PAKFA vs F-22

[Ultima Thule]

Rafale doesn't need all that. It simply disappears from enemy radars even with full external stores.

There are many forms of stealth. And right now, only 3 aircraft fit the bill, including Rafale.

PAK FA combines both F-22/F-35 stealth techniques as well as Rafale's stealth techniques.

what is you talking about you have a cloaking device to hide RAFALE and FGFA do you know what is the meaning of stealth (Low observable) tech there is no such tech in the world that totally hide from electromagnetic radiations even Russia and USA have don't have such tech to totally hide stealth jet from all electromagnetic radiations so why you assume that RAFALE will disappears from enemy radars you're acting like 8 year old kid who is knows nothing about stealth ( LOW OBSERVABLE) technologies and every weapons that India have or going to have is out this universe 10000000000 gen ahead from the world

 

[Gomig-21]

The PAK FA's got S-ducts. What you see in the image is apparently radar blockers.

That is not an S-duct, my friend. This is all over aviation forums as a fact. You saw the pictures I posted with the difference between a true S-duct and one that isn't. The whole point of an S-duct is to hide the fan/fan blades on the engine and you can't even see the fan in the Raptor. Heck, I have a picture (that I just spent 1/2 a hour looking for it in my albums and couldn't find it) of the air intake of an F-18E Super Hornet at an airshow that I stuck my head into it and tried to see the fan and couldn't. The only way is to crawl in there to find it and although they let you up close to these aircraft at these shows we go to here in the US, they won't let you crawl into a Super Hornet's intake lol. The Raptor's intake design is almost a replica of the Super Hornet's just like you see in the picture I posted in the above post. And in the PAF-KA, the fan blades are about 7 feet away from the intake right there in front of our eyes.

This is the main reason why Russian aircraft -- for the most part -- have mud-flaps on their front landing gear.

We all know the issue with FOD on Russian engines and because not only of the low-slung and wide open air intakes, but because the fan blades are very exposed and prone to debris flicking off the front tire and being ingested by the fan.

Even the pic you posted to show the size of the Su-57 also shows how visible the fans are in an almost direct line of sight to the intakes.

There is nothing remotely close to S-ducting on the PAK-FA, unfortunately and that is a problem. Blockers are not as effective as hiding the fan blades from a direct line of sight.

The PAK FA is not 10-15 years behind.

The aircraft that were supposed to be in the same timeline as F-22 were the Mig 1.44 and Su-47. These aircraft were behind the F-22 in terms of RCS. But they were more or less similar to the F-22 in many ways. Weapons bays, sensor fusion, low RCS design etc.

Minimum 10 years. Just think how long the F-22 has been operational. That alone just shows how far ahead the US is in this stealth era program, not to mention the introduction of the F-35 and how far that program has come along with that aircraft also operational for about a year now. PAK-FA hasn't even shown us it's attempted even any weapons testing.

The PAK FA has similar passive stealth, but it will also have active measures, which the F-22 lacks. Then the range is more than double that of the F-22. The speed and altitude are also greater. The IWB holds far more weapons. The avionics are all next gen, not even one of it has a western equivalent yet. The aircraft is controlled by AI, similar to the Su-35, it can fight on its own without pilot input for most scenarios.

- What active measures will the PAK-FA have that the F-22 lacks?
- How is the range more than double of the F-22?
- Speed I'll give you, we know that based on the engine specs but let's also wait and see how successful and how long it will take to work out the bugs of a new engine.
- IWB hold far more weapons? I count the same number of bays as the Raptor with the latter possibly holding more A2A weapons.

And that's assuming those farings on the LERX are actually weapons stores. That's never been proven or shown to actually be anything remotely close to a weapons store.

As a matter of fact, one can actually say the PAK-FA has much less weapons storage than the Raptor if those farings are infact something else rather than weapons storage.

If you go by this graph, the Raptor holds double the number of weapons that the PAK-FA does. 8-4.

- PAK-FA avionics are far ahead with no equivalent? That you'll have to give me something to support that claim.
- AI is something the US excels at and these are all modifications that can easily be updated in the F-22 which we know the USAF is doing as a result of the F-35's success. A lot of the Raptor's avionics are being updated as we speak. We can't assume that what rolled out of the F-22's assembly line is permanently fixed. The concept of constantly updating and upgrading software AND hardware is something the US specializes in. You can't simply discount that.

The PAK FA is massive. It's lighter than the F-22 but it's really massive. Just look at the sheer size of the main fuselage. It's easily twice the size of the F-22's. For example, the IWB of the F-22 pretty much covers the entire fuselage width, but is only 1.8m, a bit more. But the PAK FA has a 1.2m weapons bay, followed by 2 massive intakes and then some more fuselage beyond that up to the side bays. The internal volume of the PAK FA is a lot bigger than the F-22's.
If you think the Flanker is big, then the PAK FA--

I have no idea where you get these size assumptions from, my friend. First you claimed the PAK-FA will hold more fuel to give it an additional 2000km range over the raptor and now you're saying it's internal volume is a lot bigger than the Raptor's but nothing to back that up. Without actual data on numbers, let's take a look at that size differential you're talking about.

The internal volume of the PAK FA is a lot bigger than the F-22's.

Surface area is not that much bigger, and bulk is actually greater on the Raptor. The LERX on the PAK-FA is wider but at the cost of wing area which actually holds fuel tanks, so in a sense, we can say that's an even swap. So I don't see where you're coming up with "twice the size of the F-22," brohand.

But PAK FA is not in the same class as the F-22. You can say that the Russians are making a 6th gen equivalent of whatever will replace the F-22.

All of that is just concept art.

It's concept art yes, but we know very well that the PCA is going to be a "tailess" design and so the concept is imaginable in these images. So to claim the PAK-FA will be competing along those lines is a huge stretch, without even taking into account the advancements the US will be instilling as far as technology which we know for a fact that the US excels in those fields and is 2nd to none out there.

It's actually the IAF.

There are 5 groups with different opinions.
HAL, IAF, MoF, PM and expert panel.

I'll give you the opinions of all.
HAL - They want the FGFA to go ahead. The HAL Chief said it's his highest priority.

MoF (Finance) - They can't afford it.

PM - They want to hold off on the project because Russia is playing with China against Indian interests.

IAF - They want the Rafale to go through first. They criticized the FGFA for costs because it was eating into the Rafale funds. And they used excuses to attack the FGFA in order to delay it so the Rafale goes through. For example, the PAK FA with a new engine is yet to fly, so that was one point of attack. The second point of attack is the PAK FA has inadequate stealth for current prototypes, which is true because the current prototypes are primarily aerodynamic prototypes and not full stealth prototypes with all stealth measures applied. Cost is obviously another point of attack. The jet is so advanced that it's becoming more and more expensive. If I give you some of the information that I already know of, you will go bonkers. They may have to go for a slight rejig in order to make it affordable.

Here you go, this pretty much sums up what's going on.

A new report by Defense News states that India is extremely unhappy with Russia's supposed 5th generation fighter—better known as the T-50, or by its new production name the Su-57—that will act as the base for the sputtering FGFA cooperative fighter program between the two countries.

The news comes after years of squabbling over the program, usually characterized by credible reports of the Indian Air Force's dismay with the qualities of the Russian aircraft.

The T-50/Su-57's degree of low observability has always been in question. It is one of the most hotly debated topics on military aviation forums and I have described how the design balances some stealthy attributes against other features and weaponry, as well as cost and production capabilities. But time and time again India seems to have been doubtful that the base aircraft design could meet their FGFA requirements.

This notorious photo alone has been the subject of hot debate as to the T-50's radar signature, especially where it matters most, head on. A jet's fan face produces a massive radar signature. Modern high-performance stealthy aircraft designs use "S" shaped ducts to hide their engines from most or all line of sight aspects, with radar return scrambling baffles being built under the duct surface scrambling returns even more. Some aircraft, like the Super Hornet, use a slotted baffle that covers the fan faces of their engine, which are hidden only partially by the aircraft's duct shape. This measure reduces the aircraft's frontal radar signature, but it is less effective than an s shaped duct and may impact certain aspects of engine performance. Many other features on the T-50 also put a high level of low observability in doubt.

"Senior IAF leadership recently expressed apprehension to the Ministry of Defense, claiming the proposed FGFA program with Russia does not meet desired requirements like U.S. F-35 fighter type capabilities, disclosed a senior IAF official. That official added, that “IAF is not keen to continue with the program.”

The proposed FGFA program does not meet desired stealth and cross section features compared to a F-35 fighter, the official explained, thus major structural changes are needed that cannot be met in the existing Russian prototypes."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ate-their-stealth-fighter-program-with-russia

The link to the article gets into much more detail and I just quoted the essential parts because they describe the major stealth issues of the PAK-FA that the IAF is very concerned about and has nothing to do with affordability you mentioned or because of making room for the Rafale. These are well-known issues of the Su-57 that we need to see the Russians make something that proves them wrong, but they have yet to show anything to help that. And to claim that this aircraft is not only better than the F-22 in all the aspects you mentioned let alone compete with the US' 6th generation platform is a real stretch, my friend.

I love the Su-57 and I really hope the Russians improve on all the things that cast doubt on the extent of it's capabilities and eventual success.

 

[randomradio]

That is not an S-duct, my friend. This is all over aviation forums as a fact. You saw the pictures I posted with the difference between a true S-duct and one that isn't. The whole point of an S-duct is to hide the fan/fan blades on the engine and you can't even see the fan in the Raptor. Heck, I have a picture (that I just spent 1/2 a hour looking for it in my albums and couldn't find it) of the air intake of an F-18E Super Hornet at an airshow that I stuck my head into it and tried to see the fan and couldn't. The only way is to crawl in there to find it and although they let you up close to these aircraft at these shows we go to here in the US, they won't let you crawl into a Super Hornet's intake lol. The Raptor's intake design is almost a replica of the Super Hornet's just like you see in the picture I posted in the above post. And in the PAF-KA, the fan blades are about 7 feet away from the intake right there in front of our eyes.

This is the main reason why Russian aircraft -- for the most part -- have mud-flaps on their front landing gear.

We all know the issue with FOD on Russian engines and because not only of the low-slung and wide open air intakes, but because the fan blades are very exposed and prone to debris flicking off the front tire and being ingested by the fan.

Even the pic you posted to show the size of the Su-57 also shows how visible the fans are in an almost direct line of sight to the intakes.

There is nothing remotely close to S-ducting on the PAK-FA, unfortunately and that is a problem. Blockers are not as effective as hiding the fan blades from a direct line of sight.

Those are blockers. The engines are way, way behind, it's not in the same position as where the blockers are located.

And then, the Russians have other aircraft too that have S ducts, like the Su-47.

You can make out the curvature there.

Minimum 10 years. Just think how long the F-22 has been operational. That alone just shows how far ahead the US is in this stealth era program, not to mention the introduction of the F-35 and how far that program has come along with that aircraft also operational for about a year now. PAK-FA hasn't even shown us it's attempted even any weapons testing.

This is not a running race with the same track and same rules. It's a rat race where the competitors can do anything they can to get the advantage.

Even if the F-22 and F-35 are out now, the basic specs of the PAK FA beat both aircraft by a wide margin.

- What active measures will the PAK-FA have that the F-22 lacks?

Active cancellation and plasma are the ones that are in open source now.

They have to be activated for further RCS reduction compared to the base RCS.
For example, AC removes target echo from radar signals.
Plasma is introduced in areas where antennas are located so they absorb all the radar signals that enter the radome.

- How is the range more than double of the F-22?

The fuel fraction of the F-22 is 0.3. It has a range of about 2300Km on internal fuel.

The fuel fraction of the PAK FA is between 0.4 and 0.42. It is expected to have a range of 4500-5000Km thanks to new generation engines.

The Su-35 sits in between with a fuel fraction of 0.38 and a range of 3600Km.

The PAK FA with old engines should have a range of 4000Km. Obvious, isn't it, that it will beat the Su-35 in range?

- IWB hold far more weapons? I count the same number of bays as the Raptor with the latter possibly holding more A2A weapons.

And that's assuming those farings on the LERX are actually weapons stores. That's never been proven or shown to actually be anything remotely close to a weapons store.

The PAK FA has 4 bays. The 2 main bays are 1.2m wide and can hold 4 missiles each. The 2 side bays can hold 2 missiles as well. The F-22's main bays are 0.9m wide and can hold 3 missiles each.

Not to mention, the PAK FA can carry much larger and heavier weapons, including cruise missiles. The F-22 can only carry 500Kg bombs and lesser.

Those are side bays.

- PAK-FA avionics are far ahead with no equivalent? That you'll have to give me something to support that claim.

Firstly, the sensors are more. The F-22 has 2 main sensors, the radar and ESM. The PAK FA has 5 sensors, radar, ESM, IR, UV and optical sensors. This is not even counting the number of sensors on PAK FA, main radar, side array, rear array, wing array etc. That's only for the radar.

Then the hardware on the PAK FA is all next gen, stuff they are still designing for the F-22 and will be ready only after 2024. The PAK FA has an all digital radar, while the F-22 and F-35, both have analog radars.

- AI is something the US excels at and these are all modifications that can easily be updated in the F-22 which we know the USAF is doing as a result of the F-35's success. A lot of the Raptor's avionics are being updated as we speak. We can't assume that what rolled out of the F-22's assembly line is permanently fixed. The concept of constantly updating and upgrading software AND hardware is something the US specializes in. You can't simply discount that.

The Russians are far ahead. The Su-35 can fly on its own and fight and the PAK FA is a step up. The F-22 and F-35 can't do it.

For example, if the pilot faints, the F-22 and F-35 will crash, but the Su-35 won't. It will either complete its mission or return to base and land on its own.

I have no idea where you get these size assumptions from, my friend. First you claimed the PAK-FA will hold more fuel to give it an additional 2000km range over the raptor and now you're saying it's internal volume is a lot bigger than the Raptor's but nothing to back that up. Without actual data on numbers, let's take a look at that size differential you're talking about.

Surface area is not that much bigger, and bulk is actually greater on the Raptor. The LERX on the PAK-FA is wider but at the cost of wing area which actually holds fuel tanks, so in a sense, we can say that's an even swap. So I don't see where you're coming up with "twice the size of the F-22," brohand.

The PAK FA has a wider fuselage. It's so clear. Just look at the placement of the engines. The PAK FA can carry a massive radar between the 2 engines. Hell, there's space to fit a third engine there. Where is the space on the F-22?

It's concept art yes, but we know very well that the PCA is going to be a "tailess" design and so the concept is imaginable in these images. So to claim the PAK-FA will be competing along those lines is a huge stretch, without even taking into account the advancements the US will be instilling as far as technology which we know for a fact that the US excels in those fields and is 2nd to none out there.

The tailless design is simply a design that sacrifices on performance. From a performance PoV, it's a downgrade. It's up to the designer what they want, and going tailless is just one design spec. It doesn't define the whole aircraft.

You can take out the vertical fins and stabilizers on the PAK FA, modify the wing a bit, and it will perform similar to a tailless PCA. Both aircraft will be bad dog fighters then even if their radar return in lower bands will be lesser.

Here you go, this pretty much sums up what's going on.

A new report by Defense News states that India is extremely unhappy with Russia's supposed 5th generation fighter—better known as the T-50, or by its new production name the Su-57—that will act as the base for the sputtering FGFA cooperative fighter program between the two countries.

The news comes after years of squabbling over the program, usually characterized by credible reports of the Indian Air Force's dismay with the qualities of the Russian aircraft.

The T-50/Su-57's degree of low observability has always been in question. It is one of the most hotly debated topics on military aviation forums and I have described how the design balances some stealthy attributes against other features and weaponry, as well as cost and production capabilities. But time and time again India seems to have been doubtful that the base aircraft design could meet their FGFA requirements.

This notorious photo alone has been the subject of hot debate as to the T-50's radar signature, especially where it matters most, head on. A jet's fan face produces a massive radar signature. Modern high-performance stealthy aircraft designs use "S" shaped ducts to hide their engines from most or all line of sight aspects, with radar return scrambling baffles being built under the duct surface scrambling returns even more. Some aircraft, like the Super Hornet, use a slotted baffle that covers the fan faces of their engine, which are hidden only partially by the aircraft's duct shape. This measure reduces the aircraft's frontal radar signature, but it is less effective than an s shaped duct and may impact certain aspects of engine performance. Many other features on the T-50 also put a high level of low observability in doubt.

"Senior IAF leadership recently expressed apprehension to the Ministry of Defense, claiming the proposed FGFA program with Russia does not meet desired requirements like U.S. F-35 fighter type capabilities, disclosed a senior IAF official. That official added, that “IAF is not keen to continue with the program.”

The proposed FGFA program does not meet desired stealth and cross section features compared to a F-35 fighter, the official explained, thus major structural changes are needed that cannot be met in the existing Russian prototypes."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ate-their-stealth-fighter-program-with-russia

The link to the article gets into much more detail and I just quoted the essential parts because they describe the major stealth issues of the PAK-FA that the IAF is very concerned about and has nothing to do with affordability you mentioned or because of making room for the Rafale. These are well-known issues of the Su-57 that we need to see the Russians make something that proves them wrong, but they have yet to show anything to help that. And to claim that this aircraft is not only better than the F-22 in all the aspects you mentioned let alone compete with the US' 6th generation platform is a real stretch, my friend.

I love the Su-57 and I really hope the Russians improve on all the things that cast doubt on the extent of it's capabilities and eventual success.

There are no major stealth issues on the PAK FA. I have already explained the IAF's stand.

The IAF is criticizing the aircraft based on incomplete news. I will blow holes in the criticism with the details from your link.

The proposed FGFA program does not meet desired stealth and cross section features compared to a F-35 fighter, the official explained, thus major structural changes are needed that cannot be met in the existing Russian prototypes."

You see? They said "existing prototypes". The existing prototypes are all pretty much aerodynamic prototypes. We are yet to see the actual stealth prototypes. Right now, the PAK FA prototypes are all still evolving. The final PAK FA with Stage 2 engines and new structures is yet to come out.

Other than that, FGFA will have quite a bit of redesign. For example, IAF would rather have more stealth and endurance over speed. So there will be modifications that will reflect that. IAF has asked for 43 modifications from the original PAK FA that will suit our needs.

Another criticism:

Another major issue mentioned in the report is the aircraft's lack of a "modular engine concept." According to Indian officials this makes maintenance and serviceability highly troublesome and will make surge operations hard to accomplish as much of the work can't be done by the Indians themselves.

The standards IAF is asking for will not be met by the F-22 and F-35's engines either. The only engine that exists today that is completely modular is the Rafale's engines. But we know that the new PAK FA engine is also modular, we just don't know by how much.

Also, the article itself has misunderstood the criticism simply because they don't know IAF's requirements. Basically, IAF is saying the engine has to be maintained by the manufacturer. And by manufacturer, they are talking about HAL, not the Russians. So this statement, "work can't be done by the Indians themselves" is just stupid.

Neither F-22 nor F-35 can meet IAF's new requirement, and it's actually ridiculous because only Rafale can meet it. Even PAK FA won't meet it, J-20 won't meet it. Hell, I doubt even PCA will meet it. They basically want an aircraft along with an engine that requires no overhaul throughout its life. So once IAF takes delivery of the aircraft, the manufacturer cannot touch it ever again. That's impossible for all aircraft except Rafale.

Right now, the IAF is criticizing the FGFA using weak arguments that most people won't understand. They want the Rafale, so they are using arguments that give Rafale the advantage.

This is simply how the operate. They did the same with LCA.

Read this article. The IAF bashes the LCA because they don't want the govt to cancel the F-16/Gripen program.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/tejas-not-enough-need-foreign-single-engine-jets-4939375/

Without any refueling, the Tejas can be in air for 59 minutes, while the comparable times for Gripen and F-16 are 2 hour 49 minutes and two hour 51 minutes, respectively.

This is fake information. They have compared Tejas's combat duration without drop tanks with the ferry ranges of Gripen and F-16. Do you see how they make use of the ignorance of the bureaucrats to their advantage? In the same configuration, ie, without drop tanks, the Tejas has a basic range of 1700Km. Which means at about 750-800Kmph, the aircraft needs almost 2 hours to cover that distance. With drop tanks, the range increases to 2600Km. That's over 3 hours flight time. Very similar to what has been claimed for Gripen and F-16 by the IAF.

While the Tejas Mark-1A can carry an external load of 3 tonnes, the Gripen can carry 5.8 tonnes and F-16 6.7 tonnes.

More fake info. The Tejas Mk1A will have a payload of 5T. But they are using the payload of Tejas Mk1 which takes off from an altitude of nearly 1Km (Bangalore). Otoh, they are using the best manufacturer figures for the Gripen and F-16.

In contrast to the escort range of 300 km for Tejas Mk-1A, the Gripen has a range of 520 km and F-16 of 645 km.

Same problem. I'll list out the fuel fractions of all three aircraft.
Gripen = 0.34
LCA Mk1A = 0.29
F-16 = 0.25

Politics is a very dirty game. And the IAF is only playing politics to get what they want.

Once the Rafale MII is signed, you will see the IAF singing praises of the FGFA. They will start talking about how they desperately need the FGFA.

When the MMRCA deal was going on, the IAF were sure that they will get the Rafale in large numbers. During this time, they were talking about how they want the FGFA delivered to them ASAP. They wanted IOC to happen by 2022 at the latest. The minute MMRCA deal got canceled, they changed their colours. I don't blame them, but then you can't take IAF criticisms seriously, it's all based on agenda, not truth. What's important is what the expert committees say.

The reason why the FGFA was attacked is because they are afraid the FGFA deal will be signed before Rafale and their Rafale numbers will come down because the govt will prioritize their budget to other services. The reason is the FGFA will be so advanced that the IAF won't be able to argue for getting more Rafales later on because the argument for buying Rafales right now is the capability boost it provides to the IAF compared to the older Su-30MKI.

 

[randomradio]

@Gomig-21

It's not a real picture, but this is what it will look like.

 

[Gomig-21]

Even if the F-22 and F-35 are out now, the basic specs of the PAK FA beat both aircraft by a wide margin.

Wuuut? "The basic specs?" The engine nozzles (even with the new engines) aren't even recessed for a lesser IR signture, a huge part of the "basic" stealth aspects. The Russians are definitely not taking enough IR considerations. It looks like they've put most emphasis on frontal and lateral factors. The belly has major issues that set the F-22 and F-35 apart from it.

You can make out the curvature there.

Why did they ignore that on the PAK-FA?

Active cancellation and plasma are the ones that are in open source now.

They have to be activated for further RCS reduction compared to the base RCS.
For example, AC removes target echo from radar signals.
Plasma is introduced in areas where antennas are located so they absorb all the radar signals that enter the radome.

We're yet to see anything that suggests the Russians are using any form of plasma technology for stealth. I know they touted that from the beginning but we're yet to see anything resembling plasma being used.

The fuel fraction of the PAK FA is between 0.4 and 0.42. It is expected to have a range of 4500-5000Km thanks to new generation engines.

The Su-35 sits in between with a fuel fraction of 0.38 and a range of 3600Km.

The PAK FA with old engines should have a range of 4000Km. Obvious, isn't it, that it will beat the Su-35 in range?

No, it's not obvious, sorry. Where do you get these fuel fraction numbers from? Last I checked, these were the numbers for fuel, combat radius etc.

- F-22 fuel fraction 0.29
- PAK FA fuel fraction of 0.36

At subsonic speeds, maximum combat radius on internal fuel is 1.166 km for the F-22 and 1.700 km for PAK FA.

Without taking any drag coefficient issues for both frames, additional drop tanks or T/W disparities etc. and just simplifying things, that's a difference of 534 km in favor of the PAK-FA, not 2000 km like you previously eluded to, ma man! lol.

In terms of range, avionics complex, engine, payload etc, the F-22 is not even in the same class as the PAK FA. For example, the F-22's range is less than 3000Km even with 2 drop tanks, but PAK FA's range only on internal fuel is planned to be as much as 5000Km.

Go easy, homie.

The 2 side bays can hold 2 missiles as well.

Nothing has been shown by the Russian to indicate those are weapon's bays whatsoever.

Not to mention, the PAK FA can carry much larger and heavier weapons, including cruise missiles. The F-22 can only carry 500Kg bombs and lesser.

I'll give you PAK-FA bays are bigger and can probably carry A2G munitions, but the F-22 was designed solely as an A2A superiority fighter and despite that, they've upgraded its capability to drop the small diameter bomb so it can essentially serve in the ground attack mode. SDB is not exactly a small munition either.

Those are side bays.

Please show me anything that proves those fairings are some sort of weapons bays. There has been nothing to suggest that. So far the F-22 carries 8 missiles while the PAK-FA carries 4 with the bays we see and even if we assume those fairings are indeed weapons bays, then 6.

I'm going to reply to the rest of your post later. I definitely want to tackle the radar and avionics points you brought up and certainly the FOD intake flaps ooops, I men the blockers.

 

[randomradio]

Wuuut? "The basic specs?" The engine nozzles (even with the new engines) aren't even recessed for a lesser IR signture, a huge part of the "basic" stealth aspects. The Russians are definitely not taking enough IR considerations. It looks like they've put most emphasis on frontal and lateral factors. The belly has major issues that set the F-22 and F-35 apart from it.

It's too early to talk about IR reduction, we will probably never know, so there's no point going there. But the engine is far more advanced than the F-22's and F-35's. So all the IR reduction is focused on the engine. The exact techniques used, we will never know.

Why did they ignore that on the PAK-FA?

They didn't. Look at the image I posted.

Plus other images. The engine and inlets are not even in the same plane.

You can easily make out the curvature from this angle.

We're yet to see anything that suggests the Russians are using any form of plasma technology for stealth. I know they touted that from the beginning but we're yet to see anything resembling plasma being used.

It cannot be seen. It's inside the aircraft, particularly in the radome, the one location that we do know of.

The fact is many top officials have spoken of plasma stealth and one or two have even explained how it's used.

Take this image as an example.

The top image may be used for high speed, so the aircraft may be less stealthy here. While the image at the bottom is stealth mode.

Similarly, there are a lot of active and passive features that can further reduce stealth.

No, it's not obvious, sorry. Where do you get these fuel fraction numbers from? Last I checked, these were the numbers for fuel, combat radius etc.

- F-22 fuel fraction 0.29
- PAK FA fuel fraction of 0.36

Even Su-35 has higher fuel fraction than 0.36. So it's impossible for PAK FA to have lower fuel fraction than the Su-35.

Without taking any drag coefficient issues for both frames, additional drop tanks or T/W disparities etc. and just simplifying things, that's a difference of 534 km in favor of the PAK-FA, not 2000 km like you previously eluded to, ma man! lol.

You have assumed the PAK FA carries less fuel.

Go easy, homie.

That's where the PAK FA is.

Nothing has been shown by the Russian to indicate those are weapon's bays whatsoever.

We know for a fact that those are side bays. They serve no other purpose than to hold weapons.

I'll give you PAK-FA bays are bigger and can probably carry A2G munitions, but the F-22 was designed solely as an A2A superiority fighter and despite that, they've upgraded its capability to drop the small diameter bomb so it can essentially serve in the ground attack mode. SDB is not exactly a small munition either.

Carrying a few small bombs doesn't mean anything. The weapons options on the PAK FA is better than even the F-35.

Please show me anything that proves those fairings are some sort of weapons bays. There has been nothing to suggest that. So far the F-22 carries 8 missiles while the PAK-FA carries 4 with the bays we see and even if we assume those fairings are indeed weapons bays, then 6.

I'll give you a logical answer.

PAK FA can carry 4 large missiles that are at least 0.45m in diameter. An A2A missile is only 0.2m in dia. Which means the bays are a lot wider than the F-22's. So in place of each large missile, we can carry 2 small missiles. Hence, 8 missiles.

I'm going to reply to the rest of your post later. I definitely want to tackle the radar and avionics points you brought up and certainly the FOD intake flaps ooops, I men the blockers.

That's not the blocker.

 

[Gomig-21]

They didn't. Look at the image I posted.

Plus other images. The engine and inlets are not even in the same plane.

It doesn't get any straighter than that, I have no idea what you're looking at, Random! C'mon!

Let's compare:

Take the center of the intake and the center of the TV nozzles, it's a perfectly straight line! Not to mention the visibility of the 3/4 of the fan blades about 2-1/2 meters in.

Many have brought up the bulge of the IRST and its effect on the PAK-FA's frontal RCS. While there is great advantage to having the IRST (definitely a plus for the PAK-FA), is it giving up stealth for having that? Something to consider.

Now look at that run in the Raptor. The duct is already angled to the outside of the fuselage right at the beginning of the intake. You can clearly see that in this pic and then the center of the square nozzle is practically lined up with the edge of the canopy. This is the definition of S-ducting. Fan blades nowhere to be seen whatsoever.

I took these pics a few years ago at a local airshow. Look at the lines on this thing, the smoothness, lack of any panel riveting and in the first one of the parked jet, you can see the offset of the intake to the nozzle better than this previous photo.

What's the eventual solution for all this riveting and panel lines that are painstakingly taken care of on the Raptor?
And what about the canopy dividing rail compared to a fully glassed cockpit on the Raptor?

Not only the concern for the recessed belly I mentioned before, but what about the glaring gaps in the weapons bay panels? This is something the Russians do a lot, even in their Su's and their MiGs. Big discussion in Egyptian forums as to this gaps on our new MiG-35's, especially for the landing gear covers. It's something the Russians do for a reason since it's on almost all their aircraft but we know this doesn't help RCS much.

Intake louvers can't help either.

All legitimate concerns, my friend.

 

[randomradio]

It doesn't get any straighter than that, I have no idea what you're looking at, Random! C'mon!

It's not in the same plane.
This is an official drawing that Sukhoi patented for the PAK FA.

PAK FA does have S ducts. It just has a better intake design than other aircraft, that's why it looks different.

This is how the SH's blockers look like.

The idea is to force radar signals to bounce around inside the intakes until the energy is too small for it to be a threat.

And what about the canopy dividing rail compared to a fully glassed cockpit on the Raptor?

It has nothing to do with stealth. It's just a design choice between more visibility and better structural strength.

 

[Nanga Tarzan]

PAKFA is the best fighter jet in the world until it gets inducted by Indian Air Force; at which point it will suddenly become a steaming POS.

 

[IblinI]

All legitimate concerns, my friend.

Things are so obvious, but because it is a Russian plane, so it is alright,legit even somehow on purpose,
but if it is a Chinese design, I don't have to say more.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Those are blockers. The engines are way, way behind, it's not in the same position as where the blockers are located.

And then, the Russians have other aircraft too that have S ducts, like the Su-47.

You can make out the curvature there.



This is not a running race with the same track and same rules. It's a rat race where the competitors can do anything they can to get the advantage.

Even if the F-22 and F-35 are out now, the basic specs of the PAK FA beat both aircraft by a wide margin.



Active cancellation and plasma are the ones that are in open source now.

They have to be activated for further RCS reduction compared to the base RCS.
For example, AC removes target echo from radar signals.
Plasma is introduced in areas where antennas are located so they absorb all the radar signals that enter the radome.



The fuel fraction of the F-22 is 0.3. It has a range of about 2300Km on internal fuel.

The fuel fraction of the PAK FA is between 0.4 and 0.42. It is expected to have a range of 4500-5000Km thanks to new generation engines.

The Su-35 sits in between with a fuel fraction of 0.38 and a range of 3600Km.

The PAK FA with old engines should have a range of 4000Km. Obvious, isn't it, that it will beat the Su-35 in range?



The PAK FA has 4 bays. The 2 main bays are 1.2m wide and can hold 4 missiles each. The 2 side bays can hold 2 missiles as well. The F-22's main bays are 0.9m wide and can hold 3 missiles each.

Not to mention, the PAK FA can carry much larger and heavier weapons, including cruise missiles. The F-22 can only carry 500Kg bombs and lesser.

Those are side bays.



Firstly, the sensors are more. The F-22 has 2 main sensors, the radar and ESM. The PAK FA has 5 sensors, radar, ESM, IR, UV and optical sensors. This is not even counting the number of sensors on PAK FA, main radar, side array, rear array, wing array etc. That's only for the radar.

Then the hardware on the PAK FA is all next gen, stuff they are still designing for the F-22 and will be ready only after 2024. The PAK FA has an all digital radar, while the F-22 and F-35, both have analog radars.



The Russians are far ahead. The Su-35 can fly on its own and fight and the PAK FA is a step up. The F-22 and F-35 can't do it.

For example, if the pilot faints, the F-22 and F-35 will crash, but the Su-35 won't. It will either complete its mission or return to base and land on its own.



The PAK FA has a wider fuselage. It's so clear. Just look at the placement of the engines. The PAK FA can carry a massive radar between the 2 engines. Hell, there's space to fit a third engine there. Where is the space on the F-22?



The tailless design is simply a design that sacrifices on performance. From a performance PoV, it's a downgrade. It's up to the designer what they want, and going tailless is just one design spec. It doesn't define the whole aircraft.

You can take out the vertical fins and stabilizers on the PAK FA, modify the wing a bit, and it will perform similar to a tailless PCA. Both aircraft will be bad dog fighters then even if their radar return in lower bands will be lesser.



There are no major stealth issues on the PAK FA. I have already explained the IAF's stand.

The IAF is criticizing the aircraft based on incomplete news. I will blow holes in the criticism with the details from your link.


You see? They said "existing prototypes". The existing prototypes are all pretty much aerodynamic prototypes. We are yet to see the actual stealth prototypes. Right now, the PAK FA prototypes are all still evolving. The final PAK FA with Stage 2 engines and new structures is yet to come out.

Other than that, FGFA will have quite a bit of redesign. For example, IAF would rather have more stealth and endurance over speed. So there will be modifications that will reflect that. IAF has asked for 43 modifications from the original PAK FA that will suit our needs.

Another criticism:


The standards IAF is asking for will not be met by the F-22 and F-35's engines either. The only engine that exists today that is completely modular is the Rafale's engines. But we know that the new PAK FA engine is also modular, we just don't know by how much.

Also, the article itself has misunderstood the criticism simply because they don't know IAF's requirements. Basically, IAF is saying the engine has to be maintained by the manufacturer. And by manufacturer, they are talking about HAL, not the Russians. So this statement, "work can't be done by the Indians themselves" is just stupid.

Neither F-22 nor F-35 can meet IAF's new requirement, and it's actually ridiculous because only Rafale can meet it. Even PAK FA won't meet it, J-20 won't meet it. Hell, I doubt even PCA will meet it. They basically want an aircraft along with an engine that requires no overhaul throughout its life. So once IAF takes delivery of the aircraft, the manufacturer cannot touch it ever again. That's impossible for all aircraft except Rafale.

Right now, the IAF is criticizing the FGFA using weak arguments that most people won't understand. They want the Rafale, so they are using arguments that give Rafale the advantage.

This is simply how the operate. They did the same with LCA.

Read this article. The IAF bashes the LCA because they don't want the govt to cancel the F-16/Gripen program.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/tejas-not-enough-need-foreign-single-engine-jets-4939375/


This is fake information. They have compared Tejas's combat duration without drop tanks with the ferry ranges of Gripen and F-16. Do you see how they make use of the ignorance of the bureaucrats to their advantage? In the same configuration, ie, without drop tanks, the Tejas has a basic range of 1700Km. Which means at about 750-800Kmph, the aircraft needs almost 2 hours to cover that distance. With drop tanks, the range increases to 2600Km. That's over 3 hours flight time. Very similar to what has been claimed for Gripen and F-16 by the IAF.



More fake info. The Tejas Mk1A will have a payload of 5T. But they are using the payload of Tejas Mk1 which takes off from an altitude of nearly 1Km (Bangalore). Otoh, they are using the best manufacturer figures for the Gripen and F-16.



Same problem. I'll list out the fuel fractions of all three aircraft.
Gripen = 0.34
LCA Mk1A = 0.29
F-16 = 0.25

Politics is a very dirty game. And the IAF is only playing politics to get what they want.

Once the Rafale MII is signed, you will see the IAF singing praises of the FGFA. They will start talking about how they desperately need the FGFA.

When the MMRCA deal was going on, the IAF were sure that they will get the Rafale in large numbers. During this time, they were talking about how they want the FGFA delivered to them ASAP. They wanted IOC to happen by 2022 at the latest. The minute MMRCA deal got canceled, they changed their colours. I don't blame them, but then you can't take IAF criticisms seriously, it's all based on agenda, not truth. What's important is what the expert committees say.

The reason why the FGFA was attacked is because they are afraid the FGFA deal will be signed before Rafale and their Rafale numbers will come down because the govt will prioritize their budget to other services. The reason is the FGFA will be so advanced that the IAF won't be able to argue for getting more Rafales later on because the argument for buying Rafales right now is the capability boost it provides to the IAF compared to the older Su-30MKI.

@randomradio Su-57 is a worst 5th gen design and you comparing it to upcoming 6th gen jets, get out of your fairy-tails and fantasy world Mr @randomradio

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio Su-57 is a worst 5th gen design and you comparing it to upcoming 6th gen jets, get out of your fairy-tails and fantasy world Mr @randomradio

The Russian version is already defined as a 5.5th gen aircraft right now.

As for FGFA:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...o-sukhoi-t-50-russia/articleshow/57185821.cms
Russia has said that the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) program that is being planned with India would be a 'completely new aircraft' and is not linked to Moscow's own new generation fighter, the Sukhoi T 50.

"The Indian FGFA is not a copy cat of the T 50, it will be a new aircraft that will also have some technologies from the T 50. If India had wanted the T 50, we would not be working on a new aircraft (FGFA) program," Kladov said.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The Russian version is already defined as a 5.5th gen aircraft right now.

As for FGFA:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...o-sukhoi-t-50-russia/articleshow/57185821.cms
Russia has said that the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) program that is being planned with India would be a 'completely new aircraft' and is not linked to Moscow's own new generation fighter, the Sukhoi T 50.

"The Indian FGFA is not a copy cat of the T 50, it will be a new aircraft that will also have some technologies from the T 50. If India had wanted the T 50, we would not be working on a new aircraft (FGFA) program," Kladov said.

its currently a paper project and based on T-50 ( initial phase of development) first flight of FGFA will be in 2023- 2025 time-frame and then USA will start flight testing 6th gen jets and by the way where do you hear that RAFALE with full load have a capability to totally hide all electromagnetic sensors of the world please tell me @randomradio you're just bashing about RAFALE and that your source from random newspaper link give me respected sites links like JANES, flight global and aviation weekly etc etc who saying that FGFA will not version of T-50 and totally new design give me respected source @randomradio

PAKFA is the best fighter jet in the world until it gets inducted by Indian Air Force; at which point it will suddenly become a steaming POS.

worst stealth (low observable) design among all 5th gen jets, its basically a flatten flanker with partial head on stealth on the rear just forget it

 

[randomradio]

its currently a paper project and based on T-50 ( initial phase of development) first flight of FGFA will be in 2023- 2025 time-frame and then USA will start flight testing 6th gen jets and by the way where do you hear that RAFALE with full load have a capability to totally hide all electromagnetic sensors of the world please tell me @randomradio you're just bashing about RAFALE and that your source from random newspaper link give me respected sites links like JANES, flight global and aviation weekly etc etc who saying that FGFA will not version of T-50 and totally new design give me respected source @randomradio

Kya Kichidi hai. At least break your post into sentences. You are simply alternating between Rafale and FGFA and PAK FA in the same sentence.

Firstly, Rafale's RCS information came from Dassault's VP.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-rafale-hidden-beauties-and-its-future.422896/page-5#post-8339176
Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow, the same as the F-22.

How Spectra works:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-rafale-hidden-beauties-and-its-future.422896/#post-8172035

Just read that thread. Picdel was Number 4 at Dassault and has headed a number of strategic programs, including nuclear programs. So he knows what he's talking about.

Read the thread and then come back to read this statement: Our IAF Chief said the FGFA will be a generation ahead compared to Rafale.

As for that FGFA comment, it came from one of the highest sources possible for Russian military technology.
Viktor N Kladov, Director, International Cooperation, Rostec

http://rostec.ru/en/

Rostec is like the big daddy of Russian military industry. The only people higher than Rostec would be Putin. If you want to buy Russian arms, you have to talk to Rostec.

Jane's, Aviation Weekly etc are not sources. Kladov is the source, the others simply print what the source says.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Kya Kichidi hai. At least break your post into sentences. You are simply alternating between Rafale and FGFA and PAK FA in the same sentence.

Firstly, Rafale's RCS information came from Dassault's VP.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-rafale-hidden-beauties-and-its-future.422896/page-5#post-8339176
Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow, the same as the F-22.

How Spectra works:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-rafale-hidden-beauties-and-its-future.422896/#post-8172035

Just read that thread. Picdel was Number 4 at Dassault and has headed a number of strategic programs, including nuclear programs. So he knows what he's talking about.

Read the thread and then come back to read this statement: Our IAF Chief said the FGFA will be a generation ahead compared to Rafale.

As for that FGFA comment, it came from one of the highest sources possible for Russian military technology.
Viktor N Kladov, Director, International Cooperation, Rostec

http://rostec.ru/en/

Rostec is like the big daddy of Russian military industry. The only people higher than Rostec would be Putin. If you want to buy Russian arms, you have to talk to Rostec.

Jane's, Aviation Weekly etc are not sources. Kladov is the source, the others simply print what the source says.

In what world do you live in Mr stupid @randomradio with a full weapon load RAFALE has a RCS of a sparrow RAFALE doesn't have a weapon bays and you called it a frontal RCS of a sparrow as for your information F-22 has a RCS metal marble plate and F-35 RCS with Air to air ( stealth) RCS of a basketball then how can you assume that with a full external weapon loads RAFALE has a frontal RCS of a sparrow ( better than broadband stealth jets like F-22 and F-35 with internal weapon carriage) and defiantly FGFA generation a head to RAFALE but i am asking you to give me a link that it could not based on T-50/Su-57, oh wait i forget when its comes in the hand of IAF FGFA will become 10000000000000 gen jet let alone 5.5 gen jet and do research before you post @randomradio its a sincere advice Mr stupid @randomradio