F-22 vs. PAK-FA Advantages

[mixelflick]

As I see it today:

* F-22 has far and away better stealth
* F-22 has better radar/able to stay concealed longer
* F-22 has greater supercruise
* F-22 has AIM-120D, longer ranged than most Russian counterparts. Especially launched at mach 1.5+
* F-22 will have better pilots

*PAK-FA will have better range
*PAK-FA MAY have better supercruise, provided they perfect the motors

Did I miss anything?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Pak Fa has cheek AESA arrays and IRST

[zero-one]

On the Kinematic side
PAK-FA advocates say that PAK is geared towards better maneuverability.

Copp calls it "Supermaneuverability +1"

LM says that the PAK looks like it emphasizes maneuverabilty while the F-22 emphasizes speed.
although both designs are fast and maneuverable in their own right.

However I think that more maneuverability than the F-22 may not make much sense, as it already surpasses the edge of what the Human body can endure.

right now the advantage I can see from the PAK is
-IRST,
-side looking AESA,
-L-band/X band radar combos
-more control surfaces, may offer advantages in slow speed high AOA
-3D T/V (useful for certain yaw maneuvers)

F-22 advantages include:
-Lower RCS
-Lower IR signature
-More Advanced AESA
-Passive RF DAS (not sure if PAK-Fa has this also)
-Better Speed/Acceleration/Energy maintainability and recovery
-Probably higher Pitch in its TV nozzles (useful for certain Pitch maneuvers)


If they can achieve true sensor fussion with that then yeah, it could be a threat.

If both LO platforms end up in a knife fight, I'll still put my money on the Raptor.
basically the PAK would be almost limited to Archers and Guns as the Alamo would have a difficult time against

[disconnectedradical]

The comparison between F-22 and PAK FA isn't very straightforward, and we must remember that their intended roles aren't the same. The F-22 is a pure air to air fighter, the T-50 is meant to be a multirole aircraft. But here's my take.

Stealth. The F-22 holds the obvious advantage when it comes to all aspect stealth, especially in the sides and the rear fuselage. The T-50's right angle joints really hurt its potential VLO. The only area that the T-50 may achieve parity is in frontal X-band stealth.

Performance. I'd say that once the T-50 gets the second stage Izdeliye 30 engine, it will have better overall aerodynamics. I'm expecting roughly similar speed and dash performance, while the T-50 should have an advantage in the maneuvering envelope. How big this advantage is though, is uncertain, and frankly, I think Sukhoi should've tried to improve VLO, even at the expense of maneuverability. Beyond a certain level of maneuverability, any more is frankly not going to be the deciding factor.

Range. T-50 is quite excellent in this regard and definitely holds the advantage. The thing has more fuel than a Su-27, which in turn has more fuel than a F-22, and it has variable intakes.

Avionics. The T-50 seems to have more sensors, as well as dedicated IRST. While it has the advantage of being a lot newer, and can theoretically contain far more powerful electronics, in practice Russia isn't exactly known for its software and electronics, and I personally don't think the T-50's software and radar will reach the F-22's level of sophistication right off the bat, especially since it's being developed at a fraction of the budget. At least, when it comes to aperture size, both the frontal N036 and the APG-77 seem to be roughly comparable. So can the T-50 match or exceed the F-22's avionics? Possibly. But I find it unlikely.

By the way, I think should get correct information about the T-50 before we make any judgements. Regarding its weapons, the English Wikipedia summarized it pretty well. In fact, the PAK FA page is fairly accurate now that several users, myself included, have attempted to back every claim with a reliable source. So I'm going to take some info straight from Wikipedia.

For air-to-air combat, the T-50 is expected to carry up to six beyond-visual-range missiles in its two main weapons bays and two short-range missiles in the wing root weapons bays. The primary medium-range missile is the active radar-homing K-77M, or izdeliye 180, a highly upgraded R-77 variant with AESA seeker and conventional rear fins, and the short-range missile is the heat-seeking K-74M2, or izdeliye 760, an upgraded R-74 variant with reduced cross-section for internal carriage. The K-74M2 is designed to match the performance of the ASRAAM and the AIM-9X. A clean-sheet design short-range missile designated K-MD, or izdeliye 300, is being developed to eventually replace the K-74M2. The PAK FA has a provision for an internally mounted GSh-301 30 mm cannon in the right LEVCON root.

[milosh]

If both LO platforms end up in a knife fight, I'll still put my money on the Raptor.
basically the PAK would be almost limited to Archers and Guns as the Alamo would have a difficult time against

Alamo, you mean R-27? Why would PAK-FA carry that missile at all???

On MAKS 2013 we saw PAK-FA equipment and sensors, one is DIRCM. As I am inform F-22 dont have DIRCM. So I really dont see how it will be better in close combat against PAK-FA?

@disconnectedradical

F-22 will have better top speed even when PAK-FA get new engine. Composites limits PAK-FA top speed (2.1Mach). New engine will provide more thrust for less fuel so supercruise capability will be improved a lot, with new engine PAK-FA is probable closest to original idea of super cruiser. F-23 with F120 could be that long ago but USAF wanted proven design.

There isnt six rails in patent. So I dont think we would see six missiles even though it could carry six amraam size missile.

I think they are planing to use upgraded RVV-BD as primary air to air missile for PAK-FA. Big missile lack of agility is myth. MIM-104F or S-400 smaller missile are very agile even though they big. Having 60kg warhead and big seeker can be very useful especailly against hard to track targets.

[mixelflick]

One thing I read that was quite interesting, was the addition of IRST on all US legacy aircraft. Apparently, someone figured out that that even if these designs (PAK-FA/J-20) aren't VLO, they'd be LO. Someone also observed that the best way to detect them, is via an IRST device.

Article spoke the "surface heating" on the PAK-FA, etc. as being a dead giveaway. Can you imagine a legacy Hornet with an IRST, waxing a PAK-FA?

That'd be REAL embarrassing...n

[popcorn]

More impetus for fielding 5G-to-4G data link capability to leverage F-35 sensors suite.

[mixelflick]

More impetus for fielding 5G-to-4G data link capability to leverage F-35 sensors suite.

Is this in the works, or in being planned?

[zero-one]

Alamo, you mean R-27? Why would PAK-FA carry that missile at all???

Sorry I wann't familiar with the type of weapons the PAK-Fa would carry, but yeah conventional Radar guided munitions would have a difficult time goingt against F-22s or F-35s.

The Izdeliye 180 might have higher PKs though.

Now I'm thinking fights between the 2 may end up in a phone booth pretty quick, 2 LO platforms with supercruise, this will be interesting

[popcorn]

More impetus for fielding 5G-to-4G data link capability to leverage F-35 sensors suite.

Is this in the works, or in being planned?

It‘s in the works, contract signed with Honeywell Aerospace. Spaz posted this previously in the F-35 Eyes and Ears thread.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/8/ ... antenna.ht
delivered an innovative new communications antenna




August 4, 2014




Contract Awarded for delivered an innovative new communications antenna that will enable the U.S. Military to conduct highly secure communicationsbetween new and older generation aircraft

Contract Awarded Date:May 2014

Part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Emerging Capability & Prototyping s Jetpack 5th to 4th Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) program, the technology enables secure communications between the F-35 Lightning II and F-22 Raptor aircraft. It also provides a secure communication link between these aircraft and other key platforms such as legacy fighters, bombers, and airborne battlefield management, command and control aircraft.

Officially named the dual-band advanced tactical data link (ATDL) antenna, the system was developed in conjunction with the Northrop Grumman Freedom 550 Joint Enterprise Terminal and supports both the F-22 Intra-flight Data Link (IFDL) and F-35 Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) data communications. The ATDL antenna system uses Honeywell s expertise in data communications to provide customers a more efficient solution and requires a dramatically smaller installation footprint than alternatives.

[disconnectedradical]

Alamo, you mean R-27? Why would PAK-FA carry that missile at all???

Sorry I wann't familiar with the type of weapons the PAK-Fa would carry, but yeah conventional Radar guided munitions would have a difficult time goingt against F-22s or F-35s.

The Izdeliye 180 might have higher PKs though.

Now I'm thinking fights between the 2 may end up in a phone booth pretty quick, 2 LO platforms with supercruise, this will be interesting

The K-77M (izdeliye 180) is supposed to the Russian analogue of the AIM-120D. A ramjet version of the 180 was planned, but rumor is that development has halted due to funding shortage.

The K-74M2 (izdeliye 760) is a highly evolved R-73 variant with reduced cross section, and supposed to be equal to the AIM-9X.

As a side note, the K-XX designation is for missiles in development and testing, and the K should change to R once the missile is actually in service. So I think the K-74M2 will be designated the R-74M2 once it enters service.

@disconnectedradical

F-22 will have better top speed even when PAK-FA get new engine. Composites limits PAK-FA top speed (2.1Mach). New engine will provide more thrust for less fuel so supercruise capability will be improved a lot, with new engine PAK-FA is probable closest to original idea of super cruiser. F-23 with F120 could be that long ago but USAF wanted proven design.

Agree, the PAK FA's massive fuel load should give it considerably longer range than the F-22 (or the F-35 for that matter).

There isnt six rails in patent. So I dont think we would see six missiles even though it could carry six amraam size missile.

Yeah, I think there's the volume for 6 K-77M, but right now the only arrangement is for 2 launchers per main bay, so 4 K-77M total.

I think they are planing to use upgraded RVV-BD as primary air to air missile for PAK-FA. Big missile lack of agility is myth. MIM-104F or S-400 smaller missile are very agile even though they big. Having 60kg warhead and big seeker can be very useful especailly against hard to track targets.

Right, but those depend on sheer velocity to overcome the lack of turning capabilities. In the case of the Patriot, they have attitude control motors on the nose to steer the missiles. Also, the most successful missile attack relies on the target not knowing that it's being shot at. In that case, missile maneuverability doesn't matter much. I think long range missiles like the RVV-BD or AIM-54 depend on the target being unsuspecting rather than its maneuverability.

As for the big missile on the T-50, I think it's called the izdeliye 810, but I don't know if it's a clean sheet design or an R-37M or RVV-BD derivative. Either way, the missile is meant to attack tankers and AWACS.

[mixelflick]

How much of those Russian "big missile" qualities are due to need, vs. the fact they can't miniturize electronics at least to the extent we do.

For PAK-FA, should be a non issue. But for SU-35/other Flanker series aircraft those big, honking fins and such... I have to believe they add significantly to drag/RCE??

[disconnectedradical]

How much of those Russian "big missile" qualities are due to need, vs. the fact they can't miniturize electronics at least to the extent we do.

For PAK-FA, should be a non issue. But for SU-35/other Flanker series aircraft those big, honking fins and such... I have to believe they add significantly to drag/RCE??

The big missiles like the RVV-BD is meant for high value targets. They have an AMRAAM sized missile in the izdeliye 180 for fighters. Let's not be too dismissive of the Russians here. Remember that it's the MiG-31 that was the first fighter to have a data link.

[mixelflick]

Very true, thanks for the reality check...

[hornetfinn]

Few notes:

L-band system in PAK-FA is not really a radar system, but is rather very likely simply an IFF-system. 1-dimensional AESA array with very low number of modules is not good at all for radar requirements. As a radar it would have horrible resolution and could not give altitude data at all. It would simply be able to give very rough direction and range data. As an IFF-system it would be pretty good solution, although there are other alternatives to achieve good performance.

Russia has not shown ability to produce similar staring FPA seekers as used in AIM-9X or ASRAAM. R-73/74 are very good heat seeking missiles, but their seekers are nowhere near as good as those staring seekers used in the most modern western missiles. I'm sure they will get them working someday, but because even the OLS-35 in Su-35S uses basic heat seeking tech and not a real imaging system, I'm not convinced they will be available for operational missiles during the next ten years at least.

I see F-22 having several advantages besides those already mentioned here:
- much more mature system
- most likely has huge advantage in computing systems and architecture
- most likely has much better radar system as a whole
- most likely has much more and more complete features like electronic attack available at any time
- likely has better weapons and weapons systems

I see F-22 having most advantages and especially the most important ones. PAK-FA probably has some advantages like longer range. As a weapons system, I'd much rather have F-22 than PAK-FA. Of course PAK-FA is not really intended to beat F-22, but less capable aircraft as only USAF has F-22 and Russia has potential enemies against whom even Su-35S might not be enough. Of course improving own technology and expertise is essential in keeping up with other countries.