PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[Kompromat]

look at this awesome Raptor demo ever !

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

You seemed suprised? It's actually a very low number, here is one source:

The Indian Air Force unable to minimize the highest Crash rate in the world - Indian Armed Forces - Zimbio








Another copy and paste job

I didn't know the F-15 was a twin engine aircraft or that it entered service in 1976.





118 aircraft lost? Here is a list of all F-15's that crashed between 1975 and 2001. Total number is 133 and remember this list is outdated by nine years. This list is not to degrade anyone but to shut you up.


F15 Crashes






Can you guess how many times you got owned, just guess. I'm afraid you're out of you league, all of your post and claims have been nothing more then bias fanboy talk.

I can not take anyone serious that doesn't know the difference between interceptors and fighters.

Further, i can not take anyone seriously that starts compairing the Mig-25 to the F-22 after they have ran out of thing to say.

Your knowledge in aviation is appearent and you lack absolutely zero critical thinking skills. For example, your claim was that Migs are junk because of the high rate of crashes, but you never onced considered factors other then mechanical malfunctions, i had to waste my time breaking the facts down, and those facts were that about 50% of all IAF crashes were due to pilot error and most of the pilots that were involved in crashes were fresh out of flight school. This has been well know and this has been linked to India's lack of trainer aircraft. You also failed to consider or take into account other factors such as maintanance, bird striked, demestic parts manufacturing, ect..ect.

The Russian airforce crash rate for the Mig-21 was five times less then of the Indian airforce even though they retired the aircraft decades ago. And remember older aircraft crash at a higher rate compaired to newer aircraft because of technology advances.

So you are saying India crashs one out every 2 migs they buy and the Mig 25 is no good against fighter air craft but they are interceptors.

 

[soaringphnx]

So you are saying India crashs one out every 2 migs they buy and the Mig 25 is no good against fighter air craft but they are interceptors.

This has been discussed and debunked so many times, I lost count!!! Since you are still stubbornly sticking to your ill-informed views, I feel there is no point in discussing this further. I feel that you should first have atleast a basic knowledge of what you are debating. For basics, I recommend wikipedia. Now, please let's come back to the topic at hand. For MiGs, please go to the concerned thread or start your own.

 

[dbc]

You seemed suprised? It's actually a very low number, here is one source:

The Indian Air Force unable to minimize the highest Crash rate in the world - Indian Armed Forces - Zimbio

I've never seen mishap rates expressed that way - in terms of mishaps per flight It isn't really the best way to measure safety and when I dug a little deeper I realized you got the data from Rupee news. Here are some reliable sources..

Mishap rate for F-15
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf

Mishap rate for F-16
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-063.pdf

Russian hardware has typically ended up being used by cash strapped forces in Asia and Africa and as such several mishaps can be attributed to poor maintenance, training, environmental,mission and in some cases poor assembly as evidenced by the number of crashes and failures attributed to MIG's, Sukhoi's and Hawks assembled in India.

You do realize American hardware has been used extensively in several campaigns since the induction of the F teen series and when you consider the abuse these machines endure especially on aircraft carriers (F-18)you begin to appreciate the one aspect of our machines that clearly surpasses European hardware.

The real measure for the argument at hand is mishaps due to material causes, these mishaps are attributed directly to error at some point in an aircrafts production life cycle and the second significant measure is sortie rates.

When you look at the stats for F-16 and F-15 for the measure I described above you'll concede that these machines have proved to be extremely reliable.

I don't know about you but if I had to save myself from mortal danger (ZOMBIE attack )and I was presented with a choice of either the MIG-25 or an F-15 to make my I escape I'd choose the F-15 every time...
... plus it looks way cooler than the MIG-25.

Russians demonstrated brilliance in many aspects of their designs, the creativity displayed in some of the techniques they developed to overcome engineering challenges is talked about in schools across America. But unfortunately even today their brilliance is dulled by the weight of bureaucracy and the lack of funding.

 

[ptldM3]

So you are saying India crashs one out every 2 migs they buy

No i said that pilot error was responsible for around half of the crashes.

and the Mig 25 is no good against fighter air craft but they are interceptors.

I never said anything of that sort, you kept pointing out that the Mig-25 is not maneuverable, and i pointed out that it was an interceptor, thus maneuverability was not a priority.

The Mig-25 has shot down fighters, but it is not a dogfighter.

 

[ptldM3]

I've never seen mishap rates expressed that way - in terms of mishaps per flight It isn't really the best way to measure safety and when I dug a little deeper I realized you got you data from Rupee news. Here are some reliable sources..

Mishap rate for F-15
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf

Mishap rate for F-16
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-063.pdf

My link said 133 F-15's have crashed from 1975-2001 and it gave details on each crash such as date, serial numbers, Class type, where it was stationed, and details about each crash. I brought up the F-15 to inform Captain American that US aircraft crash too.

If i use your source then the class A misshaps would be 6.1, i amagine out of 100,000?

Russian hardware has typically ended up being used by cash strapped forces in Asia and Africa and as such several mishaps can be attributed to poor maintenance, training, environmental,mission and in some cases poor assembly as evidenced by the number of crashes and failures attributed to MIG's, Sukhoi's and Hawks assembled in India.

Yes, this is what i have been maintaining, and not just for the IAF but for everyone. I don't know if the IAF uses Sukhois other then the MKI but i do know that they only had two that crashed and one was pilot error, i don't know about the other one though.

You do realize American hardware has been used extensively in several campaigns since the induction of the F teen series and when you consider the abuse these machines endure especially on aircraft carriers (F-18)you begin to appreciate the one aspect of our machines that clearly surpasses European hardware.

Russian aircraft have been used in combat too and they take no less punishment then their US counterparts, Russian aircraft operate in below freezing conditions as well as hot dry deserts, they can also take-off and land on poorly maintained airstrips with debris being sucked into the engines. In Georgia and Afghanistan Russian aircraft such as SU-25's and MI-24's were able to get back home after taking RPG and 20mm rounds.

The real measure for the argument at hand is mishaps due to material causes, these mishaps are attributed directly to error at some point in an aircrafts production life cycle and the second significant measure is sortie rates.

Of course.

When you look at the stats for F-16 and F-15 for the measure I described above you'll concede that these machines have proved to be extremely reliable.

Absolutely they are proven and reliable but that was not my point. Captain America has gone into several threads saying that Migs are trash because they crash often and bla bla bla. I brought up the F-15 crashes to remind him that Migs are not the only aircraft that crash.

I don't know about you but if I had to save myself from mortal danger (ZOMBIE attack )and I was presented with a choice of either the MIG-25 or an F-15 to make my I escape I'd choose the F-15 every time...
... plus it looks way cooler than the MIG-25.

Yes me too, the Mig-25 is too old and mostly used for recon, the Mig-31 was build to take the Mig-25's role.

 

[dbc]

look at this awesome Raptor demo ever !

YouTube - Aviation Nation 2008 - F-22 Raptor Demo

.. nice video, pay attention to the video at 3:08 not many people realize that it takes three seconds to open the weapons bay door. This is too long for WVR combat and one area where a 4.5 generation plane has an edge over the Raptor.

 

[yasin22]

so does this mean that the usa will have an excuse to buy more F22 or even possibly use it for export market.

 

[CONNAN]

So you are saying India crashs one out every 2 migs they buy and the Mig 25 is no good against fighter air craft but they are interceptors.

captain IAF mig 25"s are retired and they are long gone and dead

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Mig 25s were never Used by India to intercept or fight. We just had it for Recon.

 

[gambit]

.. nice video, pay attention to the video at 3:08 not many people realize that it takes three seconds to open the weapons bay door. This is too long for WVR combat and one area where a 4.5 generation plane has an edge over the Raptor.

At 3:11 the doors begins to close and 3:12 is when they are fully closed. My sources at Nellis told me they have timed the doors from being fully closed to open and closed again is more like 1.2-1.5 seconds, depending on each aircraft. I know F-111 weapons bay doors go from closed to full open in less than one sec.

 

[gambit]

I did not mean that the F-15 program started as a response to the MiG-25.

Of course you did.

The USAF stated their requirements for an air superiority fighter in 1965. The first concept designs had a top speed of Mach 2.7 and a thrust to weight ratio of 0.75. But it was during the F-15 development, (1967 to be exact) that the U.S. intelligence discovered that the Soviets were building the large MiG-25. The MiG-25 had hude tail-planes and vertical stabilizers. This lead the west to believe that the MiG-25 was highly manuverable and the USAF feared it might have higher performance and manuverability than the aircraft they operated. The USAF changed their requirements in 1967. They stressed for more manuverability, less weight, a top speed of Mach 2.2 to 2.3 and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97. Here it is apparent that the MiG-25 did affect the requirements of the USAF and the design of the F-15. So, the F-15 was designed to kill the MiG-25s.

For those of us who have relevant experience, it can be quite easy to spot those who do not...

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following studies in 1964-1965, the U.S. Air Force developed requirements for an air superiority fighter in October 1965. Then on 8 December 1965, the Air Force issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the new fighter. The request called for both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. Eight companies responded with proposals. In the following study phase, four of these companies developed some 500 design concepts. Typical designs featured variable-sweep wings, weighed over 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), included a top speed of Mach 2.7 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.75.[6] The designs were not accepted by the Air Force as they compromised fighter qualities for ground attack qualities.[7] Acceptance of the Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory by the Air Force led to a change in requirements for improved maneuverability by the spring 1967. The design mission weight was reduced to 40,000 lb (18,100 kg), top speed reduced to Mach 2.3-2.5 and thrust-to-weight ratio increased to 0.97.[6]

In 1967 U.S. intelligence was surprised[8] to find that the Soviet Union was building a large fighter aircraft, the MiG-25 'Foxbat'.[9] It was not known in the West at the time that the MiG-25 was designed as a high-speed interceptor, not an air superiority fighter,[10] so its primary asset was speed, not maneuverability. The MiG-25's huge tailplanes and vertical stabilizers (tail fins) hinted at a very maneuverable aircraft, which worried the Air Force that its performance might be better than its U.S. counterparts. In reality, the MiG's large fins and stabilators were necessary to prevent the aircraft from encountering inertia coupling in high-speed, high-altitude flight.

Those who have no relevant experience but is determined to make their argument will often outright steal from wikipedia, as seen above. The initial designs, not even functional prototypes, were rejected. We are talking about several HUNDREDS designs here. So if these hundreds PAPER designs were rejected, they must have been rejected before our intel discovery of the MIG-25. That mean the final accepted F-15 design happened at best roughly the same time as the intelligence discovery of the MIG-25, but more likely it was agreed upon before said discovery. In order for your argument that the F-15 was a 'response' to the MIG-25 to be valid, it must be established that the US must have been beyond the 50/50 certainty threshold of the MIG-25's capabilities. That was not the case. We did not know of the MIG-25's true capabilities until 1976 with Belenko's defection in a latest MIG-25 to Japan. Prior, the only thing we knew of the MIG-25 was its detected speed and by that time those hundreds of paper designs were already rejected.

Let's go back to basics... The MiG-25 is an interceptor. An interceptor is an aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy bombers relying as speed as their primary strength. Such aircraft sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (i.e., fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs (point defence role) or high speeds (area defence role).

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter designed specifically to destroy enemy fighters to gain and maintain air superiority over an area. It is actually foolish to compare an air superiority fighter to an interceptor. It is like comparing an interceptor to a bomber.

Then it is even the greater fool to speculate that the MIG-25, an 'interceptor', can be so skillfully exploited that the only thing the pilot need is greater speed to shoot down an F-15. That is like saying the bomber pilot can somehow position the fighter below so the falling bombs can destroy the fighter.

The airspeed indicator of the MiG-25 was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines. A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight resulted in the destruction of its engines.

Many aircraft can exceed their structural and design limits. However, this always causes a lot of damage to the aircraft as it's components and airframe are not meant to take that much of punishment. This is what happened to the MiG-25 which flew over Sinai. This applies to your beloved F-22 too.

It seems my friend that it was YOU who got your facts wrong (no offence meant).

The SR-71 does not need its engines removed after every mission and every mission was Mach 3+. In other words, destroying the engines is NOT normal. So when we say so-and-so aircraft's top speed is so-and-so knots per hour, we usually mean the aircraft is capable of repeating it WITH THE SAME ENGINES...!!!

Now can we get back to the F-22 and PAK FA?

Certainly...There are no so-called 'detailed analysis' yet despite what the pretentious title said.

 

[ejaz007]

India-Russia fail to sign additional protocol on 5th-gen stealth fighter
19 June 2010

Russia's Sukhoi design bureau director general, Mikhail Pogosyan, has confirmed that India and Russia have decided not to sign additional agreements to create a joint venture for the production of a fifth-generation fighter. Sukhoi has combined with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to jointly develop the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet designed by Sukhoi.

HAL is working on a two-seater derivative of the aircraft.

Earlier, it had been made clear that an additional agreement would be signed specifying the work load of each side in the project, but on Friday Pogosyan said the Russian company now hoped work would begin soon without any such deal.

"We don't plan to sign a joint venture. We have agreed on joint work with our Indian colleagues," Pogosyan said. He said the joint work could be carried out under the current agreement.


domain-b.com : India-Russia fail to sign additional protocol on 5th-gen stealth fighter

 

[amalakas]

The black bird had turbojet assisted ramjets, by definition the ramjets are more reliable than normal jets. If done properly that is, which they were.

 

[ptldM3]

India-Russia fail to sign additional protocol on 5th-gen stealth fighter
19 June 2010

Russia's Sukhoi design bureau director general, Mikhail Pogosyan, has confirmed that India and Russia have decided not to sign additional agreements to create a joint venture for the production of a fifth-generation fighter. Sukhoi has combined with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to jointly develop the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet designed by Sukhoi.

HAL is working on a two-seater derivative of the aircraft.

Earlier, it had been made clear that an additional agreement would be signed specifying the work load of each side in the project, but on Friday Pogosyan said the Russian company now hoped work would begin soon without any such deal.

"We don't plan to sign a joint venture. We have agreed on joint work with our Indian colleagues," Pogosyan said. He said the joint work could be carried out under the current agreement.


domain-b.com : India-Russia fail to sign additional protocol on 5th-gen stealth fighter

Old new, and why did you have to make the font so large? Let me point out the important part.

We don't plan to sign a joint venture. We have agreed on joint work with our Indian colleagues," Pogosyan said. He said the joint work could be carried out under the current agreement.