from which to fight behind.

    If the F-22 -the only true fighter in US arsenal, no use to tell more about the jsf- uses its radar it betrayed itself -end of surprise-, and will be immedialtly detected by modern and ancien chinese fighters' radars.

    Those old radars could detect stealth aircraft from some aspects but their accuracy is pathetic. they could detect the presence of the target but not with enough accuracy to guide a weapon to it. If you send up some MiG-15s to investigate... guess what happens... The Stealth fighter marks your ground radar on its navigation system and shoots down any fighters send up to deal with it and then flys home... cruise missiles are then launched to take out that ground radar and the process is repeated until you have no radars and no fighters left.

    Moreover, as we saw above, the PK of the most sophisticated air to air missile does not exceed 15% in the better case, and in Laboratory, or exercices managed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

    American lab tests would evaluate the AMRAAM and AIM-9X and that is pretty much all. Their results are simulations and therefore potentially flawed.

    they have no information about the all new AAMs being developed for the PAK FA and Su-35 and MiG-35... the fact that they talk about the 110km range R-77 as the longest range weapon suggests they are less experts than many members on this forum.

    In most of the cases, the ultimated combat will end in dogfights. Regarding this topic, Russia with its Mig and Sukhoi fighters is very well equipped. What it is true for the F-22, it is for the Pak T-50, J-20, J-31.

    That will suit the Russians just fine... the first priority of the PAK FA design was manouver capability...


    Well, in this situation, what will SU-Pak T-50 bring as novelties ?

    Ridiculous thrust to weight ratio (its engines are rather more powerful and the aircraft is rather smaller and lighter than the Flanker) all moving vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and thrust vectoring engines offer manouver performance unmatched by other fighters.


    Well, the stealth fighters are huge scam that will only be used against poor, isolated third world countries. The reality, stealth are mere useless, just advertising.

    Have you not been reading about the PAK FA?

    All that whining about it not being stealthy enough... in other words not being as stealthy as the US F-22?

    Perhaps the reason it wont be as stealthy is so that it is easier to maintain and cheaper to buy and operate?

    But no, you clearly know better than the Russians... they develop a fighter intended specifically to fight enemy stealth fighters but of course they will copy old technology RAM from the US that is slow to apply and cure.

    the Funny thing is that the AH-64 Apache has a reputation as a bit of a hangar queen, so when they took it to desert storm they tripled the budget for maintainence. Its up time was excellent but only because they operated maintenance crews 24/7 to keep flying hours up.

    You can't compare peace time flight hours with war time flight hours.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  Viktor on Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:33 pm

    Giving credit to Russian next generation AD systems. thumbsup


    CNO: Next-Generation Navy Fighter Might Not Need Stealth

    “You know that stealth may be over-rated,” Greenert said during a speed at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo, Washington D.C. “I don’t want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    There has been some discussion among industry experts and analysts suggesting that state-of-the-art stealth technology may be less effective against increasingly modern, next-generation air defenses

    Sponsored content

    Re: Value of stealth aircrafts

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:18 am