What's new

PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

R. Jeffrey Smith is the author of that piece of questionable journalism, Mr. Smith a B.A. in Political Science claims the radar-absorbing skin is "metallic"? To the average Jo this isn't significant but to the informed reader this is a strong indication of the authors lack of knowledge since metal is known to exhibit poor radar absorption properties.



He does not offer any explanation as to why the skin is "vulnerable to rain" if the skin is made of metal like he claims then why is it vulnerable to water? All conventional aircraft's including commercial planes have metallic skin (aluminum) so why is vulnerability to water unique to the Raptor? Shouldn't all aircraft's exhibit the same vulnerability?

The author goes on to claim his information is obtained from "confidential Pentagon test results" but he does not say how those confidential reports were obtained. He quotes unnamed "Pentagon officials" and "former Lockheed employees" to make his story sensational.

He's made so many questionable claims in his piece - but does not provide a shred of evidence to back up his assertions. Sensationalism unfortunately takes precedence over due diligence and balanced reporting for many like Mr. Smith.

Its not metal, Northrop Grumman has developed a new radar-absorbent coating to preserve the B-2's stealth characteristics while drastically reducing maintenance time. The new material, known as alternate high-frequency material (AHFM), is sprayed on by four independently controlled robots.

I have also seen them repairing stealth planes with something like vinal they glue on, and it takes differant kinds near the engine ehaust.
 
Its not metal, Northrop Grumman has developed a new radar-absorbent coating to preserve the B-2's stealth characteristics while drastically reducing maintenance time. The new material, known as alternate high-frequency material (AHFM), is sprayed on by four independently controlled robots.

I have also seen them repairing stealth planes with something like vinal they glue on, and it takes differant kinds near the engine ehaust.

Yes it isn't metal hence my assertion that Mr. Smith either didn't work hard enough to uncover all the facts or he isn't knowledgeable enough to assemble facts and form the correct conclusion.

...AHFM is unique to the B-2, on the Raptor RAM coating is only applied on the S-shaped intake ducts.
 
I do have a very reliable source. It is called 'World War II'. Ever heard of it? Quite impressive production figures.

But the stuff being manufactured by america in ww2 wasn't really state of the art though whereas an F-22 fighter is state of the art.
 
I do have a very reliable source. It is called 'World War II'. Ever heard of it? Quite impressive production figures.

Something that happened over 60 years ago cannot be used as an indication of the way things are today. The P-51 Mustang was designed and built in just 117 days. But how long did it take to develop the F-22 or any modern fighter for that matter? Things are not as simple as they were then. In war times, arms production is definitely accelerated, but not at the rate you mentioned. The B-22 had a fly-away cost close to $1 billion and a unit cost of around $750 million in 1997. Restarting the B-2 assembly line would raise unit procurement costs dramatically. The same goes for the F-22.
 
Some of the planes will be carrying EMP weapons to take out air fields, communications, any sites that use electronics, the F22 will be carrying EMP weapons.

That's a new one for me. I thought EMP weapons were still in development. Please be kind enough to provide a source.
 
I read that the US is developing stealth ordinance pods to allow the F-22 to operate at full payload capacity without compromising stealth. Any updates on that?
 
That's a new one for me. I thought EMP weapons were still in development. Please be kind enough to provide a source.

Reports of use and development of non-nuclear EMP in recent years
According to some reports, the U.S. Navy used experimental non-nuclear E-bombs during the 1991 Gulf War. These bombs utilized warheads that converted the energy of conventional explosives into a pulse of radio energy.[38]

CBS News reported that the U.S. dropped an E-bomb on Iraqi TV during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but this has not been confirmed.[39]

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, others also have speculated that the United States military used a Tomahawk Missile with a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse warhead on other Iraqi targets. The evidence of this occurring is that the power went out over Baghdad yet there was no physical damage to the electrical generator plant.[40]

Just look up EMP weapons on the internet.
 
That's a new one for me. I thought EMP weapons were still in development. Please be kind enough to provide a source.
Look at it this way...For over a decade, radar low observability was still 'officially in development'...Then came the F-117, limited as it was, and it pretty much blew everyone away. I would think that by now, people should NOT take at face value that just because the US suffers assorted economic ups and downs just like every other countries, our 'black projects' weapons development remains static.

Why innovation will elude Russia
Before Russian President Dmitry Medvedev came to visit California this week, he sent a warship ahead. After docking at San Francisco, the captain insisted that the battle cruiser's visit was a sign of friendship.

If that were so, why didn't Medvedev send a ballet company or a cultural exhibit to coincide with his visit, instead of a war vessel bristling with big guns and cruise-missile launchers? But then Russians can be a pugnacious people, and Medvedev wanted to make a point: Don't take us for granted. We are still an important power.

That might be, but Medvedev chose to visit a part of the United States that boldly demonstrates two of Russia's greatest weaknesses: creativity and innovation.

"It's not by chance that I came here," Medvedev admitted to an audience at Stanford University. "I wanted to see with my own eyes the origin of success." And it's no wonder: Can you think of a significant Russian technological invention of recent times?

The problem isn't the Russian people. Thousands of them are at work across Silicon Valley creating the very products and services Medvedev came to emulate.

No, the problem is the Russian government, still a brutal, capricious bureaucracy guilty of "contract-style killings," the State Department says, "continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, along with corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law" and "continuing media restrictions" that "result in an erosion of the accountability of government leaders to the population."

Medvedev offered a typically Russian 10-point plan to tackle these issues and others in a nasty thicket of related problems. He read the list from an Apple iPad, occasionally swiping his finger up or down when he lost his place. Actually, when he finished, he'd cited 11 points, and I could have listed half a dozen more. For example, he said nothing about media censorship along with the harassment, intimidation and killing of journalists.

But the way Medvedev told it, all of that will change. And an engine of that change will be a new Russian Silicon Valley in Skolkovo, a Moscow suburb. In California, he met with executives at Cisco, Apple, Twitter. He wore jeans, a jacket and an open-collar shirt - the local uniform. Introducing him to the Stanford audience, provost John Etchemendy noted that he was among the first Russians to get an iPhone. Medvedev nodded and with a grin held up his iPad.

He might be an early adapter, but the hurdles his nation faces are daunting. Russians and foreigners who dare to invest in the country too often find that once they succeed, they are thrown in jail and their properties confiscated or nationalized.

For example, William Browder, the largest foreign-portfolio investor in Russia, was denied re-entry to Russia and his companies confiscated after he tried to expose corruption, the Wall Street Journal reported. One of his lawyers was arrested and died in prison when his jailors refused to provide medical treatment. "My advice to U.S. technological companies" that Medvedev tried to woo this week "is to steer clear of Russia because it's insanity to go there," he told the paper.

Meeting with Stanford officials before his speech, Medvedev was clearly aware of the troubles his initiatives face.

"Unfortunately for us," he said, "venture capitalism is not going so well so far. No one wants to take the risk. It's a problem of culture, Steve Jobs told me today. We need to change the mentality."
Take what you can gleam from Russia and the Russians and see if any applies to China, India or for the rest of the non-Western world for that matter. Pretty damning words, ain't it..."I wanted to see with my own eyes the origin of success."...sayeth Medvedev. So think thrice before you doubt that we cannot produce one thousand or more F-22s when we feel sufficiently threatened.
 
I read that the US is developing stealth ordinance pods to allow the F-22 to operate at full payload capacity without compromising stealth. Any updates on that?
Yes...The program is still 'in development'...:D
 
You should not take the russians so lightly. Here a few examples to prove my point.

One of the things the US is most famous for developing is "stealth technology". Let's take a quick look at the history of "stealth technology".

The first true "stealth" aircraft may have been the Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter-bomber, developed in Germany during the last years of WWII. In addition to the aircraft's shape, the majority of the Ho 229's wooden skin was bonded together using carbon-impregnated plywood resins designed with the purported intention of absorbing radar waves. Testing performed in early 2009 by the Northrop-Grumman Corporation established that this compound, along with the aircraft's shape, would have rendered the Ho 229 virtually invisible to Britain's Chain Home early warning radar, provided the aircraft was traveling at high speed (~550 mph) at extremely low altitude (50–100 feet).

In the closing weeks of WWII the US military initiated "Operation Paperclip", an effort by the US Army to capture as much advanced German weapons research as possible, and also to deny that research to advancing Soviet troops. A Horton glider and the Ho 229 number V3 were secured and sent to Northrop Aviation in the United States for evaluation, who much later used a flying wing design for the B-2 stealth bomber.

During 1970s, the U.S. Department of Defence then launched a project called Have Blue the project to develop a stealth fighter. Bidding between both Lockheed and Northrop for the tender was fierce to secure the multi billion dollar contract. Lockheed incorporated in its program paper written by a Soviet/Russian physicist Pyotr Ufimtsev in 1962 titled Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, Soviet Radio, Moscow, 1962. In 1971 this book was translated into English with the same title by U.S. Air Force, Foreign Technology Division (National Air Intelligence Center ), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 1971. Technical Report AD 733203, Defense Technical Information Center of USA, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA, 22304-6145, USA. This theory played a critical role in the design of American stealth-aircraft F-117 and B-2. The paper was able to find whether a plane's shape design would minimise its detection by radar or its radar cross-section (RCS) using a series of equations could be used to evaluate the radar cross section of any shape. Lockheed used it to design a shape they called the Hopeless Diamond, securing contractual rights to mass produce the F-117 Nighthawk.

Source: Wikipedia

So stealth technology was actually developed by the US with the help of German and Soviet/Russian research.
 
Now let's proceed to VTOL aircraft, shall we?

The Yakovlev Yak-38 was the Soviet Navy's VTOL aircraft for their light carriers, cargoships, and capital ships. It was developed from the Yakovlev Yak-36 experimental aircraft. Before the Soviet Union collapsed, a supersonic VTOL aircraft was developed as the Yak-38's successor, the Yak-141, which never went into production because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Americans had many ambitious projects of their own, but sadly, all failed.

The Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird (originally designated VZ-10) was a U.S. Army project in the 1960s, one of many attempts to produce a V/STOL vertical take off / landing jet. At a design speed of 336 mph, the Hummingbird was slower than some propeller-powered transports.

The design used doors at the top and bottom of the fuselage intended to augment thrust ejected into this area with cold air. In theory, a 11,607 lb aircraft could be lifted by a 6,600 lbf engine. Unfortunately, performance was far below the estimates only 1.04 thrust-to-weight in practice and the prototype crashed on 10 June 1964, killing the pilot. The second aircraft was converted to lift jets instead, also crashing after several tests.

The Rockwell XFV-12 was a prototype supersonic United States Navy fighter which was first built in 1977. The XFV-12 combined the Mach 2 speed and AIM-7 Sparrow armament of the F-4 Phantom II in a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) fighter for the small Sea Control Ship which was under study at the time. On paper, it looked superior to the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Harrier attack fighter. Unfortunately, it proved unable to produce enough thrust for vertical flight, even with an installed engine with more thrust than its empty weight, and the project was abandoned.

The Ryan XV-5 Vertifan was a jet powered V/STOL experimental aircraft in the 1960s. The U.S. Army commissioned the Ryan VZ-11RY (which was redesignated as the XV-5 in 1962) in 1961, along with the Lockheed VZ-10 Hummingbird (redesignated as the XV-4).The XV-5 was one of many dozens of aircraft which attempted to produce a successful vertical takeoff aircraft, but the lift fan system was heavy, and took a lot of internal volume.

None of the early American V/STOL designs would result in a production aircraft.

Now another interesting fact about the F-35:

Following the announcement by the CIS that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev immediately entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program (a tactic they were also pursuing for development of the Yak-130 trainer, which was eventually developed in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy). Lockheed-Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.
 
Last edited:
The F-22 is famous for 2D thrust vectoring technology. So let's compare how russia and america has progressed in that field. First let's list the aircraft currently or previously fielded by both sides that made use of 2D thrust vectoring.

Russia:
1. Su-30
2. Yak-38 (for VTOL)

US:
1. F-22
2. Harrier (for VTOL)(not developed by US)

Russia seems to be slightly ahead here. So lets go a step further and compare the aircraft developed by both countries which employ 3D TVC.

Russia:
1. MiG-29OVT
2. MiG-35
3. Su-35
4. Su-37
5. Su-47
6. PAK FA

US:
1. .....
Oh, I guess US is yet to develop 3D TVC!!!!

Lacking in "creativity and innovation" as they are, the Russians seem to be much ahead of the US here!!!
 
You should not take the russians so lightly. Here a few examples to prove my point.
Do you really think you brought on anything new?

One of the things the US is most famous for developing is "stealth technology". Let's take a quick look at the history of "stealth technology".
Yes...We shall...

The first true "stealth" aircraft may have been the Horten Ho 229 flying wing fighter-bomber, developed in Germany during the last years of WWII. In addition to the aircraft's shape, the majority of the Ho 229's wooden skin was bonded together using carbon-impregnated plywood resins designed with the purported intention of absorbing radar waves. Testing performed in early 2009 by the Northrop-Grumman Corporation established that this compound, along with the aircraft's shape, would have rendered the Ho 229 virtually invisible to Britain's Chain Home early warning radar, provided the aircraft was traveling at high speed (~550 mph) at extremely low altitude (50–100 feet).
The Ho-229's flying wing design was not the result of a radar low observability program but from the desire to have a long range bomber. The flying wing design was already well known for that but the problem was flight controls due to lack of a 'z-axis' surface.

Flying wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However in practice an aircraft's wing must provide for flight stability and control; this imposes additional constraints on the aircraft design problem. Therefore, the expected gains in weight and drag reduction may be partially or wholly negated due to design compromises needed to provide stability and control. Alternatively, and more commonly, a flying wing type may suffer from stability and control problems.
The adhesive was from wartime shortages of metals and also the need to reduce weight. The Germans had at best rudimentary working knowledge of radar deflections behaviors and absorber technology. The Ho-229's low radar reflectivity at that time was mostly incidental, not intentional. It could have evaded Chain Home but not Chain Home Low had the war continued and CHL was further developed.

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/chl/chl.htm
The Chain Home Low radar system

By July of 1939 the CD set could detect an aircraft flying at 500 feet up to 25 miles away with very good accuracy...
Back in WW II, radar detection had the gross advantage.

During 1970s, the U.S. Department of Defence then launched a project called Have Blue the project to develop a stealth fighter. Bidding between both Lockheed and Northrop for the tender was fierce to secure the multi billion dollar contract. Lockheed incorporated in its program paper written by a Soviet/Russian physicist Pyotr Ufimtsev in 1962 titled Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, Soviet Radio, Moscow, 1962. In 1971 this book was translated into English with the same title by U.S. Air Force, Foreign Technology Division (National Air Intelligence Center ), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 1971. Technical Report AD 733203, Defense Technical Information Center of USA, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA, 22304-6145, USA. This theory played a critical role in the design of American stealth-aircraft F-117 and B-2. The paper was able to find whether a plane's shape design would minimise its detection by radar or its radar cross-section (RCS) using a series of equations could be used to evaluate the radar cross section of any shape. Lockheed used it to design a shape they called the Hopeless Diamond, securing contractual rights to mass produce the F-117 Nighthawk.
Yes...But the Soviets dismissed his work. Sorry...But without practical application, an idea is worthless and the Soviets made Ufimtsev's work 'worthless' until the US created something useful out of it.

The only thing you 'proved' so far is that you are a late comer to these issues in this forum. They have been discussed many times already.
 
The Ho-229's flying wing design was not the result of a radar low observability program but from the desire to have a long range bomber. The flying wing design was already well known for that but the problem was flight controls due to lack of a 'z-axis' surface.

Flying wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The adhesive was from wartime shortages of metals and also the need to reduce weight. The Germans had at best rudimentary working knowledge of radar deflections behaviors and absorber technology. The Ho-229's low radar reflectivity at that time was mostly incidental, not intentional. It could have evaded Chain Home but not Chain Home Low had the war continued and CHL was further developed. Back in WW II, radar detection had the gross advantage.


Yes...But the Soviets dismissed his work. Sorry...But without practical application, an idea is worthless and the Soviets made Ufimtsev's work 'worthless' until the US created something useful out of it.

The only you 'proved' so far is that you are a late comer to these issues in this forum. They have been discussed many times already.

I agree that it was the US who first applied the findings of russian and german scientists. It still doesn't change the fact that the US developed "stealth technology" using german and soviet research.

BTW, here's something the germans were developing....

Lampyridae or Firefly is a low-observable medium missile fighter (MRMF) developed in 1980 by the German aerospace company Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) Developed independently of the Have Blue prototype and Lockheed's F-117 stealth fighter, the Lampyridae nonetheless utilised a similar approach. The design was revealed to the US in 1987 when a group of USAF officers were shown the piloted model, kept in a closed-off section of MBB's plant at Ottobrunn in Bavaria. The project was canceled soon after for unspecified reasons.
 
1. .....
Oh, I guess US is yet to develop 3D TVC!!!!

Lacking in "creativity and innovation" as they are, the Russians seem to be much ahead of the US here!!!


Its something we did in the 80's with F-16 Vista program but threw it away after the proof of concept as it increased the operating cost with little or no corresponding improvement in combat effectiveness.

A 3-D thrust vector engine is offered for the F-16 IN by LM.

Please dial down the sarcasm a notch or two.:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom