# Best fighter jet in the future?



## xMustiiej70

What do you think?

P.S. do not vote on the airplane just because it's made by your country.


----------



## LCA Tejas

As of Now, F-22 Raptor and PAK-FA/FGFA, F-35


----------



## xMustiiej70

I personally think F-22 now and later.
But Also the JXX looks deadly.
I dont know much about that airplane.

Also I heard that PAKFA has high range of radar?
much higher then f-22?
More information would be good.


----------



## MAB

I think the obvious choice would be the F-22. The Eurofighter after that since the F-35 or PAK-FA are not operational.


----------



## LCA Tejas

MAB said:


> I think the obvious choice would be the F-22. The Eurofighter after that since the F-35 or PAK-FA are not operational.



buddy, the starter has asked best fighter jets of *Future*


----------



## MAB

LCA Tejas said:


> buddy, the starter has asked best fighter jets of *Future*



Oh, my bad didn't read that part since I am so used to seeing all the best whatever threads. Even so I think the best would be F-22 then PAK-FA.


----------



## hindirusi

All of these choices except 4 are stupid even to list.

Gripen??
F-16?!??!
F 18?!?!?
EF??!?!
Mig-35!??!
Rafale?!?!

Those are all 4.5/4th.
Only chances are:

F-22
PAK FA
F-35
Su-35BM (new with AESA)


----------



## LCA Tejas

MAB said:


> Oh, my bad didn't read that part since I am so used to seeing all the best whatever threads. Even so I think the best would be F-22 then PAK-FA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MAB

LCA Tejas said:


>



No doubt PAK-FA will be a very good fighter but will the cost really be under $100 million. I think that would be very cheap for a 5th gen fighter.


----------



## LCA Tejas

MAB said:


> No doubt PAK-FA will be a very good fighter but will the cost really be under $100 million. I think that would be very cheap for a 5th gen fighter.



Yes, And The FGFA Varient should be much more cheaper, as Its softwares and avionics are Indian.... So Lets keep the fingers crossed, Who Knows Even *Medium Combat Aircraft* can join the league

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TechLahore

[/COLOR]


LCA Tejas said:


>



This is a very poor comparison table... the real issues are efficacy of weapon systems, radar capabilities, ECM capabilities, rcs, reliability etc. None of these are compared. The old speed/payload/ceiling comparisons are really not relevant in this context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indestructible

Considering the 5th generation systems that even left USA scientists in awe I think Rafale could emerge as a true fighter. Maybe French are also working on a more advanced variant. Cost effective IMO when compared to Raptors, PAK-FA etc.


----------



## Jigs

Hahaha who voted for the Rafale ? That gave me a good laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

LCA Tejas...take-fa out of the you best 3 list its not even an operational plane when it is operational we'll talk about it.


----------



## gowthamraj

voted for f-35. In my opinion in future it will have all the glory that f-16 have.


----------



## Jigs

PAK-FA and F-22 should be the only contenders. I voted F-22 because i still feel the U.S. is ahead on avionics. Can't really have a clue to what the PAK-FA has but i really don't think it will be as close to the F-22 in the avionics department.

The raptor was a work of art period.


----------



## LCA Tejas

luftwaffe said:


> LCA Tejas...take-fa out of the you best 3 list its not even an operational plane when it is operational we'll talk about it.



Cant you see the thread title? it says Best fighter Jet of the *Future*


----------



## DaRk WaVe

Jigs said:


> Hahaha who voted for the Rafale ? That gave me a good laugh.



The backbone of AFs will remain late 4th Gen planes 

don't under estimate the Frenchies 

though i didnt voted for Rafale


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Threads like this allow people to dream. When people can't deal with the hardship of real life, they seek escapism.

It might be helpful to unwind and dream about a bright happy future, but it's also critical to return to real life. Ignoring our problems don't make it go away...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indestructible

Jigs said:


> Hahaha who voted for the Rafale ? That gave me a good laugh.



I did. What about it?


----------



## Peregrine

Hi
where is the " *Other fighter jets*" option, every good poll has to have one option which accommodates those who don't agree with featured options which are usually based on speculation. However Chinese J-XX would definitely be a jet to reckon with, as even the Americans have acknowledged that Chinese have acquired a considerable amount of cognition regarding Stealth technology


----------



## xMustiiej70

I forget the jXX sorry my friend.


----------



## xMustiiej70

Can someone give me more information on the PAK FA please?


----------



## xMustiiej70

Also why is f35 not better then f-22?
why usa developed f22 and then f35? why so expensive?
because of f22 they made f35 not as good as f22.
why did usa banned exports on f22?
will f35 better then PAK FA?
in which terms?
and in which terms not?


----------



## aimarraul

future.....it's 6th gen jet F/A-XX which U.S has displayed the pre-research....russia and china better follow up the new conception.....
american may start the WW-3 then aim at pandora once they root out russia and china.....
don't waste time talking about future,guys.life is short.....


----------



## duhastmish

xMustiiej70 said:


> Also why is f35 not better then f-22?
> why usa developed f22 and then f35? why so expensive?
> because of f22 they made f35 not as good as f22.
> why did usa banned exports on f22?
> will f35 better then PAK FA?
> in which terms?
> and in which terms not?



oh yeh mate check this out :

PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and ?Capability Surprise?

Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA / ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xMustiiej70

I haven't read it all but I understand that radar range of PAK FA is greater?
And PAK FA can detect f22 earlier then f22 detects PAK FA.

Also i copied this from a quote in wikipedia: which contains technology from the F-22 but is designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export from the start. The F-35 will not be as nimble as the F-22 or fly as high or as fast, but its radar and avionics will be more advanced
So why the hell is f-22 better then f-35?
Who cares about the little slower aircraft then f-22?


----------



## gambit

xMustiiej70 said:


> I haven't read it all but I understand that radar range of PAK FA is greater?
> *And PAK FA can detect f22 earlier then f22 detects PAK FA.*
> 
> Also i copied this from a quote in wikipedia: which contains technology from the F-22 but is designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export from the start. The F-35 will not be as nimble as the F-22 or fly as high or as fast, but its radar and avionics will be more advanced
> So why the hell is f-22 better then f-35?
> Who cares about the little slower aircraft then f-22?


That is highly doubtful. My advice is to be careful when someone simply present you a source, a long one, with no relevant excerpt to support whatever is their position.


----------



## xMustiiej70

F35 can carry bombs. and more air to air misisles.
But it doesn't carry much as f22 air to ground but it can carry as better as f22.
f22 can fly longer,higher and accourding to wikipedia it cant fly faster then f35(?).
Trust power is higher on f22 due to two engines.
f35 is cheaper and weighs much less.
avoinics is better on the f35.


----------



## xMustiiej70

my top 3 would be 1.f35 2.f22 3.pakfa/JXX.


----------



## xMustiiej70

I also read on the internet that USA may lift bans on export for the f22 on japan due to china threat.
israel due to plan on striking the nuclear facility in Iran because f22 accourding to a n American dude that said f22 could avoid s-300.
and australia showed interests.
But Turkey takes part of the develop of the f35. and is buying a great number and going to produce 100&#37; like f16's.
But why are they not interested?


----------



## gogbot

I don't get the point of this thread.
Best in terms of what exactly.

Pure Performance wise , i would give my vote to the F-22 , and may be very slim chance PAK-FA/FGFA

But the F-22 is unbelievable expensive , difficult to maintain and has limited ground support capabilities.

It is a single minded animal bred for air-supremacy, cant do much else as well as other planes. 

Over all considering logistics , capabilities and cost effectiveness.

It is the SAAB griphen really . 

Sure there are faster , stealthier and even better planes on that list.

But this is the only plane in the world that can land on a road that can , re-fuel , re-arm and be on its way in under 10 min.

That alone stands as a testament to the griphens , do anything anywhere capability.


----------



## xMustiiej70

gogbot said:


> I don't get the point of this thread.
> Best in terms of what exactly.
> 
> Pure Performance wise , i would give my vote to the F-22 , and may be very slim chance PAK-FA/FGFA
> 
> But the F-22 is unbelievable expensive , *difficult to maintain and has limited ground support capabilities.*
> 
> It is a single minded animal bred for air-supremacy, cant do much else as well as other planes.
> 
> Over all considering logistics , capabilities and cost effectiveness.
> 
> It is the SAAB griphen really .
> 
> Sure there are faster , stealthier and even better planes on that list.
> 
> *But this is the only plane in the world that can land on a road that can , re-fuel , re-arm and be on its way in under 10 min.*
> 
> That alone stands as a testament to the griphens , do anything anywhere capability.



Harrier was difficult to fly but the f-22/f35 has made it much easier.
limited air to ground? f22 is known for air to ground and lack of air to air.
f35 has both. including dropping payloads.

land on road refuel rearm in min.
sounds like massive bombarment in ww2.
I think the strategies are different now.


----------



## Jackal

Pointless to compare most, for example;...

F-22; Designed to "sneak" up on other fighters/bombers even at BVR"without being detected"...(Thats the theory anyway, good luck with that btw) and shoot them down. Thats the general idea of it.

Typhoon; Designed to fight its fights at extreme distances, shoot down fighters/bombers from afar, basically hit & run & be back home for tea & medals.

Put in a simple way, those two particular fighters do the same jobs, just in different ways.


----------



## xMustiiej70

same jobs in different ways.
then tell me which one is the best?


----------



## intelarpit

aimarraul said:


> future.....it's 6th gen jet F/A-XX which U.S has displayed the pre-research....russia and china better follow up the new conception.....
> american may start the WW-3 then aim at pandora once they root out russia and china.....
> don't waste time talking about future,guys.life is short.....



Time to include more members in SCO


----------



## gogbot

xMustiiej70 said:


> Harrier was difficult to fly but the f-22/f35 has made it much easier.
> limited air to ground? f22 is known for air to ground and lack of air to air.
> f35 has both. including dropping payloads.
> 
> land on road refuel rearm in min.
> sounds like massive bombarment in ww2.
> I think the strategies are different now.



F-22 can't fly low altitude mission due to the weakness of the materials used in its construction , shrapnel can shred the plane if ever fired upon.

Same reason as why it has yet to be deployed outside the US , or sent on missions outside the US.

B-2's go on strikes all the time.

yet the F-22 sits at base , without an adversary .
That's just how it is.


----------



## xMustiiej70

but f35 can.
so i still dont understand why is f22 better then f35.


----------



## gogbot

xMustiiej70 said:


> but f35 can.
> so i still dont understand why is f22 better then f35.



F-22 is built of pure air combat. 

it's only real competition is the the F-35 and the T-50.


While the F-35 has more multi role capabilities and is cheaper to operate and maintain.

It does that at the loss of many of the features available on the F-22 .especially with the engine. and a larger radar cross section

Meaning in 1v1 air combat F-22 will always win

above all else, LM made the F-35 as the cost effective alternative to the F-22 .

As an overall package for induction however, i would agree that the f-35 is better considering logistics , costs and capabilities.
But it is still not cost effective , in comparison to the T-50 which offers more for the same price.

And both of them are to expensive to build and maintain in huge numbers. especially given the payload restrictions.

Meaning 4th gen fighters like the SAAB are still a good pick , for now.


----------



## Patriot

F22 without any doubt.


----------



## Kinetic

PAK FA all the way. It will beat hand every fighter in the list except F-22 without any problem due to superior stealth, radars, IRST, EW, avionics, sensor fusion, artificial intelligence, super maneuverability and the best weapons. But it also cost more than other fighters ~90-100 million per fighter. 

I think F-22 is as capable as PAK FA in other expects except radars, maneuverability and weapons. 

*Comparison between PAK FA and F-22......*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jigs

EmO GiRl said:


> The backbone of AFs will remain late 4th Gen planes
> 
> don't under estimate the Frenchies
> 
> though i didnt voted for Rafale



Read the many articles on why no other country goes for the Rafale and also why it still has not been exported once. Eurofighter>>>Rafale. Alot of the polls made and votes show how misinformed members are about arms. No one even knows what exactly will go into the PAK-FA while the F-22 is being upgraded already through its blocks.


----------



## Jigs

xMustiiej70 said:


> F35 can carry bombs. and more air to air misisles.
> But it doesn't carry much as f22 air to ground but it can carry as better as f22.
> f22 can fly longer,higher and accourding to wikipedia it cant fly faster then f35(?).
> Trust power is higher on f22 due to two engines.
> f35 is cheaper and weighs much less.
> avoinics is better on the f35.



Raptors task it to get air superiority while the F-35s task is mainly ground attack and hold its own in the air with better avionics then 4/4.5 gen aircraft. Avionics for the F-35 being better then the F-22 is based off its ground role which it is better at but don't expect to be successful in engagements with the F-22 and PAK-FA. F-22 can also hold more internally then the F-35 and is more stealthy and maneuverable.


----------



## gambit

Jigs said:


> Raptors task it to get air superiority while the F-35s task is mainly ground attack and hold its own in the air with better avionics then 4/4.5 gen aircraft. *Avionics for the F-35 being better then the F-22 is based off its ground role* which it is better at but don't expect to be successful in engagements with the F-22 and PAK-FA. F-22 can also hold more internally then the F-35 and is more stealthy and maneuverable.


Be very careful when using the word 'better'. It usually imply a generational evolution. In the case of the F-35's avionics, there is no such progression, only an increase in responsibilities as the F-35 is intended to be a much more versatile platform. A more appropriate analogy would be the F-16 analog versus its later digital evolution. But the base technology for the digital F-16 is relatively unchanged from block to later blocks. The F-22's avionics are actually underutilized due to the aircraft's narrow mission.


----------



## Jigs

gambit said:


> Be very careful when using the word 'better'. It usually imply a generational evolution. In the case of the F-35's avionics, there is no such progression, only an increase in responsibilities as the F-35 is intended to be a much more versatile platform. A more appropriate analogy would be the F-16 analog versus its later digital evolution. But the base technology for the digital F-16 is relatively unchanged from block to later blocks. The F-22's avionics are actually underutilized due to the aircraft's narrow mission.



Optimized better i guess would be the right way to say it. It just has a better ground role(in that the avionic have be optimized for it) along with the platform itself being used for the different needs of the branches.


----------



## xMustiiej70

Avionics of the f35 are the best.
better then f22 these are said by those industries that made these aircraft.
but I agree.
f35 will be overall better but f22 will win in air to air.
But remember theres always anti air ships and anti air missiles and stuff.
To take down a airplane theres not only air to air needed.
While air to ground is the only option to attack ground from air.
Airplanes.
So f35 will be better in my eyes.
well atleast most usefull for most countries such as Turkey.
Lets hope turkey gets typhoon for defence air to air.


----------



## Kinetic

America didn't wanted to sale F-22 to even UK, Japan and Australia. They created a low cost 5th generation fighter named F-35 which it can share with others. Its capabilities are far less than that of F-22. No comparison.


----------



## amalakas

xMustiiej70 said:


> well atleast most usefull for most countries such as Turkey.
> Lets hope turkey gets typhoon for defence air to air.



The F35 will be useful for countries such as Turkey ? Really ? Why ?
Do you plan to launch stealth attacks on anyone ? 
And why do you need the Typhoon ? I thought you were surrounded by allies...unless you need to have a stand -off with Russia !!! 
Why would Turkey need these planes ... i wonder !!!


----------



## Jigs

amalakas said:


> The F35 will be useful for countries such as Turkey ? Really ? Why ?
> Do you plan to launch stealth attacks on anyone ?
> And why do you need the Typhoon ? I thought you were surrounded by allies...unless you need to have a stand -off with Russia !!!
> Why would Turkey need these planes ... i wonder !!!



We are in a hot region and a member of NATO nothing wrong with keeping up to date on the next gen stuff. Is it wrong to have better capability over others ? The Typhoon is a great for an Air to air role and a workhorse aircraft but we might order more F-35s instead. Both are great aircraft though quite different in a number of key areas.


----------



## Jigs

xMustiiej70 said:


> but also not rely on us airplanes is also a good point.
> and other expriences for the pilots to fly an other plane is also a good thing.
> so i say order some 150 f35 and about 90 typhoon.
> we just can blitzkrieg the **** out of greece.



I wish we had the budget for such a large purchase but currently we don't. Maybe in the future we will get typhoons but currently the order is 116 F-35s depending on how every goes. Plus that should be enough against anyone in the region.


----------



## Parashuram1

duhastmish said:


> oh yeh mate check this out :
> 
> PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and ?Capability Surprise?
> 
> Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA / ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???????


Friend, I would honestly suggest you not to quote from that site because for some reason that is not understandable to me, Australian government is needlessly spending sleepless nights thinking about how even the current 4.5th generation Sukhoi fighters of Malaysia and Indonesia will be able to destroy their 5th generation fleet of F-35. I know that security of any country is top priority, but paranoia of dissatisfaction is also another thing.

There is a reason why the JSF is called a next generation fighter--to be superior to current generation of fighters that form an air force's backbone. Australia is also the third-only country in Asia Pacific to access the JSF and 4th only to access a 5th generation stealth fighter.

I don't see how these complaints by Australian authorities against the JSF seem to have any point other than pressuring the United States to sell them the Raptors. And for some reason I don't understand why Australians are worried about the PAK FA-- a fighter jet that would be owned by two countries that are thousands of miles away from Australian territory and have absolutely no disputes with Canberra.

Neither Russia nor India pose any threat to Australia in any way and just as the Raptor is being limited to United States, I am sure that both Moscow and New Delhi would prefer to retain the fighter by committing large numbers of procurements to retain the edge in Asia and Eurasia. 

The JSF is an excellent fighter for homeland *defense* and a potent multi-role fighter. Australia already being one of the most advanced air forces in their region, should be least worried about a Malaysian or Indonesian attack on their land; unless of course something unknown to the world, is brewing between the island countries down Under.


----------



## Parashuram1

duhastmish said:


> oh yeh mate check this out :
> 
> PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and ?Capability Surprise?
> 
> Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA / ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???????


Friend, I would honestly suggest you not to quote from that site because for some reason that is not understandable to me, Australian government is needlessly spending sleepless nights thinking about how even the current 4.5th generation Sukhoi fighters of Malaysia and Indonesia will be able to destroy their 5th generation fleet of F-35. I know that security of any country is top priority, but paranoia of dissatisfaction is also another thing. There is a reason why the JSF is called a next generation fighter--to be superior to current generation of fighters that form an air force's backbone. 

I don't see how these complaints by Australian authorities against the JSF seem to have any point other than pressuring the United States to sell them the Raptors. And for some reason I don't understand why Australians are worried about the PAK FA-- a fighter jet that would be owned by two countries that are thousands of miles away from Australian territory and have absolutely no disputes with Canberra.

Neither Russia nor India pose any threat to Australia in any way and just as the Raptor is being limited to United States, I am sure that both Moscow and New Delhi would prefer to retain the fighter by committing large numbers of procurements to retain the edge in Asia and Eurasia rather than sell them like hot cakes to third parties.

The JSF is an excellent fighter for homeland *defense* and a potent multi-role fighter. Australia already being one of the most advanced air forces in their region, should be least worried about a Malaysian or Indonesian attack on their land; unless of course something unknown to the world, is brewing between the island countries down Under and Australia intends to hold long range bomb runs.


My personal choice as a Swiss for future homeland defense fighter would be the Swedish Gripen NG the one that is offered to you people currently---- an excellent multirole platform with effective combat capability and decent radius.


----------



## nightrider_saulat

typhoon will be the most comman fighter in mid eastern and european countries
and quite probably in turkish,indian air forces too


----------



## Jackal

xMustiiej70 said:


> same jobs in different ways.
> then tell me which one is the best?


Best? Well, let me ask you something; 

-Would you go for high cost with the F-22-maintaining it, flying it etc, putting faith in its "stealth" capabilities while flying & supposedly "not being seen" but having a thought in the back of your mind that says; 'Have I been spotted?' while flying your mission, if that happens then theres a good chance you'll be in a bit of bother.

Or...

-Would you go for a low cost (compared to the F-22), low cost maintenance, and fight your fights at a safe ditance. If something goes wrong then theres a good chance of turning around & running back hope & have a more of a chance fighting another day. (imo).

Both of these airplanes do what they were designed to do fantastically, its just a matter of taking your pick & going for the choice of doing things the way you think suites you most. Personally I'd go for the Typhoon, I'd just feel that much safer fighting at a distance and not have to worry about getting too close while trying to sneak up on them.


----------



## gambit

Jackal said:


> Best? Well, let me ask you something;
> 
> -Would you go for high cost with the F-22-maintaining it, flying it etc, putting faith in its "stealth" capabilities...


There is no 'faith' about it. By the time you spent your money, you will *KNOW* that 'stealth' is real.



Jackal said:


> ...while flying & supposedly "not being seen" but having a thought in the back of your mind that says; 'Have I been spotted?' while flying your mission, if that happens then theres a good chance you'll be in a bit of bother.


If you do have that thought, you might want to find the radar warning receiver control panel and change its mode to 'ON'. The radar warning receiver set is supposed to alert you if there are any seeking radar transmissions in the area. But only if it is powered up and working.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> There is no 'faith' about it. By the time you spent your money, you will *KNOW* that 'stealth' is real.



Here we go again. Gambit, with all due respect, stealth is not real. It is a very conditional state, that can change at (potentialy) any given moment. You yourself, have posted a number of times on how stealth works. What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes. Will your favorite LM start designing the new F22 ( now invisible to these radar bands!!! sounds like a cheap TV ad)... 

Stealth is good, the F 22 is good, but its not god's gift on earth. It's just a piece of technology and like everything, it'll be surpassed by something.. The US has made an enormous investment on the F22. 
Kudos, and I suspect, they didn't do it to overshadow the Russians, but to make sure that all regional low level conflicts will be conducted with extreme air domination by the US with minimal effort and presence. All else is just ... for fun boys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

F-22 is and will remain dominant bird in the the sky.

There is no match for its Stealth design , RAM , Avionics , EW and surviveability.

T-50 costs 100 Million less than F-22 & if someone says that It is still on par with F-22 then i must say that this thinking is idiotic.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Here we go again. Gambit, with all due respect, *stealth is not real.*


Yes it is.



amalakas said:


> It is a very conditional state, that can change at (potentialy) any given moment.


So? Until it change, meaning someone can come up with a credible counter, we have the advantage. A gross advantage.



amalakas said:


> You yourself, have posted a number of times on how stealth works.


Yes I have.



amalakas said:


> *What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.* Will your favorite LM start designing the new F22 ( now invisible to these radar bands!!! sounds like a cheap TV ad)...


Think what you just wrote. Think reeeeaaaal hard with some reasoning. I give you two examples: the B-58 and the SR-71. One was defeated and one never has been defeated. The two examples have nothing to do with 'stealth' but with the reasoning behind the highlighted above.


----------



## T-Faz

How much is this F-22 anyway, I am thinking of buying one.


----------



## ptldM3

Black Blood said:


> F-22 is and will remain dominant bird in the the sky.
> 
> There is no match for its Stealth design , RAM , Avionics , EW and surviveability.
> 
> T-50 costs 100 Million less than F-22 & if someone says that It is still on par with F-22 then i must say that this thinking is idiotic.



Of course the PAK-FA is going to be cheaper, for one, Sukhoi is not a private company like Lockheed, thus the cost will stay down. Second, it will allways be cheaper to produce an aircraft in Russia. In terms of who is better than who, i'll leave that for the 'fan boys'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shining eyes

I gave the vote to F22 and is now winning having 33 votes while PAK FA has 32 votes


----------



## Jackal

gambit said:


> There is no 'faith' about it. By the time you spent your money, you will *KNOW* that 'stealth' is real.


For something that cost as much as it does, I'd very much hope it'd work...The _'stealth is real'_ part is very debatable, of course. For example, I once read an article in AirForces Monthly about the F-35 and a very highly experianced RAF pilot said; "You'll be stealthy going in, but sure as hell you won't be stealthy coming out", when talking about a particular, quite simple scenario.




gambit said:


> If you do have that thought, you might want to find the radar warning receiver control panel and change its mode to 'ON'. The radar warning receiver set is supposed to alert you if there are any seeking radar transmissions in the area. But only if it is powered up and working.


I'm aware of it. But what I'm getting at, at the end of the day, is what you feel safest in. I'm not comparing them in a "versus" way you understand, just a matter of choice. And choice wise I'd go for Typhoon. Its not not all what other manufactures think when they make a new promotional video for their fighter, i.e it flying in a straight line without a care in a world and getting shot down. Believe that then you're very much mistaken it.

Just my two pennies.


----------



## Jackal

xMustiiej70 said:


> Avionics of the f35 are the best.
> better then f22 these are said by those industries that made these aircraft.


The same company, LM, when talking about the F-22, say its the best, nothing can touch it etc. Then when they talk about the F-35, they say the same thing...Rather silly really, their marketing department ought to think things through more thouroughly. It'd certainly make them look more intelligent.


----------



## Kinetic

Though this website is 'Aussies must get F-22' slogan site.. liked this words...

"Another element of the PAK-FA surprise is that the aircraft has been designed with a clear understanding of the effects of stealth on air combat when both sides present with low-observable aircraft. Obviously, the combatants will be closer when their radar sensors detect the other side, so close in fact that the Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST) might be the first sensor to detect the presence of an enemy aircraft. The problem is this: the PAK-FA has IRST capability and the F-22A does not. Worse, the extreme agility of the PAK-FA will allow it to dodge the F-22As AIM-120 missile shots, while the Raptor will likely not be able to out-turn the more advanced Russian (and Chinese) missiles. Surviving F-22As would then be committed to what fighter pilots call a knife fight  close-in dogfights where superior agility wins  and the PAK-FA will out-manoeuvre the F-22A.

The answer to this air combat puzzle is simple: build more F-22s and build a better F-22, and give it better missiles. The basic design of the F-22 is sound and there is internal space for additional sensors such as IRST, cheek AESA arrays and possibly lower frequency radar that will detect the PAK-FA first. The thrust of the F119 series engines could be increased and a more advanced 3D thrust-vectoring nozzle fitted. Controls with more power and driven by smarter software can be added. The MBDA Meteor missile has a specification and design to kill a 9G target at 50,000 feet  about the edge of where the PAK-FA can operate. If the Europeans can make such a missile, why not the United States? " 

PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and ?Capability Surprise?


----------



## xMustiiej70

Stealth is real.
it can detected.
but ofcourse. if you dont role what the int he books says you can be detected.
i think it has to do with speed and moves.

Besides that Pak fa from russia is a gaint thing.
its easy to detect and shoot down if you ask me.
also that greek dude that says that f35 will be surpassed sometime..
Ofcourse everything get surpassed thats why it gets upgraded.
and also designing new toys for the next decade can do wonders.
it might save your country.


----------



## amalakas

Gambit, sometimes I wonder. 

I meant it's a conditional state because even things such as the aircraft orientation in relation to the observer can alter the "stealth" factor of the plane. 

Since Stealth is "conditional" it's not real ! it's just a limitation of established infastructure. If someone decides to take the step and change said infastructure, voila ..the plane is pretty non stealth again ...

Would you call a Fokker Dr.1 a highly successful all aspect stealth plane because simply there were no radars at the time to pick it up ? That is what the F22 has done for current infastructure. It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !! 

The SR-71 and the B-58 have nothing to do with this argument. I was trying to say that since the F22 is a Colossal investment and a Colossal shift in operational tactics.. a dramatic shift in its ability to be stealthy would be a major economic setback for the US because you simply cannot justify such spending on human-machine interfaces and some sensor fusion technology alone, 

I think its YOU who needs to do a bit of thinking....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

xMustiiej70 said:


> Stealth is real.
> it can detected.
> but ofcourse. if you dont role what the int he books says you can be detected.
> i think it has to do with speed and moves.
> 
> *Besides that Pak fa from russia is a gaint thing.
> its easy to detect and shoot down if you ask me*.
> also that greek dude that says that f35 will be surpassed sometime..
> Ofcourse everything get surpassed thats why it gets upgraded.
> and also designing new toys for the next decade can do wonders.
> it might save your country.



The B-2 is giant too, so how easy is it to shoot down?  also care to explain how you know, "its easy to detect and shoot down" did you detect and shoot one down?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> The B-2 is giant too, so how easy is it to shoot down?  also care to explain how you know, "its easy to detect and shoot down" did you detect and shoot one down?




haven't you heard? the T-50 is being shot down all over the place...


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Gambit, sometimes I wonder.
> 
> I meant it's a conditional state because even things such as the aircraft orientation in relation to the observer can alter the "stealth" factor of the plane.
> 
> Since Stealth is "conditional" it's not real ! it's just a limitation of established infastructure. If someone decides to take the step and change said infastructure, voila ..the plane is pretty non stealth again


Conditional? The proper word is 'fictitious'. Radar cross section calculations and values are essentially fictitious precisely because they do change.



amalakas said:


> Would you call a Fokker Dr.1 a highly successful all aspect stealth plane because simply there were no radars at the time to pick it up ?


No I would not because radar detection, its avoidance and countermeasures depends on...what else but the existence of the radar detector itself?



amalakas said:


> That is what the F22 has done for current infastructure. It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !!
> 
> *The SR-71 and the B-58 have nothing to do with this argument.* I was trying to say that since the F22 is a Colossal investment and a Colossal shift in operational tactics.. a dramatic shift in its ability to be stealthy would be a major economic setback for the US because you simply cannot justify such spending on human-machine interfaces and some sensor fusion technology alone,


Absolutely they do. Here is your argument...



amalakas said:


> What if some people someplace *decide* they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.


The B-58 was defeated by high altitude capable surface-air missiles. It was a less expensive countermeasure than manned aircrafts. But the SR-71 was defeated by neither missiles nor manned aircrafts. Why not? No one 'decide' to defeat it? The reason why the SR-71 retired undefeated is because people searched in vain ways to bring down the aircraft, if even just once, and all methods failed. There were no decision making process for the B-58 and the SR-71. Cost was of secondary concern. So your question regarding sensor capability to electronically defeat the F-22 missed the point entirely -- That there is no decision at all. There is a need and so far no one have stepped up with the answer to that need.



amalakas said:


> I think its YOU who needs to do a bit of thinking....


I have. And everyone can see it.

What we casually call 'stealth' is very real. Perhaps someday someone will come up with some clever device to reveal these 'stealth' aircrafts, but given the intended lifespan of these aircrafts -- decades of service -- we would not be investing so much just on a hope that someone would not 'decide' to develop a radar, a less expensive option than manned fighters, to find the F-22. No one 'decide' anything.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> No one 'decide' anything.



So the F22 was born out of ...magic ??? No decisions were ever made during its inception ? well that is news for me...

This is the core of the argument.. you are a clear believer (it seems) of the principles behind the creation of the stealth fighters.. I am a supporter..but not a believer... 

It's not your understanding of what the aircraft (F22,F117,B2, not F35) can do that ...I don't share.. it's your faith in the whole species of ( US only ) stealth aircraft. 

The SR-71 situation was very far from what you described. 
First of all, the SR-71 was not really a USAF plane..its was more a CIA plane and let's not kid ourselves about that.. and second Gambit...
as far as I know, it never actually overflew USSR space...at least officialy ... and please do correct me if I am wrong... but my understanding of flying tells me that the USSR could successfully intercept such a high flying high speed target using their MiG 25s and later their MiG-31s ... 
And before you jump off your seat, I don't mean use them to get the SR-71 in dogfilghts... you are a military man, you know what intercept means. .. 
So from a physics and flight characteristics point of view, ( and a little knowledge on the AA missiles available at the time) one can conlude that interception was possible.... 

So................ I will not hold my breath over your argument on the blackbird... first i got to be convinced it actually overflew the USSR

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> So the F22 was born out of ...magic ??? No decisions were ever made during its inception ? well that is news for me...
> 
> This is the core of the argument.. you are a clear believer (it seems) of the principles behind the creation of the stealth fighters.. I am a supporter..but not a believer...


Looks like you are having difficulties following your own arguments. So I will refresh your memory...



amalakas said:


> What if some people someplace *decide* they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.


The highlighted 'decide' imply that electronically defeating the F-22 is optional. No...There is no option. Even if one fail in the attempt, failure does not negate the necessity. That is why I said no one 'decide' anything. The US felt that creating a new generation of aircraft, based upon new technology, to elude radar detection is a necessity. Our 'decision' was not so much driven by whims as it was from financial limitations. So...No...'stealth' was not an option, it was a necessity waiting for resource allocation to come to being. Once 'stealth' proved to be viable and overwhelmingly advantageous to one side -- US -- its defeat also became a necessity and *THAT* is also a need waiting for resource allocation.

So you are wrong...No one 'decide' anything. The only decision is how much money, aka resources or investments, to allocate to the effort to defeat 'stealth'. Do we --US -- know of a way to defeat it? I will leave it up to speculations. But the less resources allocate to *ATTEMPT* to defeat 'stealth', the longer it will take to find a solution. The implication for militaries worldwide is serious. Resources at any time period, one year or one decade, is finite. Governments always play the jugglers between non-military and military needs for their own countries. If it is possible in the near future to create a sensor, either through new discoveries or creative exploitations of current technology, to detect 'stealth' aircrafts, no one will 'decide' to develop said new sensor. The need is compelling enough. Then if American 'stealth' aircrafts can be detected, what need is there for anyone to develop their own 'stealth' aircrafts?



amalakas said:


> It's not your understanding of what the aircraft (F22,F117,B2, not F35) can do that ...I don't share.. it's your faith in the whole species of ( US only ) stealth aircraft.


I do not have 'faith', only a realist's attitude that we should create and maintain every possible advantage for at least 10 yrs. The F-15 proved to be dominant beyond expectations. From what we have seen so far, the F-22 and its cousins are likely to have the same record.



amalakas said:


> The SR-71 situation was very far from what you described.
> First of all, the SR-71 was not really a USAF plane..its was more a CIA plane and let's not kid ourselves about that..


And let us not kid ourselves on the importance of parsing who benefited more from the SR-71, the military or the CIA.



amalakas said:


> and second Gambit...
> as far as I know, it never actually overflew USSR space...at least officialy ... and *please do correct me if I am wrong*...


Fine...You are wrong.



amalakas said:


> but my understanding of flying tells me that the USSR could successfully intercept such a high flying high speed target using their MiG 25s and later their MiG-31s ...
> And before you jump off your seat, I don't mean use them to get the SR-71 in dogfilghts... you are a military man, you know what intercept means. ..
> So from a physics and flight characteristics point of view, ( and a little knowledge on the AA missiles available at the time) one can conlude that interception was possible....
> 
> So................ I will not hold my breath over your argument on the blackbird... first i got to be convinced it actually overflew the USSR


SR-71 pilots are practically astronauts. For those who were privileged enough to have listened to mission tapes, whenever these pilots felt a potential threat is rising from the ground, the pilot would just casually said to the guy-in-back (GIB) that they should head out to 'space', which is pretty much at 100k ft or 74 km altitude. Why did the US stopped U-2 overflights of Soviet airspace...???

The Cold War Museum - The early U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union


> On every flight, the pilot reported seeing Soviet fighters flying beneath him at various times. They were too far below to pose any danger, but it was obvious that they were searching for a target that their ground controllers had identified. The bad news was soon confirmed by the US National Security Agency, whose ground stations intercepted the voice reports from the Soviet Air Defence Troops.
> 
> Soviet air defences were better than expected! However, the early U-2 overflights strongly suggested that Soviet offensive airpower had been over-estimated.


The U-2 overflights, and of course violations of Soviet airspace, were stopped because eventually Soviet air defense became capable enough to reach the U-2's operational altitude, aka the Powers U-2 shoot down. But here you are telling everyone here, people who can be cynical enough, that the US never sent the SR-71 over Soviet airspace? Give us all a break, will ya...??? May be you need a transfusion of said cynicism.

But even if we are to accept the US government's official statement that the SR-71 never violated Soviet airspace, what is there to prevent the Soviets from trying to shoot it down anyway...???

SR-71 Det 1 CIA Operations


> Between 01 January and 31 March 1968, six missions were flown: four over North Vietnam and two over North Korea.


Why should Soviet missiles be confined to Soviet air defense when Soviet military prestige would gain global eminence and desirability if even just one SR-71 was shot down?

So could a defense be possible against the SR-71? Of course, it would be a blatant violation of the laws of physics for me to say anything else. Was the SR-71 defeated? No... How long was the attempt? Nearly 60 yrs. How much money invested in the failed attempt?  Is anyone continuing? Probably not. Not because the SR-71 became worthless but because it is no longer an immediate threat. But the more cynical among us would say that once governments analyzed their finite resources, they threw up their hands and pretty much gave up, for the SR-71 as well as the F-22.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> they threw up their hands and pretty much gave up, for the SR-71 as well as the F-22.



Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it) 

I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong. 

1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way. 

2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...

a) First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve...for an interception it's more than enough

b) The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ... 

C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...) 

So please.. sarcasm ...not

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it)
> 
> I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong.
> 
> 1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way.
> 
> 2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...
> 
> a) *First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve*...for an interception it's more than enough
> 
> b) The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ...
> 
> C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...)
> 
> So please.. sarcasm ...not



The Mig-25 acheived a world record service ceiling of 123,000 ft but its official service ceiling is around 80,000 ft but i assume the RS-71 could probably do the same.

The SR-71 flew before the Mig-25 so it is likely that it did indeed overfly the USSR. However, with the introduction of the Mig-25/31 the over flights of the SR-71 (if this did happen) was most likely drastically reduced or stoped all together, but with thr SR-71's speed i could see how the reaction time would still make overflights possible--in other words if it was well coordinated flight, meaning the SR-71's flew the safest possible rought at the safest time and fully utilized its speed and altitude then further flights were probable but given the Migs altitude and speed it would be risky for the SR-71.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indianairforce1

Voted For PAK-FA Becoz ....

If we read characteristics of F-22 and MiG 1.44 and Sukhoi 47, we will see that the russians are better. So T-50 I think will have a lot of tech of Su-47 and MiG 1.44.
If is better or not T-50 against F-22 and F-35 we will se only in combat (after many years).

What are we doing are only speculations and opinions.

What I don't understanding is how can Russia keep the step with western with so fewer money.
If any is very good in aeronautics will go at NASA BOEING GRUMMAN or at another US company because there are money. In Russia sallary are aprox 300$ in aviation industry. Is anybody for ex. from Germany that will go to work for Sukhoi. He want to work for BAE DASSAULT NASA etc. Am I right?

P.S. russians are better in aeronautics and astronautics in general, my opinion.


----------



## indianairforce1

The PAK FA was designed to compete with the F-35 Lighting II (AKA JSF) not the F-22. They are two different leagues.

The Su-35 vs. the F-22? Well for one these aircraft are built with two different purposes in mind.

If one looks at the Su-35/37 they notice forward canards. Something that only the americans are not incorporating into their new fighters. The reason for this is forward canards speak to manuverability in a pinch. This boils down to dogfighting. In the hands of pilots of equal skill, the Su's have the advantage in a dogfight.

However dogfights account for only 1 out of 10 aerial victories. The rest being attained in BVR (beyond vidual range) combat. This is what the F-22 was designed for.

You see we've all seen movies like "Top Gun" and "Iron Eagle" and when we think of a missile being fired we think "Break Right!" Well against short range missiles that works. Against longer range missiles such as the AMRAAM this doesn't work. When one fires an AMRAAM at you that's flying mach-4/5 you don't try to break right. Its got plenty of time to compensate, and you don't wait for it to get close then dodge, its moving to fast. What you do is go into erratic manuvers forcing the missile to use up fuel and speed to keep up. The goal being to either cause it to burn up its fuel, or lose so much speed matching your manuvers that you can dodge it.

The F-22 was designed with this purpose in mind. Get so close you can't escape the missiles, fire them, then leave. Dogfighting only as a last resort.

In BVR combat the F-22 has a clear advantage. Also keep in mind AIM-120 are more effective from an F-22, why? Despite what you see in the movies in most air to air combat the fighters stay close to the ground to stay out of the view of surface to air missiles. The stealth F-22 does not, and its high altitude and supercruising speed adds range and speed to the missiles.

There is no doubt in my mind the F-22 is capable of scoring a 10-1 ratio on the Su-35 based purely on the merits of the plane. However combat is much more complicated than this. Those fighting the F-22 will try to avoid engaging it unless they are over their home territory with SAM's, and multiple radars to help them. The americans will send F-35's and F/A-18's on Wild Weasel to degrade this capability. The determinant factor in the battle of Su-35 vs. F-22 is distance. From long range I don't think even the Su-35 could escape such a close missile launch. In a close range fight, both have thrust vectoring, and the Su has canards. However one thing often overlooked in the craft's manuverability is weight. Russian aircraft are big, mean, and heavy. American aircraft are lighter making them easier to move.

I think the Su-35 would likely retain the manuverability advantage which could give a skilled enough pilot an edge, but its getting that close that's the key. A favorite American tactic is "the grinder" where aircraft go high, launch AIM-120, then spiral downward presenting a confusing radar image. From here they retreat reform, and come back. A Su-35 would have to dodge the AIM-120's, then kick in his afterburners to catch the supercruising F-22 before it reforms. This leads to a short combat time.

For russian aircraft fighting the F-22 will depend on its ability to do the following. Find the F-22's avoid their missiles, close the distance, force them into a dogfight, and shoot them down before the Su or Mig "bingo's" on fuel. If a Su can force an F-22 into a dogfight he has a chance, without it, I don't like his odds.

As far as PAKFA vs. F-22, this is like comparing F-22 to F-35 JSF, aircraft designed on different parameters. A better comparison is the PAKFA versus the F-35 in which case unless the F-35 pilot is of much higher quality the PAKFA wins. Thanks to congressional penny-pinching the Air Force has been forced to dump more and more tasks on the F-35. This leads to compromise and to many have been made.

The F-35's better wait until the F-22's clean the skies out for them.


----------



## xMustiiej70

The F-22 is more a air superiority fighter.
and f35 multirole.
the f35 has better manoevrebility then f-22.
if you ask me in a dogfight.. against those new russian fighters..
i say f35 wins. dont matter if those canards help for more manoevres for the russians.

I still dont know why people calls f22 best aircraft.. while f35 is better.
everything is better of it.
operational range of f22 is higher..
f22 is a bit better in air to air but litterly the rest.
like the REST! is on the f35 the best.
avoinics,techs,armament.
everything.
My vote is for f35 already.
Its the best now and in the few decades and even the best when those chinese and russians planes comes.


----------



## Frankenstein

If you say future then, Raptor is the right choice


----------



## ptldM3

indianairforce1 said:


> Voted For PAK-FA Becoz ....
> 
> *If we read characteristics of F-22 and MiG 1.44 and Sukhoi 47, we will see that the russians are better*. So T-50 I think will have a lot of tech of Su-47 and MiG 1.44.
> If is better or not T-50 against F-22 and F-35 we will se only in combat (after many years).
> 
> What are we doing are only speculations and opinions.
> 
> .



Both were just tech demonstrators, i'm not even sure either of them were fitted with major avionics, also neither were 'stealth' however, the pak-fa does have some impressive avionics or atleast the little we know about them. The main focus now is improving the airframe for minimizing the rcs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

xMustiiej70 said:


> The F-22 is more a air superiority fighter.
> and f35 multirole.
> the f35 has better manoevrebility then f-22.
> if you ask me in a dogfight.. against those new russian fighters..
> i say f35 wins. dont matter if those canards help for more manoevres for the russians.
> 
> I still dont know why people calls f22 best aircraft.. while f35 is better.
> everything is better of it.
> operational range of f22 is higher..
> f22 is a bit better in air to air but litterly the rest.
> like the REST! is on the f35 the best.
> avoinics,techs,armament.
> everything.
> My vote is for f35 already.
> Its the best now and in the few decades and even the best when those chinese and russians planes comes.





Dude !!!!! what are you on about ??? 

The F22 IS currently the air supremacy fighter to have/beat, it is the standard that others must meet to be survivable ( not dominant, just survivable ) on the battlespace... the F 35 is nowhere near that performance... it is not even on the same league as the F22. 

As it stands now, there is NO other plane on that league...
and this is were we sorta put our money on, that since the PAK FA is out, now there will soon be two planes on that league.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xMustiiej70

Ok greek guy.
you say f35 is far from f22.
while lockeed martin and usa says f35 is better then f22.
but f22's air to air performence are slightly better then f35.
they are all lies.
you made f22 and f35.


----------



## amalakas

xMustiiej70 said:


> Ok greek guy.
> you say f35 is far from f22.
> while lockeed martin and usa says f35 is better then f22.
> but f22's air to air performence are slightly better then f35.
> they are all lies.
> you made f22 and f35.



????????????????????????????????


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it)
> 
> I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however *find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong.*


Sure...



amalakas said:


> 1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that *just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way. *


Why not? And I meant that as a serious question. Do you think no admiral in the world would like to have an aircraft carrier under his command? You are missing the point. Very seldom is a weapon system so specialized that no one else want put it on his 'Christmas list'. I cannot think of any at the moment but the F-22 is not one of those weapons. The F-22's mission is no different than the F-15: To achieve air superiority over an airspace in the shortest possible time. Show me a single air force that does not have the F-22 on its 'Christmas list'. This is like high level auto racing. If a team employ supercomputers to calculate the best spoiler camber, you had better bet your next paycheck the other teams would be wanting to do the same. Whether the other teams can afford the supercomputers or not is beside the point, but when they see the trophies and the pretty girls are with the team that uses the supercomputers...



amalakas said:


> 2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...
> 
> a) First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve...for an interception it's more than enough


The difference here is that the SR-71 can *SUSTAIN* those high Mach and altitude.



amalakas said:


> b) *The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it*... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ...


Wrong...The SR-71's intelligence sensors, optical, ELINT and radar, are *ALSO* fully capable of acting as target sensors, not counting the standard radar warning sets. 







See the two 'dimples' on the chines? They are ASARs and they are fully capable of informing the crew of any rising threats. Further...SR-71 pilots usually can spot, ahead of their track, orbit contrails of fighters rising in altitude. Once a contrail disappeared or gradually loses visibility, that is a sign a fighter is leaving said orbit to attempt an interception.



amalakas said:


> C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...)
> 
> So please.. sarcasm ...not


Please...If this is an attempt at humor...Stop...You ain't good at it.

SR-71 Online - Blackbird Losses

Viktor Belenko informed US on how the Soviet Air Force usually failed to intercept and shoot down an SR-71. What he said is true -- That the majority of missiles exploit aerodynamics and the thin air at which the SR-71 cruises would render any missile quite unmaneuverable. The SR-71 does incorporate some RCS predictive methods in its design but nowhere as effective as today's technology. Still, by the time the SR-71 is detected, its Mach 3+ speed alone would leave any missile behind, even though if the missile has a higher top speed, simply because of being out-distanced. Belenko revealed that the Soviet Air Force did attempted head-on interceptions but Soviet missiles could not compensate for the high closing speed.

Mig25 VS SR-71


> Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.


----------



## xMustiiej70

a little bump.

Pak fa is overhyperd by the indians like..
OMG OMG INDIAN PLANE IDNIAN PLANE OMGOMG
IT HAS 4 RADERS OMG
JESUS OH **** THATS 4 RADARS DUDE OMG..

But what is it really?
I say old russian plane.
low quality.
f35 rules the skies.
and since f22 stopped.
f35.1.


----------



## ptldM3

xMustiiej70 said:


> a little bump.
> 
> Pak fa is overhyperd by the indians like..
> OMG OMG INDIAN PLANE IDNIAN PLANE OMGOMG
> IT HAS 4 RADERS OMG
> JESUS OH **** THATS 4 RADARS DUDE OMG..
> 
> But what is it really?
> I say old russian plane.
> low quality.
> f35 rules the skies.
> and since f22 stopped.
> f35.1.



I say you need to stop talking out of your rear end. And who is over hyping here? It was you that was saying the F-35 is so much better than the F-22. Pak-fa old, what a joke. Low quality? Are you a QC inspector for Sukhoi?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## judith

I think F-22 is the best fighter jet.


----------



## Black Stone

Someone picked the Grippen, interesting.


----------



## chachag

Whenever fully developed Sukhoi Pak-Fa not inducted no one can say about which one is best .. Because on Paper Pak-FA already looking superior that f 22


----------



## WAQAS119

Why no one talks about this plane? Its radars? its other capabilities?
Why this plane is ignored by all military aviation experts?


----------



## Indian_Idol

Obviously F22.. Since PAK FA is not operational it wont be fair to compare PAK-FA and F22...


----------



## ptldM3

WAQAS119 said:


> Why no one talks about this plane? Its radars? its other capabilities?
> Why this plane is ignored by all military aviation experts?



It's a bomber and it's retired.


----------



## xMustiiej70

Uhm.. it think indians took it to a whole new level..
pak-fa is a fighter that needs to be compared to f35.
f-22 has other roles.
also.. some 100&#37; indigenous indian guy just said pak-fa is not operational on paper its already superior to f22.

gawd.


----------



## chachag

xMustiiej70 said:


> Uhm.. it think indians took it to a whole new level..
> pak-fa is a fighter that needs to be compared to f35.
> f-22 has other roles.
> also.. some 100% indigenous indian guy just said pak-fa is not operational on paper its already superior to f22.
> 
> gawd.



These things are not your level ... thts why we talking that before fully operational Pak-Fa its wrong to compare it with F22.


----------



## redpearl75

Well, Im very new to this forum and have joined recently but I hold a lot of knowledge bout' the fact that we are talking about out here. When it comes to the future warfare, none of us can always be up to the mark as one thing is the best in our arsenal tomorrow someone else is working on getting something better than the best. There's no doubt about the fact that F22 or Pak-FA/FGFA will be the best for future at least the next 2 to 3 decads as after that I don't think that even manned aircrfts will be necessary. For the next few decades all the air forces around the world will be based mostly on the 4.5 gen fighter aircrafts. F22 has a rarest kind of stealth features and has been originated in US which has been soundly very capable of produsing and taking warfare to a different dimention altogether... Russia on the other hand was always a step ahead of the Us in terms of military warfare but after the fall of USSR the race almost ended due to the lack of funds and now they are getting back on their feet very fast. 

When it comes to the comparision of these two aircrafts there is no doubt that it will be a tough evaluation on top of that there is no way that these two fighters will be facing each other ever in the near future or maybe never. Only if US goes on against Russia or the opposite. In terms of weapons F22 and Pak-FA/FGFA can carry the same ammount. It's the verity of the weapons that's gonna be important. Though PAK-FA is still in infant stages of testing but Im sure that it will come up with a lethal puch when it's ready for use. It has a total of 16 hard points comepared to that of 14 of the Raptor. In stealth mode Raptor can carry 2 AIM-9M/X and 6 AIM-120C for Air to Air**In Air to Ground mode it will be carrying: 2 AIM-9M/X, 2 AIM-120C and, 2 1000-lb JDAM or a combination of 8 250lb SDB, 2 AIM 9M/X and, 2 AIM 120C. Where as in No Stealth mode 2 AIM 9MX, 6 AIM 120C, 2 Fuel Tanks 600 GAL each and 4 Missiles (Varied) WHEREAS PAK-FA has no updates yet as to what will be it's armament but for sure it will be something deadly as well. 
Although there is no reliable information about the PAK FA and FGFA specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA radar. The FGFA will use on her first flights 2 Saturn 117S engines (about 14.5 ton thrust each). The 117S is an advanced version of the AL-31F, but built with the experience gained in the AL-41F program. The AL-41F powered the Mikoyan MFI fighter (Mikoyan Project 1.44). Later versions of the PAK FA will use a completely new engine (17.5 ton thrust each), developed by NPO Saturn or FGUP MMPP Salyut.

Three Russian companies will compete to provide the engines with the final version to be delivered in 2015-2016.

When it comes to The Avionics package The PAK-FA SH121 radar complex includes three X-Band AESA radars located on the front and sides of the aircraft. These will be accompanied by L-Band radars on the wing leading edges.L-Band radars are proven to have increased effectiveness against VLO targets which are optimized only against X-Band frequencies, but their longer wavelengths reduce their resolution.

The PAK-FA will feature an IRST optical/IR search and tracking system.

Sukhoi recently demonstrated cockpit mock-ups, which may relate to both Su-35 or PAK-FA, suggest two very large MFDs and a very wide HUD
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will reportedly provide the navigation system and the mission computer.

Whereas the F-22's avionics include BAE Systems E&IS radar warning receiver (RWR) AN/ALR-94, AN/AAR 56 Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet MAWS (Missile Approach Warning System) and the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The AN/APG-77 has both long-range target acquisition and low probability of interception of its own signals by enemy aircraft.

The AN/ALR-94 is a passive receiver system capable of detecting the radar signals in the environment. Composed of more than 30 antennas smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage that provide all around coverage plus azimuth and elevation information in the forward sector, it is described by Tom Burbage, the former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft." With greater range (250+ nmi) than the radar, it enables the F-22 to limit its own radar emission to preserve its stealth. As a target approaches, the receiver can cue the AN/APG-77 radar to track the target with a narrow beam, which can be as focused down to 2&#176; by 2&#176; in azimuth and elevation.

The AN/APG-77 AESA radar, designed for air superiority and strike operations, features a low-observable, active-aperture, electronically-scanned array that can track multiple targets in any weather. The AN/APG-77 changes frequencies more than 1,000 times per second to reduce the chance of being intercepted. The radar can also focus its emissions to overload enemy sensors, giving the aircraft an electronic-attack capability.

The thurst to weight ratio of PAK-FA/FGFA is 1.4 and for F22 it's 1.08 that means better maneuverability for PAK-FA and better angle of attack. The Raptor has Pitch Thrust vectoring that means 2D movement only up and down but PAK-FA or FGFA has complete 3D thurst vectoring giving it an edge over the Raptor here. But The Moskovsky Komsomolets reported that the T-50 has been designed to be more maneuverable than the F-22 Raptor at the cost of making it less stealthy than the F-22.
Plus PAK-FA/FGFA can handle +11Gs and most possibly -4 or -5Gs whereas raptor can manage with max +9Gs meaning again less agile....

That's the most I could come up with with help from the Wiki... lols....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TorontoNoctis

amalakas said:


> It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !!



No you are wrong and gambit is right.

The military industrial complex might have a stranglehold in the USA, with cost dictating number of units and technology, but it is not so in other countries. If there was a way to counter stealth, it would be done irregardless of the cost. And it would have been done 10, 20, 30 years ago.

You have to realize that military technology is not elastic; people will be willing to pay any price for certain military capabilities and pay for any sort of infrastructure. Even dirt poor **** holes like North Korea have budgets in the hundreds of billions, so money is not an issue. And they are not so discriminatory about the quality of the gear too. Soviets gave their satellite states and sold garbage to the world for years, stripped down without advanced features "dud" models and they still bought it. So even if there was a half or semi working way, it would be out in the market right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## redpearl75

An old link but might look exciting:  Russia Developes Fifth Generation Fighter, PAK-FA (T-50) to Counter US F22 and JSF (F-35) @Blokeish.com


----------



## redpearl75

General characteristics 
Crew: 1 
Length: 19.8 m (65.9 ft) 
Wingspan: 14 m (46.6 ft) 
Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft) 
Wing area: 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2) 
Empty weight: 18,500 kg (40,785 lb) 
Loaded weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) 
Useful load: 7,500 kg (combat load) (16,534 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 37,000 kg (81,570 lb) 
Powerplant: 2&#215; New unnamed engine by NPO Saturn and FNPTS MMPP Salyut of 175 kN each[36][44] Prototype with AL-41F1 of 147 kN each, definitive version with new engine >157 kN 
Maximum Fuel weight: 10,300 kg (22,711 lb) 

Performance 
Maximum speed: 2,600 km/h (Mach 2.45) (at 17,000 m altitude) (1,615 mph (at 45,000 ft altitude)) 
Cruise speed: 1,300 - 1,800 km/h (808 - 1,118 mph) 
Ferry range: 5,500 km 
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,616 ft) 
Rate of climb: 350 m/sec (1184 ft/sec) 
Wing loading: 330(normal) - 470(maximum) kg/m2 (67(normal) - 96(maximum) lb/ft2) 
Thrust/weight: 1.4 
Maximum g-load: +10.0/+11.0 g

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

Russian PAK-FA Vs US F22 Raptor (5th Generation)
Physical Comparison






---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------







---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

*Radars*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## redpearl75

*Control Surfaces*






*Weapons Storage*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## redpearl75

*Cockpits*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## redpearl75

The Saturn 117S Engines for PAK-FA


----------



## redpearl75

One more image from a different angle...


----------



## dbc

redpearl75 said:


> One more image from a different angle...



Why is he holding the ejection firing handle? Trust deficit? 

just kidding, I voted PAKFA


----------



## 500

chachag said:


> Whenever fully developed Sukhoi Pak-Fa not inducted no one can say about which one is best .. Because on Paper Pak-FA already looking superior that f 22


PAK FA has very long way to go to match the F-22 (APG-77, F119, stealth airframe). Poll is senseless.


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> PAK FA has very long way to go to match the F-22 (APG-77, F119, stealth airframe). Poll is senseless.



You might have said the right thing... The things is that PAK-FA has a long way to go but it will surpass the Raptor very well by the time it's fully operational.... If not PAK-FA then FGFA eventually will as it will have multinational avionics embaded in it..... It was said in the past that the second best combat fighter in the world after Raptor/F-35 is the Su 30MKI which India operates and has multi national components in it... PAK-FA/FGFA will have both X as well as L band radars, 3d TVC and many more..
The Raptor has 2 Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 with Dry thrust: of104 kN each and Thrust with afterburner: 156+ kN each whereas the Saturn 117s engines of the PAK-FA will have around 112 kN of dry thurst and 175 kN of thrust with afterburner....

There's a lot to write but again as you said PAK-FA still has a long if not very long, way to go.. But for sure it will not only match but will easily surpass Raptor's capabilities... PAKFA will only be less stealthier than the Raptor and in every other aspect it's gonna rock....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## redpearl75

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> Why is he holding the ejection firing handle? Trust deficit?
> 
> just kidding, I voted PAKFA



He he... It's a test cockpit within a room facing a LCD for the display... lol... Even if he does pull the stick nothing's gonna happen.... lol....


----------



## redpearl75

If you can then pls have a look at this: Sukhoi PAK-FA T-50 cockpit and nose footage > Fighter Country Partnership


----------



## 500

redpearl75 said:


> You might have said the right thing... The things is that PAK-FA has a long way to go but it will surpass the Raptor very well by the time it's fully operational.... If not PAK-FA then FGFA eventually will as it will have multinational avionics embaded in it..... It was said in the past that the second best combat fighter in the world after Raptor/F-35 is the Su 30MKI which India operates and has multi national components in it... PAK-FA/FGFA will have both X as well as L band radars, 3d TVC and many more..
> The Raptor has 2 Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 with Dry thrust: of104 kN each and Thrust with afterburner: 156+ kN each whereas the Saturn 117s engines of the PAK-FA will have around 112 kN of dry thurst and 175 kN of thrust with afterburner....
> 
> There's a lot to write but again as you said PAK-FA still has a long if not very long, way to go.. But for sure it will not only match but will easily surpass Raptor's capabilities... PAKFA will only be less stealthier than the Raptor and in every other aspect it's gonna rock....


Sorry but everything is pure speculation.

Lets put it in this way:

--------------------------- F-22 ------- F-35 ----------- PAK FA

empty weight ---------- 19,700 ---- 13,170 ------------ ?
wing area --------------- 78.04 ----- 42.74 ------------- ?
internal fuel ------------- 8,200 ------ 8,392 ------------ ?
thrust ------------------- 312 kN --- 178 kN ------------ ?
AA internal ------------- 8 missiles -- 4 missiles --------- ?
AG internal ----------- 2x1000 lb --- 2x2000 lb --------- ?
Radar ----------------- APG-77 ------ APG-81 ---------- ?
IR sensors ------------ AAR-56 --- DAS + EOTS -------- ?
RWR ------------------ ALR-94 ----- ASQ-239 ---------- ?
Supercruise ---------- 1.7 Mach ------ no --------------- ?

In short we know NOTHING about PAK FA. Only intentions and speculations.


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> Sorry but everything is pure speculation.
> 
> Lets put it in this way:
> 
> --------------------------- F-22 ------- F-35 ----------- PAK FA
> 
> empty weight ---------- 19,700 ---- 13,170 ------------ ?
> wing area --------------- 78.04 ----- 42.74 ------------- ?
> internal fuel ------------- 8,200 ------ 8,392 ------------ ?
> thrust ------------------- 312 kN --- 178 kN ------------ ?
> AA internal ------------- 8 missiles -- 4 missiles --------- ?
> AG internal ----------- 2x1000 lb --- 2x2000 lb --------- ?
> Radar ----------------- APG-77 ------ APG-81 ---------- ?
> IR sensors ------------ AAR-56 --- DAS + EOTS -------- ?
> RWR ------------------ ALR-94 ----- ASQ-239 ---------- ?
> Supercruise ---------- 1.7 Mach ------ no --------------- ?
> 
> In short we know NOTHING about PAK FA. Only intentions and speculations.



-------- ------ F-22 ------- F-35 ----------- PAK FA

empty weight - 19,700 -- 13,170-- 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)
area ------- 78.04 ----- 42.74--- 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2)
internal fuel ---- 8,200 ---- 8,392 --- 10,300 kg (22,711 lb)
thrust --------- 312 kN --- 178 kN --- 175 kN each/Total: 350 kN
AA internal---- 8 missiles - 4 missiles - 8 Missiles
AG internal -- 2x1000 lb --- 2x2000 lb-- 2x1,500kg or 2 anti-AWACS Missiles. (Novator)
Radar ----- -- APG-77 ------ APG-81 --- IRBIS-E AESA
IR sensors -- AAR-56 --- DAS + EOTS- -OLS-50M
RWR -------- ALR-94 ----- ASQ-239 ---- X-band radar in its tail and two L-Band radars on its wings to aid in detecting stealth aircraft.
Supercruise - 1.7 Mach ------ no -------- 1.7+

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## redpearl75

PAK-FA is not operational but is not a myth for god's sake... Everything about it is real and not fiction that is not true... Developers are not fools or blind to comment on something od this magnitude, so everything that is mentioned in the above comment by me might not be the exact thing that gets on the PAK-FA but something better might get.... India is spending 30Billion for this developement and same from Russia as well or maybe more, who knows... The outcome would be something that is worth waiting and debating for....

There have been various analysis done by various so called experts on different forums and defense sites. While I agree with some, I do tend to disagree with a lot of those. So here I present my analysis of the two aircraft, and the differences between them.


THE AIRFRAME
The airframe is what provides the basic stealth characteristic to both the aircraft. To apply stealth to an airframe, the first thing that needs to be taken into account is the shape of the airframe. A stealth aircraft must have as much as possible paralleled edge of the airframe to reflect the radar wave away from its source. Both the aircraft, PakFa as well as the F-22 employ optimum shapes required to keep them stealthy in air at least from the front.
But what about the sides? Is F-22 just as effective from the sides. The answer to that may surprise some. But it is just as effective from the sides too.

The sides of the aircraft have been shaped in such a way that there are no surfaces which could possibly reflect back radar waves. The minimum edges that do exist have been coated with multiple layers of RAM.

Unfortunately the story is not so rosy for PakFa.

The side of the aircraft is just not what was expected from a stealth aircraft. The engines are a party spoiler here and will take away all the stealth advantage in an engagement. The rcs from the side may be as high as 1 square meter from certain angles. The engines are supposed to be replaced in the future, but there are no plans to alter the shape of the engine ducts. So I'd assume this is the final shape and this is a cause of worry for us Indians.

The rear of an aircraft is where the fun lies. That's because these days aircraft are equipped with IR search and tracking systems and it is just not possible to hide the IR signature of jet fuel being burnt at such high rates. A stealth aircraft might be invisible to the radar at long distances, but it can not escape the IR seeker.

And the Americans have thought about it already. The F-22's engine nozzles are shaped in such a way that not only does it reduce the chances of radar detection but also allow mixing of cold air from the surroundings, which cools the exhaust air. This nozzle design is so effective that it reduces the IR signature by as much as 30-40&#37;.

The Russians unfortunately haven't thought about the IR signature AT ALL. The nozzles are the same nozzles used on the AL-31F engines. This is rather surprising since the PakFa will be housing an IRST system, whereas F-22 lacks the same. The Russians intend to detect the F-22 from its IR signature but they haven't done anything AT ALL about their own IR signature.

I can only hope the final engines don't end up with a nozzle design like this.

ENGINES

The F-22 uses 2 Pratt & Whitney F119 engines that produces a dry thrust of 104 KN each and 156 KN of wet thrust. The engines are a generation ahead of the conventional engines in the sense that they have 22% less moving parts, and still deliver thrust that allow the aircraft to supercruise at a velocity of 1.8 Mach without the use of its afterburner.

The engines also have Thrust Vectoring Control, but it is a 2 directional thrust vectoring system. The nozzles can vector up to 20 degrees in the pitch axis. This would allow the aircraft to maneuver at much faster rates. The pitch axis maneuverability is greatly enhanced due to this form of thrust vectoring.

The PakFa on the other hand are supposed to be fitted with a derivative of AL-41 engines which are supposed to produce thrust in the 170 KN range. The dry thrust too would be more than enough to enable PakFa to supercruise. It is expected that PakFa would be capable of supercruising at velocities around 1.5-1.8 Mach, which is on par with the F-22.

The engines are supposed to be fitted with 3 directional Thrust Vectoring Control system, which would improve the maneuverability of the already super maneuverable airframe. There are a lot of people who believe that 3D TVC is way better than 2D TVC. Disappointingly for them it is not true.

The aircraft is highly maneuverable in its pitch axis due to the huge control surfaces on its wings, and the lift generated by the fuselage. The TVC system acts as another control element. In the aircraft the yaw control surfaces are very small and ineffective. The only yaw control surface are the vertical stabilizers. The addition of TVS doesn't make a huge difference to the maneuverability in yaw axis.

To turn left or right, TVS or vertical stabilizers are not used, rather the aircraft is rolled in left or right direction and then its pitch control surfaces are used to direct it in the direction in which the pilot intends to go. So the advantage of 3D TVC is minimal when compared to 2D TVC.

Also one thing I wanted to say here that I didn't mention in the Airframe part is that the engine blades of the PakFa are not hidden. The engine ducts are linear and there are no curved ducts to hide the engine compressor blades. The engine compressor blades act as surfaces which reflect back radar waves, and since the blades face the front of the aircraft, its a BIG thing to worry about. There have been talks of a radar blocker, but the aerodynamics of a radar blocker are horrible to say the least. There are also talks that the landing gear would act as a radar blocker, but it would also reflect back radar waves and hamper the stealth characteristics of the aircraft. The engines leave a lot to be desired. I just hope the final engines take care of all the problems.

INTERNAL WEAPONS BAY

The F-22 has four internal weapons bays for its main armaments. Two at the bottom of the mid-fuselage and two on the air intake sides. There are also four hardpoints on the wings which are mainly meant for fuel tanks on ferry flights, but can also carry a weapon load.

The F-22 can carry 6 AMRAAMs in its 2 main weapons bays, and 2 sidewinders in its secondary weapons bay. The weapons bay are more than enough for an aircraft of this size, and 8 missiles are the standard configuration for all the aircraft in the world. Many believe that internal weapons bay can not hold as many weapons as a conventional aircraft, but F-22 can hold just as many weapons and even more if you take into account the hardpoints on the wings, which is remarkable.

The internal weapons bay on the PakFa are a different approach. The IWB on the PakFa are placed between the engines and act as a lifting body for the aircraft. 

The straight forward placement of the IWB on the PakFa allows it to carry 8 full sized RVV-AE missiles in its internal bays. Also just like the F-22, PakFa too can carry missiles on its external hardpoints.

But its this simple placement of the IWB which doesn't allow curved ducts for the engine. In order to reduce radar reflection of the engine blades, IWB placement will need to be changed, which doesn't seem to be a possibility now in the final stages of development of the aircraft. This is very disappointing.

AVIONICS

The radar used in the F-22 is the APG-77 radar. It is a solid-state, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar operating in the X-band(8 to 12.5 GHz). The radar is composed of 2000 transmit\receive modules, which is the highest achieved till date. The APG-77 provides 120&#176; field of view in azimuth and elevation.

ALR-94 Electronic Support Measures system and AAR-56 Missile Approach Warning System are the backbone of the countermeasure systems. An ALE-52 dispenser for expendable countermeasures is located under doors, forward of the main wheel wells. Optical fibre links are used to significantly increase data transfer rates between the radar's high frequency components and the CIPs. 

Back to the radar, it is the most advanced radar operational. The range of the radar is remarkable.

Not only does it have a huge range, but since its an AESA, it is also resistant to blocking and jamming electronically. It is believed that the APG-77 has a 'typical' operating range of 190 km and is specified to achieve an 86 per cent probability of intercept against a 1 square meter target at its maximum detection range using a single radar paint. In Ultra High-Resolution (UHR) modes, it can offer 31 cm resolution at ranges in excess of 161 km.The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. 

Along with the main radar, F-22 is also equipped with several passive sensors. I won't go in detail explaining every sensor and antenna, so this pic should get you an idea of what some of the major sensors installed on the F-22.

On the other hand PakFa is going to be equipped with an AESA radar based on the Irbis-E radar. Tikhomirov NIIP will build the radar and very few details are available till date, but it is expected to have a range 20-30% more than the Irbis-E PESA radar. Here I have the ranges compared between APG-77, Irbis-E and the N050 radar.







As seen from the graph, the radar in the PakFa will outrange the APG-77 and also the Irbis-E radar making it the most powerful radar in a jet fighter. This is the ultimate weapon of the aircraft and PakFa would exploit the radar to compensate for the losses in stealth.

PakFa is also believed to use several passive sensors just like the F-22, but the approach differs, where PakFa uses multiple powerful radars to increase awareness, F-22 uses less powerful, efficient sensors to keep itself hidden from its opponent.

The PakFa has another X-band radar in its tail and two L-Band radars on its wings to aid in detecting stealth aircraft. As previously mentioned, it also has an IRST sensor to track an aircraft from its IR signature.

STEALTH

What gives F-22 the superior stealth that makes it the best fighter aircraft on earth?
I bet 80% of the people would say, its the stealth shape of the airframe. It is. But that is not what makes it the best. It can make it a low observable body in the sky but can not hide it to an extent that we call it a stealth aircraft. A plain sheet of metal would be detectable even when radar waves are passed parallel to the plane of the sheet. 

The secret of the F-22's superior stealth are the following features:

- Shape (canted vertical stabilizers, identical sweep angles of trailing and leading edges of wings and horizontal stabilizers)
- RAM coating
- Saw-toothed joints
- Complex ray tracing calculation of multiple radar wave returns
- Efficient radar, which does not compromise stealth

I am sure everyone has noticed some saw toothed joints and panels on the F-22. Shapes like these help tremendously in reducing the frontal radar cross section. Here's how.

What these W shaped do is that they reflect the radar waves off these W edges and because these W shaped will never be perpendicular to the front of the aircraft, they won't reflect back in the incident direction. If instead, straight edges were used, the edges would be facing the front and any radar signal coming from the front of the aircraft would have bounced back and compromised the stealth.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything like this on the PakFa.

About the RAM coating, the RAM coats are what turn the LO aircraft into a stealth aircraft. The F-22 is not painted with RAM on the entire surface. The RAM paint is just applied to parts that demand the use.

The RAM coating on PakFa is unknown till now and has to be bloody good to beat what F-22 has in its arsenal. Also several missiles are under development for both the aircraft and judging them now wouldn't be possible. 

So its a no brainer now. The F-22 beats the Russian stealth plane hands down. But since its in development stages, I wouldn't announce a winner yet and let the final plane surface. It is only then that I would conclude. Till then, Sayonara!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 500

redpearl75 said:


> -------- ------ F-22 ------- F-35 ----------- PAK FA
> 
> empty weight - 19,700 -- 13,170-- 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)
> area ------- 78.04 ----- 42.74--- 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2)
> internal fuel ---- 8,200 ---- 8,392 --- 10,300 kg (22,711 lb)
> thrust --------- 312 kN --- 178 kN --- 175 kN each/Total: 350 kN
> AA internal---- 8 missiles - 4 missiles - 8 Missiles
> AG internal -- 2x1000 lb --- 2x2000 lb-- 2x1,500kg or 2 anti-AWACS Missiles. (Novator)
> Radar ----- -- APG-77 ------ APG-81 --- IRBIS-E AESA
> IR sensors -- AAR-56 --- DAS + EOTS- -OLS-50M
> RWR -------- ALR-94 ----- ASQ-239 ---- X-band radar in its tail and two L-Band radars on its wings to aid in detecting stealth aircraft.
> Supercruise - 1.7 Mach ------ no -------- 1.7+


Sorry but *all* this data on pak fa is pure speculation. No official numbers are released yet. I doubt developers themselves know what they will be, since between T-50-1 prototype and the serial version of PAK FA there will be MANY changes.

Here T-10-1 prototype:





And final version of Su-27:


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> Sorry but *all* this data on pak fa is pure speculation. No official numbers are released yet. I doubt developers themselves know what they will be, since between T-50-1 prototype and the serial version of PAK FA there will be MANY changes.
> 
> Here T-10-1 prototype:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And final version of Su-27:



That was the year 1977 and this is 2010.. 1977 was not equipped with the tech stuff that's here today... More than 75 to 80% tests were conducted for T10 only a prototype was made... Now the same percentage of tests are done before even the plane is even made.. About avionics, i'd agree that it's still unsure but looking at what we have currently and with all the developments that are being done, you will agree that whatever comes out won't be a waste or will lack the same ability as it is claimaed... You are not getting the point here that is, all the developements that are underway is not meant for something which might get abandoned in future, thorough examination has already being done... Plus we have a stipulated time frame already set for it's procurement.. The funds are set and design work is already complete.... Prototype is already going through fiight tests, weapon integration is the next stage, radar is already in full fledged developement, russia has already come up with the AESA radar which is not that capable as compared to the Raptor's but this radar is completely going to be different.. And Im sure that Americans would not just sit idle and will ensure that they have something in constant developement to counter the PAK-FA... development is the key to have more sophistication and a dedicated effort towards the same always lead to something better or rather the best...


----------



## SpArK

500 said:


> Sorry but *all* this data on pak fa is pure speculation. No official numbers are released yet. I doubt developers themselves know what they will be, since between T-50-1 prototype and the serial version of PAK FA there will be MANY changes.
> 
> Here T-10-1 prototype:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And final version of Su-27:



Which "one" among the given data is a speculation??

Weight?? radar??thrust??

Which one???


----------



## redpearl75

Americans are too good in making the world aware of what they can do, or what they have can.... They thrive the most of making the others know what is underway, whereas Russia on the other hand is solely concentrating on the developement part and surprises the world with the final outcome.. Take fro exampla Su Series, Americans constantly were trying to know what's under development but when the final jet took flight they were jaw hanged... Same is goind to happen when PAK-FA finally is revealed.... Trust me on that and I'd invite you to count on me based on this comment....

Same goes for the Migs family, it used to give American pilots a chill across the spine when they used to hear Mig on the radio even if it was the 21s... Forget bout the Fulcrum..... Don't decide, but just analyse....


----------



## 500

BENNY said:


> Which "one" among the given data is a speculation??
> 
> Weight?? radar??thrust??
> 
> Which one???


All of it. Neither Sukhoi , nor Russian MoD released any data on PAK FA or even it's prototype. So these numbers are not even prototype's characteristics, but only *estimates* made by some internet guys.


----------



## kingdurgaking

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> Why is he holding the ejection firing handle? Trust deficit?
> 
> just kidding, I voted PAKFA



I think he was trying to hold something else but couldnt ... so i guess he holded this


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> All of it. Neither Sukhoi , nor Russian MoD released any data on PAK FA or even it's prototype. So these numbers are not even prototype's characteristics, but only *estimates* made by some internet guys.



If you say that then I'd say you are blindfolded about all of this and merely don't want to accept the fact as you are too overconsumed about the fact that US rocks and has the best, whcih I guess is true for the time being but not for very long it would be like that, all the components that are being discussed to be incorporated in the PAK-FA are already existing and just the proptotype needs more testing to be done before it finally is fitted with the stuff...

*Engines:* NPO Saturn and FNPTS MMPP Salyut 117S of 175 kN is already being made is undergoing tests.
















*Radar:* N050/BRLS AFAR/AESA built by Tikhomirov NIIP already is made and is based upon the N035 PESA. NIIP have publicly cited detection range performance of 350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian industry standard 2.5m2 target, is also consistent with the 2008 model for an AESA radar using ~10W rated TR modules, which in turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE prototypes. This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kiloWatts, slightly below the Irbis E, but even a very modest 25% increase in TR module output rating would overcome this.

There are distinct differences between the AESA displayed by NIIP for Vesti, which has less depth and uses circular radiators, and the examples displayed at MAKS 2009 and depicted on brochures, which are constructed using TR module sticks and are several inches deeper.
















Enhanced stills from a Russian television broadcast reporting the Tikhomirov NIIP PAK-FA AESA design. Static display images of the antenna have a dielectric impedance matching screen installed, which obscures the actual TR module apertures

IRST: Already integrated in PAK-FA











*In conclusion, Sukhoi and its team of subcontractors will have to deal with a range of design challenges, mostly related to observables, no different to those which the United States industry has had to master during the B-2 and F-22 programs. This is well understood by the Sukhoi designers, as is evident from the careful thought invested into risk management across the whole PAK-FA design. The absence of public disclosures on the avionic suite does not indicate the absence of advanced avionic subsystems, for which Russian industry has all of the basic technology, but rather an intentional and demonstrated policy of non-disclosure until the greatest competitive advantage can be extracted in the market.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## redpearl75

*PAK-FA Weapons Capabilities*






The primary BVR weapon to be carried by early production variants of the PAK-FA is the KTRV RVV-SD, an extended range evolution of the R-77 / AA-12 Adder similar to the AIM-120D. Note the laser proximity fuse supplanting the radiofrequency fuse 

Very little has been disclosed to date on the intended weapons suite for the PAK-FA. The internal bays are claimed to fit eight AAMs. The limited width of the centre fuselage bays indicates that most likely these would each fit three staggered RVV-SD rounds, this being the latest variant of the R-77 / AA-12 Adder and a direct equivalent to the US AIM-120 AMRAAM series. To date only the active radar seeker equipped RVV-SD variant has been displayed, the intended heatseeking and anti-radiation variants have yet to be seen in mockup form or marketing literature.

While a new WVR AAM has been planned, it is likely that a derivative of the RVV-MD / R-74 Archer series will be used with early PAK-FA variants. 

For very close air combat, a 30 mm gun mounted in the starboard forward fuselage will be employed - the type has not been disclosed to date but it is likely to be a variant of the GSh-30 series carried by the Su-35S Flanker.

With eight stations cited for external stores, and the diversity of guided bombs, ASMs and cruise missiles available for the Su-30MK/Su-35S Flanker series, there is no shortage of alternatives for external carriage by the PAK-FA.

Internal weapons for strike roles are a much more interesting consideration, due to the limited volume of the internal bays. Recent designs known to have folding surfaces for internal carriage include the new KTRV Kh-38 and Kh-58UShKE Kilter.
Given the well established and managed aerodynamics of this area of the Flanker designs, weapon clearances from the internal bays across the whole of the PAK-FA's operational envelope should be achieved with little, if any, difficulties, and without the need for employment of exotic and heavy techniques such as aero-acoustic local flow control and shaping or similar.





The primary close combat weapon to be carried by early production variants of the PAK-FA is the KTRV RVV-MD, an extended range evolution of the R-73/74 / AA-11 Archer with a jam resistant two colour scanning seeker and a laser proximity fuse. Note the wideband ZnS or ZnSe IR window replacing the narrowband MgF2 design used in earlier variants


----------



## redpearl75

The only segment where Raptor is better than the PAK-FA is invisibility to radar, as Sukhoi has already confirmed that PAK-FA will be less stealthier than Raptor and it has been made to be so and more concern is on the maneuverability aspect... PAK-FA is still 5-7 years away from being operational and by then it would have all these components fully embaded and tested to the full..... Never denie the fact that there are many nations as capable as US is and in certain feilds, even more than that....


----------



## 500

redpearl75 said:


> If you say that then I'd say you are blindfolded about all of this and merely don't want to accept the fact as you are too overconsumed about the fact that US rocks and has the best, whcih I guess is true for the time being but not for very long it would be like that, all the components that are being discussed to be incorporated in the PAK-FA are already existing and just the proptotype needs more testing to be done before it finally is fitted with the stuff...


I am just saying that *characterstsics of PAK FA are not known*, thats why I cant compare it to F-22 or F-35. Thats why I did not vote in this poll.



> *Engines:* NPO Saturn and FNPTS MMPP Salyut 117S of 175 kN is already being made is undergoing tests.


117S has 137.2 kN afterborner thrust and 142.1 kN of "special mode" thrust. For PAK FA they will need more powerful engines.


----------



## Gold1010

I think the F-22 because the US has had it longer and has had more time to advance it , but the russians make damn sexy planes.nice colours to.


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> I am just saying that *characterstsics of PAK FA are not known*, thats why I cant compare it to F-22 or F-35. Thats why I did not vote in this poll.
> 
> 
> 117S has 137.2 kN afterborner thrust and 142.1 kN of "special mode" thrust. For PAK FA they will need more powerful engines.



You are talking about the AL 41 Engines which has the said thurst and is on the PAK-FA prototype and Su 35BM, both, Su 35BM and PAK-FA will have Saturn 117S engines which will have a thurst of 175kN with afterburners. This is currently under development... 




*Saturn 117S*




*AL 41*


----------



## 500

redpearl75 said:


> You are talking about the AL 41 Engines which has the said thurst and is on the PAK-FA prototype and Su 35BM, both, Su 35BM and PAK-FA will have Saturn 117S engines which will have a thurst of 175kN with afterburners. This is currently under development...


Here official Sukhoi brochure:







117S engine:

dry thrust - 8,800 kg (86.2 kN)
afterburner thrust - 14,000 kg (137.2 kN) 
special mode thrust - 14,500 kg (142.1 kN)


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> Here official Sukhoi brochure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 117S engine:
> 
> dry thrust - 8,800 kg (86.2 kN)
> afterburner thrust - 14,000 kg (137.2 kN)
> special mode thrust - 14,500 kg (142.1 kN)



My mistake, as I got mixed up bad with the names, It seems that the PAK-FA is current undergoing flight trials with the said engines but the original operational rather, will have the extended version of the same engine with min of 175 kN of thurst which is a greatly modified version of the 117S engines.. As of now you are correct about the engines..


----------



## kingdurgaking

500 said:


> Here official Sukhoi brochure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 117S engine:
> 
> dry thrust - 8,800 kg (86.2 kN)
> afterburner thrust - 14,000 kg (137.2 kN)
> special mode thrust - 14,500 kg (142.1 kN)



PAK FA is flying with a derivate of a engine not the originally planned one.. as per there specs they need 170+ Kn for super cruise and they will install that engine..


----------



## redpearl75

kingdurgaking said:


> PAK FA is flying with a derivate of a engine not the originally planned one.. as per there specs they need 170+ Kn for super cruise and they will install that engine..



It's not yet been listed out as to what would be the super cruise capability of the engine but just the imormation about the total afterburning thurst.... And that is what they claim of it being upto 175 kN..


----------



## Water Car Engineer

How is PAK FA ahead of f-22 Raptor? Really? USA produces the best hardware in the world!


----------



## amalakas

Varghese said:


> How is PAK FA ahead of f-22 Raptor? Really? USA produces the best hardware in the world!



you might wanna tell this to all the dead soldiers in Vietnam that were lost because their M16 jammed !!!!! 

or perhaps all the F4 pilots that died because their phantom had no gun !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PERSIAN

The american f-22 is better than the others.


----------



## 500

amalakas said:


> you might wanna tell this to all the dead soldiers in Vietnam that were lost because their M16 jammed !!!!!
> 
> or perhaps all the F4 pilots that died because their phantom had no gun !!!


Even without gun F-4 was best fighter in the world. By the way first MiG-21 models also had not gun.


----------



## Illusive

Shouldn't UCAV's be a contender too. But clearly here PAK-FA wins, even before its inducted, that sums it up.


----------



## redpearl75

Varghese said:


> How is PAK FA ahead of f-22 Raptor? Really? USA produces the best hardware in the world!



PAK-FA is not ahead of F 22 Raptor as of now but in future when it's fully developed and is incorporated with all the avionics then it would be... F22 Raptor without any doubts is the best so far in the present world but it's superiority will be questionable once PAK-FA rolls out... It's still unclear as all the data about it's capability is held secret and is not out publicly but so far whatever is known points at the said way.... At least FGFA for sure will match and beat Raptor's capabilities by then as the Indian FGFA would be of a different configuration than that of the PAK-FA and will be a 2 pilot jet with multinational avionics package in it.... fingers crossed... Im not against the Raptor rather Im just supporting the reality which is not a myth and is soon going to be revealed....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## redpearl75

500 said:


> Even without gun F-4 was best fighter in the world. By the way first MiG-21 models also had not gun.



I don't want to go to the past, but even with F4s US couldn't win the war and had to withdraw shamefully from Vietnam.. It's not the weapons always that decides the fate of war, but the tactics play a major role.... It's not about who makes the best but what is the best out here..... So let's stick to that.... Raptor is unmatched now but it's fate is doubtful in future... As the technology is no more with one nation and everybody is thriving to make their own.... Russia and India are upto PAK-FA (for Russia) and FGFA (for India)... More nations to follow...


----------



## redpearl75

Illusive said:


> Shouldn't UCAV's be a contender too. But clearly here PAK-FA wins, even before its inducted, that sums it up.



Well, the future of war is UCAVs itself but it's not advisable to add that as a contender in this thread as still the world needs a lot to attain the superiority over the technology in making UCAVs the prime combatant... Still that's the future without any doubts... Manned jets are going to be there for another 2 dacads or more...


----------



## AHMED85

what is the logical difference between 
F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet & Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA ...


----------



## redpearl75

AHMED85 said:


> what is the logical difference between
> F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet & Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA ...



There are only two major differences between the said two jets that is, The element of Stealth and the ability to Supercruise and both these features are going to be present in PAK-FA.... The speed is also a matter of concern.....


----------



## SBD-3

why is everyone forgetting Slient Eagle and FA-XX?????


----------



## redpearl75

hasnain0099 said:


> why is everyone forgetting Slient Eagle and FA-XX?????



Silent Eagle is not a full stealth aircraft rather falls in the 4.5 Generation catagory and thus is not a apart of this discussion.... It's agile, and is more stealthier than the previous versions but not fully steath...

On the other hand FA-XX:






It's still on drawing boards and is mere a concept unveiled by the US Navy and no concrete data is available yet.... It's even far far from the prototype stage and as par the US Navy would be a replacement for the Super Hornets after 10-15 years... It's not gonna replace the Raptor of the Lightening but will sure go after the Super Hornet....

One of the key concepts to emerge from Boeing's effort to define a sixth generation fighter aircraft (SGFA) is optional manning. 

Recently released drawing of Boeing's evolving F/A-XX SGFA not only features a regular cockpit but a more conventional design, probably because the company is projecting it as a Navy only F/A-18E/F replacement in 10-15 years, not a F-22 or F-35 replacement over a much longer time frame. 

Past SGFA concepts have stressed on stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars, visual stealth, combat radius in excess of 1,000 miles, ability to engage threats across the spectrum from terrorists on the run to high value targets and contemporary enemy fighters, ability to collect and process a large amounts of data and even hypersonic speeds. 

Boeing's concept appears more evolutionary in nature. 

It is likely that technological advances will make the presence of a human in a fighter cockpit redundant by the time F/A-XX is ready for inductions. However, betting on it and hoping to get a nod on the proposal from the Navy, are both not good ideas. 

So the folks at Boeing Phantom Works are playing it safe and sensible.

Sixth Generation Fighter Evolution


----------



## zon95

Where the J-20/31

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fastaviationdata

F-22 and F-35 will become the best fighter jet in the future.


----------



## animelive

F-35 looks to be the winner of next gen


----------



## The SC

If cost efficiency, ease of maintenance, take off and landing on short runways, manoeuvrability, combat capabilities in high and low altitudes, ground attack capabilities in very low altitudes, efficiency of weapons carried, and stealth characteristics, than as a big surprise it will be the Iranian Qaher-313 as it was described, nonetheless it is a stealth warplane with regional needs in mind, it can fit many budgets for a capable small fighter if it is for sale of course.
In my opinion it is a very good example of an overall optimisation with a low budget.
Of course the F-22, F-35, Pak-fa and the Chinese ones are better in some ways, but who can afford these 100$ million/unit warplanes apart from these giant economies, and eventhough to the detriment of these economies, maybe it is not too much for the USA to spend 10 billion $ to build a hundred of these, but it is still a big burden, apart from the apparent technological shortcomings and the billions needed to correct them if that is possible at all.
The other shortcomings of the F-22 and the likes are in the new radar detecting technologies, which is a challenge by itself.
So no one should fool you by saying that the F-22 is fully stealth, it has certainly to rely on its radar for very short lapses of time or intermittently, be it AESA or else to detect other warplanes from long range, but that does not compare to an AESA or other radars with 2000 or 3000 km range that can detect those intermittent pulses and thus find the position of the emitting F-22 or F-35. So the loss of a 100 million$ warplane is certainly a burden and a big risk, not to mention the best of the best pilots who fly them. The Americans justify the cost by the total protection of these pilots which is a lie in my opinion, because in war these guys along with their flying machines will be a much sought after prize, either to kill or have as POW s.
In the Iranian case, The same passive mode will be applied in the first phase for the fighter airplane as the F-22 and the likes, Also, it will certainly rely on other means of telecommunications with the ground radars and some advanced drones as relays in the air, plus satellites and GPS of course, even a public one with some advanced cryptographic security. The F-22 will rely on AWACS, GPS and satellites obviously to detect other warplanes and find their position if it does not use its own radar passively or actively, So the Qaher-313 compares to the F-22 in these matters, although the technologies might be different qualitatively, the same aim will be achieved quantitatively. and The Qaher-313 will have an edge if its cost is very effective, let us say 10 million$/unit or less, considering the light materials that will be used in its fuselage and for its light general weight.
Please do not get me wrong, because the one they have presented was just a proof of concept, a mock up, and that costs about 200 thousand dollars to make with available on the market avionics and no engine, So for 5 or 6 million $ you can imagine what the Iranians can put in it, and that is the least to say given the advanced technologies they have at hand and can produce locally.
So all in all, for a regionally restricted conflict, the Qaher-313 will have a quantitative advantage over any other stealth aircraft, while the F-22 and the likes from Russia and China will have a qualitative advantage. Note that in the case of Iran's F-313 the qualitative advantages of the F-22 can be offset by using nearly the same technologies for detection and communication, both in BVR or VR ranges; In BVR by fixed or mobile AESA radars and hight altitude drones and in VR or short range, by it stealth characteristics, its passive radar, its agility and the near to VR short range Air To Air missiles where it will mostly operate.
If one wants to speculate with reality in mind , if the F-313 can carry 2 bombs of 2000 pounds internally, it can also carry some Phoenix missiles instead, and we all know how deadly they are in long range and that Iran manufactures them locally. 
How about that...
And please restrain to answer with old rethorics and zionist childish evaluations that the design is flawed (which is the case of the F-22 and F-33; they have been grounded many times because of it), and that it can not fly and the air ducts thing and so on...
Just keep in mind that it is a true and real new stealth fighter proven by science and technology, just compare the design to the so called blue bird or the X-36 and you will have the proof that it is a potent and very efficient design.


----------

