Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:23 pm

    kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18.   So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.

    I don't know why this notion has spread so much, the F-35 has much more fuel than any F-18, at least internally:

    F/A-18C: 4930 kg
    F/A-18E: 6667 kg
    F-35A: 8278 kg

    Having a huge engine and weapons ways in parallel with it, the cross section is very big and that allows to accommodate a lot of fuel. At least they were smart enough to take that advantage from the design compromises they made.

    The F-35 is a committee design

    Yeah this is maybe the shortest and most precise way of defining it. Politics grew so large in this program that no amount of money or ingenuity could save it... absolutely contradictory requirements in the same plane just for the sake of making it too big to fail and an endless money source for a nation wide welfare system. As Gandhi (supposedly) said, in the world there is wealth for everybody's needs, but not for everybody's greed... that pretty much defines the differences between Russian and US MICs I think.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:53 pm

    More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

    This design is shitty as hell. It's more than compact. They could have made something bigger for the same money with better caracteristics.

    Best way to fight this aircraft is GCI with mig-29 equiped with jammers and r-73. Its small range allows also to hit them on their airports with 1000km ballistic missiles.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:56 am

    Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

    The "fat" factor is relevant in supersonic, not so much in subsonic flight. The wings with little sweep are actually the best to generate lift and the loading similar to a F-16, so not very good but not bad either. The plane is well thought by the engineers that received the order to design it, it was just political level that screwed them with requirements impossible to reconcile in the same aircraft.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 7467
    Points : 7616
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:47 am

    LMFS wrote:
    kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18.   So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.

    I don't know why this notion has spread so much, the F-35 has much more fuel than any F-18, at least internally:

    F/A-18C: 4930 kg
    F/A-18E: 6667 kg
    F-35A: 8278 kg

    Having a huge engine and weapons ways in parallel with it, the cross section is very big and that allows to accommodate a lot of fuel. At least they were smart enough to take that advantage from the design compromises they made.

    I have to admit I swallowed BS over the CF-18.   It does not have anywhere near the range claimed in the Canadian "debate" on this issue.
    The F-35A looks much better in this regard.   The F-18E has better specs than the CF-18.   So I am just another MSM lemming  pwnd

    The F-35 is a committee design

    Yeah this is maybe the shortest and most precise way of defining it. Politics grew so large in this program that no amount of money or ingenuity could save it... absolutely contradictory requirements in the same plane just for the sake of making it too big to fail and an endless money source for a nation wide welfare system. As Gandhi (supposedly) said, in the world there is wealth for everybody's needs, but not for everybody's greed... that pretty much defines the differences between Russian and US MICs I think.

    This is an upside to all the economic hardship.   The US MIC has been coddled for way too long and its greed has become unbounded to the
    point that they are warping US foreign policy to have perpetual wars for perpetual profit.


    Last edited by kvs on Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : formatting)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26629
    Points : 27167
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:51 am

    Its problem is the jack of all trades problem when you try to get it to do too many things.

    The replacement of the harrier was the death blow.

    The body shape to allow a large internal fan means it is chunky where it should be sleek.

    LMFS... it was not that long ago we were discussing single engine or twin engine for light fighters and you seemed to suggest a single engined fighter can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with much better aerodynamics...

    It seems you can make a single jet plane as expensive as you like...

    The F-35 was supposed to be a stealthy F-16, but as one pilot commented... it became a stealthy Buccaneer.

    It would be a useful strike aircraft if the stealth worked as advertised.

    Experience in Syria suggests it does not.

    Nothing wrong with the Bucc... I actually rather like that aircraft... as a strike aircraft with two nuclear bombs under its wings it was faster and longer ranged than the F-16, and unlike the F-16 it was carrier capable... but it was no dogfighter... it was not intended for that...

    The ability to have an enormous internal fan for hovering ruined the entire shape of the aircraft... they should have made two types that had different body shapes... one subsonic VSTOL and one supersonic and a real fighter.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:12 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

    The "fat" factor is relevant in supersonic, not so much in subsonic flight. The wings with little sweep are actually the best to generate lift and the loading similar to a F-16, so not very good but not bad either. The plane is well thought by the engineers that received the order to design it, it was just political level that screwed them with requirements impossible to reconcile in the same aircraft.

    I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

    From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

    And since it carries only 4 AA missiles you can easily beat it with 4th gen fighter equiped with good jammers.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:19 pm


    Isos wrote:I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

    From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

    And since it carries only 4 AA missiles you can easily beat it with 4th gen fighter equiped with good jammers.

    The EM diagram says something different, but in airshows each plane is flown the way it suits it best. Sukhois do a lot of slow speed tricks, without necessarily showing highest g loads, because they are amazing even without them. The program for the F-35 tries to use what the plane can do best, that is, good noise control and good subsonic acceleration, so they fly (apparently at least) it quite fast and hard on the corners. I don't think it is disappointing but it is IMHO far from what LM has tried to make it look. As said, all that was needed to leave their over-hyped ITR in the dust was a Flanker going a bit beyond their normal program at MAKS. But let us not fool ourselves, the F-35 has arguments that a good pilot and good commanders can use, also in short range combat. The engine is very powerful, the FCS tuned for post stall control, the wings are very effective producing lift (in general the fuselage is well optimized in that regard) and the very big, rear placed elevators make for a plane that can manoeuvrer vertically very well and has a lot of aero authority.

    kvs wrote:So I am just another MSM lemming  pwnd

    You wouldn't be one, even if you tried!
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:25 am

    Sorry but from what I saw it sucks. Its speed is not better than others. Its U turn takes a very long time and it couldn't follow other jets.

    Sure it would keep more energy and will be faster than the other one that turns harder but then it will have an r-73 on his ass so he will need to escape the missile while the other jet regain its speed and keeps launching r-73s and then use canons if it need to.

    And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

    This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  lancelot on Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:08 am

    Isos wrote:...
    And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

    This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.

    The AIM-9X Block II is supposed to have "lock-on after launch" capability via a datalink.
    But AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet. Also the AIM-9X failed miserably in Syria.

    I think you can have a single engine stealth fighter with decent agility and performance.
    They just had to not put the space for the large vertical lift fan in the center of the aircraft.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:24 am

    GarryB wrote:Its problem is the jack of all trades problem when you try to get it to do too many things.

    The replacement of the harrier was the death blow.

    Yeah I can agree. It was already bad without the STOVL requirement, with it it could not be saved.

    The body shape to allow a large internal fan means it is chunky where it should be sleek.

    The fan establishes a minimum section but that alone is not the main problem. It removes the prime location for the weapons bays, centered and before the engine, so they need to be taken to the sides of the main engine, massively increasing the cross sectional area, in turn demanding a bigger engine in turn increasing weight etc. Then payload requirements were increased. Additional requirements about max size for the lifts of carriers and the fact that the fan needs to compensate for the power of the engine forced to the engine forward, further making a fuselage which is short and thick.

    LMFS... it was not that long ago we were discussing single engine or twin engine for light fighters and you seemed to suggest a single engined fighter can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with much better aerodynamics...

    Smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better aero than F-35, no doubt. That is why I made my layout exercise and I stand by what I got. The main lesson is to keep cross sectional area down, bays in front of the engine and to satisfy the unquestionable weight/volume increase demands of the 5G (weapons bays & range) by extending the middle section of the fuselage. Maybe my model is too ambitious in terms of payload but I think it is a workable approach while F-35 is a fighter just in the name.

    they should have made two types that had different body shapes... one subsonic VSTOL and one supersonic and a real fighter.

    Or they should have waited for the unmanned version where cockpit can be substituted by the fan with great advantages of all orders. Bays return to its right position, lifting force is taken forward as much as possible, allowing the main engine in turn to move rearwards too. That solves most of the problems with the STOVL layout or at least reduces its downsides to the unavoidable volume and weight needed for the lifting devices without further compromising other aspects of the plane.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:29 am

    lancelot wrote:
    Isos wrote:...
    And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

    This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.

    The AIM-9X Block II is supposed to have "lock-on after launch" capability via a datalink.
    But AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet. Also the AIM-9X failed miserably in Syria.

    I think you can have a single engine stealth fighter with decent agility and performance.
    They just had to not put the space for the large vertical lift fan in the center of the aircraft.

    Modern jet will detect the launch of the missile directly in dogfight situation and release automatically flares.

    Lock on after launch increase the probability that the missile locks onto flares. The pilot can't know what the missiles is locking onto. The locking will happen with the flares around.

    Locking before launch means you are sure to lock on the real target and it's easier to keep the track.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26629
    Points : 27167
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:41 am


    The fan establishes a minimum section but that alone is not the main problem. It removes the prime location for the weapons bays, centered and before the engine, so they need to be taken to the sides of the main engine, massively increasing the cross sectional area, in turn demanding a bigger engine in turn increasing weight etc. Then payload requirements were increased. Additional requirements about max size for the lifts of carriers and the fact that the fan needs to compensate for the power of the engine forced to the engine forward, further making a fuselage which is short and thick.

    The problem is the requirement for vertical takeoff and landing and of course hovering.

    Even someone who doesn't know anything about aircraft will know that to hover you need to balance lift along the length of the aircraft and its width... the main wing generates the lift that holds the aircraft in the air in normal flight but in hover it means nothing... but it is where wing mounted ordinance is stored... the main jet engine nozzle is at the rear of the aircraft well behind the wing so the balancing lifting fan needs to be in front and the internal weapon bay needs to be between those two as well. The fan and jet nozzle need to balance the weight of the aircraft from take off with full fuel and weapons right through to full weapons and tiny fuel load or no weapons and almost no fuel... it is a variety of fuel and payload states where it needs to be able to balance... bloody nightmare with a subsonic plane that can have a huge high lift wing that gives positive lift on rolling takeoffs to allow higher weights in fuel and weapons, but super high lift wing is hard to combine with thin profile supersonic wing.

    The biggest problem with the Yak-38 was its tiny wing because they wanted it to fly as fast as possible. The wing on the Harrier was vastly better and made it a much better plane... but still not better than something like an F-16 or MiG-29.


    Smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better aero than F-35, no doubt. That is why I made my layout exercise and I stand by what I got. The main lesson is to keep cross sectional area down, bays in front of the engine and to satisfy the unquestionable weight/volume increase demands of the 5G (weapons bays & range) by extending the middle section of the fuselage. Maybe my model is too ambitious in terms of payload but I think it is a workable approach while F-35 is a fighter just in the name.

    My position is that you focus too much on cross section area like the US focussed too much on stealth and nothing else and ended up with a dog.

    5th gen fighters need internal volume for fuel and weapons so they are never going to be the sleek super low drag cheap and simple fighters you want them to be. That ship has sailed... the closest anyone got was probably the F-5 in the west or the MiG-21 in the east.

    If you want a good 5th gen fighter make two big planes... make one with all the expensive high tech super components that will give it an edge in combat and fill the other with proven trusted good but not great equipment and stuff that will get the job done and be affordable.

    Or they should have waited for the unmanned version where cockpit can be substituted by the fan with great advantages of all orders. Bays return to its right position, lifting force is taken forward as much as possible, allowing the main engine in turn to move rearwards too. That solves most of the problems with the STOVL layout or at least reduces its downsides to the unavoidable volume and weight needed for the lifting devices without further compromising other aspects of the plane.

    The VSTOL model is such a niche aircraft it was a terrible waste that compromised the design of all the different types... if you are making them unmanned then launch them vertically like a rocket and recover them in a net and make them more conventional without lifting fan crap... just a tail mounted thrust vectoring engine... should be enough to get them airborne from a short takeoff run...


    Modern jet will detect the launch of the missile directly in dogfight situation and release automatically flares.

    Lock on after launch increase the probability that the missile locks onto flares. The pilot can't know what the missiles is locking onto. The locking will happen with the flares around.

    Locking before launch means you are sure to lock on the real target and it's easier to keep the track.

    The claims for teh X model Sidewinder suggested the IIR seeker allows the operator to lock on to a specific part of the aircraft and that flares and jammers will be ineffective... yet an Su-22 evaded it in Syria with some Flares which should not have been effective.

    Previous generation missiles use much more basic IR sensors that see hotspots and patterns but not shapes or images, so if you saw what it locked on to you could not identify it as an aircraft, which is why modern procedure is to release large numbers of flares to generate patterns of hotspots to fool the missiles seeker.

    With IIR that should not be possible because no pattern of hot dots is going to look like the thermal heat map image of an aircraft.

    Something is not quite right here...
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 314
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  RTN on Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:40 pm

    Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

    From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.
    F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a  technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.

    For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

    Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:23 pm

    RTN wrote:
    Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

    From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.
    F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a  technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.

    For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

    Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ

    I'm not saying they have better technology, only better philosophy.

    Rafale is 3 times more expensive than a sukhoi and is doing all the tasks that 3 or 4 russian jets do. I would better love to have 3 sukhoi than 1 rafale.

    A full loaded rafale intercepted is dead meat since its small engines won't allow a good manoeuvrability.

    Max load is not relevent for russians.

    Rafale, f-18, typhoon, f-15 and f-22 also have 2 engines...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:08 pm

    RTN wrote:For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter

    Western fighters need to carry two and three fuel bags that make their real performance a shadow of the values on paper in terms of payload carrying capacity and excess power / range / overloading . A plane like the F-35 carrying > 8 t payload is a purely theoretical possibility and is essentially irrelevant in real world. Meanwhile all the payload capability and suspension points on a Sukhoi are usable in real operations.

    Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

    The engines carried by most the the US (the overwhelming majority of the fleet are F-16, F-15 and F-18) are more advanced than an izd. 117S, really? I don't think you have evidence to say that Russians are afraid to do single engines due to the low technology of their engines, there are plenty of examples of recent Russian fighters that were using or planned to use just one engine.

    Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ

    Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece. In any case, Putin says the Su-57 is the best fighter in the world, so what?

    magnumcromagnon likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:19 pm

    I don't think you have evidence to say that Russians are afraid to do single engines due to the low technology of their engines, there are plenty of examples of recent Russian fighters that were using or planned to use just one engine.

    I remember seeing a documebtary about Rafale where its conceptors said the two engine solution was better for such aircraft because of security. If one engine dies then you can still fly the aircraft home.

    Mirage 2000 had a very good and powerful engine that could have been used for Rafale with a new version.

    The choice is understandable because modern fighters cost much more than 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation which were produced in thousands. So you don't want to loose aircraft because of engine failures that can happen on any engine no matter how good it is or because of foreign object damages that can also happen any time they fly.


    Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece. In any case, Putin says the Su-57 is the best fighter in the world, so what?

    Best means nothing. Any fighter can loose against any other if you fly it the wrong way.

    And fighters like tanks or any other piece of equipment needs to be used with the help of other asstets to be good.

    Syria can buy 50 su-57 they will still loose against israel that is much better trained and have everything to use their aviation (ELINT, AWACS, AD, radars, datalinks...).
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 314
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  RTN on Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:04 pm

    LMFS wrote: Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece.
    From 10:45.

    Propaganda piece? Ruslan Pukhov is a employee of the Russian government. You think Russian government employees are carrying out propaganda against the Russian MIC?

    Isos wrote: I'm not saying they have better technology, only better philosophy.
    Why do you think Russians have better philosophy?

    Isos wrote:Rafale is 3 times more expensive than a sukhoi and is doing all the tasks that 3 or 4 russian jets do.
    Off the shelf price yes. But Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) of Russian fighter, helos is almost 2x as expensive as western ones. Russian after sales support is below average compared to U.S and Germany.

    That's the reason why countries like Egypt, India etc who purchases Russian fighter also procure western fighter.

    Isos wrote:I would better love to have 3 sukhoi than 1 rafale.
    How does that help? Unless you want to spend 3x more money on servicing these Sukhois. Rafale is a beast. It has EW systems a generation ahead of anything that Su 35 has.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:25 pm

    Better philosophy because their aircraft keeps very good manouevrability and are nit overloaded of work. Su-35 will take care of air threats while su-34 attack land targets.

    Western multirole fighters replace usually 4 or 5 type of aircraft but thry also have 4 or 5 times less aircraft than thry had. France had 600+ Mirage and lot of other types in big numbers and they replaced all that with around 100-200 rafale.

    India paid 800 million to upgrade 80 or so mig-29 to SMT level.

    They also paid 2 billion to upgrade 30 or so Mirage 2000.

    Cost maintenance is still cheaper for russian aircraft. Russian spare parts are far cheaper and not in danger if US sanctions.

    Su-35 is much better. Longer range, more type of missiles and having 3 of them for 1 rafale gives you number advantage. EW systems are secret and export models are not the same as original ones for both.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:54 pm

    RTN wrote:Propaganda piece? Ruslan Pukhov is a employee of the Russian government. You think Russian government employees are carrying out propaganda against the Russian MIC?

    And do you think that what a journo says in an odd interview is the last word about Russian aeronautic technology? He is basically talking bollocks in regards of the engines and in regards of weight and size, Sukhois have way longer ranges than the "Western planes" he is talking about. The best of them, a F-15 with CFTs has still less range and is weighting similarly to a Su-35, not even talking about a F-22 which is substantially heavier for way less range and payload.

    Off the shelf price yes. But Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) of Russian fighter, helos is almost 2x as expensive as western ones. Russian after sales support is below average compared to U.S and Germany.

    My info says it is closer to half of the Western price, maybe you can provide yours

    That's the reason why countries like Egypt, India etc who purchases Russian fighter also procure western fighter.

    Evidence?

    It has EW systems a generation ahead of anything that Su 35 has.

    I wonder how do you know that when data about EW systems are extremely difficult to come by, even in the West, and completely secret in Russia. Those "eye watering" EW capabilities some general of yours reported are BS but what the Russian journo says is the ultimate truth. Very solid research indeed.

    magnumcromagnon likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2298
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  LMFS on Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:44 am

    GarryB wrote:My position is that you focus too much on cross section area like the US focussed too much on stealth and nothing else and ended up with a dog.

    Without knowing the downsides it is difficult to make that assessment, specially since what I did is just a layout exercise and nothing more. Excess power is directly related to cross sectional area and both parameters are key elements of any good fighter. Su-57 has internal bays and everything you can imagine and still has less frontal area than a Flanker, so any engine gain will transform directly into performance. F-35 has almost twice the cross sectional area of a F-16, now imagine how different powering needs those two planes have. The same engine technology that allows the F-35 to more or less match the F-16 (in supersonic flight is not even the case) with an inferior airframe would allow a potential rival that keeps drag and weight low to totally crush it in terms of kinematics. When you are the only in the market with a 5G plane this is not so apparent, as more and more rivals appear it is going to hurt badly.

    5th gen fighters need internal volume for fuel and weapons so they are never going to be the sleek super low drag cheap and simple fighters you want them to be. That ship has sailed... the closest anyone got was probably the F-5 in the west or the MiG-21 in the east.

    Yeah we discussed this before. 5G needs planes that are a bit bigger (probably 10 t empty or more), unless they start using very small weapons for UAVs...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26629
    Points : 27167
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:57 am

    F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a  technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.

    In video game land the plane that carries hundreds of AAMs and thousands of AGMs is the best plane.

    The Rafale is a very good plane but it is not magic... look at photos of it operationally and you will see it probably carries a similar weapon load to an Su-30 except the Rafale is probably carrying a couple of external fuel tanks or needs refuelling tanker support for most missions, while the Su-30 generally does not.

    If two R-77s and two R-73s wont get the job done then carrying 6 R-77s and 6 R-73s is not going to help...

    For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

    With the exception of F-35, Gripen, and F-16 most western aircraft have two engines too... in fact during the end of the cold war period with the Su-17, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27, and Su-11s the Soviets probably had more single engined aircraft than HATO did.


    Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

    What is WELT? Who funds them?

    Mirage 2000 had a very good and powerful engine that could have been used for Rafale with a new version.

    The 1980s was a while ago, but I remember in military books the first version of Rafale was basically a twin engined Mirage 2000... in fact I think it was called Mirage 4000 for a while.

    The choice is understandable because modern fighters cost much more than 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation which were produced in thousands. So you don't want to loose aircraft because of engine failures that can happen on any engine no matter how good it is or because of foreign object damages that can also happen any time they fly.

    It is cheaper to put two 8 ton thrust engines into the Mach 2.4 MiG-29 than to find one 16 ton single engine to get similar performance...

    Smaller lighter engines are cheaper... they put a single more powerful engine in the F-5 and called it an F-20, but the two small engines on the F-5 were what made it cheap and simple and easy to operate...

    Best means nothing. Any fighter can loose against any other if you fly it the wrong way.

    And fighters like tanks or any other piece of equipment needs to be used with the help of other asstets to be good.

    The game war thunder tries to simulate armour protection levels and armour penetration of weapons and if you have ever watched it or played it you would very quickly see how important tactics are with every vehicle and that no vehicle can go out in to the middle of an open area and just fire at everything with no fear of being destroyed... even Leopard2A7s with their made up 2.5m thick frontal turret armour can easily be destroyed from the side or the rear even by late WWII vehicles.

    The reason the Russians invested in 300km range AAMs like R-37M and their new longer ranged missile is because situational awareness is critical to how a pilot fights and taking down AWACS and JSTARS breaks HATO IADS and their pilots situational awareness.


    Syria can buy 50 su-57 they will still loose against israel that is much better trained and have everything to use their aviation (ELINT, AWACS, AD, radars, datalinks...).

    Exactly... If Saddam had 5,000 M1A2 Abrams tanks in Desert Storm the Americans would have just use B-52s to bomb the shit out of them and they could not defend themselves.

    Propaganda piece? Ruslan Pukhov is a employee of the Russian government. You think Russian government employees are carrying out propaganda against the Russian MIC?

    WELT is not a Russian government component, and if you read some of the comments by Patriot Vostok I suspect it is mostly HATO bullshit... they are the ones that fund such documentaries...  either Russia is shit so we can feel good about all the trillions of dollars wasted competing with them, or they are the most dangerous thing in the universe... which means we need to spend more money to defeat them/counter them.

    Why do you think Russians have better philosophy?

    They are not spending themselves into oblivion with increasingly prohibitively expensive equipment... an American S-500 would be trillions of dollars worth and it looks like they are buying their Su-35s for a quarter of what the US will likely pay for their new F-15s...

    Off the shelf price yes. But Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) of Russian fighter, helos is almost 2x as expensive as western ones. Russian after sales support is below average compared to U.S and Germany.

    Where on earth did you get that idea from? If the Russians spent two times more on maintenance of their fighters they wouldn't have any.... the west spends vastly more than 20 times more than the Russians spend on weapons... the US alone spends ten times and then add all the other HATO countries into the mix... there is no way Russia could afford to spend as much on their aircraft as the west does.

    Russian support for exported items is paid for by the customer... and they get what they pay for... save a bit of money on cheap or no service and it will bite you in the ass later. The Russian military service and support their own aircraft and there are no problems there at all.

    That's the reason why countries like Egypt, India etc who purchases Russian fighter also procure western fighter.

    But wait a minute... if Russian fighters cost twice as much to operate surely those expensive western fighters must work out cheaper... why would they even look at Russian fighters?

    These days the US imposes economic sanctions on countries that buy S-400 missiles and Su-35 fighters so they must have some pretty amazing features to make countries risk such dire consequences just to get some Russian planes.

    It has EW systems a generation ahead of anything that Su 35 has.

    The Russians were able to detect US stealth fighters (F-35s) along the Iranian border using ground radar based in Russia... which suggests in terms of anti stealth technology they are actually doing rather well... do you think the Americans could track their own F-35s independently with ground based radar?

    I would say one of the reasons the Egyptians will buy Russian fighters is because as long as they pay for it the Russians are likely to sell the weapons they want... unlike the US.

    When you are the only in the market with a 5G plane this is not so apparent, as more and more rivals appear it is going to hurt badly.

    When the enemy is the third world just being able to point your nose and fire a missile directly at the target without it having to pull a 180 degree turn off the rail to line the target up... I would think TVC engines will render dogfighting less important... look first, turn first, kill first...

    Sponsored content

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 30 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:46 am