Sukhoi PAK-FA - Russia's Strategic ‘Game Changer’

[qsaark]

Wing Commander Chris Mills AM, RAAF (Retd), BSc, MSc(AFIT)

When a nation accustomed to decades of projecting power loses control of large tracts of airspace, that is a strategic disaster. If that nation loses control of the airspace over its homeland, that is a strategic catastrophe.

America has enjoyed air superiority over airspace in locations of its choice for about 40 years. The F-22A ‘Air Dominance’ Raptor and the clear intent to establish the next level, air dominance, was an aircraft thirty years ahead of its time. Its concept design is now twenty years old, and the aircraft should be in full stride and in its prime. The Sukhoi PAK-FA is the new, younger, tougher kid on the block, and is likely to become the nemesis of the F-22A, but still prey to a more advanced F-22C.

Some will say, “if we are defeated in the air, the Navy will protect us”. “With what?”, is the response; “legacy aircraft like the F/A-18s, or the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E, so that its manifold deficiencies must be papered over by marketing spin like: ‘manoeuvre is irrelevant – let the missiles do the turning’?”. So when these aircraft are shot down by the PAK-FA escorting a swarm of Su-35S Flankers delivering carrier-killing supersonic missiles, the USN fleet is a sunk cause.

“Oh, well, the Army will protect us,” is the next response. Pity the poor Army. No US ground forces in recent times have ever operated without overhead air superiority, and as professionals, they know the dire consequences if the enemy controls the air. As an example, an Su-30/35 can carry three KAB-1500 bombs with a thermobaric fill. Detonate these in airburst above a dug-in Battalion, and nobody emerges alive or without serious, debilitating injury. One aircraft, three bombs, one Battalion.

“Well, we all know that Russian aircraft are rubbish, and won’t work in a real war” is the next piece of hubris. America, you have been here before. Here is what Robert Coram wrote in his biography of John Boyd, whose ‘energy-manoeuvre’ analysis became the genesis of the hugely successful air combat aircraft of the latter part of the 20th century, the F-16 and the F-15 – which has over 100 kills and no losses in air combat (‘Boyd’, Page 211):

’If there was a turning point, a time when even the most jingoistic Air Force General at last understood that Communist forces could build fighter aircraft superior to anything that America put in the air, it was Vietnam in 1967, the worst year of the war for the Air Force. It finally sank in that, as Boyd had said for years, the air force had no true air-to-air fighter. It is said that combat is the ultimate and unkindest judge of fighter aircraft. That was certainly true in Vietnam. The long-boasted-about ten-to-one exchange ratio from Korea sank close to parity in North Vietnam; at one time it even favored the North Vietnamese. When the war finally ended, one Air Force pilot would be an ace. North Vietnam would have sixteen.’

And so it goes. Yet today, the Gates OSD has killed the only program that has a chance of developing a capability to engage and defeat the PAK-FA – the F-22 Raptor, designed from the outset as an ‘air dominance fighter’. To make matters worse, the Gates OSD has delivered a ‘double-dog-in-the-manger’ to its allies by not producing enough F-22A aircraft to protect its own airspace of interest, let alone airspace of its threatened allies, AND by denying its allies access to the F-22A through a Foreign Military Sales export program.

Killing the Raptor program is transparently a marketing ploy designed to ensure that the F-35 JSF will be bought simply because it becomes a forced monopoly in the production and sale of US air combat aircraft.

The entry of the PAK-FA could see this backfire big-time on US industry. Nations like Japan and Israel could well take the attitude: “OK USA, we are under imminent threat, you cannot protect us with a meagre 187 F-22As, the F-35 is not up to the task, you won’t sell us the F-22A, so we will see what Sukhoi has to offer. And we will save money as the way things are going with the JSF Program, the PAK-FA will likely cost less than half the price of an F-35 and be fully operational that much sooner.”

Sukhoi has negotiated co-production of the PAK-FA with India, and further co-production deals could the centre of gravity of production of top-tier air combat aircraft to East Asia. Israel would no doubt be delighted to participate; its excellent avionics industry already provides equipment used in several types of Sukhoi combat aircraft. Operating the PAK-AF would give it access to Regional airspace where no F-35 would be able to enter and survive.

The US would be left with the scraps, producing ineffective combat aircraft that could only be sold by forcing purchases onto the wary and resentful US Armed Services, who would know that they are now ‘second tier’ and likely to be slaughtered en-masse in a shooting war.

This outcome would overturn President Obama’s 28 January 2010 statement that “I do not accept second-place for the United States of America” when it comes to any contest with Russia, India or China.

President Obama, ask your Intelligence Services for a ‘warts and all’ assessment of the air combat capabilities of the F-22A and the F-35 JSF, and those of the Su-35S and the PAK-FA, and be prepared to change the course of the Nation to ensure you are developing air dominating air power1.

The new Air Power Australia Analyses technical analysis paper ‘Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA’, produced by Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon, both of whom are experienced design engineers with complementary skills in other areas, while necessarily preliminary because of the recency of the maiden flight of the PAK-FA, clearly reveals this aircraft will become a giant, standing on the giant shoulders of the F-22A and the YF-232.

Sukhoi and the Russian MoD have maintained a clear understanding of the strategic value of control-of-the-air, and through a cost-effective and risk mitigating merge of evolutionary and revolutionary capability development, have drawn from their own knowledge, and knowledge borrowed from the USA, to produce what could, if left unchecked, become the world’s deadliest air combat fighter. There should be no sentimentality about these aircraft, they are killing machines in a world where it is ‘kill or be killed,’ and technical systems superiority puts pilots and nations well along the path to victory.

For the F-22A to defeat the mature versions of the PAK-FA requires that the existing production line remain open to provide interim protection for the US, and export aircraft for its allies, and to provide the industrial base to develop the F-22C Raptor II, with advanced capabilities such as an expanded kinematic operating envelope, more range, improved sensors and missile countermeasures, and a range of new air-to-air weapons that will be effective in finding and killing the PAK-FA3.

These capabilities could be added to the F-22 design in minimal time and at modest cost. The Raptor needs IRST sensors, more advanced control surfaces and control authority to provide extreme agility, advanced countermeasures including apertures for electronic jamming and towed decoys, 3D thrust vectoring and a variable-cycle engine to improve thrust and fuel efficiency at all altitudes. Using the Russian ‘evolutionary development’ model rather than the now favoured US rent-seeking ‘start from scratch development’ model, these enhancements would be added to a proven and effective aircraft at a fraction of the cost of development of the failed F-35 JSF, or the development of an entirely new aircraft. The US has sufficient lead in this area to stay ahead of the PAK-FA for the foreseeable future if it acts decisively, and acts now.

And how to fund the F-22C? Well, the answer has been staring everybody in the face for ages: kill the deeply troubled F-35A program and transfer the funds and recoverable technology to future F-22A and F-22C production – the economies of scale will result in a lower unit cost, saving around US$50 to US$70 million per aircraft.

The USMC F-35B? Well maybe, but the Marines should be asked again whether they really want to be in an F-35B with Su-35S and PAK-FA’s in the airspace. Perhaps they would feel safer and more effective in an F-22A or F-22C fleet, as proposed last year by APA4.

And the USN F-35C? No way – the PAK-FA (and, likely, the Su-35S) will be carrier based and to counter this, the USN needs a navalised F-22N developed in parallel with the F-22C to keep those supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles away from vulnerable surface fleet hulls5.

To conclude on a lighter note, NATO should assess the PAK-FA as a new type of air combat aircraft. We can speculate on what ‘F’ word they will choose, but ‘Fighter’ seems appropriate, for the time being.

Source: Sukhoi PAK-FA - Russia's Strategic ?Game Changer?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Beautiful plane

 

[1000VA]

Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
From ausairpower

 

[applesauce]

"the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E,"

^^ stopped reading at that point, clearly this author doesn't know anything

 

[Saint N sinnerr]

"the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E,"

^^ stopped reading at that point, clearly this author doesn't know anything

Yes my man ,
and you know a hell lot than a retd. Wing Commander. if U have some knowledge of fighters thats good , but hes a wing comm. for christ sake bro.

**A little knowledge is a Dangerous thing**
good luck and hapy chinese new year mate , I think U are still recuperating from all those drinks U had ,

 

[gambit]

"the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E,"

^^ stopped reading at that point, clearly this author doesn't know anything

Yes my man ,
and you know a hell lot than a retd. Wing Commander. if U have some knowledge of fighters thats good , but hes a wing comm. for christ sake bro.

**A little knowledge is a Dangerous thing**
good luck and hapy chinese new year mate , I think U are still recuperating from all those drinks U had ,

Fine...How about directly from the test pilot himself...???

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics: AINonline

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

Beesley can speak from some experience in the debate. He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

For the F-22A to defeat the mature versions of the PAK-FA requires that the existing production line remain open to provide interim protection for the US, and export aircraft for its allies, and to provide the industrial base to develop the F-22C Raptor II, with advanced capabilities such as an expanded kinematic operating envelope, more range, improved sensors and missile countermeasures, and a range of new air-to-air weapons that will be effective in finding and killing the PAK-FA3.

It is revealing of the author's bias when he is criticizing the F-22's less than requested production but said nothing about the PAK-FA's future regarding production. He is jumping to conclusion that Russia and India will wield the PAK-FA when Russia cannot even refurbish an aircraft carrier that India paid for. This article should not be taken seriously when this new aircraft has only one flight barely one hour long.

 

[gambit]

Rachel Maddow's piece was idiotic and filled with false information. I debunked that crap a long time ago.

 

[qsaark]

"the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E,"

^^ stopped reading at that point, clearly this author doesn't know anything

Stop reading at that point was perhaps not the good idea. If I am reading correctly, the author is trying to say that in maneuverability, the F35B/C is worst than the Phantom not in every aspect. Please re-read the whole passage:

Some will say, “if we are defeated in the air, the Navy will protect us”. “With what?”, is the response; “legacy aircraft like the F/A-18s, or the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E, so that its manifold deficiencies must be papered over by marketing spin like: ‘manoeuvre is irrelevant – let the missiles do the turning’?”.

 

[gambit]

Stop reading at that point was perhaps not the good idea. If I am reading correctly, the author is trying to say that in maneuverability, the F35B/C is worst than the Phantom not in every aspect. Please re-read the whole passage:

Some will say, “if we are defeated in the air, the Navy will protect us”. “With what?”, is the response; “legacy aircraft like the F/A-18s, or the F-35B/C, with performance worse than the pre-legacy F-4E, so that its manifold deficiencies must be papered over by marketing spin like: ‘manoeuvre is irrelevant – let the missiles do the turning’?”.

The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy

Spey has undertaken a similar analysis of the F-22A Raptor for CDI, but aircraft pilots have said that his analysis in key areas like maneuverability is poorly done, and does not match provable reality. Spey’s wing-loading model claimed superiority for the F-15, when the F-22 has significantly better instantaeous and sustained turning capabilities (28 degrees sustained, vs. 21/15-16 degrees per second instantaneous/ sustained). This justifies strong caution in accepting Spey’s F-35 analysis, and Lockheed Martin’s reply offers additional reasons for doubt. In fairness to Spey, it should also be said that combat experience with his A-10 aircraft in Afghanistan etc. does back up his contentions concerning the limitations of fast jets, and the capabilities required for close air support.

RAND disavowed their opinion on the F-35 when it came out that the Australians misused their report.

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft”

To reiterate: RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It is about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions. RAND’s Project Air Force argues, persuasively, that based on history and current trends, numbers still matter – and so does the “Lanchester square.” That’s the theory under which the combat performance of an outnumbered combatant must be the square of the outnumbering ratio (outnumbered 3:1 must be 9x better, etc.) just to stay even.

Right...So what RAND basically said was that no matter how good is the fighter, under adverse battlefield condition, it can be overwhelmed by sheer number and handicapped by poor logistics.

 

[qsaark]

Got that, poseur?

You got suckered.

This was the reply to my post? Keep exposing how pathetic and despicable you are. You are trying to make me angry so I also use the same ghetto language, but I wont. There is a huge difference between me and you. I am a patriot, and you? who aligned yourself with the foreign occupation forces and killed your own people. At the age of sixty plus, this lewd language you use? sufficient to show in which kind of cheap gentry you move. I have reported this profane language of yours and thats maximum an educated and civilized member can or should do.

 

[gambit]

You are trying to make me angry so I also use the same ghetto language, but I wont.

But you did before you edited your juvenile response.

There is a huge difference between me and you.

Yes...The difference is I was civil to you. To this day you still refuse to explain what motivated you to call me a 'traitor'. Based upon whose opinion? Who are you?

I am a patriot,...

You are a nobody. Probably some snotty nose university kid still trying to place himself in this world.

At the age of sixty plus, this lewd language you use?

Lewd language? Do you even know the meaning of 'lewd'? Look it up young man. And I am not sixty yrs old. Not even close. I did warned you to stay out of certain areas, did I not?

 

[qsaark]

But you did before you edited your juvenile response.

But unlike you, I could overcome my anger.

Yes...The difference is I was civil to you. To this day you still refuse to explain what motivated you to call me a 'traitor'. Based upon whose opinion? Who are you?

Based on the norms of the society, any society. A person who helps the foreign occupation forces in killing his own people is called a 'traitor'. If you are so proud of what you did (joining occupation forces and killing your countrymen in return of US citizenship), than the word 'traitor' should not bother you.

You are a nobody. Probably some snotty nose university kid still trying to place himself in this world.

Thank God I am 'nobody'. Because if 'somebody' is like you, I would rather prefer to remain 'nobody'.

Lewd language? Do you even know the meaning of 'lewd'? Look it up young man. And I am not sixty yrs old. Not even close. I did warned you to stay out of certain areas, did I not?

The language you use is considered lewd language. And it does not matter how old you are, close or far ... what matter is your language, your arrogance, and your complex. Your cheapness has dwarfed your knowledge in those certain areas. Lastly, it was you who came in my way to score some cheap points; I did not reply or confront with you.

 

[gambit]

But unlike you, I could overcome my anger.

I was never angry to start. I just decided to give you a taste of your own medicine. Poseur.

Based on the norms of the society, any society. A person who helps the foreign occupation forces in killing his own people is called a 'traitor'. If you are so proud of what you did (joining occupation forces and killing your countrymen in return of US citizenship), than the word 'traitor' should not bother you.

You know nothing about my country's history, then and now. You make that insult simply because you are an immature person, unable to deal with the fact that an American can speak ably for his country, and when you found out this American is an immigrant, you stoop to the lowest level and make that personal insult, not because you are any authority on history or legality or morality or that I have offended you in anyway. Poseur.

Thank God I am 'nobody'. Because if 'somebody' is like you, I would rather prefer to remain 'nobody'.

Yer welcome, loser.

The language you use is considered lewd language. And it does not matter how old you are, close or far ... what matter is your language, your arrogance, and your complex. Your cheapness has dwarfed your knowledge in those certain areas. Lastly, it was you who came in my way to score some cheap points; I did not reply or confront with you.

For you, I will as arrogant as possible. You deserve my condescension to the nth degree. So shooo...annoying fly...This is a technical discussion...One beyond your feeble mind. Either make some contribution or scram.

 

[Kinshuk]

lol!! stop defaming F-22 or even F-35.. Neither Pakistan nor India has it.. It is just like sour grapes.

 

[qsaark]

I was never angry to start. I just decided to give you a taste of your own medicine. Poseur.

Without any provocation? Keep exposing your utter cheapness. I am glad you are doing this.

You know nothing about my country's history, then and now. You make that insult simply because you are an immature person, unable to deal with the fact that an American can speak ably for his country, and when you found out this American is an immigrant, you stoop to the lowest level and make that personal insult, not because you are any authority on history or legality or morality or that I have offended you in anyway. Poseur.

Your country? which country? The one you destroyed with the help of the foreign occupation forces or where you are living now an escaped life? Societal norms are same every where, even in the US. Benedict Arnold is considered a traitor in America for a reason.

Yer welcome, loser.

Now hearing these profane words from you have become kind of a music for my ears. You are not hurting me, only doing striptease of your miserable personality.

For you, I will as arrogant as possible. You deserve my condescension to the nth degree. So shooo...annoying fly...This is a technical discussion...One beyond your feeble mind. Either make some contribution or scram.

Keep doing, since you are doing all this on a public forum, more and more are coming to learn about the shallowness of your insignificant personality and with every such striptease, you are loosing some more respect you had mischievously earned through copying and pasting others work and posing as an expert of 'certain areas'.