PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I don't think he copied this one, because it has no logic what's so ever.

Its an old trick when you are losing a debate attack the individual leading the debate. Do you have any idea of how the USA destroyed the USSR? I was there at the time.

 

[Brotherhood]

Its an old trick when you are losing a debate attack the individual leading the debate. Do you have any idea of how the USA destroyed the USSR? I was there at the time.

Dear CAPTAIN INDIA, hopefully this source will ring a bell through your thick face other then accusing others attacking you or what so ever? credited to Chauism buddy caught you copycat act naked.
What is China's attitude toward North Korea nowadays? - Straight Dope Message Board

 

[chauism]

Its an old trick when you are losing a debate attack the individual leading the debate. Do you have any idea of how the USA destroyed the USSR? I was there at the time.

Leading????


Why can't I do both at the same time? You know, attacking your logic and debunking your argument. You have my answers in the previous post, look for it yourself, it is not that far.

Somehow I don't believe that you were there when USSR dissolved, because I don't even think you were born that time.

By the way, US did not "destroy" USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev did.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Leading????


Why can't I do both at the same time? You know, attacking your logic and debunking your argument. You have my answers in the previous post, look for it yourself, it is not that far.

Somehow I don't believe that you were there when USSR dissolved, because I don't even think you were born that time.

Well one thing for sure you kids were not.

 

[ptldM3]

Found another thread to troll in?

Now here is the point, unless you belive in Miracles, Santa Clause and the tooth fairy Russia does not have the resources to build a complete new generation of fighters. Its not even a sure thing the USA can afford it.

For Russia to do any thing they have to sell them to other markets, the russian military cant afford to develope, build and aquire a new generation of fighters on their own.

Yet Russia continues to develop and induct new weapons such as SU-34, SU-35, Mig-29K, Mig-35, Skat stealth drone, KA-52, S-400, S-500, new ships, submarines, and much more.

About the most the Russians can do is pimp up the migs, add a little stealth and this and that and sell enought to keep production going back in Russia....

Since your're impliing that the pak-fa is a modified Mig there is no reason to take you seriously becuase a statement like that is a clear indication of your mindset, and so far your mindset is anti Russian.

My predictions .Russian planes are still going to crash, Russia has never been good at quality control,

Why don't you look at the safety record of new Russian aircraft, even the Indian air force has had only 2 SU-30 crashes in 12 years and Indian pilots fly as much as 300 hours anualy, btw one crash was from a pilot accidentally pressing the wrong switch, so is it by coinsidence that even the Indian air force has an outstanding record when oporating modern Russian fighters? Are you going to blame it on the Mig-21? Oh wait, you can not because according to you its not fair to pick on older fighters at least its not fair to pick on old American fighters but perfectly fair to pick on forign ones. This is how it goes he constantly harrasess Indian and Russian aircraft by saying that they're flying coffins but when i mentioned the horrible crash rate of the F-89 he claimed that wasn't fair because the aircraft was too old, and the Mig-21 isn't?

and they are going to be shot down by american planes at a astonishing rate and its going to be a long time befor they are in full production.

Don't be a fool, the US air force went up against outdated aircraft flown by poor pilots, i don't think the Iraqis even had awacs, so while American aircraft are good so are Russian.

Ladies and gentalmen, this Captain America is a blatant liar. He makes up fake facts and when asked to provide a source he runs. This Captain America claimed that the US had 100 crashes for every 100,000 hours flown in Soviet aircraft. However he admits the US doesn't have 100 Soviet aircraft to crash. And to the best of my knowledge the US had one Mig-23 crash, perhaps there were more that i dont not know about but certainly not 100 like Captain America claims.

He also made made up some fake F-18 combat kills. Take a look at this:

F-18 Kill Records:

5 Iraqi Mig-29 Fulcrums
7 Iraqi Mirage F-1's
8 Iraqi Mig-23's
2 Iraqi Mig-21's
1 Iraqi ll-76
2 Iraqi SU-25 Frogfoots
3 Iarqi SU-7/17
1 Iraqi MI-24 Hind
2 Iraqi SU-22 Fitters
2 Iraqi MIG-25 Foxbats
4 Serbian Mig-29 Fulcrums
1 Afghan MI-24 Hind (F-15E)

Records
F18 = 9, Mig29 = 0

As everyone can see he copied and pasted someones work without knowing what the hell he pasted. Notice the F-15 taking credit for an MI-24 kill in a so called F-18 kill records chart the Funny thing is that the F-18 has 2 confirmed kills not 38, equally as bad is that he claimed the F-18 shot down 9 Mig-29's.

This is also the same guy that claimed the US beat the USSR and China in the Vietnam war, funny i don't remember either one fighting the US.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Befor you have another conniption fit here is where it is from
During the Cold War, the U.S. had several dozen Russian aircraft they used for training their fighter pilots. Despite energetic efforts to keep these aircraft flying, their accident rate was 100 per 100,000 flying hours.
Attrition: Too Expensive To Maintain And Too Dangerous To Fly

Too Expensive To Maintain And Too Dangerous To Fly
June 23, 2010: Four months after an Indian MiG-27 fighter bomber crashed, and all Indian MiG-27s were grounded, the aircraft have been cleared to fly again. The long delay was caused by fears that all the Russian made engines in these aircraft might have a common problem. This is not a new problem. The MiG-27, and Cold War era Russian warplanes in general, do not age well. India only has about a hundred MiG-27s still operational, and all of them were grounded for over a year (2005-6) when serious problems were discovered with the MiG-27s Russian designed engines. Things have since gotten better, but not by a whole lot.

You can read the rest.

Here is the defintion of a conniption fit by the way
"A conniption fit is a sudden, violent emotional outburst generally triggered by shocking news or an unexpected turn of events. Unlike a tantrum, which could be triggered with little outside provocation, a conniption fit is often an anticipated response to incredibly bad or disappointing news. A conniption fit is generally characterized by a tirade of strong language accompanied by signs of frustration, rage and/or sadness. Sometimes a person having a conniption fit is reduced to stutters and incomprehensible epithets."
Heres the source for that by the way: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-conniption-fit.htm

I would have tried to explain that the term 100 per 100000 was a statistic but it would be a lot like teaching a pig to sing, but it would have just have anoyed the pig and been a waste of my time.

 

[ptldM3]

Befor you have another conniption fit here is where it is from
During the Cold War, the U.S. had several dozen Russian aircraft they used for training their fighter pilots. Despite energetic efforts to keep these aircraft flying, their accident rate was 100 per 100,000 flying hours.
Attrition: Too Expensive To Maintain And Too Dangerous To Fly

Too Expensive To Maintain And Too Dangerous To Fly
June 23, 2010: Four months after an Indian MiG-27 fighter bomber crashed, and all Indian MiG-27s were grounded, the aircraft have been cleared to fly again. The long delay was caused by fears that all the Russian made engines in these aircraft might have a common problem. This is not a new problem. The MiG-27, and Cold War era Russian warplanes in general, do not age well. India only has about a hundred MiG-27s still operational, and all of them were grounded for over a year (2005-6) when serious problems were discovered with the MiG-27s Russian designed engines. Things have since gotten better, but not by a whole lot.

You can read the rest.

Here is the defintion of a conniption fit by the way
"A conniption fit is a sudden, violent emotional outburst generally triggered by shocking news or an unexpected turn of events. Unlike a tantrum, which could be triggered with little outside provocation, a conniption fit is often an anticipated response to incredibly bad or disappointing news. A conniption fit is generally characterized by a tirade of strong language accompanied by signs of frustration, rage and/or sadness. Sometimes a person having a conniption fit is reduced to stutters and incomprehensible epithets."
Heres the source for that by the way: What is a Conniption Fit?

I would have tried to explain that the term 100 per 100000 was a statistic but it would be a lot like teaching a pig to sing, but it would have just have anoyed the pig and been a waste of my time.

Let me start by saying strategy page is a peice of **** sight that i have never used, nor will i ever use.

Strategy Page says the US operated several dozen Soviet aircraft, but ponder this, there are class A-B-C and D accidents, class A accidents are usually when the aircraft crashes, the B-C and D accidents are typically the pilots fault or some other anomaly(s) that may be a result of human error from the ground or even natural disasters such as a hale storm. So if there is any truth to this Strategy page then most accidents were not class A because obviously you can't rebuild a destroyed aircraft. Even a stuck canopy can fall under the classification system and be counted as an accident.

Even most class B accidents on the F-16 are from pilot error and US pilots are familiar with F-16's.

To help clarify, those accidents could have been anything from aircraft colliding on the runway, to storm damage, or even something such as a peice of debris being sucked into the engine.

Here is something else for you to ponder amigo, the US flew the Soviet fighters to their limits; on several accasions US pilots lost control of Soviet aircraft because they knew little about them, a US pilot almost caused a Mig-29 to crash, as a result the German pilot grabed the controls away from the American.

The US also had no spare parts, no support service, no factory trained technicians, and many of the aircraft came from defectors in poor countries where the aircraft were often not maintained the way they should have been. Add all that together and add in the fact that the aircraft were flown to their limits and you will have accidents.

So to clear things up those supposed calculations were not class A crashes otherwise the two dozen Soviet aircraft would never be able to statistically accumulate 100 crashes. Most of the accidents had to have been B through D. Unfamiliar aircraft, no spares, no support service, and no factory trained technicians = a high rate of attrition.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Let me start by saying strategy page is a peice of **** sight that i have never used, nor will i ever use.

Strategy Page says the US operated several dozen Soviet aircraft, but ponder this, there are class A-B-C and D accidents, class A accidents are usually when the aircraft crashes, the B-C and D accidents are typically the pilots fault or sometimes the fault of people on the ground or even nature causing damage, more so with class C and D. So if there is any truth to this Strategy page then most accidents were not class A because obviously you can't rebuild a destroyed aircraft.

Even most class B accidents on the F-16 are from pilot error and US pilots are familiar with F-16's.

To help clarify, those accidents could have been anything from aircraft colliding on the runway, to storm damage, or even something like a peice of debris being sucked into the engine.

Here is something else for you to ponder amigo, the US flew the Soviet fighters to their limits; on several accasions US pilots lost control of Soviet aircraft because they knew little about them, a US pilot almost caused a Mig-29 to crash, as a result the German pilot grabed the controls away from the American.

The US also had no spare parts, no support service, no factory trained technicians, and many of the aircraft came from defectors in poor countries where the aircraft were often not maintained the way they should have been. Add all that together and add in the fact that the aircraft were flown to their limits and you will have accidents.

So to clear things up those supposed calculations were not class A crashes otherwise the two dozen Soviet aircraft would never be able to statistically accumulate 100 crashes. Most of the accidents which were B through D were because the US could properly maintaince the aircraft and because they flew the sh!t out of them.

I can agree with that, now thats what I like . Debate with points, not insults - insults escalating an argument is not going to do anyone any good

 

[Brotherhood]

I can agree with that, now thats what I like . Debate with points, not insults - insults escalating an argument is not going to do anyone any good

Yes, sure, debate with points from yourself, not copy and paste posts of other's from another forum, thats damn shameful.
Now stop whining and learn how to debate with your own words period.
Oh, btw, i am going to let the original poster know that you stole his posts and how you put it like your own words on this forum to have a good laugh.

 

[amalakas]

Just because something is different and designed under a different philosophy, doesn't mean it's not good or effective and efficient.

Russian design approaches to aircraft design are not the same as the US.
Manufacturing quality used to be a different animal altogether for the Russians, but just because P&W engine may require service 1000 hours of flight later than the russian engine, it does not mean the russian engine is underperforming or is less powerful.

The US had the good fortune of testing Russian made planes, even make some aggressor units with them, I believe overall the feedback was positive and the best thing out of them was the realisation that things can be made differently and still be effective and dangerous.

We don't need to be fanboys here, a machine is a machine, we only need to remember that anything that completed a service cycle in any airforce is a marvel of human engineering.. anything, besides ..it's not easy making tonnes of metal fly at supersonic speeds... next time we start such a debate we might want to remember that.

 

[soaringphnx]

Thats the difference of USAF philosophy.....Unless they can't see you.....they can't hit you.....F-22 is a materialization of this concept and you know what JSF to other countries will have stealth for export purpose (which is way higher than you should expect on US versions) if even that is very low so you can imagine the level for JSF and then for F-22.....F-22 will see pakfa before PAK-FA can see raptor...and Raptor will follow a fire and run strategy....USAF pilots prefer BVR engagements.....Raptor pilot would not prefer to engage with PAK-FA in close in battle...he fire and then run....and even more dangerous....when datalinked with AWACS...Raptor wont be using its radar and slammer shot will also be guided by AWACS upto a certain distance when Slammer with turn its seeker on...ample time for raptor to get away quietly or position itself for another shot...

The PAK FA only had a budget which was only a fraction of the F-22's, and anyway, we can only speculate about it's final RCS. About the Raptor seeing the PAK FA first or vice versa, that too is only a topic on which we can speculate. There is no denying that the F-22 is the stealthiest fighter today. The Russians plan to counter the F-22's stealth with L-band radars (The F-22 is optimised for stealth against X-band radars) and IRST. How effective these will be in detecting the F-22, only time will tell. BTW, AWACS can support any aircraft, not just the F-22. Also is it possible for an AWACS to guide a missile fired by an F-22 (or any other fighter for that matter)? If so, then the same can be used by other fighters with AWACS support as well and not just the F-22. I heard Russia is working on some real long range missiles.

you can see PAK-FA houses 3 radars...Raptor does it with immense sensor fusion. Pilot has 360 degree view and unmatched situational awareness....but lets stay on radars....PAK-FA will be using three radars.....it means that it has three beacons on itself...making it more vulnerable to raptor......

The PAK FA uses 4, not 3 radars - 2 L-band radars in the wings, 1 X-band in the tail boom and the main X-band in the nose. If you look at it that way, every aircraft is sendind out beacons through it's own radar, not just the PAK FA.

here the author again neglects that whether PAK-FA will be able to take a shot on raptor???....raptor wont stay there.....as i said earlier...it will fire bravely and run....and then wait for another shot...IRST wont be helpful as Raptor can control its heat emission even at reheat.......so Raptor has every thing in its bag to excel....

Here again like I mentioned above, we can only speculate.

 

[soaringphnx]

I highly doubt any aircraft made today can out maneuver the AIM-9X

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_aim9x_datasheet.pdf

YouTube - AIM9x intercepts

Here again we can only speculate. Keep in mind that the F-22's manuverability is attributed mainly to 2D TVC. So just imagine what 3D TVC can do. Let's not forget that the PAK FA (and all modern fighters for that matter) will have active defences. Anyway, the AIM 9x is a WVR missile right?

 

[gambit]

The Russians plan to counter the F-22's stealth with L-band radars (The F-22 is optimised for stealth against X-band radars) and IRST. How effective these will be in detecting the F-22, only time will tell.

Buddy...You are talking out of your behind. This L-band radar have been questioned about its efficacy before. The set up is simply too small to be effective. As for infrared, it is no good for target resolutions, only general direction and that is also iffy at best.

The PAK FA uses 4, not 3 radars - 2 L-band radars in the wings, 1 X-band in the tail boom and the main X-band in the nose. If you look at it that way, every aircraft is sendind out beacons through it's own radar, not just the PAK FA.

And that is why the F-22 will employ LPI mode.

 

[gambit]

Here again we can only speculate. Keep in mind that the F-22's manuverability is attributed mainly to 2D TVC. So just imagine what 3D TVC can do. Let's not forget that the PAK FA (and all modern fighters for that matter) will have active defences. Anyway, the AIM 9x is a WVR missile right?

And that is the only thing you can do. Imagination and wishful thinking do not always come true. Three dimensional thrust vectoring with no appropriate automatic flight controls algorithm will be nothing more than an unused feature.

 

[soaringphnx]

Buddy...You are talking out of your behind. This L-band radar have been questioned about its efficacy before. The set up is simply too small to be effective. As for infrared, it is no good for target resolutions, only general direction and that is also iffy at best.

That is what I mentioned in my previous post. We can't really tell how effective these systems are since most of the information is classified and since the fighter is not fully developed. So we can only speculate for now.

And that is why the F-22 will employ LPI mode.

I have no idea what you meant by LPI mode. Can you please elaborate.