F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Haavarla]

Yes only problem is rarely offently occures in fight and than what? ... Besides its Mach 1.6 is its max speed .. for how long its able to keep up with such small speed ...

Its being designed to be .. but turned out not to ...

Well LM since I last time checked out removed celling from its page (witch was about 15 000m first time I sow) ... so how can you expect any detailed info from me ...

Here we go again
Well, i don't think the Norwegian DoD will be disepointed IF it can't go past 1.6M or be more agile over our current F-16..

You have to look at the big picture here, the F-35 will be a much improved all around platform over the F-16.
Take the improved loiter time on subsonic speed and the situational awareness.
It will clearly have lower RCS on a internal mission configuration vs the F-16.

What i'm worried about is if we can cougfh up the funds for the 56 aircraft when the contract are beeing negotiated..

The F-35 will clearly be better than the current F-16/F-18 today on a overall tender.
I don't see where you are going when compairing the F-35 with the F-22, Su-35S, Pak-Fa or the chinese 5th fighter.
We had to choose between the JAS and the JSF.
The JSF won, thats it..



Thanks

 

[Viktor]

Well, i don't think the Norwegian DoD will be disepointed IF it can't go past 1.6M or be more agile over our current F-16..

obviously

You have to look at the big picture here, the F-35 will a much improved all around platform over the F-16.
Take the improved loiter time on subsonic speed and the situational awareness.
It will clearly have lower RCS on a internal mission configuration vs the F-16.

Well I agree with you. I would like my country to get some but that will never happen. Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22. So F-35 is made to work with F-22 witch was made to clear the skies when F-35 comes in the picture. Now F-35 will have to do it.

Anyway any info about its price?

 

[Haavarla]

obviously



Well I agree with you. I would like my country to get some but that will never happen. Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22. So F-35 is made to work with F-22 witch was made to clear the skies when F-35 comes in the picture. Now F-35 will have to do it.

Anyway any info about its price?

Nope
I've seen a lot of different figures on different forums and non any thrust worthy, so i think i leave it with that..
One positive thing here is that the time-line which the Norwegian DoD have planned the procurment phase, is when the fly-away cost per unit are down at the lowest(2017-2020).
And of course that its been in service in some years by then, which mean LM should have killed all minor problems if there are any when the F-35A enter service.



Thanks

 

[Viktor]

To make one thing clear. Im speaking here about F-35 not Norway.

 

[Haavarla]

To make one thing clear. Im speaking here about F-35 not Norway.

I know.
The prize can and quite possible will be different for the different level F-35 development partners and the time-line which the F-35 are procured(then-years dollar), how many units beeing procured and bla bla bla...
And for the pesimistic folks around here, any delays and setbacks on the development..

Sooo we'll just have to wait and see.




Thanks

 

[Bonza]

Im just sorry that they did not put two engines on it with wider internal bay and modify wings so you can have a real monster there .. but than again that would make him F-22.

With regard to the internal bay of the F-35, it's actually cleared for heavier carriage weights than that of the F-22. You can't just look at air-to-air missile payload and say the F-22's internal carriage is superior. You have to look at weight clearance as well.

If missile count is still a concern, then consider the following:

1. If there is a demonstrated need for increased internal carriage, there is the space and weight capacity in the F-35's bay to accommodate that - there have already been whispers about AMRAAM carriage being increased to six.

2. In situations where number of missiles is a primary tactical concern, an F-35 can carry a substantial external carriage which, while detrimental to RCS, should not be discounted. Use of a heavily missile laden F-35 as a "shooter platform" could potentially figure into the next point:

3. The capability to cue missile shots via datalink means that while a platform's individual carriage may not necessarily look impressive, the potential missile shots available at a given time within a battlespace is still substantial.

3. There's indications that JDRADM, when developed, will be internally carried by the F-35 in larger numbers than the current AMRAAM allows.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Look at the swerves post above.

Why, you blokes are making these claims, not Swerve and certainly not, I...

F-22 ... and will most likely have China 5th generation and Russia/India PAK-FA....

Really?

F-22's internal payload is 6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 (2380lbs) or 2x 1000lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM (2670lbs). (Internal). The F-22 is also cleared to carry 4x external AMRAAM missiles on top of this load. (4010lbs total).

F-35's internal payload (A/C model) is 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lbs class weapons (4670lbs).

So, no, the F-22 does NOT have the payload capability of the F-35.

Range? Well both have 18000+ lbs of fuel carried internally, but the F-22 is heavier AND has 2 engines.

Make your own mind up but consider - similar fuel load, (slightly in favour of F-35) one engine v 2 engines, (in favour of F-35) one heavy aircraft v one lighter aircraft, (in favour of F-35) both predominantly carry stores internally (no advantage) and one is designed to fly supersonically for longer periods than the other (supersonic flight realises increased fuel burn over economic subsonic flight. Supercruise only realises decreased fuel burn compared to supersonic flight achieved with reheat - in favour of F-35).

As for Russian/Chinese 5th Gens. I'll consider them when I actually see an airframe flying and production orders being placed. Until then it is nothing but sheer speculation.

Its not.

Really. Why not? Because of the extended periods of time fighters spend ABOVE M1.6...

You are kidding yourself if you seriously think this is the case. EVERY fighter spends the majority of it's operational flying hours flying subsonically. It is only for particular roles that supersonic speeds are reached and these are generally reached during acceleration towards the "merge" and for A2G weapons launch roles.

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.

The reason is A) the restrictions on the airframe carrying external weapons, B) the restrictions on an in-service airframe itself - the older it gets the more it's performance is restricted and C) the amount of time available in combat to build up to these enormous speeds.

Further questions also present themselves if you want to talk about sheer speed:

First of all, what are your weapons rated to? A fighter might well be able to do M2.5 for a period of time, but what can it's weapons withstand? What speed can it achieve carrying external sensor pods (which cannot be ejected) and the fuel tanks it needs to achieve ANYTHING like a decent range, unless it has a massive internal fuel load?

So, bearing these things in mind, please feel free to show me why M1.6 is insufficient for a modern fighter...

Yes only problem is rarely offently occures in fight and than what? ... Besides its Mach 1.6 is its max speed .. for how long its able to keep up with such small speed ...

1. M1.6 with an operational warload is not "small". (F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).

2. M1.6 is NOT the F-35's speed limit, but rather the KPP, ie: F-35 MUST be able to achieve M1.6. In no way does that mean that F-35 can ONLY achieve M1.6. As a further example, it's air intakes are designed to "flow" up to M2.0 airspeeds. Make of that what you will...

Its being designed to be .. but turned out not to ...

Really. You know this or are you speculating?

Prove how you know this... L-M is still describing it as such...

Well LM since I last time checked out removed celling from its page (witch was about 15 000m first time I sow) ... so how can you expect any detailed info from me ...

Look harder or prepared to be embarassed when you make the claim. PLENTY of information is available. PDF's for Norway contain all sorts of information...

Ceiling is 50,000 feet+ too...

 

[Grand Danois]

(F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).

It's better than "just" meeting KPP - it's meeting them at end-of life conditions.

The weight purge of a few years ago was so “intensive,” Crowley said, that “there’s not thousands of pounds” of weight left to be saved on the F-35. However, even with a three percent annual weight growth, the key performance parameters, or KPPs, won’t be affected.

“All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.”

Fighter of The Future

cheers

 

[Viktor]

Why, you blokes are making these claims, not Swerve and certainly not, I...

Whats the problem?

F-22's internal payload is 6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 (2380lbs) or 2x 1000lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM (2670lbs). (Internal). The F-22 is also cleared to carry 4x external AMRAAM missiles on top of this load. (4010lbs total).

F-35's internal payload (A/C model) is 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lbs class weapons (4670lbs).

So, no, the F-22 does NOT have the payload capability of the F-35.

Well you can interpert as you like but the fact that in standard configuration F-22 carries 6 AIM-120 and F-35 only 2 says enough for itself.

Really?

Yes. You had a interview with Vympel director some while ago in witch it mentioned some hudge internal bay being constructed for next generation AAM and based on F-35 analisis I have no doubt China will make same mistake in constructing its own 5th generation.

Range? Well both have 18000+ lbs of fuel carried internally, but the F-22 is heavier AND has 2 engines.

Make your own mind up but consider - similar fuel load, (slightly in favour of F-35) one engine v 2 engines, (in favour of F-35) one heavy aircraft v one lighter aircraft, (in favour of F-35) both predominantly carry stores internally (no advantage) and one is designed to fly supersonically for longer periods than the other (supersonic flight realises increased fuel burn over economic subsonic flight. Supercruise only realises decreased fuel burn compared to supersonic flight achieved with reheat - in favour of F-35).

F-22
F-35A
F-35B
F.35C

So keep on the good work. Range does not depend only on factors you remembered to mention.

As for Russian/Chinese 5th Gens. I'll consider them when I actually see an airframe flying and production orders being placed. Until then it is nothing but sheer speculation.

Well Pogosyan already said PAK-FA is made to match F-22 not F-35 and something similar announced China so as you see no one really cares mutch about F-35 and that is problem since F-22 producton stoped.

Really. Why not? Because of the extended periods of time fighters spend ABOVE M1.6...

You are kidding yourself if you seriously think this is the case. EVERY fighter spends the majority of it's operational flying hours flying subsonically. It is only for particular roles that supersonic speeds are reached and these are generally reached during acceleration towards the "merge" and for A2G weapons launch roles.

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.

The reason is A) the restrictions on the airframe carrying external weapons, B) the restrictions on an in-service airframe itself - the older it gets the more it's performance is restricted and C) the amount of time available in combat to build up to these enormous speeds.

Further questions also present themselves if you want to talk about sheer speed:

First of all, what are your weapons rated to? A fighter might well be able to do M2.5 for a period of time, but what can it's weapons withstand? What speed can it achieve carrying external sensor pods (which cannot be ejected) and the fuel tanks it needs to achieve ANYTHING like a decent range, unless it has a massive internal fuel load?

So, bearing these things in mind, please feel free to show me why M1.6 is insufficient for a modern fighter...

Following your logic it was mistake in the first place to make fighter that can go above the speed of sound.

1. M1.6 with an operational warload is not "small". (F-35's KPP - key performance parameter is to achieve M1.6 with a full internal fuel load of 18500+ lbs of fuel, plus 5700lbs of weapons PLUS it's usual A2A and A2G sensor payload).

Where did you get this from?

2. M1.6 is NOT the F-35's speed limit, but rather the KPP, ie: F-35 MUST be able to achieve M1.6. In no way does that mean that F-35 can ONLY achieve M1.6. As a further example, it's air intakes are designed to "flow" up to M2.0 airspeeds. Make of that what you will...

Oke .. where did you get this from? That would be good but than again same can be said about any fighter than.

1) Its its KPP speed so max one is lets say 30 percent higher .. hehe
2) Su-24 can go Mach 2 or so but still flies at KPP Mach 1.4 lol

Really. You know this or are you speculating?

Prove how you know this... L-M is still describing it as such...

Smalest T/W ratio. If its any smaller I doubt It could even fly.

Ceiling is 50,000 feet+ too...

Thats small to.

Look harder or prepared to be embarassed when you make the claim. PLENTY of information is available. PDF's for Norway contain all sorts of information...

Embarassed?? ... what because of different opinion.

 

[Bonza]

Having a differing opinion is one thing, but you're speaking in absolutes - for example, you expressed that a larger bay on the F-35 would make it more like the F-22, and when informed of the F-35 being cleared for heavier internal carriage, you bring up AMRAAM capacity as though this proves your point.

AMRAAM capacity isn't the be-all and end-all, and reality certainly doesn't support your logic that the Raptor has a larger internal carriage than F-35. Larger AMRAAM payload - for now, sure. But please read my post above.

And no, Aussie Digger's logic does NOT dictate it was a mistake to build supersonic fighters in the first place. Either you're putting words in his mouth for the sake of argument, or you totally misunderstood his point.

 

[Palnatoke]

AD

The idea that a fighter than can do M2 outmatches a fighter than can "only" do M1.6 is absolute rubbish. If we were talking about a race, you would be right. But we are NOT. We are talking about combat and it is a FACT that even a M2.5 capable aircraft (such as the F-15) has rarely exceeded M1.4 in combat.

I don't know about "outmatches", but speed has a role. F.ex. in a long range engagement (which I for one believe is the 2030+ future) , say, fighter A, would fire it's missile(s) at fighter B, then turn around and escape the re-action from fighter B (a missile). The faster fighter A is, the longer the missile of fighter B has to fly (and, say, a difference of 0.5mach will result in significant longer fly time for the missile).


On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

Personally I bet my money on the advances of electronics, it appears to me that the task of "hiding" an object from an electromagnetic field is much harder than the opposite, and going by Moore's law, we can expect that a future radar will be able to perform much more extensive and complex DSP on the return signal. Future more Material physics is an area that have seen giant leaps the last decade or two. When this new scientific understandnig is transformed into practical "technic", who knows which kind of radars you can make?

 

[the road runner]

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

My understanding is that when you have to spend money on upgrading your Radars/sensors to detect LO Aircraft,thats less money you get to spend on other parts of your defence Forces.

This point has always stuck out in my mind as being a major advantage of choosing a Lo Aircraft.

Great post AD

 

[Bonza]

On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

I don't agree that the electronics systems can be discounted from the equation because "we can expect that from any new fighter". The F-35's electronic systems are a level above anything being demonstrated by other manufacturers and countries, so I don't think it's fair to treat it as though it's merely a typical development rather than something exceptional.

Remember too that low observability/signature management isn't a static thing. The capability of detection systems will increase, but the capability of technology to respond to those systems will increase also.

 

[Todjaeger]

AD

I don't know about "outmatches", but speed has a role. F.ex. in a long range engagement (which I for one believe is the 2030+ future) , say, fighter A, would fire it's missile(s) at fighter B, then turn around and escape the re-action from fighter B (a missile). The faster fighter A is, the longer the missile of fighter B has to fly (and, say, a difference of 0.5mach will result in significant longer fly time for the missile).

Yes, speed does have a role, but not the one referenced above. The duration of a missile's flight is determined by the range to the target. It is not a direct correlation to the speed of the target aircraft. The max speed of an aircraft (and its ability to sustain that speed) determine an aircraft's ability to close with, or possibly escape from, an engagement or target. That may, or may not matter depending on the engagement. For example, Fighter A has a lock on and shoots an AIM-120C-7AMRAAM at Fighter B from a range of 30 n miles... Whether Fighter B's max speed if Mach 2.5, or 'only' Mach 1.6 does not really matter. Either way, Fighter B still cannot effectively outrun the inbound missile.

On a general note, the F35 distinquishes herself only by virtue of it's stealth characteristics, besides stealth the plane has it's pros and cons, yes, it's loaded with the finest of electronics, but that is what we would expect from any brand new fighter. So if we ignore the political dimension, the question, in my mind, is what does stealth mean in air combat in the periode 2020-2050?

Will stealth be "make or break"? Or will radars and other sensors during the next decade "catch up" with the challenge of stealthy objects and assure timely detecton the moment you got a line of sight - regardless of the stealth of the F35?

Personally I bet my money on the advances of electronics, it appears to me that the task of "hiding" an object from an electromagnetic field is much harder than the opposite, and going by Moore's law, we can expect that a future radar will be able to perform much more extensive and complex DSP on the return signal. Future more Material physics is an area that have seen giant leaps the last decade or two. When this new scientific understandnig is transformed into practical "technic", who knows which kind of radars you can make?

The poster seems to be ignoring the significant amount of work done in a number of discplines to allow the F-35 to achieve information/situational dominance. The is a combination of changes to and developments in sensors to provide more all-aspect information, changes to avionics in how information is both processed, as well as how the pilot will interaction with the avionics. Lastly, there is the work done to reduce the signature of the JSF so that it is LO.

Taking the above example of Fighter A vs. Fighter B, even if the range is increased to a much greater degree... The max speed of Fighter B again becomes moot if Fighter A can detect and engage Fighter B without Fighter B becoming aware of it. Speed allows one to act, but if one is ignorant of the need to act, it does no good.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

Todjaeger what if the range of engagement in your scenario is more like 100 nm? Then does it change? What if fighter A fires from the very edge of the engagement envelope, and then uses superior speed to escape? Then can it outrun the missile?

 

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger what if the range of engagement in your scenario is more like 100 nm? Then does it change? What if fighter A fires from the very edge of the engagement envelope, and then uses superior speed to escape? Then can it outrun the missile?

The situation has a number of different variables, so changing the details of a scenario around canl have a large impact. Within an engagement there will an NEZ (No Escape Zone), this basically the range at which an aircraft cannot escape from an inbound missile. This range is of course variable depending on the missile, as well as the speed of both the launching and targeted aircraft, the max acceleration of the targeted aircraft, and other factors...

As for Fighter A, there is no need for it to 'escape' since it is the launching platform. The scenario I had given was whether or not Fighter B could escape a missile fired from Fighter A. Given a range of just 30 n miles (IIRC edge of BVR/WVR envelope) Fighter B would not have the ability to escape.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

So there is an egagement range at which fighter b would be able to use greater speed to escape from the missile? In that case the speed still has relevance. A fighter that has M3, will be able to escape from much closer engagement ranges, then a fighter that hits it's limits at M1.6.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Whats the problem?

Opinions based on a lack of understanding and research...

Well you can interpert as you like but the fact that in standard configuration F-22 carries 6 AIM-120 and F-35 only 2 says enough for itself.

What "standard" configuration?

F-35 will have the ability to carry 4x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally at Block III and have a defined growth path to 6x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally for F-35 Block IV/V depending on customer requirements.

If air to ground payloads are carried internally, BOTH aircraft feature reduced air to air payloads, the difference being that F-35A/C can carry 2000lbs class munitions (and obviously smaller ones) internally whereas F-22 can only carry 1000lbs JDAM and SDB.

Yes. You had a interview with Vympel director some while ago in witch it mentioned some hudge internal bay being constructed for next generation AAM and based on F-35 analisis I have no doubt China will make same mistake in constructing its own 5th generation.

Me? I've never heard of the director of Vympel...

F-22
F-35A
F-35B
F.35C

So keep on the good work. Range does not depend only on factors you remembered to mention.

Please note the F-22's 1600nm range is ONLY achieved with the addition of external drop tanks. This is a ferry configuration, NOT a combat configuration for the F-22A.

It's range on internal fuel only is less impressive. F-35A/C's range is always measured on internal fuel only since external fuel tanks were dropped for integration in the SDD phase.

However, I did mention range/payload rather than simply range, so whilst I do firmly believe the F-35's range exceeds the F-22's on internal fuel alone, the performance I was referring to was a combination of range AND payload.

No fighter on earth besides the F-35 can carry 5000lbs+ of weapons internally AND carry it's sensors internally AND carry 18500lbs+ fuel internally.

Well Pogosyan already said PAK-FA is made to match F-22 not F-35 and something similar announced China so as you see no one really cares mutch about F-35 and that is problem since F-22 producton stoped.

Very easy to announce things. Much more difficult to design, build and test an ACTUAL 5th Generation fighter. Something L-M has done twice now and no other manufacturer in the world has yet achieved.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???



They should care. By the time F-35 is finished production, the USA will have a fleet of 2600 5th generation fighter aircraft in-service. Even the most ardent critic should be prepared to admit that, this presents a rather large threat to ANY force...

Following your logic it was mistake in the first place to make fighter that can go above the speed of sound.

No, I mentioned quite clearly that supersonic speeds ARE regularly achieved by tactical fighters. What is not regularly achieved are M2 + speeds and the reasons are because of how long it takes to get there, how much fuel it burns and it's operational utility in ANY scenario except fleeing a fight trying to save one's own skin...

Where did you get this from?

Google. It's your friend...

Oke .. where did you get this from? That would be good but than again same can be said about any fighter than.

1) Its its KPP speed so max one is lets say 30 percent higher .. hehe
2) Su-24 can go Mach 2 or so but still flies at KPP Mach 1.4 lol

You seem fixated on maximum speed. It is almost entirely irrelevent, for the majority of combat roles. If pure speed was the most important factor for a tactical fighter, every fighter would be built like the MiG-25 Foxbat.

As should be patently obvious they are not. Not even Russian and Chinese fighters, so perhaps you could draw an inference or 2 from this, eh?

Smalest T/W ratio. If its any smaller I doubt It could even fly.

T/W. Really in what configuration, the usual 50% internal fuel rubbish? A REALLY useful metric. Do you comprehend that at 50% fuel a fighter is either on the way home OR on the way to the tanker? It is NOT a combat configuration that a fighter would WANT to be in, if a fight was likely, so why it's considered useful for thrust to weight comparisons baffles me a little bit, however it is popular, so I'll use it too.

Please bear in mind also that 50% fuel for the F-35A/C is more than 9200lbs of fuel. That is greater than the total internal fuel capacity of some current tactical fighters including the F-16, Rafale and Gripen and very close to being the same as the total internal fuel load of fighters including F/A-18 Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

If you want to compare T:W ratios, perhaps you could try it at the same fuel weights and see how F-35 goes? You'll see it stacks up VERY well...

Or perhaps we could just compare the F-35 to a modern "threat" fighter - the SU-30Mk. (This is done not to try and prove which is better in a pi**ing contest but rather to illustrate that the F-35's physical characteristics is not as bad as some like to make out. I will NOT discuss a comparison between the 2 any further in accordance with the rules of the board).

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)

Your turn...

 

[Todjaeger]

So there is an egagement range at which fighter b would be able to use greater speed to escape from the missile? In that case the speed still has relevance. A fighter that has M3, will be able to escape from much closer engagement ranges, then a fighter that hits it's limits at M1.6.

Speed certainly has relevance, but only to a degree.

For starters, fighters are still going to be mostly flying at subsonic speeds since it is more fuel efficient. Even for an aircraft designed with the ability to supercruise for tactically useful distances (i.e. the F-22 Raptor), the extra speed has a drastic negative impact on range and flight duration. IIRC the F-22 has an unrefueled range of ~ 700 miles, which drops to around 500 miles total, including a 100 mile supercruise dash.

The long and short of the above means that an aircraft capable of flying at Mach 3 will still need a chance to accelerate to reach that speed, while the inbound missile will most likely already be traveling at Mach 3+.

Another important distinction to remember is that the target aircraft is not really trying to (or capable...) of outrunning a missile. Taking the MiG-25 Foxbat as an example of a fighter, it has a top speed of ~Mach 3.2, which is still not enough to keep an AMRAAM from being able to close on the MiG since it has a top speed of ~Mach 4. Rather, an aircraft which has been targeted with missile needs to get itself to a location further from the point of launch than the missile's range is. Additionally, it needs to do this faster than the missile can.

Will a high speed aircraft can help the above situation, it is much easier to be at long range already.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

That was my only point. We are in agreement then that speed is tactically relevant, but is not the decisive feature.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???

To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?