What's new

Patent analysis shows how PAK-FA differs from F-22 in air combat philosophy

Dem!god

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
4,547
Reaction score
-32
Country
India
Location
India
fgfa_468.png



The PAK-FA patent document published by Russia’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property shows the fifth generation stealth aircraft’s design is heavily influenced by low radar visibility requirements. At the same time, the Russians are prepared to sacrifice some stealth in their quest for super maneuverability and excellent flight characteristics.

The aim of the invention, say the patent papers, is to provide an aircraft having low radar visibility, super maneuverability at high angles of attack (close to an astounding 90 degrees), and simultaneously preserving high aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic speeds.

Creating an aircraft that is capable of performing tasks in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds and also has a low radar signature is a technical challenge, the Russians admit. “All these requirements are contradictory, and the creation of an airplane that meets these requirements represents a compromise.”


India’s share in FGFA likely to grow


On the radar screens

The papers claim that the intention of the designers is to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of the aircraft to an “average figure of 0.1-1 square metre”. At this range the aircraft appears like a bird on enemy radar and becomes difficult – though not impossible – to spot.

The Sukhoi compares well with the American F-22 stealth fighter which aviation experts believe has an RCS of 0.1 square metre. (The actual figure is classified) Fourth generation fighters such as the Sukhoi-27/30 and F-15E have an RCS in the range of 10-15 square metres.

Reducing the radar visibility of the aircraft is achieved through a combination of design and technology, in particular by shaping the contours of the airframe.

According to Piotr Butowski of Jane’s International Defence Review, “Some openings and slots on the airframe’s surface – such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit – are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.

“The surfaces of the PAK-FA’s own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to ‘deflect’ enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing ‘curtains’ to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.”

The PAK-FA’s two engines are placed wide apart in isolated pods, creating space for a large cargo compartment in between. The air intakes are located further apart in respect to the vertical and horizontal planes than the engines, creating a curvature that hides the compressor and reduces the radar signature of the aircraft from the front.

The engines are also placed at an acute angle relative to the vertical plane, allowing thrust vectoring – an area in which Sukhoi excels – in the longitudinal, transverse and travel channels. The engine nozzles point outwards, which transfers a significant portion of the control of the aircraft to them even at low altitudes. This considerably improves flight safety.

The movable airfoil above and in front of the engine air inlets is a unique feature of the PAK-FA, and is typical of Russian ingenuity in airframe design. The airfoils can rotate downwards around their rear edge. Similar to wing slats, they assist control when the aircraft is at high angles of attack. The air intakes are located on each side of the fuselage and they are bevelled in two planes in order to maintain flow even at high angles of attack.

PAK-FA weaknesses

The paper also lists some of the disadvantages of the aircraft:

  • The inability to control roll and yaw channels when flying at low speeds because the engines are located close to each other.
  • The curved shape of the air intake duct requires an increase in their length, and therefore, the mass of the airplane.
  • The inability to ensure the “vanishing” of the aircraft during supercritical angles of attack.
  • The use of fixed keels with rudders requires increasing the required area of the vertical stabiliser to provide directional stability at supersonic flight conditions, which leads to an increase in weight tail, and hence, the aircraft in general, and to an increase in drag.
Why balance is the key

Comparing the PAK-FA with the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II is a difficult task because most of the specs of these cutting edge aircraft are highly classified. Still, going by available data, the Russian aircraft doesn’t look as stealthy as the $420 million F-22.

The F-22’s stealth advantage doesn’t seem to worry the Russians. For, the PAK-FA embraces an entirely different combat philosophy where super maneuverability is considered a vital weapon. In contrast, the Americans have thrown all their eggs into the stealth basket, relying on near invisibility to strike at targets. The idea is to have “first look/first shot/first kill” air dominance capability. The aim – in reality hope – is to see the enemy first while avoiding detection.

However, hope is a poor substitute for preparation. The Russian view is that it never hurts to have dogfighting abilities. At some point stealth aircraft will have to close in for the kill and that’s when a knife fight is inevitable. That’s also when super maneuverability comes into play. Slow, ponderous and poorly armed stealth aircraft such as the F-35 are likely to be clubbed to death in a fight with the PAK-FA.

Related:
165_FGFA.jpg


Fifth PAK FA fighter aircraft made its first flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur

Indo-Russian military aviation projects on schedule: HAL executive

Russia developing unmanned next-generation fighter - general

Plus, new radars are on their way which can detect stealth aircraft. At any rate stealth is not really an invisibility cloak as the American manufacturers and war planners are pitching it. The 1999 downing of the American F-117 stealth fighter by a highly motivated and well-trained Serbian anti-aircraft battery was a huge slap in the face of the American stealth industry.

The Serbians used a 1960s vintage – yet highly advanced – Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora surface to air missile conjointly with a P18 metre band radar. They were able to bring down the F-117 within 18 seconds of detection – a stark example of the vulnerability of stealth aircraft.

It will take the wars of the future to deliver the verdict on which philosophy is better – total stealth or the Russian insistence on super maneuverability. In the meantime, Russian and Indian Air Force pilots can’t wait to get their hands on what promises to be a fighter pilot’s dream.

They’ll have to wait a bit longer: according to the Russian National Armament Programme, 60 PAK-FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.

Patent analysis shows how PAK-FA differs from F-22 in air combat philosophy | Russia & India Report
 
The stealth vs Supermanuevourability compromise is a very old question. Hope the PAK FA is inducted within a few years . Would love to see , radar vs radar detection vs evasion and if it comes to that ---the dogfight in a wargames versus these two birds.
 
Not to forget that Indian version i.e FGFA will be highly modified (some 45 improvements including more stealthier than Pak-Fa).
Anyway 0.1 rcs figure is average for whole aircraft and not frontal rcs(which should be much less).
@sancho @Abingdonboy @Capt.Popeye @janon thoughts pls.
 
Slow, ponderous and poorly armed stealth aircraft such as the F-35 are likely to be clubbed to death in a fight with the PAK-FA.

What applies to F-35 here also applies to J-31.
 
Such honestly, Much objectivity.. No Bias.

Very Bull.

Skewed to an extent where it is quite laughable.
So this article is bullshit?
I havent read it yet....
 
So this article is bullshit?
I havent read it yet....
Yup, because it is so obviously skewed to represent the PAK-FA as some unbelievable revolution in air combat philosophy and aircraft design that it falls flat on its face.

The whole argument that the article makes is to somehow downplay the importance of stealth and first shot /first kill in Air combat to show the PAK-FA a superior aircraft to the F-22. The rest of the article on the PAK-FA itself is all good.. but like a train.. it starts out fine and then derails itself.
 
Modern day Radars are made to detect low RCS aircrafts . in sync with radars, sam battery operators can be taken out of any stealth aircrafts out of the the sky , If serbians can bring down a stealth aircrafts with modified Vintage technology , other countries with better and newer radars will post a formidable challenge to any stealth aircraft .

Training of radar operator also is crucial here , country which possess such radars and low rcs aircrafts will actually benefit operator experience for early detections .

Biggest enemy of any fighter jet is still SAM batteries where technology has improved a lot in recent decades , PAk-fa sticking with supermaneuverability over pure stealth is actually good to evade first kill probability . .
 
In the era of BVR missiles,Dogfights and super maneuverability are becoming outdated concepts.
 
Modern day Radars are made to detect low RCS aircrafts . in sync with radars, sam battery operators can be taken out of any stealth aircrafts out of the the sky , If serbians can bring down a stealth aircrafts with modified Vintage technology , other countries with better and newer radars will post a formidable challenge to any stealth aircraft .
Debunked many times here already. If whatever the Serbs did worked so well against the F-117, it should work a hundred times better against 'non-stealth' fighters, no? Then why, out of over 30 THOUSANDS sorties NATO flew, only one F-16 and one F-117 was lost?
 
Modern day Radars are made to detect low RCS aircrafts . in sync with radars, sam battery operators can be taken out of any stealth aircrafts out of the the sky , If serbians can bring down a stealth aircrafts with modified Vintage technology , other countries with better and newer radars will post a formidable challenge to any stealth aircraft .

Training of radar operator also is crucial here , country which possess such radars and low rcs aircrafts will actually benefit operator experience for early detections .

Biggest enemy of any fighter jet is still SAM batteries where technology has improved a lot in recent decades , PAk-fa sticking with supermaneuverability over pure stealth is actually good to evade first kill probability . .

I wouldn't place much importance on the Serbian incident. They brought down a grand total of one aircraft, out of hundreds of sorties (if not more). That sort of "success" rate will mean utter destruction.

Actually, the biggest enemy of a fighter jet is another fighter jet. SAMs are fixed on the ground. (Mobile SAMs exist as well, but they move only as fast as the vehicles they are mounted on.) On the other hand, opposing fighter jets move at the speed of sound or more, and can approach your fighters and shoot them down. If you know the location of the enemy's SAM systems, you can choose a flight path to evade it. Even if they have hidden SAMs that come as a surprise to you, once they announce their presence (through their radar emissions) you can send a volley of HARM missiles at it. The SAMs can't fly away. But enemy fighters can approach your fighters, and they can evade your fighters.

@gambit @Oscar

 
I wouldn't place much importance on the Serbian incident. They brought down a grand total of one aircraft, out of hundreds of sorties (if not more). That sort of "success" rate will mean utter destruction.

NATO flew over thirty thousands sorties and lost only one F-16 and one F-117. That is not an air defense combat record to boast about at the bar.

Actually, the biggest enemy of a fighter jet is another fighter jet. SAMs are fixed on the ground. (Mobile SAMs exist as well, but they move only as fast as the vehicles they are mounted on.) On the other hand, opposing fighter jets move at the speed of sound or more, and can approach your fighters and shoot them down. If you know the location of the enemy's SAM systems, you can choose a flight path to evade it. Even if they have hidden SAMs that come as a surprise to you, once they announce their presence (through their radar emissions) you can send a volley of HARM missiles at it. The SAMs can't fly away. But enemy fighters can approach your fighters, and they can evade your fighters.
You are correct. When the missile came, many believed it would mean aircrafts would be relegated to peaceful duties...

We know how that turned out.
 
Debunked many times here already. If whatever the Serbs did worked so well against the F-117, it should work a hundred times better against 'non-stealth' fighters, no? Then why, out of over 30 THOUSANDS sorties NATO flew, only one F-16 and one F-117 was lost?

Nobody knows how many sam batteries they possessed that that time and after first wave of sorties carried out by Nato , No body knows how many actually survived , if it was fluke then why Americans retired them soon ?

I wouldn't place much importance on the Serbian incident. They brought down a grand total of one aircraft, out of hundreds of sorties (if not more). That sort of "success" rate will mean utter destruction.

Actually, the biggest enemy of a fighter jet is another fighter jet. SAMs are fixed on the ground. (Mobile SAMs exist as well, but they move only as fast as the vehicles they are mounted on.) On the other hand, opposing fighter jets move at the speed of sound or more, and can approach your fighters and shoot them down. If you know the location of the enemy's SAM systems, you can choose a flight path to evade it. Even if they have hidden SAMs that come as a surprise to you, once they announce their presence (through their radar emissions) you can send a volley of HARM missiles at it. The SAMs can't fly away. But enemy fighters can approach your fighters, and they can evade your fighters.

@gambit @Oscar

You are totally discounting Portable SAM systems , if you check any war, aircrafts lost in Ground fire ( SAM , AAA Guns ) are almost equal to aircrafts lost to other jets , Stealthy F-117 in First Gulf war made USAF Invisible due to lack of technology to Detect Stealth in 80's but Radar technology has changed over the years and detection and counter anti stealth technology are in place today .
 
Last edited:
Nobody knows how many sam batteries they possessed that that time and after first wave of sorties carried out by Nato , No body knows how many actually survived , if it was fluke then why Americans retired them soon ?
Doesnt matter...... The nighthawk was retired because it too had certain disadvantages and something better came.
 
In the era of BVR missiles,Dogfights and super maneuverability are becoming outdated concepts.

In Vietnam war F-8 Crusader jet was called has "last gunfighter" Some experts at that time believed that the era of the dogfight was over as air-to-air missiles would knock down adversaries well before they could get close enough to engage in dogfighting. But they were proved wrong and even now fighters carry cannons .
 
Back
Top Bottom