Gripen , Typhoon , Rafale vs F-15C , F-16C ,F-15E , Su-27 , Mig-29

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Thanks.

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / HOBS / LOAL / HMCS / IIR AAMs / IRST / VTAS

MiG-29 / 74 / 1.21 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

J-10 / 75 / 1.08 / No / No / Yes / Yes / Yes / No

Gripen C / 58 / 0.97 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-15 C / 58* / 1.36* / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-16 C / 79 / 1.21 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

Rafale C / 55 / 1.25 / Yes / Yes 90deg / No / Yes / Yes / Yes

Typhoon / 54 / >1.35 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes

*Used 28,000lb empty. Af.mil states 31,700lb??? Which would change figures to 66lb/ft^2 and 1.2 TWR.

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

Where do you get Min and Max RCS for Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen... or F-22 for example ?

There are official data for certain types of aircraft. For example the Su-27, the minimum RCS - 5 m2, the maximum RCS - 15 m2.
Russian experts (Lagarkov, Poghosyan and others) claim that the EPR of F-22 - 0.3 m2. This is the minimum value for a modern fighter.
Formulas in line 94 and 95 give the same value.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

i assume man-machine interface is not accounted for at all ?
every western pilot reporting on the matter starting from west german pilots claim flying Mig-29 is hard work,
leaving little capacity left for combat

Fighter WWII La-5 had a complex engine management system. Fw 190 greatly facilitates the work of the pilot with automatic systems. However the war ended in Berlin ...

http://mirsamoletov.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%93%D0%93-%D0%97.jpg

Attachments

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081

There are official data for certain types of aircraft. For example the Su-27, the minimum RCS - 5 m2, the maximum RCS - 15 m2.
Russian experts (Lagarkov, Poghosyan and others) claim that the EPR of F-22 - 0.3 m2. This is the minimum value for a modern fighter.
Formulas in line 94 and 95 give the same value.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM


That is a bit too vague to say the least IHMO
EPR could either mean the whole 360 degrees all around or 120 degrees front, or 60 degrees front or, 30 degrees front ( and then there is azimuth factors too) , nevertheless such average estimation would include so many high RCS spikes that isn't actually pointed at threat radars when aircraft flying toward them, thus giving the wrong impression toward effective RCS that the radar will see. The value also seem significantly higher compared to various computer simulations ( done by Chinese and Ukraine scientists) and manufacturers claims
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.

Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / No / Yes / No / No

MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / No / Yes / No / No

I have not any doubt about the fact that you have reported the data correctly and in their integrity, Starfish prime.
Also because i'm absolutely certain that in the site you have taken it they have chosen those parameter on purpose.

90°hobs/LOAL/IIR seeker are all referred not to the plane in itself,but to the type of IR missile they carry.
Until you keep on referring to the old R-73 for the russian ones, Su-27 or 35 changes nothing in that regard.

Now Vanilla R-73 is there from 1984 when AIM-9x is operarive from 2003, updated version of the former are 75° degree boresight and use dual band seeker, that's a different technology compared to IIR but fits the same scope.
In the same moment, why not any mention of the much more important IRST that's instead a integral component of the plane, not of the missile and come as a standard in both russian planes and eurocanards?
I would dare to say that in this case the answer is just contained in the question...

In any case nothing against your work and intention: just as usual a caveat regarding a certain peculiar way used by some sources, above all the ones coming from the producers itself, to put down things in a certain peculiar manner.:eagerness:'

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

That is a bit too vague to say the least IHMO

What you need to complicate? We are not begging for money from Congress!
The radar sees the goal in front, he is interested in the average value of this angle. And all the rest can be left to specialists in radar systems.

... ( done by Chinese and Ukraine scientists) and manufacturers claims

Ukrainian scientists? Who is it?

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081

What you need to complicate? We are not begging for money from Congress!
The radar sees the goal in front, he is interested in the average value of this angle. And all the rest can be left to specialists in radar systems.

I dont need complicated value but your average value is very misleading because it is too vague ( for the reason i have explained in my last post )

Ukrainian scientists? Who is it?

Just see Russian - Syria thread
loads of radar scattering graphs there that can tell a more details story ( Yes, i know that even them cant tell us everything because we don't know capabilities of specific RAM and RAS, we can only simulate shaping )

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/f_35_metal_rcs.png?w=1200
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21183&t=1
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/2015-09-05_00h00_57.jpg?w=1200

Member for

11 years

Posts: 170

There are official data for certain types of aircraft. For example the Su-27, the minimum RCS - 5 m2, the maximum RCS - 15 m2.
Russian experts (Lagarkov, Poghosyan and others) claim that the EPR of F-22 - 0.3 m2. This is the minimum value for a modern fighter.
Formulas in line 94 and 95 give the same value.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM

Sorry Sir, there is no way you can have exact official datas on such sensible things as Min and Max RCS on fighters as Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen/F-22/F-35/T 50 etc...
These are kept secret by their respective countries.
If you have something, then it's just estimations, like your Russian experts estimates that the F-22 EPR is 0.3 m2. They may have great expertise, but it's nothing more than estimations. Even with nice looking images.
Note this apply to many other datas , exact range in certain conditions, exact radar spec , exact capacities of ECMs... ect...
All we have are estimations, not objective technical data.

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081


use dual band seeker, that's a different technology compared to IIR but fits the same scope.

Two colors IR seekers is inferior to IIR seeker ( just saying )
Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

Gentlemen, I'm not going to argue! Each of us in their rights. And the truth will be known testers. At the landfill, or in a real war.
By the way, the characteristics of the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen and MiG-35 should be known to the Air Force in India.

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

I have not any doubt about the fact that you have reported the data correctly and in their integrity, Starfish prime.
Also because i'm absolutely certain that in the site you have taken it they have chosen those parameter on purpose.

90°hobs/LOAL/IIR seeker are all referred not to the plane in itself,but to the type of IR missile they carry.
Until you keep on referring to the old R-73 for the russian ones, Su-27 or 35 changes nothing in that regard.

Now Vanilla R-73 is there from 1984 when AIM-9x is operarive from 2003, updated version of the former are 75° degree boresight and use dual band seeker, that's a different technology compared to IIR but fits the same scope.
In the same moment, why not any mention of the much more important IRST that's instead a integral component of the plane, not of the missile and come as a standard in both russian planes and eurocanards?
I would dare to say that in this case the answer is just contained in the question...

In any case nothing against your work and intention: just as usual a caveat regarding a certain peculiar way used by some sources, above all the ones coming from the producers itself, to put down things in a certain peculiar manner.:eagerness:'


Thanks I will add IRST. Two colour IR doesn't really achieve the same thing as IIR though, since it is still vulnerable to multi-spectral flares. Didn't realise about the 75deg HOBS either.
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Two colors IR seekers is inferior to IIR seeker ( just saying )

And a plane without IRST is way inferior to one with it (just saying also).
In any case a fair comparison between the two different technologies would take a lot of effort IMHO, not just a one (or two) line post.
Maybe even a new thread...

Member for

4 years 1 month

Posts: 112

I cant read Russian so how do you come up with these ratio ? I downloaded the table but everything inside seem like they are random number TBH

It's just a score computed by taking the ratio of the compared plane's spec in different areas with that of the Su-27 (i.e. the Su-27 is the normalizing plane), all multiplied together into a product, then take the 13th root (i.e. ^ (1/13) ). The different factors are:

Wing sweep angle (lower is better)
Wing aspect ratio (higher is better)
Wing loading (lower is better)
Fineness ratio? (higher is better)
Thrust-to-weight (higher is better)
Thrust vectoring max angle (higher is better)
Number of targets it can simultaneously track (higher is better)
Number of targets it can simultaneously attack (higher is better)
Number of hardpoints (higher is better)
RCS (lower is better)
Max g (higher is better)
Unknown (higher is better)
Range (higher is better)

The two that I don't understand are the fourth one (удлинение планера), which is the length of the aircraft divided by the square root of its frontal cross-section area, which seems similar to the fineness ratio, and the next to last one (ускорение). I'm not quite sure how to parse that one. I also don't understand why the fourth one is a ratio comparing to the Su-27's удлинение планера (row 341) while the next to last one is compared to the Su-27's удлинение фюзеляжа (row 354), nor why those values in row 341 should be different depending on the plane being compared to the Su-27 (row 341 is part of the section with Su-27's stats, why is it different depending on column)? I'm sure there's some simple explanation for them (i.e. wing thickness to chord ratio is probably there somewhere), it's just not self-evident from the spreadsheet and Google translate.

At any rate, it's just a numerical score, which means you're assuming each of those things are equally important in a dogfight. For example, the V-22 Osprey probably fares pretty well under this scoring, since it has a low wing sweep angle, high wing aspect ratio, high thrust-to-weight ratio, and a high thrust vectoring max angle. (It would probably score pathetically bad in some of the other ones though.)

It also omits other factors that may be relevant to a dogfight. For example, why not max angle of attack, or max pitch rate, or max sustained turn rate, or even possibly max speed and max altitude? The first two are relevant for nose-pointing ability, while the latter two are relevant for high energy going into the merge (not to mention, implies something about the dragginess of the plane).

So in the end, it's basically just a formula, using numbers, not "facts".

Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

Because of these characteristics it is not publicly available ;)

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Thanks.

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / HOBS / LOAL / HMCS / IIR AAMs / IRST / VTAS

MiG-29 / 74 / 1.21 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

J-10 / 75 / 1.08 / No / No / Yes / Yes / Yes / No

Gripen C / 58 / 0.97 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-15 C / 58* / 1.36* / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-16 C / 79 / 1.21 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

Rafale C / 55 / 1.25 / Yes / Yes 90deg / No / Yes / Yes / Yes

Typhoon / 54 / >1.35 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes

*Used 28,000lb empty. Af.mil states 31,700lb??? Which would change figures to 66lb/ft^2 and 1.2 TWR.

THANKS. This is the just way to make the thread go smooth.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 8,850

I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.

Let's modify the chart a bit in order to get you an idea what I mean..

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / 3D TVC / IRST / HMCS / medium IR AAMs

F-22 / xx / 1.xx / no / no / no / no
Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / no / yes / yes / yes
Rafale / 55 / 1.25 / no / no / no / yes
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / yes / yes / yes / yes

Get my point? I can define whatever criteria I see fit in order to make my design appear "better". There is no indication which says that your criteria are more credible than mine.. For instance, I personally consider LOAL of limited use, much less important than having an IRST onboard.

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 6,983

It's just a score computed by taking the ratio of the compared plane's spec in different areas with that of the Su-27 (i.e. the Su-27 is the normalizing plane), all multiplied together into a product, then take the 13th root (i.e. ^ (1/13) ). The different factors are:

Wing sweep angle (lower is better)
Wing aspect ratio (higher is better)
Wing loading (lower is better)
Fineness ratio? (higher is better)
Thrust-to-weight (higher is better)
Thrust vectoring max angle (higher is better)
Number of targets it can simultaneously track (higher is better)
Number of targets it can simultaneously attack (higher is better)
Number of hardpoints (higher is better)
RCS (lower is better)
Max g (higher is better)
Unknown (higher is better)
Range (higher is better)

The two that I don't understand are the fourth one (удлинение планера), which is the length of the aircraft divided by the square root of its frontal cross-section area, which seems similar to the fineness ratio, and the next to last one (ускорение). I'm not quite sure how to parse that one. I also don't understand why the fourth one is a ratio comparing to the Su-27's удлинение планера (row 341) while the next to last one is compared to the Su-27's удлинение фюзеляжа (row 354), nor why those values in row 341 should be different depending on the plane being compared to the Su-27 (row 341 is part of the section with Su-27's stats, why is it different depending on column)? I'm sure there's some simple explanation for them (i.e. wing thickness to chord ratio is probably there somewhere), it's just not self-evident from the spreadsheet and Google translate.

At any rate, it's just a numerical score, which means you're assuming each of those things are equally important in a dogfight. For example, the V-22 Osprey probably fares pretty well under this scoring, since it has a low wing sweep angle, high wing aspect ratio, high thrust-to-weight ratio, and a high thrust vectoring max angle. (It would probably score pathetically bad in some of the other ones though.)

It also omits other factors that may be relevant to a dogfight. For example, why not max angle of attack, or max pitch rate, or max sustained turn rate, or even possibly max speed and max altitude? The first two are relevant for nose-pointing ability, while the latter two are relevant for high energy going into the merge (not to mention, implies something about the dragginess of the plane).

So in the end, it's basically just a formula, using numbers, not "facts".


thanks for explaining the scoring system of this thing
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Let's modify the chart a bit in order to get you an idea what I mean..

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / 3D TVC / IRST / HMCS / medium IR AAMs

F-22 / xx / 1.xx / no / no / no / no
Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / no / yes / yes / yes
Rafale / 55 / 1.25 / no / no / no / yes
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / yes / yes / yes / yes

Get my point? I can define whatever criteria I see fit in order to make my design appear "better". There is no indication which says that your criteria are more credible than mine.. For instance, I personally consider LOAL of limited use, much less important than having an IRST onboard.

The F-22 is , as said before, an one of a kind plane and IMHO a negative one.
It seems, as I have written in another forum, that in order to get to a 5.0 generation fighter and one without any compromise ASAP they have jumped into it directly from F-15 without any though about inserting even one of the innovations that were in the meantime introduced in the 4,5 gen.
So you have a plane with a level of sophistication that would not be see anymore even in successive 5 & 6 generation planes but in the same moment lacking features that even the most basical Not -US fighter usually have.
The opposite of such an approach can be seen in the Su-35 in which the technical possibilities offered by the 4,5 gen are hyped to the max but with just some limited concession in the field of RCS reduction for what it pertain the successive level: 4,99 gen fighter?
This just for highlighting the different doctrine and mindset of the various players, not to favor one over the other.
Still I happily salute the comeback of the medium range IR missiles in the VKS as shown in Syria.
Always a good thing seeing the forming of new couplets. :dev2:

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

X

So you have a plane with a level of sophistication that would not be see anymore even in successive 5 & 6 generation planes but in the same moment lacking features that even the most basical Not -US fighter usually have.

The F-22 had developmental setbacks, and programatic adjustments throughout the latter half of its development as some tried to cancel it, while others tried to protect it. A lot of the features that eventually got chopped were present in its design and actually pursued in development. The program went through plenty of 'adjustments' as the political environment changed during and post the peace dividend and what exists now is a result of all that. So unless there are features that they did not think about, don't blame the designers for the USAF or not wanting or not asking for stuff that currently is not there. You ask them to build per requirements, so if you are forced to cut capability something that would have contributed to its effectiveness would naturally have to go away to accommodate such a demand. There is no doubt that the capability that was chopped at various stages of development resulted in a net reduction in mission effectiveness for the F-22 and that applies to changes made pre and post down select. But they had to do what they had to do in order to ensure that the program survived.

- IRST - An Advanced IRST was planned, and GE (The top OEM working on IRST's in the US) was contracted by Lockheed for it. The original DemVal design had an IRST in the wing-roots (one on each side), and as of 1997, Janes (Sweetman) claimed that they were still testing for its adoption around 1996.

An IR search and track (IRST) system was part of the original ATF requirement. It was deleted during dem/val, but the Avionics Directorate of the USAF Wright Laboratories has continued its development with Lockheed Martin as the contractor, and space, weight, power and cooling provisions for IRST are still on the aircraft. A low-observable IRST window for the F-22 was tested for stealth and durability last year. IRST is valuable for raid assessment, because of its high angular resolution. It is also useful against tactical ballistic missiles, and it can double as a thermal imaging system for ground attack.

LINK

Cheek Arrays were also part of the F-22 and there exists space to put them even now much the same way the PAKFA/T-50 has adopted them. This was dropped for cost reasons as part of other programatic adjustments -

https://s11.postimg.org/klyf4cb8z/F_22_Array_Layout_Coverage.jpg

It is now up to the USAF, Pentagon and the Congress to see to it that things that are needed are provided for but all that needs to be balanced with other costs especially since the Budget Control Act which has forced them to make short term decisions that quite often have negative long term consequences. Regardless, it seems like they will make a decision soon on an HMS as they have recently been cleared for the Aim-9X but won't get a lot of its capabilities till late 2017 or 2018 with the Increment 3.2B. Following 3.2B they will likely move ahead with the HMS acquisition over the next 2-3 years but that's about as fast as they can go given that the helmet isn't really going to be of much help prior to 2017-18. Slow Yes, but not by design. HMS integration was a program requirement that was chopped for cost reasons quite late in the program so again, they demanded it. They've evaluated a couple of off the shelf HMS solutions already but had to push the timelines till after 3.2B due to prioritizing the right capabilities once they were forced to go back due to sequestration. Other more expensive capabilities will probably need to wait for a more serious upgrade cycle not different from a traditional MLU.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-improved-day-night-f-22-raptor-helmet-by-413962/

The opposite of such an approach can be seen in the Su-35 in which the technical possibilities offered by the 4,5 gen are hyped to the max but with just some limited concession in the field of RCS reduction for what it pertain the successive level: 4,99 gen fighter?

The USAF had an in service F-22 by 2005, and were planning to have an in service F-35A much earlier than 2016 and therefore never created any requirements for an advanced 4.5+ generation F-15 or F-16 (recall the F-16U offer made to the USAF by the UAE which was promptly declined). This time-frame also coincided with a massive reduction i the USAF fighter fleet, largely demanded by a change in the threat environment, the type of missions it was expected to fight over a 10-20 year period, and the capability that it could get through smart munitions and unmanned aviation (that entire enterprise was created from scratch, no doubt taking money from other modernization efforts).

Political realities would have meant that any advanced version demanded would have most likely resulted in $$'s moving form either the ATF program, or the JSF program to support a lower cost, lower risk program which would have been counter productive to their eventual goals. One could disagree with their goals but political realities within the US basically mean that the services have to be careful with their requests and plan for such considerations. Much of then F-15 upgrades will now make them highly capable 4+ generation aircraft but they won't be buying new ones primarily because there is a lot of life left in a lot of them (especially the strike eagle fleet). The F-16 modernization program fell through post the BCA and had sequestration not hit, they would have pursued it too.