My PAK-FA analysis

[saurabh]

Pirate has 90 km range againt 4th generation fighters. While SU-35's OLS-35 probably detects Raptor on 100 km distance. PAK FA's OLS-50 will much better. Russians have done much R&D on IRST.

Can someone explain why the engine nozzles of PAK-FA didn't have the triangular shape as that of F22 or F35 nozzles? Or if some one has any idea that the actual engine will incorporate similar designs?

 

[amalakas]

Pirate has 90 km range againt 4th generation fighters. While SU-35's OLS-35 probably detects Raptor on 100 km distance. PAK FA's OLS-50 will much better. Russians have done much R&D on IRST.

It will be a lot better, but both the PIRATE and the OLS-35 cannot achieve these ranges every time and under every conditions.

Especially the OLS-35 cannot possibly detect a raptor at 100km. There is simply not a chance this happens.. Around 8km perhaps..

"“During the OLS tests we got MiG-29 detection ranges up to 45 km from the tail and 15 km from the front. Ranging device effective range for the aerial targets is 15 km, for the ground targets - more then 20 km."

As you can see, if it can detect a MIG-29 at 15 km head on..then I doubt it will pick up the F 22 any further than 5-8km

 

[gambit]

The only spewing is from US fanboys, Raptor this, Raptor that....we are the best....we are superior, Raptor will never be matched....Russians make junk....puke-fa....Ruski junk...bla...bla...bla...bla. I have been to many forums and Russian are always the last to make claims of superiority, it's the Americans that are always the instigators and when a Russian defends his country and his products the Americans revert to calling everything junk.

<snipped>

Someone asked and here is my reply to both of you...

I wanted to say that if you give 10/10(full marks) marks to 'Raptor' by looking at its radars,avionics and weapons. then,
How much marks/grade would you give to F-35 ,Su-30 MKI,Typhoon and rafale?

Full marks...??? Oooff...That is a loaded question. Yes I would give the Raptor 'full marks'. But not because I am being a cheerleader for America. Here is why...

- For the battlefield
- On the battlefield

It may sound strange but failing to discern 'for' and 'on' can produce disastrous results. The context of 'battlefield' here is not restricted to one with flying bullets or missiles. It simply mean the operational environment that MAY involve flying bullets and missiles.

When an aircraft is conceptualized, we try to design it 'for' the battlefield we might be sending it into TODAY. Next we try to look into the crystal ball and guess what the FUTURE battlefield might be like. Finally we assess our current technology level and see if we can design an aircraft that will be at least %50 effective in that future battlefield based upon current technological limitations. This is a projection of timespan and the technological progress within that timespan. I am asking that twenty or thirty years from now, I predict the battlefield will be so-and-so and if my aircraft is not modernized, will it be %50 or less effective. We hope that our design will be flexible enough to support advances in technology to make up as much of the other %50 as possible. Now...If the country happened to run out money to modernize this aircraft, then we just have to put up with having an inferior air force than our adversaries.

On the battlefield is another issue. Like I said, failing to properly read this crystal ball can produce disastrous results: F-4 Phantom series. Our doctrine prophets falsely envisioned the 'today' and 'future' battlefields to be fought purely with missiles. The US found out in Viet Nam how shortsighted it was the decision to build the F-4 without guns. Fortunately, the basic F-4 airframe itself was flexible enough to allow the addition of a cannon later. This built-in flexibility rehabilitated the F-4 to become one of the world's finest all-purpose military aircrafts. A near disastrous result of failing to read the crystal ball was the A-10. We decided to retire the aircraft then changed our minds based upon what we found out 'on the battlefield' that the A-10 still has a lot of usefulness AFTER we sent it into combat in the ME.

The F-15, F-16 and F-18, for examples, are great successes in designs that are flexible enough because the designers did properly read the crystal ball, whereas the F-4 was just lucky. That mean I would not give 'full marks' to the F-4, despite its longevity and successes, but I would give 'full marks' to the the other three precisely because of their designers' foresightedness. As the battlefield conditions evolves, so did these aircrafts. Some aspects of their performance may decrease but other capabilities increased, such as the conformal fuel tanks innovation that allowed the creation of the F-15E improved fighter-bomber. The aircraft's lethality remained the same. On the other hand, we tried to make the F-14 a bomber but had marginal success. So I would give the F-14 'full marks' for how it excelled in fleet defence -- a list of requirements, but an average grade when we tried to incorporate bombing into its repertoire.

This lead us to the issue of 'requirements'. After I considered the current battlefield and what I believe the future battlefield would be, and I could be wrong regarding that, I would draw up a list of requirements based upon these considerations and my technological capabilities. Technology limitations would inevitably force some adjustments. The greater the technological capabilities, the greater the aircraft's design flexibility. On the other hand, if we look at the SR-71 we would find that aircraft to be very limited in its capabilities -- fly fast, high and take a lot of pictures -- and it does it so well for so long that it remained unrivaled to this day. So if I look at reconnaissance battlefield alone, I would give the SR-71 'full marks'. In order for me to give an aircraft 'full marks' I would have to consider its history, no matter how long or short, its capabilities and the requirements that compelled the aircraft's creation.

For the F-117, its requirements were few and the highest was to radically reduce or perhaps even eliminate the radar detection threat. So based upon these requirements, especially the radar detection threat, I would give the F-117 'full marks'. If my requirements are to ascent at 1,000ft/sec to an altitude of 100,000ft and return in one piece, then any aircraft built to those specifications would earn 'full marks'. But what of the MIG-25? If the -25 must make a Mach 2+ dash, both engines would have to be scrapped upon return. The Mach 2+ dash is indeed formidable, but the consequence is intensive in resource and maintenance. Would I give the -25 'full marks'? No...But I have no doubt that any Russian 'fanboy' would. Obviously, the answer to your question can be very subjective, but this subjectivity can also be reasonably balanced by examining the aircraft's requirements before it was built. If it cannot live up to those expectations, then it should fail to earn your 'full marks' recommendation.

But there are other complications...

Sometimes a requirement, like the machine gun or the F-117, can be externally imposed. If an army have the machine gun, then in the interests of deterrence and to achieve a balance of power, other armies will have no choice but to incorporate the machine gun into their requirements. Same for the F-117. Radar detection remain a formidable threat for today and for decades into the future battlefield. But we now have an aircraft that can radically reduce that threat upon itself. For the F-22 and F-35, we basically expanded the requirement list that created the F-117. If it was not US, then it would have been anyone else, even though they may not be the ones who created the F-117. We remained static despite being the pioneer. They learned from US and advanced, ergo the US lose. The F-22 and F-35 has requirements and features that are not as narrowly applicable like the SR-71. Unfortunately for our competitors, extremely low radar reflectivity feature CAN BE financially prohibitive to develop and deploy, placing the US at least one level above everyone else. Like how the machine gun is above the semiautomatic rifle, which is above the manually operated bolt action rifle, which is above the pistol and so on. If someone else other than US who incorporated extremely low radar reflectivity into their own aircrafts, may be not in the same mold as the F-22 or F-35, while we have none, it would still qualify as an externally imposed requirement but on US this time.

To finalize the answer to your question, I would give the current European and Russian fighters a B grade. Even though the US is an ally of Europe, the fact that an aircraft can radically reduce the radar detection threat upon itself exist is enough to compel the Europeans to either ATTEMPT to develop their own 'stealth' aircrafts or to ATTEMPT to increase their radar detection capability somehow. Same for the Russians and the Chinese. With the F-117's and the B-2's combat experience, extremely low radar reflectivity is essentially forced upon the military aviation world and became a nonremovable requirement in today's battlefield and probably for the next 50yrs.

 

[amalakas]

To finalize the answer to your question, I would give the current European and Russian fighters a B grade. Even though the US is an ally of Europe, the fact that an aircraft can radically reduce the radar detection threat upon itself exist is enough to compel the Europeans to either ATTEMPT to develop their own 'stealth' aircrafts or to ATTEMPT to increase their radar detection capability somehow. Same for the Russians and the Chinese. With the F-117's and the B-2's combat experience, extremely low radar reflectivity is essentially forced upon the military aviation world and became a nonremovable requirement in today's battlefield and probably for the next 50yrs.

How can you be so sure? How? Radar technology is not the only technology available to detect ...things...
And planes are there.. one way or another you get to spot them.

They make noise, get hot, emit radiation, light bounces off them, they create turbulance.... how can you be so sure..?

 

[Machoman]

 

[Kinetic]

Can someone explain why the engine nozzles of PAK-FA didn't have the triangular shape as that of F22 or F35 nozzles? Or if some one has any idea that the actual engine will incorporate similar designs?

Current PAK FA testbed does not have the final engine but 117 or AL-31/41. So we have to wait what we see in final configuration.

F-35 does not but only F-22 have triangular shape ie F119-PW-100. It has both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages are... it has low IR signature and smoke, fast reaction for agility, low maintenance nozzle for a TVC engine, efficiency.

Disadvantage is it allows only 2D TVC.

 

[Kinetic]

It will be a lot better, but both the PIRATE and the OLS-35 cannot achieve these ranges every time and under every conditions.

Especially the OLS-35 cannot possibly detect a raptor at 100km. There is simply not a chance this happens.. Around 8km perhaps..

"“During the OLS tests we got MiG-29 detection ranges up to 45 km from the tail and 15 km from the front. Ranging device effective range for the aerial targets is 15 km, for the ground targets - more then 20 km."

As you can see, if it can detect a MIG-29 at 15 km head on..then I doubt it will pick up the F 22 any further than 5-8km

I think when Russians claimed about its capabilities there is something new, something like QW or better. It might be OLS-50. The info was from Paraly's PAK FA edition of Popular Mechanics.

 

[saurabh]

Current PAK FA testbed does not have the final engine but 117 or AL-31/41. So we have to wait what we see in final configuration.

F-35 does not but only F-22 have triangular shape ie F119-PW-100. It has both advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages are... it has low IR signature and smoke, fast reaction for agility, low maintenance nozzle for a TVC engine, efficiency.

Disadvantage is it allows only 2D TVC.

Nope, both have.


And they are meant to reduce radio wave reflections back to radar.
My question is why cant they be incorporated in other engines, what sort of technical problems they create, even for engines not having TVS

 

[amalakas]

I think when Russians claimed about its capabilities there is something new, something like QW or better. It might be OLS-50. The info was from Paraly's PAK FA edition of Popular Mechanics.

Yes, the OLS-50 is meant ( well at specs at least ) to be better than anything else out there. Perhaps it will not offer the intergration the DAS does but it ramains to be seen.

 

[gambit]

How can you be so sure? How? Radar technology is not the only technology available to detect ...things...
And planes are there.. one way or another you get to spot them.

They make noise, get hot, emit radiation, light bounces off them, they create turbulance.... how can you be so sure..?

Radar remains the best sensor METHOD because the user -- YOU -- have control over the sensor medium. Anything else, such as infrared, are passive sensor and must rely upon target characteristics to effect detection. Infrared have extremely poor target range information, speed and aspect disposition, in other words -- Is he coming towards or moving away from you? At best, infrared can inform you of the target's location. A combination of active radar and IR sensor can be used in an anti-satellite weapons sytem...

ASM-135 ASAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The infrared sensor was developed by Hughes Research Laboratories. The sensor utilized a strip detector where four strips of Indium Bismuth were arranged in a cross and four strips were arranged as logarithmic spirals. As the detector was spun, the infrared target's position could be measured and as it crossed the strips in the sensors field of view. The MHV infrared detector was cooled by liquid helium from a dewar installed in place of the F-15's gun ammunition drum and from a smaller dewar located in the second stage of the ASM-135. Cryogenic lines from the second stage were retracted prior to the spin up of the MHV.

Infrared sensor will provide target general direction. Active radar sensor will provide target range and speed, in other words, more refined information.

 

[Kinetic]

Nope, both have.


And they are meant to reduce radio wave reflections back to radar.
My question is why cant they be incorporated in other engines, what sort of technical problems they create, even for engines not having TVS

There are huge differences between nozzles of F-22 and F-35. F-22 has four movable elements and F-35 has fifteen. F-22 has 2D TVC and F-35 has 3D. Triangular shape like F-22 can be opted by other engines as well but Russians have rejected it after testing.

 

[sancho]

Radar remains the best sensor METHOD because the user -- YOU -- have control over the sensor medium. Anything else, such as infrared, are passive sensor and must rely upon target characteristics to effect detection. Infrared have extremely poor target range information, speed and aspect disposition, in other words -- Is he coming towards or moving away from you? At best, infrared can inform you of the target's location...

...Infrared sensor will provide target general direction. Active radar sensor will provide target range and speed, in other words, more refined information.

Just a thought I had by reading this, aren't the Russians the same opinion like you?
The US fighters focus mainly on not beeing detected by radar with increased stealth capabilities, but the Pak Fa (at least as far we have seen now), with a minimum of 5 AESA radar arrays in addition to IRST and only some stealth capabilites, seems to focus mainly on radar and detecting first right?

Without AWACS support, would the F22 enter Russian airspace with radar turned on, or focus on beeing not detected with radar turned of and passive detection only?
And how would the Pak Fa do it in the opposite way?

 

[Thomas]

Without AWACS support, would the F22 enter Russian airspace with radar turned on, or focus on beeing not detected with radar turned of and passive detection only?
And how would the Pak Fa do it in the opposite way?

If a F-22 is in passive mode. it is designed to detect anything with an electronic emission ( AN/ALR-94 one of the most closely guarded secrets on the F-22). Which means if an AESA radar is pinging away it will be detected.

The AN/ALR-94 has a range of 402km+

 

[sancho]

If a F-22 is in passive mode. it is designed to detect anything with an electronic emission ( AN/ALR-94 one of the most closely guarded secrets on the F-22). Which means if an AESA radar is pinging away it will be detected.

The AN/ALR-94 has a range of 402km+

Exactly, but with the limitations that Gambit pointed out! My point was, that Russia seems not to count only on the stealth and passive detection capabilities and seem to focus on radar detection first, with passive detection and stealth capabilities in addition only.
So the most important point on Pak Fa might not be stealth, but possibly it's situational awareness.

 

[Thomas]

Exactly, but with the limitations that Gambit pointed out! My point was, that Russia seems not to count only on the stealth and passive detection capabilities and seem to focus on radar detection first, with passive detection and stealth capabilities in addition only.
So the most important point on Pak Fa might not be stealth, but possibly it's situational awareness.

It would still remain to be seen. At what range even with AESA turned on. A T-50 would get a lock on an F-22. And though the F-22 may enter the battle space in passive mode. at some point it will turn it's radar on to get more exact tracking data. it will then transmit that targeting information to every aircraft and naval ship in the battle space. making that T-50 or any aircraft or SAM site a big target. It is in effect a mini AWACS.

Just becuase the AESA on the T-50 has a long range does not equate to detecting an F-22 at that range. F-15 pilots report in red flag exercises that they have a hard time getting a radar lock with the F-22 directly in front of them.