PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[Mosamania]

The F-22 wasn't created for Dog-fighting per se. It still can do that but I would pick the F-35 over it for that. Instead the F-22 was created to be a bomber first and BVR fighting second and WVR third.

There is still alot of mystery regarding the Pak-FA (T-50) or the J-20 on what are those jets main job. (I would bet it would be the same as the F-22 but the Russians have always been good at making all around planes better than the US while the US was better at creating specialized planes on the other hand)

Anyways thats just my 2 cents.

 

[gambit]

The F-22 wasn't created for Dog-fighting per se. It still can do that but I would pick the F-35 over it for that. Instead the F-22 was created to be a bomber first and BVR fighting second and WVR third.

There is still alot of mystery regarding the Pak-FA (T-50) or the J-20 on what are those jets main job. (I would bet it would be the same as the F-22 but the Russians have always been good at making all around planes better than the US while the US was better at creating specialized planes on the other hand)

Anyways thats just my 2 cents.

And less than 2 cents is what your comment worth.

 

[Mosamania]

And less than 2 cents is what your comment worth.

Bomber as not in the same class as the B-2 or its likes. But for A2G operations.

 

[SnakeBoat]

Two points I wanted to bring to notice of gambit

1) LPI mode on Raptor:
The radar range using LPI mode may be halved, so not the full power of AESA, meaning it brings the Raptor closer to the PAK-FA, where if you believe that the 3D TVC has an advantage, then it negates the LPI advantage (if the enemy is using its AESA or L-band). Plausible?

2) Regarding the AIM-9x which the thread details for closer engagement using its IR, doesnt the IRST help in negating that?
Regarding the ability of the aircraft to counter the 50G pulling maneuvering and escape, I rely on your post on the Brahmos countering where you suggest that the terminal phase of stabilization does not allow any deviation from path. (Although this seems counter-intuitive after observing the video Thomas posted, where an AIM-9x shoots down a flare releasing aircraft). You also mention that chaff can create a cloud that can mask any signatures from a battleship. Flankers should also be able to do this ruse then and escape if the logic holds true.
These are just couple of discrepancies I thought I would like you to clarify.

Thanks for the excellent point-counterpoints from all non-trolling participants.

 

[dbc]

Two points I wanted to bring to notice of gambit

1) LPI mode on Raptor:
The radar range using LPI mode may be halved, so not the full power of AESA, meaning it brings the Raptor closer to the PAK-FA, where if you believe that the 3D TVC has an advantage, then it negates the LPI advantage (if the enemy is using its AESA or L-band). Plausible?

LPI isn't a radar mode, it is a radar characteristic, it isn't something you do by operating the AESA at half power as you seem to imply. Low probability of intercept radars have a high gain antenna allowing for more precise targeting of the radars energy (narrow mainbeam).

When this focused energy is combined with spread spectrum techniques by which power is spread over wide frequencies using random computer generated sequence the resulting emission becomes hard to detect unless the radar 'stares' directly at a enemy RWR (radar warning receiver). Sort of like most men do when they stare at a women in a public place, we know you're staring so cut it out! Be more discreet, short quick glances unless our eyes meet we have no idea you are looking at us.

 

[gambit]

Bomber as not in the same class as the B-2 or its likes. But for A2G operations.

The F-22 is not a bomber. You are treading into an area you obviously know nothing about. Hopefully, some kind soul will privately educate you so you will no longer make these embarrassing statements.

 

[SnakeBoat]

LPI isn't a radar mode, it is a radar characteristic, it isn't something you do by operating the AESA at half power as you seem to imply. Low probability of intercept radars have a high gain antenna allowing for more precise targeting of the radars energy (narrow mainbeam).

High gain should lead to high Noise and low Signal:Noise..correct? Meaning the effective range should still be lower than a non-LPI radar.
I may be wrong about the LPI mode, but saw on F-16 forum that this was already compatible with F-15C with differing views on whether you require an AESA.
I cant post links since this is my second post. But check Page-5 on "F-22A Raptor's APG-77 radar" at F16 dot net

One of the so called Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) modes of operation possible with AESA radar works like this. Instead of forming one beam at full power and searching for targets that way, the radar forms hundreds of very weak but very precise beams. The aggregate power output is the same, but at any one point in time on any one bearing the signal is basically at the same level as the background hiss. The frequency is also randomized but logged by the LPI radar. To a RWR there is nothing but the same background hiss as the rest of the sky. But the LPI radar knows to look for a specific hiss level spike on a specific frequency for a specific bearing at a specific time. It integrates these over time. If nearly every single time slice shows hiss level spike at the identified frequency for that bearing and time slice, there is a return. If it shows random spikes and valleys there's nothing there.

In order to do this the radar must have the ability to generate hundreds of different beams at varying frequencies all at once. This requires an AESA. Only the transmitting AESA radar has the when, at what frequency and down what bearing to look for the a particular hiss behavior. The RWR which does not have the specific log of when at what frequency the very weak signals should be arriving over time only sees background static.

Sort of like most men do when they stare at a women in a public place, we know you're staring so cut it out! Be more discreet, short quick glances unless our eyes meet we have no idea you are looking at us.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, I am genetically programmed to Ogle and salivate, sometimes do a Tarzan Yell...!! Cant do much about that now.. can we except to indulge in it !

 

[gambit]

Two points I wanted to bring to notice of gambit

1) LPI mode on Raptor:
The radar range using LPI mode may be halved, so not the full power of AESA, meaning it brings the Raptor closer to the PAK-FA, where if you believe that the 3D TVC has an advantage, then it negates the LPI advantage (if the enemy is using its AESA or L-band). Plausible?

Not at all.

First...The superiority of 3D thrust vectoring over 2D have yet to be established. The US is not inexperienced in this technology. The F-22's 2D TV coupled with its flight control system have been deemed sufficient.

Second...Fighters do not have all-around radar coverage. At best, they have warning receivers for those areas that are not covered by an active radar system, which pretty much mean most of the area surrounding an aircraft. In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours. So if the F-22 is able to approach his opponent without detection in any way, that 3D TV advantage, assuming there is one, is already worthless. The point is to put yourself in as an advantageous position as soon as possible the moment you detect your opponent, and if he fail to detect your presence, all the better.

2) Regarding the AIM-9x which the thread details for closer engagement using its IR, doesnt the IRST help in negating that?

Not sure what you are asking here. IR Search and Track does not negate but assist in finding and focusing on a target in the infrared regime.

Regarding the ability of the aircraft to counter the 50G pulling maneuvering and escape, I rely on your post on the Brahmos countering where you suggest that the terminal phase of stabilization does not allow any deviation from path. (Although this seems counter-intuitive after observing the video Thomas posted, where an AIM-9x shoots down a flare releasing aircraft).

The terminal phase of any missile, as in duration, is highly dependent upon the hardware's capability. By hardware I mean the physical flight control system, not the virtual flight control laws. As the two bodies approaches each other, there comes a point in time where the missile designer determine that based upon the available hardware for him, the missile should no longer maneuver regardless of external circumstances. That mark the beginning of the terminal phase. With increasing sophistication, the terminal phase duration gets shorter, making missiles more lethal with higher assurances of a hit.

You also mention that chaff can create a cloud that can mask any signatures from a battleship. Flankers should also be able to do this ruse then and escape if the logic holds true.
These are just couple of discrepancies I thought I would like you to clarify.

Chaff have always been with us and their successes in air combat history still assured their deployment for a very long time. The problem with chaff is that they have different flight characteristics than the aircraft so if the missile is sufficiently sophisticated in avionics, the odds of distinguishing chaff from aircraft increases. However, this ability to distinguish aircraft from chaff depend on if the missile is able to have even sporadic contact with the target in order to establish a difference in flight characteristics. This is applicable to both radar and IR.

Here is what could happen: A fighter established a radar lock on his opponent, at this point, if his opponent dispense chaff to confuse his radar focus and is successful, no missile should be fired. However, if his opponent was unaware until after the missile was fired, at this point, the aircraft's and the missile's radars have an established radar characteristics of a target and if chaff is dispensed and even if the chaff is totally blanketing the missile's radar point-of-view, the missile will ignore the moving EM field that has no semblance to what is in its memory, fly through the chaff cloud, and will attempt to reacquire the target based upon that memory.

That is why an aircraft usually execute violent maneuvers after chaff dispense in the hope that he will be out of the missile's radar POV in the event a missile was launched and the missile broke through the chaff cloud.

 

[HROBOS]

agreed my russian friend but the upgrades are there its now a 15 year old plane (23 if you count development 20 if you count first flight) a f 22 b will be amazing. panetta (new sec of defence) will bring it back when Russia starts the pak fa , and with all the fifth gen experience we have it will be a huge jump fight now f 22 pak fa are on same scale US aveonics are better but what it will come down to is pilot

Perhaps we never will know what is the best aircraft (F-22 or PAK-FA). I mean the most complete set of equipment and pilots Air Force (U.S. and Russia). Export options do not count.

 

[amalakas]

Perhaps we never will know what is the best aircraft (F-22 or PAK-FA). I mean the most complete set of equipment and pilots Air Force (U.S. and Russia). Export options do not count.

Oh I think this is a hard question to answer anyway. You see a weapon (aircraft) is designed and used according to what the soldier (airforce) who wields it needs.

Gambit described how the US don't care who has the better weapon, their doctrine is to fight the fight under their own rules. i.e. if the enemy has better long range weapons, bring them close, if he has better short range weapons -fight them from afar, if they have better planes, shoot them down when they can't do anything, if they have better cannons, fight them were their cannons can't be used.

it is a good doctrine , russians had always a different doctrine, good reliable armed to the teeth machines, in numbers .. that is a different thing ..

in terms of F22 vs the T-50, I mentioned before that the russians have probably a different approach to modern air combat for air superiority than the US

I think the PAK FA may not be as stealthy as people expect, but I do think it will be stealthy enough to matter in an engagement.

 

[Zabaniyah]

The F-22 wasn't created for Dog-fighting per se. It still can do that but I would pick the F-35 over it for that. Instead the F-22 was created to be a bomber first and BVR fighting second and WVR third.

There is still alot of mystery regarding the Pak-FA (T-50) or the J-20 on what are those jets main job. (I would bet it would be the same as the F-22 but the Russians have always been good at making all around planes better than the US while the US was better at creating specialized planes on the other hand)

Anyways thats just my 2 cents.

The F-22 is classed as an air-superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft. Big difference! F-22 is not for dog-fighting? Do you seriously think they are that stupid?

 

[amalakas]

The F-22 is classed as an air-superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft. Big difference! F-22 is not for dog-fighting? Do you seriously think they are that stupid?

Ahhh.. They can be that stupid, as they have been in the past. The US made the same assumptions once more, The F-4.

 

[Chogy]

The only reason you'll ever see the F-22 with a bomb is when the Congress or Senate is looking. The airplane was designed from the ground up to be 100% air to air. But by strapping a bomb on it and sticking an A2G thumb drive in the central computer, they can claim "Look! It drops bombs too!" It's purely political budgetary garbage.

The B-1 and B-2 are the heavy bomb droppers. F-16, F-18, and especially the F-35, are used for tactical support, and then only when enemy air defenses are suppressed.

 

[nightcrawler]

Chaff have always been with us and their successes in air combat history still assured their deployment for a very long time. The problem with chaff is that they have different flight characteristics than the aircraft so if the missile is sufficiently sophisticated in avionics, the odds of distinguishing chaff from aircraft increases. However, this ability to distinguish aircraft from chaff depend on if the missile is able to have even sporadic contact with the target in order to establish a difference in flight characteristics. This is applicable to both radar and IR.

Here is what could happen: A fighter established a radar lock on his opponent, at this point, if his opponent dispense chaff to confuse his radar focus and is successful, no missile should be fired. However, if his opponent was unaware until after the missile was fired, at this point, the aircraft's and the missile's radars have an established radar characteristics of a target and if chaff is dispensed and even if the chaff is totally blanketing the missile's radar point-of-view, the missile will ignore the moving EM field that has no semblance to what is in its memory, fly through the chaff cloud, and will attempt to reacquire the target based upon that memory.

That is why an aircraft usually execute violent maneuvers after chaff dispense in the hope that he will be out of the missile's radar POV in the event a missile was launched and the missile broke through the chaff cloud.

thnx for elaboration Gambit...as always.

I have some reservations in understanding your above statements..in which you argue that even after chaff deploying missile had in their memory the flying characteristics of the opponents plane. What I know that after chaff deployment [even before missile had a good look upon the threat] missile's memory only has bearing coordinates (azimuth/elevation) & not the range.

The usual dive that plane exhibits after chaff deployment is to face earth ...now the missile had to leech out from the below earth clutter the actual target (thats the plane), which now (because is facing earth) has radar reflector background....which otherwise in BVR is absent

 

[gambit]

thnx for elaboration Gambit...as always.

I have some reservations in understanding your above statements..in which you argue that even after chaff deploying missile had in their memory the flying characteristics of the opponents plane.

What I know that after chaff deployment [even before missile had a good look upon the threat] missile's memory only has bearing coordinates (azimuth/elevation) & not the range.

Provided that the missile is given that data, which is usually from the parent aircraft who has the larger and more capable radar.

The usual dive that plane exhibits after chaff deployment is to face earth ...now the missile had to leech out from the below earth clutter the actual target (thats the plane), which now (because is facing earth) has radar reflector background....which otherwise in BVR is absent

You are correct. However, more sophisticated missiles can switch to moving-target-indicator (MTI) mode to process only the Doppler component of any moving objects. The target aircraft will exhibit the greatest Doppler difference.