38 replies to this topic

[Zero]

Okay, I'm working on my book again, and I need some help (bet JB will help a load here). Simply put I need a list of the best/most promising fighters/bombers/multirole/choppers, production or not, to use. Tell me the stats. No bashing other reviews, and unless their is something REALLY wrong with one, please don't repeat. Also, another thing is that it doesn't matter if it was a concept or not, if it flew it can go in. Here's the format, PLEASE follow it and try to fill in as much as possible, may add more and please fill in anything you think I should have:

Name
Codename: (ex: Raptor)
Country:
Manufacturer:
Service Years:
Role:
Designation
Max Speed:
Cruise Speed:
Supercruise:
Turning Radius:
Rate of Climb:
Unit Cost:
Number Built:
Fear Factor:
Armament (as in what is available for it):
Thrust Vectoring (2D/3D):
Stealth (degree of RCS reduction):
Fame/Infamy:
Combat Radius:
Status: Active/Nonactive
Kills:If available
Shot-Down:If available
Kill-to-Killed Ratio:If available
Service Ceiling:
Take-Off Load (Max):
Radar Capability:
Ferry Range:
Bringback Load:
Landing Length (if VTOL state so):
Takeoff Length (if VTOL state so):
Primary Users:
Range:
Variants: If you wish, briefly state what they have
Anything else you wish to put, please include it as I cannot list it all here!!!
Notes: Any information that you feel is important

NOTE: PLEASE, if you want to post a plane but think the variant is better, please post the superior one, unless you feel there is to big a gap in between them, if so, you may post them seperately.

Edited by Zero, 15 December 2008 - 20:17.

[CommanderJB]

It'd be a hell of a lot easier if I didn't have to score things, I have to say. Otherwise I'll be here all month. There are also serious other factors such as radar capability (AESA/PESA, module count, LPI modes etc.), weapons available (not just 'how many can be carried'), the degree of RCS reduction (as 'stealth' on its own tells nothing), bring-back load, takeoff and landing length, the type of thrust vectoring (2D or 3D?), ferry range as opposed to combat radius (the latter being utterly dependent on the weapon loadout), RWR/MAWS, ECM/EW gear, level of avionic advancement, HMS availability, IRST sensors, etc. that are not on the list that greatly affect how they perform against each other.
Is it all right if I list them in a manner of my choosing? I'll try and give you what you're after but keep in mind there's no single source that will give you all the info you seek on anything. Partly because the 'best' are all classified.
I'll do what I can, though. *Rubs hands* This may just be fun.
I'll do them one at a time, I think. The first ones should be fairly easy.

Edited by CommanderJB, 15 December 2008 - 03:11.

[Zero]

Okay, I'll add that and rate them myself. If you need anything to make it easier, just let me know and I'll fix it when I can. JB, don't worry, I'll accept ANYTHING you can give me as I am just too busy writing and I'm having trouble looking up aircraft- not enough time in the day! Also, please list in any ORDER you wish, however underline the name and try to fill out at least the basic criteria.

Quote

I'll do what I can, though. *Rubs hands* This may just be fun.

I know, I thought you might say that and you seem to enjoy this more than ANYONE else on the forum. Guess you can say this was made with you in mind!

Edited by Zero, 15 December 2008 - 20:19.

[CommanderJB]

First candidate is probably the best one: The United States Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.

Codename: Raptor
Country: United States of America
Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin Corporation
Service Years: 4
Role: Air Superiority/Deep Strike/Counter IADS
Designation: Fighter-22 Model A (F-22A)
Max Speed: Classified. Officially Mach 2.25; some sources claim Mach 2.5 or higher at altitude.
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.8
Supercruise: Yes
Turning Radius: Haven't a clue. Small.
Rate of Climb: Haven't a clue. Classified.
Unit Cost: Approximately $200,000,000 (Early-production models ranged up to half a billion. Note the unit cost is entirely dependent on the production stage reached - the more planes you build, the cheaper it is to build more)
Number Built: Projected 183 upon programme completion. The USAF is pressing for more.
Fear Factor: How can you fear something you don't know is there? Impossible to rate for just about any of the fighters available, but for an air defence soldier who knows he'll have to face them, probably high.
Armament (as in what is available for it): AIM-120D AMRAAM (range 165km), AIM-9X Sidewinder (range debatable, maximum quoted as 40+ks, but realistically you'd rarely see anything like this), GBU-39B Small-Diameter Bomb, GBU-31(V)1B 1,000lb Joint Direct Attack Munition.
Loadouts:

(I'd disregard the non-stealthy options; you would never see a non-stealthy F-22 in any real war.)
Thrust Vectoring (2D/3D): 2D
Stealth (degree of RCS reduction): Claimed at 0.001m^2. As this makes the aircraft approximately the size of a metal marble on a radar I suspect it is an absolute best-case.
Fame/Infamy: Hard to judge - probably the best combat aircraft ever built, and the most expensive fighter. It also had an incredibly torturous development period and the result is a fighter far from the original vision. Never seen genuine combat.
Combat Radius: 759km, most likely with average weapons load.
Ferry Range: 3,219km
Status: Active. Entered into service in 2004, production is ongoing but very slow.
Kills: None.
Shot-Down: None.
Kill-to-Killed Ratio: Obviously none available. Multiple mock dogfights against F-15s and F-16s have produced ridiculous kill ratios of approaching 100 for zero. But keep in mind they can only carry 8 missiles.
Service Ceiling: Classified. Officially 65,000ft but almost certainly higher.
Take-Off Load (Max): 18,300kg.
Radar Capability: AGP-77 AESA. Probably the best fighter radar ever made. Estimated range of 240km against a 1m^2 target, and all the mod cons such as LPI. Plans are in the works to give the F-22 a pair of radars either side of the forward fuselage below the cockpit to cover out to the sides of the aircraft as well.
MAWS: Yes, fully integrated. Not sure about rear-aspect coverage, though.
RWR: Yes, range 463km or more. Effectively the best ESM kit out there.
Communications: Stealthy sharing of information available. Heavily network-centric.
Bringback Load: Unlimited (I should probably have mentioned this only applies to VTOL aircraft)
Landing Length (if VTOL state so): Unavailable, sorry.
Takeoff Length (if VTOL state so): As above. Probably moderate as it has TVC, but is a very heavy aircraft.
Primary Users: USAF and USAF only.
Variants: None.

The F-22A has been called the greatest combat aircraft ever built with good reason. It will kill anything that flies. And more to the point, in ninety-nine percent of cases, it will do so before the enemy ever knows it was there. It lives in the supersonic envelope; exploiting its extremely low RCS, it can soar at massive altitude, supercruising with its specially-designed F119 engines. This gives it extraordinary range and combat utility when compared to its peers; an aircraft burns far less fuel at altitude than at sea level, and extremely importantly, a missile launched while flying high and fast will have massively superior kinematics to one launched when crawling along the ground. Missile range figures are often fairly irrelevant because they are utterly dependent on the speed and altitude of the launch platform; thus the F-22A will always have a supreme advantage in this area.
Air-to-air capability: 11/10.
The F-22A has also morphed into an aircraft that will take over the role of the F-117; destruction of enemy air defences from the air. This it does with its JDAMs or, as they become available, its SDBs. It's not as fantastic in air-to-ground because it doesn't have dedicated targeting systems for the job; it relies completely on its radar or external intelligence to pick out targets. As such, while it's a very good performer because it's one of only two aircraft even able to approach modern SAMs such as the S-300PMU variants with any hope of surviving, and is strongly intended for this role, it won't be used as a bomber except in specialised circumstances.
Air-to-ground capability: Difficult to rate as it is dependent on scenario. Counter-IADS: 9/10 (This is the highest score I will give in that category, as it's not an ideal performer but still the best one there is), all other scenarios: 6/10.
Sensors-wise the F-22 is also top of the class. Its ESM and radar are unsurpassed, giving it the capability to find anything that emits at long range.

Overall the F-22A assures air dominance in any situation and is a vital component of the US Global Strike Force for the neutralisation of enemy surface-to-air threats as well. The price is the highest anyone has ever paid for a fighter. They are not looking likely to exceed 200 produced at the moment, no matter how much the USAF might beg for the 300 or so that it wants. The are also extraordinarily expensive to fly and maintain. Only the US can afford them, effectively. Not only that but their internal systems are, surprisingly, extremely dated; they were originally stated for a technology refresh every 7 years but the program blew the budget by a couple of orders of magnitude and this was one of the things sacrificed in a somewhat hopeless effort to keep costs down. As such the processor they use is no longer produced by Intel; your desktop PC probably outranks it (remember they were designed in the mid-90s and first flew in 1998). There have been teething troubles with the computer systems, such as a pilot having to be cut out of an F-22's cockpit with chainsaws after being stuck there for 5 hours (the canopy has no manual release and the electronics glitched), or an avionics failure causing one to make an expensive controlled crash, but they seem to be working fine now and have demonstrated superb control in the air.

[Zaho]

I can't help with any technical designs, I am more like a historian, not an engineer. If I can help, it will be based on Soviet/Russian aircraft. Just tell me which planes you want really bad

[Zero]

NICE JB! You actually EXCEEDED my already high expectations dude!

Zaho, on 19 Dec 2008, 14:51, said:

I can't help with any technical designs, I am more like a historian, not an engineer. If I can help, it will be based on Soviet/Russian aircraft. Just tell me which planes you want really bad

Great, can you get me any WWII-ish planes? 1925-1960? I need it for the Feuhrer Kamui Arc... I WOULD do all of this myself, but I'm just too busy (and somewhat lazy).

Will add tank/vehicle sys. later.
Also, two new things for the rubric:

Generation:
Years in Service:
(Optional) Major Wars/Skirmishes:

[Rayburn]

I can't really contribute anything on the subject but could someone please change the thread title to something more appropriate? Wordings like 'the best of the best' cause my anger-vein to throb when it comes to the discussion of weapons; weapons that KILL people. I have no problem with people comparing the technological aspects of warfare but please do it in a respectful way and don't compare them as if they were just baseball cards. I'm not trying to criticise any person in particular, it's just the fact that such discussions often trivialise the matter, be it intended or not.

Edited by Rayburn, 01 January 2009 - 19:37.

[Warbz]

Rayburn, on 1 Jan 2009, 19:26, said:

I can't really contribute anything on the subject but could someone please change the thread title to something more appropriate? Wordings like 'the best of the best' cause my anger-vein to throb when it comes to the discussion of weapons; weapons that KILL people. I have no problem with people comparing the technological aspects of warfare but please do it in a respectful way and don't compare them as if they were just baseball cards. I'm not trying to criticise any person in particular, it's just the fact that such discussions often trivialise the matter, be it intended or not.

Fair point, something I often unintentionally overlook. Maybe something along the lines of 'Technological superiors'?

[Dauth]

Wish granted Rayburn

[Zero]

Amor, on 1 Jan 2009, 20:40, said:

Rayburn, on 1 Jan 2009, 19:26, said:

I can't really contribute anything on the subject but could someone please change the thread title to something more appropriate? Wordings like 'the best of the best' cause my anger-vein to throb when it comes to the discussion of weapons; weapons that KILL people. I have no problem with people comparing the technological aspects of warfare but please do it in a respectful way and don't compare them as if they were just baseball cards. I'm not trying to criticise any person in particular, it's just the fact that such discussions often trivialise the matter, be it intended or not.

Fair point, something I often unintentionally overlook. Maybe something along the lines of 'Technological superiors'?

Sorry, m'bad. Didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

[partyzanpaulzy]

That's not so easy, I saw several videos on YouTube with agility of F-22, MiG-35, Su-37 and it looks like:
Su-37>MiG-35>F-22 in agility (F-22 has just vertical thrust vectoring, +-20%).

One video: MiG-35 took off after less than 100m and immediately turned right and up, then started acrobacy almost comparable with Su-37 (Su-37 can do Cobra manouver), also it's full of detectors.
Other video: F-22 on some airshow - took off after some 100m, turned up THEN right and started acrobacy with bigger path than MiG-35 in same speed...

Only Su-37 (and few other Sukhois) can do Cobra manouver (stay for a while in vertical position and then return to fly).

So, Su-37 and MiG-35 is more capable to fool the missiles, all planes let infra-sign, F-22 and F-35 low, but still some missiles can get it + F-35 has problems with stealth factor (some tests proves F-16 better stealth capability than F-35), also F-35 can be beaten by missile from the Su-34, modern Radar, passive Radar or Infra-detecting sensor can find any stealth plane (F-22 has worse stealth capability than YF-23, or how was that beaten competitor's plane, the best has F-114 which was shot down in Serbia).
Also stealth would work if plane has only passive Radar, low infra-sign, very low Radar-reflectivity. Also Russian are developing plasma stealth tech (with some RAM coat it would be pretty stealth, MiG-41 prototype was semi-stealth). Russian-made planes are equiped with missile-fooling systems, Pak-Fa is being developed.

I see F-22 dominates in electronics, but is just very good in speed and manouverability, just very good, not excellent. MiG-35 or Su-37 are 4.5 generation fighters, Jas-39 for example is 4.5+th generation (declared 5th generation seems too much to me with all the bugs and lack of stealth or thrust-vectoring). Only F-22, F-35 and maybe some other fighter is 5th generation fighter. But what determines the 5th generation, comparable with F-35 (PakFa)?
Also F-22 can be shot down by some Su-30 when F-22 pilot is bad and Su-30 is piloted by real crack or when Su-30 fires some good missile and F-22 pilot don't have luck. Anyway such fight would be taken on very long distances when one plane won't see another.

So is it F-22 really the best fighter, or just the most expensive? Only fight would prove this, just hope this won't happen for a very long time.

BTW, I have heard RAM materials cannot resist more than 2.5 Mach.

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 01 January 2009 - 22:18.

[CommanderJB]

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

That's not so easy, I saw several videos on YouTube with agility of F-22, MiG-35, Su-37 and it looks like:
Su-37>MiG-35>F-22 in agility (F-22 has just vertical thrust vectoring, +-20%).

There is a lot of debate about the utility of TVC in aerial combat. It bestows unreal 'post-stall' manoeuvring on the user; what this means is that a pilot can execute manoeuvres at any angle of attack he likes when the speed is low enough (as all the videos show, flipping around at will in the sky). But it comes at a cost. Because TVC works by diverting a portion of the energy that's propelling the fighter along, used when the fighter is in a high energy state (i.e. flying near or over supersonic speeds at altitude) it will inevitably cause the fighter to slow and lose energy as a direct result of diverting the thrust stream. Reducing the energy state of your aircraft when in a dogfight is tantamount to suicide. Because you're travelling slower you'll wallow in the air and get your tail shot off by the faster-flying, more-agile (yes, more; his extra energy will give him more to divert into high-speed manoeuvres) opponent. This was proven in recent Red Flag exercises in which Indian Su-30MKIs flew off against American F-16s and F-15s. They were faster and more agile, but as soon as some of the less-experienced Indian pilots kicked into TVC and entered this post-stall manoeuvring state, F-15 pilots were able to capitalise on it and bag them while they tried to get back up to speed again. That said the IAF still claims the Su-30MKI dominated in the 1v1s and generally came out the better aircraft.
Where TVC is useful is providing a snap shot solution for a HOBS missile. HOBS means High Off Bore-Sight; basically a missile which can lock on to an enemy from a considerable distance either side, up, or down from the fighter's (and thus the missile's) nose. More modern fighters combine this with a Helmet-Mounted Sight (actually the Soviets had been doing it since the 80's) to provide very quick solutions on an enemy fighter that mean you don't have to get your nose aligned with his tail. As such, if you can quickly snap your nose just far enough to give you a solution and then high-tail it while your enemy deals with the missile you just shot at him, you should have an edge. Unfortunately it's unlikely you'll be able to stay out of his sights while you run off and most simulations for comparable modern fighters in Within Visual Range (WVR) combat end up with a mutual kill. So much for technology.

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

One video: MiG-35 took off after less than 100m and immediately turned right and up, then started acrobacy almost comparable with Su-37 (Su-37 can do Cobra manouver), also it's full of detectors.
Other video: F-22 on some airshow - took off after some 100m, turned up THEN right and started acrobacy with bigger path than MiG-35 in same speed...

Only Su-37 (and few other Sukhois) can do Cobra manouver (stay for a while in vertical position and then return to fly).

MiG-35 can do Pushkin's Cobra; in fact it can do it better than an Su-37. In fact the MiG-35/MiG-29OVT is more agile than any Flanker simply because it's smaller and lighter and has a better thrust-to-weight ratio while retaining a very similar level of TVC. (By the way, the Su-37 only ever had 2D TVC engines installed; MiG-35 was the first to feature 3D, which has later been introduced to the Su-35BM.)

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

So, Su-37 and MiG-35 is more capable to fool the missiles, all planes let infra-sign, F-22 and F-35 low, but still some missiles can get it + F-35 has problems with stealth factor (some tests proves F-16 better stealth capability than F-35), also F-35 can be beaten by missile from the Su-34, modern Radar, passive Radar or Infra-detecting sensor can find any stealth plane (F-22 has worse stealth capability than YF-23, or how was that beaten competitor's plane, the best has F-114 which was shot down in Serbia).

Anything that claims the F-16 has better stealth than the F-35 is talking out of its rear end. The reasons for this should be utterly obvious. F-35 is covered with RAM and is specifically shaped to absorb and/or scatter radar waves. F-16 has neither advantage and carries its weapons externally (and even an empty missile pylon has the potential to add an extra square metre of radar cross section to a design in some instances). Both the F-35 and F-22 also have better stealth than the F-117, a result of an extra two decades of R&D into stealth.

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

Also stealth would work if plane has only passive Radar, low infra-sign, very low Radar-reflectivity. Also Russian are developing plasma stealth tech (with some RAM coat it would be pretty stealth, MiG-41 prototype was semi-stealth). Russian-made planes are equiped with missile-fooling systems, Pak-Fa is being developed.

Technically the radar doesn't have to be passive (again, there's no such thing as a passive radar), it simply has to operate in a Low Probability of Intercept mode. AESA radars, new-generation technology that's only just been added to about five worldwide fighter types in the past decade (F-22, F-35, F/A-18E/F, F-15K - in minuscule numbers - and MiG-35 as a demonstrator), are the best for this because they can randomly modulate their frequency in a way that's extraordinarily difficult for a RWR to pick up. Plasma stealth has yet to be demonstrated as anything other than a concept study which was never taken into reality.

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

I see F-22 dominates in electronics, but is just very good in speed and manouverability, just very good, not excellent. MiG-35 or Su-37 are 4.5 generation fighters, Jas-39 for example is 4.5+th generation (declared 5th generation seems too much to me with all the bugs and lack of stealth or thrust-vectoring). Only F-22, F-35 and maybe some other fighter is 5th generation fighter. But what determines the 5th generation, comparable with F-35 (PakFa)?

F-22 dominates in speed too. Nothing can catch it in the supersonic envelope and while it's sea-level performance is not quite as superlative it's still going to have about five times the endurance of anything else travelling at the same speed because it doesn't have any drag from external stores.

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

Also F-22 can be shot down by some Su-30 when F-22 pilot is bad and Su-30 is piloted by real crack or when Su-30 fires some good missile and F-22 pilot don't have luck. Anyway such fight would be taken on very long distances when one plane won't see another.

Technically? Probably yes. Practically? No chance. The F-22 will see the Su-30 from hundreds of kilometres away on either his radar (but this is risky as LPI or not the Flanker's ESM gear represents an unknown quantity) or using his own ESM gear (said to have longer range than the radar and provide enough data to cue an AMRAAM shot) and fire an AIM-120D which will blow his tail off about half an hour before the Su-30 pilot would ever have known the Raptor was there. The Flanker would be lucky to see the Raptor on his radar if he were within visual range (~50km). Certainly F-15s have reported the same thing (seeing the Raptor with their eyes but getting nothing on their radar). In the end his only ace in the hole is his IRST unit, which is akin a pair of binoculars; it's really good for looking at something but not finding it, having to be cued by something else (i.e. usually the radar).

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

So is it F-22 really the best fighter, or just the most expensive? Only fight would prove this, just hope this won't happen for a very long time.

It's the best, seriously. While they may be inflated the approximately 100:0 kill ratios are simply just not something that would ever come out of luck. The Raptor will dominate any current aerial adversary in any combat scenario that has it in the air.

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

BTW, I have heard RAM materials cannot resist more than 2.5 Mach.

Not true. Raptor can almost certainly go up to this speed without losing stealth. What may happen though is that the RAM becomes irrelevant at this speed because aircraft leave huge shock wakes behind them in the atmosphere that produce visible signatures on radar (happened all the time with the Blackbird).

Edited by CommanderJB, 02 January 2009 - 01:26.

[Zero]

WOW JB....that's....AMAZING! WHERE THE HELL DO YOU LEARN ALL THIS!!?!! You are an inspiration to a young engineer *points at self*

CommanderJB, on 2 Jan 2009, 1:22, said:

partyzanpaulzy, on 2 Jan 2009, 9:17, said:

That's not so easy, I saw several videos on YouTube with agility of F-22, MiG-35, Su-37 and it looks like:
Su-37>MiG-35>F-22 in agility (F-22 has just vertical thrust vectoring, +-20%).

There is a lot of debate about the utility of TVC in aerial combat. It bestows unreal 'post-stall' manoeuvring on the user; what this means is that a pilot can execute manoeuvres at any angle of attack he likes when the speed is low enough (as all the videos show, flipping around at will in the sky). But it comes at a cost. Because TVC works by diverting a portion of the energy that's propelling the fighter along, used when the fighter is in a high energy state (i.e. flying near or over supersonic speeds at altitude) it will inevitably cause the fighter to slow and lose energy as a direct result of diverting the thrust stream. Reducing the energy state of your aircraft when in a dogfight is tantamount to suicide. Because you're travelling slower you'll wallow in the air and get your tail shot off by the faster-flying, more-agile (yes, more; his extra energy will give him more to divert into high-speed manoeuvres) opponent. This was proven in recent Red Flag exercises in which Indian Su-30MKIs flew off against American F-16s and F-15s. They were faster and more agile, but as soon as some of the less-experienced Indian pilots kicked into TVC and entered this post-stall manoeuvring state, F-15 pilots were able to capitalise on it and bag them while they tried to get back up to speed again. That said the IAF still claims the Su-30MKI dominated in the 1v1s and generally came out the better aircraft.
Where TVC is useful is providing a snap shot solution for a HOBS missile. HOBS means High Off Bore-Sight; basically a missile which can lock on to an enemy from a considerable distance either side, up, or down from the fighter's (and thus the missile's) nose. More modern fighters combine this with a Helmet-Mounted Sight (actually the Soviets had been doing it since the 80's) to provide very quick solutions on an enemy fighter that mean you don't have to get your nose aligned with his tail. As such, if you can quickly snap your nose just far enough to give you a solution and then high-tail it while your enemy deals with the missile you just shot at him, you should have an edge. Unfortunately it's unlikely you'll be able to stay out of his sights while you run off and most simulations for comparable modern fighters in Within Visual Range (WVR) combat end up with a mutual kill. So much for technology.

WOW... I did now know most of that. Althouh I can VERY CLEARLY see what you mean. TVC would only be helpful in bombing, allowing for tighter turns, and when bombing/strafing there is rarely only 1/2 targets to hit, so this would be perfect for that. Also, I can see the disadvantage of losing airspeed, as in dogfights, usually faster IS better, however, as you pointed out-at least I THINK you did- the bombing benefits are pretty good. However, next step would be a switch that let let's you turn off TVC for high-speed dogfighting/maneuvers

Note: JB, I've never heard of Pushkin's Cobra, are you mixing it up with Pugachev's Cobra maneuver? If it isn't then would you let me know what it looks like (pic if available).

Edited by Zero, 02 January 2009 - 04:02.

[Cuppa]

I searched pushkin's cobra and got nothing related to aircraft maneuvers so I think JB is mixing it up with Pugachev's cobra (which looks like this)

[CommanderJB]

Argh, whoops. You're quite right, it's Pugachev's Cobra. There was a little voice at the back of my head saying 'that's not quite right' but I was in a hurry. Apologies.

I don't know exactly where the primary advantage of TVC lies. Interestingly they put it on the Raptor because the Raptor as a dedicated supersonic aircraft is designed to fly, and fight if necessary, at very high altitude. They viewed the portion of thrust diverted into turning important because at extreme altitude the air is much thinner, meaning you get much less control from your ailerons/flaps/rudder/elevators/whatever than at sea level.
In a normal aircraft, I would say TVC will come in very useful for:
- Minimising your takeoff stretch (point the nozzles down and you have a lot more lift strength, for your tail at least)
- Making a one-off snap shot or making a sudden turn to lose pursuit in a dogfight, particularly at altitude
- Virtual inability to lose control of the aircraft
- And of course superb airshow performance (seriously, nothing beats a MiG-29OVT in aerobatics).
- Possibly bombing runs, but these days with precision-guided munitions that's not likely to make a lot of difference; rather the targeting package you have aboard will decide where your bomb hits than anything else.

I'd warn you against taking what I say as gospel; while I've learned an awful lot there are still gaps in my knowledge, so make sure you pick up on anything that doesn't make sense. But otherwise, I've basically been surfing the web soaking up all the military knowledge I can for the last year or so because I find it so darn fascinating. The aircraft stuff comes mostly from hanging around this forum:
http://forum.keypubl...display.php?f=5
But I would warn you that there are a lot of rabidly nationalistic people and discussions can get both stupidly technical (I so do not bother with all the maths about radar cross sections) and really venomous quite quickly.

Oh, and by the way, the Russians are already there about the switch! There's a simple button on the control column for all Russian aircraft with TVC-capable engines installed which turns the feature on or resets the nozzle position and turns it off at a single press. The Raptor doesn't actually have this though; it's hardwired into the avionics software. Time will tell if this is a good or bad thing.

Anyway, happy to help! I'll do my next one soon but I'm having to split computer time a lot of different ways at the moment.

Edited by CommanderJB, 02 January 2009 - 08:13.

[CommanderJB]

Ok, next up, the Sukhoi T-50. No-one knows much about it so these are entirely speculative, but it will be the big world aircraft from the end of this year onward when it comes to military air combat planning for Western (and no doubt many Eastern) air forces.

Codename: PAK FA (this is the name for the programme to develop the fighter, not the name of the fighter itself, but it's what everyone calls it.)
Country: Russian Federation
Manufacturer: Kosomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Organisation (KnAAPO) for the Sukhoi OKB design bureau of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation
Service Years: 0 (Flight testing to start August 2009 at latest estimate.)
Role: Most likely air superiority, counter-IADS and survivable battlefield tactical strike
Designation: T-50 (note this is Sukhoi OKB's internal prototype designation and the aircraft will be given a regular Su-XX designation in official service)
Max Speed: Unknown. Likely in the region of Mach 2.5 based on known capabilities of the NPO Saturn AL-41F engine, which was tested in the Mikoyan-Gurevich 1.44 experimental technology demonstrator. Note the AL-41F will not be ready for the first flights of the T-50 prototype, which will use the 117S, an upgraded version of the AL-31F series that has powered all Flanker series fighters.
Cruise Speed: In excess of Mach 1, likely higher than Mach 1.5.
Supercruise: Yes, this is a confirmed capability.
Turning Radius: Very small (hyper-manoeuvrability is a stated design goal).
Rate of Climb: Unknown.
Unit Cost: As yet unknown. I would estimate it is unlikely the aircraft will exceed an equivalent of $100,000 US because the Russian military will demand a platform that is cost-effective to field as a replacement for the 800-odd MiG-29s and Su-27 variants.
Number Built: Zero complete, three undergoing various stages of pre-flight testing at KnAAPO works under high security.
Fear Factor: Total unknown. Probably used to scare politicians into buying more F-35s and F-22s, not that the latter will work with the production line looking set to be closed down and destroyed.
Armament (as in what is available for it): Unknown. Current Russian inventory which will almost certainly be cleared for the T-50 includes: short-range Vympel R-74M (AA-12 'Archer') digital all-aspect-targeting infra-red homing air-to-air missile (range: ~30km), medium/long-range Vympel R-77M1 'AMRAAMski' (AA-11 'Adder') active radar homing air-to-air missile and variants (including anti-radiation and infra-red homing versions) (range: ~175km), 'Kh-58M' air-to-surface anti-radiation missile (one of the few 'knowns'; it's been confirmed that a shortened variant of the base Kh-58 - 'AS-11 'Kilter' - has been specifically developed to fit the PAK FA's weapons bays) (range ~100km), ultra-long-range Novator KS-172 active radar homing air-to-air missile (range ~400km, intended for use against tankers, AWACS, bombers, maritime patrol aircraft and other large targets rather than fighters, very high probability of evolved versions having ASAT capability, not yet fielded operationally, still in testing.). Probably many other weapons including new-generation AAMs and a lot of air-to-surface weaponry I haven't listed here, but since it's all unknown I've listed only the 'almost-certains' and not the 'possibles' or we'd be here all day.
Thrust Vectoring (2D/3D): 3D (confirmed)
Stealth (degree of RCS reduction): Completely up in the air. Likely 'very low observable' (~0.001-0.0001m^2) but no-one really knows and isn't likely to for a long time. Whether Russia will be able to produce a stealth aircraft that matches the superlative capabilities of the Raptor on their first try is very unlikely, but they do have extensive experience with RAM.
Fame/Infamy: None... yet.
Combat Radius: Unknown. Probably pretty decent because it'll be Flanker-ish in size with no drag from external stores. I'd peg it at somewhere between 500 and 700km.
Ferry Range: Totally unknown.
Status: In development, first flight projected as August 12, 2009.
Kills: None.
Shot-Down: None.
Kill-to-Killed Ratio: Obviously none available.
Service Ceiling: Probably very high (AL-41F was, like the F119 in the F-22, designed for excellent high-altitude performance. Probably well in excess of 60,000ft).
Take-Off Load (Max): Unknown.
Radar Capability: Unknown. Probably an AESA variant of the Bars/Irbis radars fitted to Flankers. Likely to have a large aperture and huge power and range based on experience, but not necessarily all the mod cons because Russia's only built one AESA so far and that's been fitted to the MiG-35. Still a big improvement over their existing radar tech, which is pretty formidable.
MAWS: Yes, fully integrated.
RWR: Yes.
Communications: Stealthy sharing of information available.
Bringback Load: N/A
Landing Length (if VTOL state so): Unknown. Probably not in excess of 500m.
Takeoff Length (if VTOL state so): Unknown. Probably not in excess of 400m.
Primary Users: VVS (Russian Air Force), Indian Air Force (as FGFA variant)
Variants: 'FGFA' ('T-50MKI') two-seat long range version for IAF

PAK FA is arguably a more important programme than the Raptor these days. When it flies, it will show us exactly what Russia and her allies will be using to contest US (and, increasingly, Chinese) air superiority, an utterly vital component of military geopolitics. Most estimations are based entirely on guesswork. What's certain is that it will be more capable than anything Russia currently flies and have stealth to boot. The degree of stealth is totally up in the air and no-one will even have a decent estimate until they see what it actually looks like, and even then, it'll have to be taken with a grain of salt. Mine are based on the fact that it's probably not going to be at all high and probably not going to be hyper-low either.
It's also had a rather tangled development period (as usual). It was first meant to fly in 2007, then they shifted it to 2008, and now it's in August 2009, so no-one's really sure where they're at, especially as no-one knows what on Earth it looks like or any of the key specifications for certain. Consider what's here an varying-degrees-of-informed estimate rather than anything for sure.
Perhaps the biggest innovation to come to the Russian aircraft industry in the T-50 will be the concept of sensor fusion and digital information sharing. While it's again unlikely to match the hugely advanced systems on the F-35 in particular in this respect it's not going to be a slouch; the Su-35BM has a degree of of these capabilities already. Sensor fusion effectively means making all your aircraft sensors (the radar, radar warning receiver, ESM gear, missile approach warning system, infra-red search systems and electro-optical cameras) in all areas work together and come together to provide a single picture to the pilot. What this effectively means is that in combination with a helmet-mounted display, the pilot need not be limited by what he can see out of his canopy; with the right software, a pilot might be able to look 'through the floor' of the aircraft, with a camera showing him where his target is in relation to him even though he can't see it, or with ESM giving a simple, consistent signature shown straight to the pilot in visual form instead of him having to examine frequencies, screens and other independent sources of information. Because Russian industry has traditionally been behind the west in electronics and computers, it's the fall of the Soviet Union which has finally allowed them to leap the gap and finally catch up. Again, it might not match the USA's efforts, but it's a big step because it increases a pilot's awareness of the battlespace exponentially.
One important point to make about PAK FA is that they're doing joint development with India's Hindustan Aerospace Limited in what is called the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) programme. As Indian requirements are different to Russian (two-seater as opposed to one-seater, longer range, Indian technology contribution) the programme is probably more of a question of Russia doing the development and India providing a portion of the cash and helping with their own version in avionics, electronics, specialised additions et cetera. The FGFA is probably not going to be around until the middle of the next decade however.

Edited by CommanderJB, 03 January 2009 - 12:50.

[partyzanpaulzy]

Great info, CommanderJB.
----------------------------------
Each 4++ generation (Su-37, Jas-39 Gripen,...) fighter is semi-stealth (stealth coat, but ruined by external ammo and shape), so it's question when F-35 will "see" Su-37, Su-37 would need really good radar to detect F-35 earlier although Su-37 standart radar has longer "sight" than standart F-35 radar (and Su-37 is equiped with more amunition with longer range). Su-37 cannot fight with F-22, I know, but it's question if it has chance against F-35. Raptor's standart radar has much longer range than radar in the JSF. There are rumours that Su-37 has sufficient Radar to spot even F-22 first, but you know rumours...

F-22 is probably the best aircraft fighter in the world and it will took long time before there will be some better plane.
F-22C will be probably better than PakFa or that Chinese equivalent.
BTW, YF-23 was faster and more stealth, but F-22 is more agile.

Quote

again, there's no such thing as a passive radar

Not in a plane, but on the ground (on a truck):
http://en.wikipedia...._passive_sensor

Also modern Radars can work in mode of wavelength in milimeters. Plasma stealth has been developed since 1960's (like other plasma tech - thermonuclear fusion plant (TOKAMAK)) and it's still being developed. It's just matter of money and time. With that MiG-35 (will be used by India like Su-37 will be probably used by China) agility I was wrong, it's really the most agile fighter in the world.
I found on the Wikipedia (so it's not official, but official also doesn't mean really true) that Su-35 use Radar capable detect normal targets on 400 km and Stealth targets on 70 km.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anybody know how happened that light PAK-FA, which had to be developed by MiG?
I have only heard that they sold some MiG development which had to be light Pak-Fa to Iran.
Then I have read some Russian general told that Russia has no technical capacity to create light 5th gen. fighter...
I am sure just about Sukhoi T-50 as medium PAK-FA (there were 2 versions: light (MiG) and medium(Su)).
3 possible T-50 pictures (those back rods contain Radars, like every modern Sukhoi):

probably 3D vector thrusting engine picture:


How MiG PakFa would look like:



MiG LFI alias Shafagh (that new Iranian MiG):

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 02 January 2009 - 20:18.

[Someone]

Quote

Does anybody know how happened that light PAK-FA, which had to be developed by MiG?
I have only heard that they sold some MiG development which had to be light Pak-Fa to Iran.

To answer your question:

Originally, Soviet (and later Russian) Air Force planed to introduce a completely new bomber, light fighter, heavy fighter, ground attack, and interceptor aircraft in 1990s. Later on, it was decided to develop only a light aircraft (light strike fighter) and heavy fighter instead. Finally, even those two projects have been canceled in favor of the multirole PAK-FA.

From what I heard, after the project’s cancellation MiG bureau sold their light fighter design (or at least some concepts) to China, which developed it into JF-17 / FC-1 (See MiG light fighter concept here and FC-1 here)
Similarly, MiG bureau sold their light strike fighter (light frontal aircraft) concept to Iran, which developed it into indigenous-made Shafagh. I believe MiG’s light frontal aircraft concept looked like this:



(Note: MiG was not the only bureau that had a light frontal fighter or a light strike fighter concept – Yakovlev and Sukhoi had their own concepts too.)

However, MiG’s light frontal fighter, light frontal aircraft and PAK-FA concepts are NOT THE SAME. Here is MiG’s PAK-FA concept:


(Click to Enlarge)

For more info on LFI/LFS/MFI/PAK-FA aircraft development see this site and this diagram



About the Raptor, I am totally unqualified to say either one way or another, but I heard a rumor that it is far less capable than what the official reports say and exists simply as a “propaganda tool”. In fact, the rumor says USA refuses to export F-22 so that no one finds out how poorly it truly performs.

[Someone]

Quote

For more info on LFI/LFS/MFI/PAK-FA aircraft development see this site and this diagram

Sorry for not posting a link. The diagram I am referring to is this.

[CommanderJB]

partyzanpaulzy, on 3 Jan 2009, 1:24, said:

Quote

again, there's no such thing as a passive radar

Not in a plane, but on the ground (on a truck):
http://en.wikipedia...._passive_sensor

I have come across this before and I will say the same thing I said then; VERA is an ESM kit and thus can only detect another radar or emitter. If the fighter is flying in stealth mode, that is, with no transmissions and radar off, using only its passive sensors (such as F-35's DAS and EOTS, which I'll detail more when I do an update on the F-35 for this thread in a day or two) there will be nothing for an ESM kit to detect. Their radars are also a very specialised type known as AESA that is extremely difficult to detect with normal radar warning equipment because it hops randomly though a massive number of randomly-chosen frequencies, meaning there's no consistent signal to trigger an alarm, though that may not work against VERA because it's a constant signal nonetheless.

partyzanpaulzy, on 3 Jan 2009, 1:24, said:

Does anybody know how happened that light PAK-FA, which had to be developed by MiG?
I have only heard that they sold some MiG development which had to be light Pak-Fa to Iran.
Then I have read some Russian general told that Russia has no technical capacity to create light 5th gen. fighter...
I am sure just about Sukhoi T-50 as medium PAK-FA (there were 2 versions: light (MiG) and medium(Su)).
3 possible T-50 pictures (those back rods contain Radars, like every modern Sukhoi):

probably 3D vector thrusting engine picture:


How MiG PakFa would look like:



MiG LFI alias Shafagh (that new Iranian MiG):

Those pics are fascinating - I've never come across them before, that's for sure, and they would seem quite important. But as for LFI itself, though extensive design work was done, it crashed and burned (metaphorically) some time around the 90s and 2002 at the latest when it became obvious that the VVS was in no fit state to start ordering new designs, and that Sukhoi had all the capital behind it to do development even were there a buyer (state contributions are actually only something like 20% of PAK FA's development budget, though they will of course buy the finished product). MiG has only had residual MiG-29 deals to string it along since it lost the trainer design contract to Yakolev and the MiG-31 deep modernisation went apparently nowhere, and it's in dire financial straits at the moment following the collapse of a 1.5 billion dollar Fulcrum deal with Algeria which they turned down due to 'quality issues' (though the VVS has said it will take on the jets instead, it's terrible for MiG's image). Unfortunately it seems like MiG won't be around for much longer unless the MiG-35 wins the MMRCA competition in India, and even that may be delaying the inevitable, as since the amalgamation of all the design bureaus into a single entity, the United Aircraft Corporation, their boss is now also incidentally the chief executive of Sukhoi.

Edited by CommanderJB, 21 January 2009 - 14:23.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

OMG the new MiGs looks amazing on paper and the whole aircraft looks beautiful too.

[Destiny]

Merger of MiG and Su...

MiS/MGS?



The Raptor is certainly, by specs and RCS amongst others, one, if not, the Fighter jet in the world. I'd liked to put an entry on the Super Hornet but meh, I don't have enough information.

Spoiler

That is until lasers come into play at lightspeed or invading alien flying saucers with reactionless drives that can seemingly move sideways in a second or equipped with shields. I won't be surprised when they start making mirrors as the new "skin" of the aircraft, haha.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Destiny, 22 January 2009 - 11:08.

[Waris]

Destiny, on 22 Jan 2009, 21:38, said:

Merger of MiG and Su...

MiS/MGS?

There is a merger of several major Russian aerospace firms (including the big two) called United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). Hmm...

Edited by Waris, 22 January 2009 - 11:17.

[CommanderJB]

Destiny, on 22 Jan 2009, 22:08, said:

Merger of MiG and Su...

MiS/MGS?

No, the companies are merged but the design bureaus remain independent. In theory. In practice Sukhoi will probably just use its almost total leverage over UAC, controlling as it does both the image and success of the modern Russian combat aircraft industry with its highly successful Flankers and key T-50 contract, to slowly make MiG no longer viable and acquire all their assets. It'd be extremely sad, especially given MiG's long and prestigious history, but they really haven't had a lot to do and don't look like they're going to get something to fill that gap either. Sukhoi has both the export and domestic markets almost completely buttoned up.

Someone, on 3 Jan 2009, 6:54, said:

About the Raptor, I am totally unqualified to say either one way or another, but I heard a rumor that it is far less capable than what the official reports say and exists simply as a “propaganda tool”. In fact, the rumor says USA refuses to export F-22 so that no one finds out how poorly it truly performs.

That's extraordinarily unlikely. In a recent Red Flag exercise (credited by pilots who've seen actual combat as more intense than the real thing) Raptors scored 144 kills for one loss when heavily outnumbered by the best F-15 and F-16 pilots the USAF had to offer. There are multiple reports of pilots seeing it visually but being completely unable to target it with their weapons systems, including one of an Australian pilot on exchange. The LM marketing hype and total reverence the aircraft seems to command in some circles might not all be true, but I'm positive that, for the majority, it holds far, far too many cards over its competitors. The USAF wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail for more from a Congress unhappy with continual budget blowouts if it thought the aircraft wasn't performing up to scratch.

Edited by CommanderJB, 22 January 2009 - 11:58.

[partyzanpaulzy]

Sukhoi makes also civilian planes (Superjet), like Tupolev (+ bombardiers) or Antonov.
MiG makes upgrades of good old MiG-29 (MiG-35) since MFI and LFI failed...
and training MiG (similar to L-39 like almost every training plane (L-159 is different )).
Also MiG would help themself a bit if they started production of modernized MiG-8 Duck (small ultralight), I saw one video on YouTube from some TV show, where was shown Su office (computers everywhere, 3D models on projection screen, many working people, modern building) and some room in MiG HQ (old wooden interior, some CRT monitors, etc.)...
But what happened to Yak? I have heard they sold their engine from Yak-141 to Americans (used on F-35), but what else? Bankrupted?