PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 10:08
by sukhoi35
which plane is better for you and why?To my mind F-22 is more "invisible" but N036 Belka should be more effective than APG-77,also as i know RUssia developing new missiles for PaK Fa ,and of course new type-30 engines.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 11:15
by juretrn
N036 more effective than AN/APG-77? How exactly?
By using Russian phantom (non-existent) GaN T/R modules? :roll:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 11:33
by hornetfinn
I'd say there is currently no comparison as F-22 is fully in service and is a very mature system. PAK FA will need to get those type-30 engines and all the avionics to operational capabilities before there is any comparison. This seems to be taking a long time and it will likely take at least 10 years from now and I think that's fairly optimistic in any case. PAK FA looks way less stealthy than F-22 and I'm sure the difference is big in that area.

There is no way than N036 is more effective or better than AN/APG-77. Russian semiconductor industry is far smaller and technologically far behind US one and it's very unlikely they can make similar or better components for their radars. N036 also has lower T/R module count which makes that even less likely as they'd have to make significantly better modules to equal or surpass AN/APG-77 in capability.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 13:39
by mk82
sukhoi35 wrote:which plane is better for you and why?To my mind F-22 is more "invisible" but N036 Belka should be more effective than APG-77,also as i know RUssia developing new missiles for PaK Fa ,and of course new type-30 engines.


How is the type 30 engine development going? Significantly delayed again!!!! Nooooooooooooo :roll:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 14:39
by sdkf251
Just asking out of curiosity and because I am do not know much with naming nomenclature.

We are used to reading Russian aircraft with names like Tu-22, MIG 25, Mig 15, Su 27, Su 35 and so on and so forth
So it is like the design bureau name with a model number after. Does the Pak FA have a designation like
this? Since the Plane is made by Sukhoi, shouldn't it have a name like Su-xx where xx is like a model number?
Why is it still called the Pak-FA?

Thanks in advance.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 15:22
by hythelday
sdkf251 wrote:Just asking out of curiosity and because I am do not know much with naming nomenclature.

We are used to reading Russian aircraft with names like Tu-22, MIG 25, Mig 15, Su 27, Su 35 and so on and so forth
So it is like the design bureau name with a model number after. Does the Pak FA have a designation like
this? Since the Plane is made by Sukhoi, shouldn't it have a name like Su-xx where xx is like a model number?
Why is it still called the Pak-FA?

Thanks in advance.


PAK FA is DefMin acronym for a program, it is not a plane. Just like ATF or JSF etc. It stands for "перспективный авиационный комрлекс фронтовой авиации" - "future (promising) aircraft for frontline (tactical fighter) aviation". T-50 is Sukhoi's in-house name for the prototype, same as T-10 is various Flanker models and T-6 was prototype for the Fencer. It will become Su-## when it gets accepted into service.

Also, please use proper names for Russian/Soviet aircraft, it bothers me more than it should. Su-## (Su is short for Sukhoi, a surname; not SU) an MiG-## (stands for Mikoyan i Gurevich/Mikoyan and Gurevich, also surnames, not MIG and not Mig).

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 00:00
by arian
sukhoi35 wrote:but N036 Belka should be more effective than APG-77


Of course.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 00:23
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:N036 also has lower T/R module count which makes that even less likely as they'd have to make significantly better modules to equal or surpass AN/APG-77 in capability.

I find this pretty weird also, N036 main radiator has merely 1500 T/R modules, even less than APG-81. Is PAK-FA nose cone that small?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 00:49
by wrightwing
eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:N036 also has lower T/R module count which makes that even less likely as they'd have to make significantly better modules to equal or surpass AN/APG-77 in capability.

I find this pretty weird also, N036 main radiator has merely 1500 T/R modules, even less than APG-81. Is PAK-FA nose cone that small?

It has more to do with T/R density.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 02:10
by eloise
wrightwing wrote:It has more to do with T/R density.

Destiny won't be too different i think, as element spacing has their limit

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 08:23
by sdkf251
"

PAK FA is DefMin acronym for a program, it is not a plane. Just like ATF or JSF etc. It stands for "перспективный авиационный комрлекс фронтовой авиации" - "future (promising) aircraft for frontline (tactical fighter) aviation". T-50 is Sukhoi's in-house name for the prototype, same as T-10 is various Flanker models and T-6 was prototype for the Fencer. It will become Su-## when it gets accepted into service.

Also, please use proper names for Russian/Soviet aircraft, it bothers me more than it should. Su-## (Su is short for Sukhoi, a surname; not SU) an MiG-## (stands for Mikoyan i Gurevich/Mikoyan and Gurevich, also surnames, not MIG and not Mig)"

Many thanks for the reply! Now at least I know why they have no Su designation yet.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 00:52
by arian
eloise wrote:
wrightwing wrote:It has more to do with T/R density.

Destiny won't be too different i think, as element spacing has their limit


Element spacing limits how tightly you can pack them, but not the other way around. The limitations for the Russians is packaging the modules small enough to fit as many as US manufacturers can.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 02:50
by garrya
arian wrote:
Element spacing limits how tightly you can pack them, but not the other way around. The limitations for the Russians is packaging the modules small enough to fit as many as US manufacturers can.

Actually there is also limits to how far apart you can pack them
Image
Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 20:05
by armedupdate
F-22 will win in any realistic engagement. Russia is lacking in advanced Air-air missiles often times you see Sukohis using R-27s. The amount of missiles they can afford is not numerous to gain any form of air dominance. The Surface-to-Air Missile will be their primary weapon with fighters supporting that.

On paper, the F-22 is likely to be a bit more stealthy, a bit faster, and better avionics.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 11:11
by garrya
eloise wrote:Is PAK-FA nose cone that small?

As far as i know PAK-FA's nose is smaller than Flanker series
Image
Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 11:37
by hornetfinn
garrya wrote:
arian wrote:Element spacing limits how tightly you can pack them, but not the other way around. The limitations for the Russians is packaging the modules small enough to fit as many as US manufacturers can.

Actually there is also limits to how far apart you can pack them


Yes that is true. However both radars are pretty far away from having negative effects from too tight or too wide spacing of elements. If we assume antennas for both radars are of similar size (roughly 900 mm diameter) and wavelength of about 8-12 GHz, then they both are in the area where mutual coupling (too tight spacing) or grating lobes (too wide spacing) is not a problem. Another thing is that even if present, neither problem is not a show stopper. They just restrict or lower system performance from maximum possible.

My prediction is that AN/APG-77 is much better radar with higher performance all around. I would not be surprised if it has twice the range against similar targets. AN/APG-81 also likely has clear advantage over PAK FA radar when range alone is compared. Even Rafale and Gripen AESAs might well have roughly similar range performance compared to N036 despite being much smaller systems.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 16:33
by mixelflick
I wonder how much longer it'll be before the PAK FA and Raptor meet up?

We've seen it in the air with SU-35's, which I found fascinating. But to answer your question OP, the Raptor has it all over PAK FA and the various upgrades planned will likely keep it ahead. PAK FA is a beautiful bird. But beauty does not = combat effectiveness, and the U.S. has decades experience now in combat.

To expect the Russians (who lost a decade or more when the Soviet Union collapsed) to churn out an = or superior fighter just isn't realistic. The fact that the YF-22 and 23a prototypes were far ahead of it (in supercruise, stealth and avionics) over 25 years ago speaks volumes. Will it be effective vs. non-stealth aircraft? Likely, yes. But it is not the = of the F-35 nor F-22, and still has a long way to go before being combat ready. The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat. Going to be awhile on the PAK FA though, and their tiny order for such (just 12) reflects that...

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 18:12
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat.

In what way is the Su-35 the gold standard for WVR?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 20:15
by hythelday
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat.

In what way is the Su-35 the gold standard for WVR?


60deg off bore missiles of course.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 20:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The US has 90+ off boresight missiles, so not that.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 20:32
by botsing
garrya wrote:As far as i know PAK-FA's nose is smaller than Flanker series
Image


What, looking at that image, also stood out to me was that the verticals of the PAK-FA seems to be proportionally much smaller compared to the F-22 (and Flanker):

Image

Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 21:17
by sprstdlyscottsmn
They are smaller, but they are all moving like on the Blackbird.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 23:31
by arian
hornetfinn wrote:
garrya wrote:
arian wrote:Element spacing limits how tightly you can pack them, but not the other way around. The limitations for the Russians is packaging the modules small enough to fit as many as US manufacturers can.

Actually there is also limits to how far apart you can pack them


Yes that is true. However both radars are pretty far away from having negative effects from too tight or too wide spacing of elements. If we assume antennas for both radars are of similar size (roughly 900 mm diameter) and wavelength of about 8-12 GHz, then they both are in the area where mutual coupling (too tight spacing) or grating lobes (too wide spacing) is not a problem. Another thing is that even if present, neither problem is not a show stopper. They just restrict or lower system performance from maximum possible.


Agreed. Nobody is there yet where spacing is a problem yet. The issue with Russian AESA is manufacturing elements that are compact enough (for a given set of capabilities), and here the Russians are lagging behind. This isn't an assumption as it is based on their own claims of their manufacturing capabilities.

garrya wrote:As far as i know PAK-FA's nose is smaller than Flanker series


It's smaller but the PAK-FA has a fixed antenna and the Flanker has a movable one, so the antenna doesn't sit in the same place in both places. So the Flanker's may well have a smaller dimension overall.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 00:19
by geforcerfx
I don't see any way in the Pak-Fa having a superior (frontal) radar to the F-22 until into the mid-late 2020's, and that's assuming the USAF doesn't upgrade the F-22's radars and computer system's to more modern equipment by then. I would assume the N036 is the first 10 watt module airborne radar for the Russians, all the Zhuk AESA's seem to only have 5 watt modules going off the distances they advertise (granted they increased density rather quick on those). The Pak Fa have the side array's and tail array does give it a nice kick up in situational awareness over the Su-35. But I find the F-35's DAS system to be a more feature rich system with comparable a2a tracking capabilities, but you get all the other features, missiles warning, 360 infared camera's and so on. I would rather see the F-22 get two IRST's in it's wing roots and have it's system upgraded to the AN/AAQ-37 with a modern HDM system added before they touch the radar.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 05:48
by arian
geforcerfx wrote:I don't see any way in the Pak-Fa having a superior (frontal) radar to the F-22 until into the mid-late 2020's, and that's assuming the USAF doesn't upgrade the F-22's radars and computer system's to more modern equipment by then. I would assume the N036 is the first 10 watt module airborne radar for the Russians, all the Zhuk AESA's seem to only have 5 watt modules going off the distances they advertise (granted they increased density rather quick on those)


Who says 10 watts? Nobody knows.

In any case the power alone isn't the only issue. Lots of other issues to consider. Think that only now they are developing the technology to make layered manufacturing of their modules. Which is at least 20 years behind the US.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 09:12
by hornetfinn
It's definitely impossible to say how powerful modules are used and what their other specs are. It's relatively simple to make powerful modules that are not very good otherwise. Powerful modules could have much more limited bandwidth, higher losses and higher noise figure along with lower efficiency (higher electrical power and cooling requirements). All these would make the radar less capable despite the nominal power. All the specs about Russian AESAs indicate they have relatively low power modules alond with more limited bandwidth and higher noise figures compared to Western modules. Their modules seem to be roughly similar to modules manufactured in USA about 25 years ago. This was the situation exactly 20 years ago in USA:

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/complaint-188

13. Raytheon has produced more high power amplifier MMICs and T/R modules than any other firm. It was chosen in 1992 to supply the power amplifier for the ground-based radar ("GBR") for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense System. Under this program, Raytheon produced and delivered about 42,000 T/R modules containing 6-watt, X-band power amplifiers. In 1996, Raytheon won the development contract for the improved GBR. Raytheon is developing a 10-watt, wide band, high PAE X-band high power amplifier for this program, with a delivery goal of late 1997.

14. TI is the recognized leader in developing high power amplifier MMICs. As a second source to Raytheon on GBR, TI supplied about 28,000 T/R modules containing 6-watt X-band power amplifiers. TI also has been chosen to supply the advanced power amplifiers for the radar on the F-22 fighter; it already has produced 23,000 amplifiers and thousands more will be delivered. TI is very close to production of an X-band 10-watt wide band, high PAE amplifier. It also has developed an X-band 16-watt high power amplifier which is close to meeting DoD specifications.


Of course there is much more to AESAs beside T/R modules, including hardware and software. I'd say Russia has a lot of catching up to do to match F-22 capabilities in 2005, let alone when PAK FA actually enters service as F-22 is not standing still in technology or capabilities.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 14:42
by mixelflick
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat.

In what way is the Su-35 the gold standard for WVR?


There is simply no other aircraft that can throw itself around the sky/execute such drastic nose pointing maneuvers as the SU-35. Sure, you can argue about HOBS missiles, possibly better acceleration etc from US 5th gen jets, but I've seen nothing come close to the most recent SU-35 display at MAKS, I think it was. It didn't even lose altitude after performing these loops, cobra's etc. If the F-35 or F-22 can do the same, I'd love to see it.

Either the US jets can't match those maneuvers or they're holding back. I'll concede it certainly could be the latter...

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 19:39
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat.

In what way is the Su-35 the gold standard for WVR?


There is simply no other aircraft that can throw itself around the sky/execute such drastic nose pointing maneuvers as the SU-35

Ah right, throwing your aircraft around drastically is what makes you win the WVR engagement. So simple and elegant.

It makes me wonder though, why the country with the biggest military research budget ever, who knew quite well about this supermaneuverability, gave priority to several other properties, almost as if they know that in the total package it is not an advantage at all, crazy right?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 21:05
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:Either the US jets can't match those maneuvers or they're holding back. I'll concede it certainly could be the latter...


And nobody who flies an F-35 would give a toss because they know that they currently fly the gold standard (with F-22) in actual WVR & BVR combat - I don't know how many vets need to come on here and try to give some idea that actual combat has F all to do with an airshow performance! :D

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 21:49
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
There is simply no other aircraft that can throw itself around the sky/execute such drastic nose pointing maneuvers as the SU-35. Sure, you can argue about HOBS missiles, possibly better acceleration etc from US 5th gen jets, but I've seen nothing come close to the most recent SU-35 display at MAKS, I think it was. It didn't even lose altitude after performing these loops, cobra's etc. If the F-35 or F-22 can do the same, I'd love to see it.

Either the US jets can't match those maneuvers or they're holding back. I'll concede it certainly could be the latter...


This actually has more to do with aerial demonstration doctrines than actual capability.

As test pilot Jon Beesly once said, the Russian live to perform what they call "ballistic" maneuvers where the plane is affected by external factors like Gravity, wind resistance etc. with most Russian demos you'll often see Flankers get extremely slow while they execute dazzling high alpha and post stall maneuvers. Its elegant and astounding to see but has nearly zero combat relevance.

American demos on the otherhand display lots of power and precission. I have yet to see a Flanker or any aircraft replicate the max performance take off routine of the Raptor. I have yet to see any of them complete a 360 minimum radius turn in just a little over 20 seconds shortly after said takeoff, while still havy with fuel.

The powerloop is unique in that at one point it anchors the nose in one spot and the plane is actually flying tail first.

Can the Raptor tumble around in the sky? Yes it can, they demonstrated that in departure control test and the pilot was able to recover, so if they wanted they could do that in a demo because they know its safe. But why? The Raptor's whole image is that its the most powerful aircraft out there, so the demo is centered around demonstrations of power.

You see American aircraft being used by other forces with different demo doctrines and you see different things as well. I saw a Dutch F-16 doing all kinds of crazy maneuvers I didn't know the F-16 could do. The Swiss F/A-18C has a very impressive demo too. It almost looked like it had TVC at times better than any US legacy hornet demo.

Its all about demo doctrines, Americans like to drive fast and do tight high G turns, being under control at all times. Its probably the most tactically relevant in the real world but not always the best thing to look a.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 23:42
by mixelflick
[/quote]
Ah right, throwing your aircraft around drastically is what makes you win the WVR engagement. So simple and elegant.

It makes me wonder though, why the country with the biggest military research budget ever, who knew quite well about this supermaneuverability, gave priority to several other properties, almost as if they know that in the total package it is not an advantage at all, crazy right?[/quote]

Of course not. I'm not saying the F-22 won't win in WVR encounters too. I am saying nobody puts on an air display as aggressive as that SU-35 did at MAKS 2017. It's considerably more impressive than the Paris SU-35 debut, so I'm assuming they're squeezing more from it OR it was a better/more talented pilot.

For the record, I feel the Raptor isn't showing all of its tricks (post stall) at airshows. In fact, I don't even think it's close to some of the stuff it can do. Whereas I do think the Russians are pushing the SU-35 to its limits. In the realm of public demonstrations though, that SU-35 demo stood head and shoulders above the F-22's I've seen in video and in person (3 times).

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 23:45
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
There is simply no other aircraft that can throw itself around the sky/execute such drastic nose pointing maneuvers as the SU-35. Sure, you can argue about HOBS missiles, possibly better acceleration etc from US 5th gen jets, but I've seen nothing come close to the most recent SU-35 display at MAKS, I think it was. It didn't even lose altitude after performing these loops, cobra's etc. If the F-35 or F-22 can do the same, I'd love to see it.

Either the US jets can't match those maneuvers or they're holding back. I'll concede it certainly could be the latter...


This actually has more to do with aerial demonstration doctrines than actual capability.

As test pilot Jon Beesly once said, the Russian live to perform what they call "ballistic" maneuvers where the plane is affected by external factors like Gravity, wind resistance etc. with most Russian demos you'll often see Flankers get extremely slow while they execute dazzling high alpha and post stall maneuvers. Its elegant and astounding to see but has nearly zero combat relevance.

American demos on the otherhand display lots of power and precission. I have yet to see a Flanker or any aircraft replicate the max performance take off routine of the Raptor. I have yet to see any of them complete a 360 minimum radius turn in just a little over 20 seconds shortly after said takeoff, while still havy with fuel.

The powerloop is unique in that at one point it anchors the nose in one spot and the plane is actually flying tail first.

Can the Raptor tumble around in the sky? Yes it can, they demonstrated that in departure control test and the pilot was able to recover, so if they wanted they could do that in a demo because they know its safe. But why? The Raptor's whole image is that its the most powerful aircraft out there, so the demo is centered around demonstrations of power.

You see American aircraft being used by other forces with different demo doctrines and you see different things as well. I saw a Dutch F-16 doing all kinds of crazy maneuvers I didn't know the F-16 could do. The Swiss F/A-18C has a very impressive demo too. It almost looked like it had TVC at times better than any US legacy hornet demo.

Its all about demo doctrines, Americans like to drive fast and do tight high G turns, being under control at all times. Its probably the most tactically relevant in the real world but not always the best thing to look a.


OK this makes sense. I actually posted above before reading this, responding to the other poster's quote on page 2. Explains it perfectly, thanks..

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 06:20
by popcorn
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/f-22- ... et-2017-12


We asked an F-22 Raptor squadron commander if he's worried about Russia's Su-57 stealth fighter — and he laughed

"I'm not concerned - I'll tell you that," Hinds said with a laugh.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 13:52
by gta4
Well I don't think su35's airshow moves are more aggressive. Non of its moves exceed 90 deg/sec. F22 has some moves reach this threshold.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 17:39
by f-16adf
The Raptor is like King Kong on steroids. :D

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 18:08
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Russians will soldier on with great 4th+ gen designs, their SU-35 for example being the gold standard for WVR combat.

In what way is the Su-35 the gold standard for WVR?


Lol this^ how?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 19:39
by gta4
To be honest, if su35 is the gold standard of wvr, then any 4th Gen. with tvc can be the gold standard. F15E(ge129)+tvc could be the platinum standard.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:18
by icemaverick
F-15Cs were able to beat Su-30MKIs quite handily at Red Flag in 2008. The Su-35 has some improvements over the MKI but it’s not going to be a game changer. At best it’s an incremental improvement. I highly doubt that the Su-35 is the “gold standard” in maneuverability. Certainly it has advantages in certain parts of the flight envelope but it will also have its relative disadvantages.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:25
by XanderCrews
icemaverick wrote:F-15Cs were able to beat Su-30MKIs quite handily at Red Flag in 2008. The Su-35 has some improvements over the MKI but it’s not going to be a game changer. At best it’s an incremental improvement. I highly doubt that the Su-35 is the “gold standard” in maneuverability. Certainly it has advantages in certain parts of the flight envelope but it will also have its relative disadvantages.



Short of an F-22 in willing to bet the gold standard In WVR is the viper. Some eagle guys might have their own ideas of course.

I remember when th3 MKI with the canards and thrust vectoring was supposed to be the bees knees... su 35 got rid of the canards lol

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 00:18
by icemaverick
XanderCrews wrote:
icemaverick wrote:F-15Cs were able to beat Su-30MKIs quite handily at Red Flag in 2008. The Su-35 has some improvements over the MKI but it’s not going to be a game changer. At best it’s an incremental improvement. I highly doubt that the Su-35 is the “gold standard” in maneuverability. Certainly it has advantages in certain parts of the flight envelope but it will also have its relative disadvantages.



Short of an F-22 in willing to bet the gold standard In WVR is the viper. Some eagle guys might have their own ideas of course.

I remember when th3 MKI with the canards and thrust vectoring was supposed to be the bees knees... su 35 got rid of the canards lol


Yup. It’s an Su-30 MKI with 1 seat and no canards with some changes to better optimize it for the air to air role. It’s still the same basic airframe with some updated engines and a new radar. If Eagles could more than hold their own against the MKI, the F-22 should be just fine against the 35.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 03:07
by gta4
Just take a look at the official su35 maneuverability spec. (Climb rate, acceleration,
maximum g...) and compare It against a F15e(ge129 no cft). You know immediately gold standard is a joke. Above that there are platinum, diamond, master and challenger

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 08:55
by zero-one
gta4 wrote:To be honest, if su35 is the gold standard of wvr, then any 4th Gen. with tvc can be the gold standard. F15E(ge129)+tvc could be the platinum standard.



I'm wondering what would make you think this way? The Su-35 is pretty good, I'll give it that but I wouldn't go this far.

Besides 3D TVC which only really useful in the extreme slow speed or extreme highspeed part of the envelope, what else does it have?

TVC is just dead weight in the vast majority of the subsonic envelope where most dogfights occur. So in that sense, you could say 3D TVC is a disadvantage in a large part of the maneuvering envelope.

And unlike the Raptor, the Flanker doesn't have as much power to compensate for the extra weight. Carrying ordnance outside also doesn't help. The TVC of the Su-35 deflects 15 degrees in the Y axis and 8 degrees in the X axis compared to the F-22's 20 degrees in the Y axis.

So except for extreme slow speed Yawing movements, the Raptor has superior maneuvering performance against the Su-35 across the board.

But to be fair, the Raptor is 5th gen and you did say 4th gen. So maybe yeah, I'd say the Su-35 might be on top in terms of overall kinematic performance. but it doesn't beat the competition hands down.

I'd bet a Typhoon would out climb it.

A Superhornet may have better departure resistance, I noticed that during high Alpha demos the Su-35 always looses a few hundred feet in altitude after a maneuver like that, the Rhino can level off perfectly after high alpha moves.

High altitude maneuverability may still be owned by the Eagle.

The Viper can out turn it. better Energy as well across the board. If I'm not mistaken, only the Raptor can compete with a Viper in its own game and even then it might be pretty close. maybe Tailgate can confirm or debunk this as he flew both. Howbout it Tailgate.

but since the Su-35 can pretty much be at least competitive against all 4th gen types in their own games, then yeah, maybe you can say it is a gold standard in 4th gen metrics.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 15:10
by mixelflick
popcorn wrote:http://nordic.businessinsider.com/f-22-raptor-vs-russia-su-57-fighter-jet-2017-12


We asked an F-22 Raptor squadron commander if he's worried about Russia's Su-57 stealth fighter — and he laughed

"I'm not concerned - I'll tell you that," Hinds said with a laugh.


Yeah, I got a similar reaction from an F-22 pilot at this year's airshow in MA I attended. However, when that conversation turned to Chinese fighters (the J-20), he wasn't so dismissive. Said something to the effect, "The Chinese take Russian designs and tinker with them a lot. Some of their stuff is pretty impressive...".

I get the sense they're told something in intelligence briefings that leads them to believe the Russian stuff isn't very capable. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was palpable. He mentioned "intelligence briefings" twice when I asked him why he felt that way..

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 15:19
by mixelflick
icemaverick wrote:F-15Cs were able to beat Su-30MKIs quite handily at Red Flag in 2008. The Su-35 has some improvements over the MKI but it’s not going to be a game changer. At best it’s an incremental improvement. I highly doubt that the Su-35 is the “gold standard” in maneuverability. Certainly it has advantages in certain parts of the flight envelope but it will also have its relative disadvantages.


I heard this too (Red Flag 2008 results), but of course the Indians said differently. Cope India results I dismiss given the ridiculous ROE's, but getting the real truth is difficult. What is clear is that advanced Flankers are a serious threat, with most pilots I've spoken to (F-15C pilots) saying that it's going to come down to the pilot. And to me, that's concerning. It seemed like during the 1980's our teen series held very obvious advantages over the Mig-21, 23, 25 threat and once the Mig-29/SU-27 emerged, those advantages were now much less.

Because we truncated the F-22 buy, air superiority is no longer guaranteed. Sure, I think it'll ultimately be achieved but at a much higher cost. I just hate seeing our country send to war pilots in machines with no clear cut advantages. Or at least a lot of them. Hopefully, the F-35 will bring us back to a qualitative edge. I do think it's going to revolutionize air warfare. I think this time, it's going to happen...

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 15:41
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
icemaverick wrote:F-15Cs were able to beat Su-30MKIs quite handily at Red Flag in 2008. The Su-35 has some improvements over the MKI but it’s not going to be a game changer. At best it’s an incremental improvement. I highly doubt that the Su-35 is the “gold standard” in maneuverability. Certainly it has advantages in certain parts of the flight envelope but it will also have its relative disadvantages.


I heard this too (Red Flag 2008 results), but of course the Indians said differently. Cope India results I dismiss given the ridiculous ROE's, but getting the real truth is difficult. What is clear is that advanced Flankers are a serious threat, with most pilots I've spoken to (F-15C pilots) saying that it's going to come down to the pilot. And to me, that's concerning. It seemed like during the 1980's our teen series held very obvious advantages over the Mig-21, 23, 25 threat and once the Mig-29/SU-27 emerged, those advantages were now much less.

Because we truncated the F-22 buy, air superiority is no longer guaranteed. Sure, I think it'll ultimately be achieved but at a much higher cost. I just hate seeing our country send to war pilots in machines with no clear cut advantages. Or at least a lot of them. Hopefully, the F-35 will bring us back to a qualitative edge. I do think it's going to revolutionize air warfare. I think this time, it's going to happen...



I don't think they are nearly the threat people make them out to be.

And before I get the "remember Vietnam" and "better to over estimate an opponent" scolding. I just really don't know how evolutionary changes in the flanker design leads to revolutionary results. The super hornet needed drastic Changes from the original to get some big performance advantages.

AlsonSpeaking very broadly, anytime we are talking WVR I think the smaller lighter fighter has an advantage over the larger. Again broadly. Some viper and an su35 I'll probably pick the viper to win

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 22:14
by icemaverick
mixelflick wrote: I heard this too (Red Flag 2008 results), but of course the Indians said differently.


The IAF for the most part just gave diplomatic responses along the lines of "it was a great learning experience for pilots on both sides." There were some Indian journalists who claimed that the MKIs dominated but they didn't provide any direct quotes. Obviously, the USAF and IAF are going to be very diplomatic in their comments.

I think what's great about Colonel Fornoff's remarks is that they were in a very candid setting as opposed to a press briefing and he wasn't using any filter. The video probably wasn't meant for public consumption and I'm sure he got into a little bit of trouble for his comments. He wasn't part of the exercise but surely he knew people who were. As an experienced fighter pilot, he has more knowledge about these things than most.

He didn't claim that the MKI was a bad jet. In fact he acknowledged that it was a little bit better than the F-15 and F-16. He also said that the Indians would get much better results once they learned how to fly the jet (a lot of the IAF pilots at the time were relatively inexperienced in the MKI). He also acknowledged the troubles that USAF pilots had against upgraded IAF MiG-21s so it wasn't just a big gloat fest....it seemed like he was giving a genuine appraisal.

Cope India results I dismiss given the ridiculous ROE's, but getting the real truth is difficult. What is clear is that advanced Flankers are a serious threat, with most pilots I've spoken to (F-15C pilots) saying that it's going to come down to the pilot. And to me, that's concerning. It seemed like during the 1980's our teen series held very obvious advantages over the Mig-21, 23, 25 threat and once the Mig-29/SU-27 emerged, those advantages were now much less.


The F-teens have faced MiG-29s plenty of times. On every single occasion, the F-teens were victorious. The -29 has many losses and zero wins vs. the F-teens. The new Flankers are certainly an upgrade capability but it's not like the US military hasn't been preparing for this threat.

Because we truncated the F-22 buy, air superiority is no longer guaranteed. Sure, I think it'll ultimately be achieved but at a much higher cost.


We truncated the F-22 buy but remind me how many Su-35s the Russians have? According to Wikipedia, it's about 68 although more are going to be built. The USAF has 180+ Raptors, hundreds of upgraded F-15Cs and also upgraded F-16s. Now the F-35 is really starting to ramp up as well.

It's not just about the aircraft....the supporting infrastructure is just as important. How many electronic warfare aircraft do they have? How many AWACS aircraft? How many tankers?

The Indians have made clear that the maintenance of their Russian aircraft has been much more difficult compared to their Western aircraft (they have had a much easier time maintaining their Mirages as compared to their Flankers and Fulcrums). In an actual war, this will have a huge impact on the outcome.

I just hate seeing our country send to war pilots in machines with no clear cut advantages.


I agree that with the latest upgraded Flankers, the Russians are starting to narrow the gap. This is why it is vital to procure the F-35 in sufficient quantities. There are a number of critics in the media who seem to think upgrading the F-16s an F-15s should be enough to maintain the United States' edge. I think we can agree that this won't be enough.

Or at least a lot of them. Hopefully, the F-35 will bring us back to a qualitative edge. I do think it's going to revolutionize air warfare. I think this time, it's going to happen...


I think the F-35 will bring about a major advantage. The program certainly had some problems along the way but it looks like most of the major hurdles have been cleared. There is every reason to believe that thousands of them will be built in the coming years. All other 5th gen programs are in their very early stages.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 16:54
by mixelflick
"We truncated the F-22 buy but remind me how many Su-35s the Russians have?"

Yes, I'll concede they're only producing a hundred or so. I'm not so concerned about a US vs Russia standoff as I am a US vs. China scenario. The Chinese have taken delivery of their first SU-35's and we all know how they'll license produce (or not, lol) Russian hardware. If it comes down to a PLAF SU-35 and an American Super Hornet, the advantages favoring the SH aren't obvious to me. That in and of itself is concerning, but I guess it's not 1987 anymore, and we'll make sure Raptors are nearby.

I hope :mrgreen:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 21:02
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:"We truncated the F-22 buy but remind me how many Su-35s the Russians have?"

Yes, I'll concede they're only producing a hundred or so. I'm not so concerned about a US vs Russia standoff as I am a US vs. China scenario. The Chinese have taken delivery of their first SU-35's and we all know how they'll license produce (or not, lol) Russian hardware. If it comes down to a PLAF SU-35 and an American Super Hornet, the advantages favoring the SH aren't obvious to me. That in and of itself is concerning, but I guess it's not 1987 anymore, and we'll make sure Raptors are nearby.

I hope :mrgreen:


The super hornet will be flown by a highly trained naval aviator. The Chinese fighter will be flown by a hack, who was selected for his family and or political reliability.

Ironically the best pilots who are the blue collar nobodies get the "bad fighters" and all the "prince's " do their minimal hours in the good fighters.

All my info is based on talking with P-3 guys who get very antsy when the lesser trained flankers take up escort positions.


There are some interesting notions floating around out there about the Chinese and their air tactics, harkens back to the USSR stuff we used to hear

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 22:56
by icemaverick
The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the PLAAF Flankers and a superior radar. It has AMRAAM and AIM-9X and JHMCS. It should also have the backing of Growlers and a good AWACS platform. Certainly the Chinese are narrowing the gap but the Navy and AF still have qualitative edge. The advantage should increase with the wide scale introduction of the F-35.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 07:11
by wrightwing
icemaverick wrote:The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the PLAAF Flankers and a superior radar. It has AMRAAM and AIM-9X and JHMCS. It should also have the backing of Growlers and a good AWACS platform. Certainly the Chinese are narrowing the gap but the Navy and AF still have qualitative edge. The advantage should increase with the wide scale introduction of the F-35.

They also have NIFC CA/SM-6 for targets outside of AIM-120 range.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 08:06
by Corsair1963
icemaverick wrote:The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the PLAAF Flankers and a superior radar. It has AMRAAM and AIM-9X and JHMCS. It should also have the backing of Growlers and a good AWACS platform. Certainly the Chinese are narrowing the gap but the Navy and AF still have qualitative edge. The advantage should increase with the wide scale introduction of the F-35.



The Super Hornet may have a smaller RCS than the Flanker while flying "clean". Yet, they never do under combat conditions. So, I don't see that aspect as a benefit.....

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 08:07
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
icemaverick wrote:The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the PLAAF Flankers and a superior radar. It has AMRAAM and AIM-9X and JHMCS. It should also have the backing of Growlers and a good AWACS platform. Certainly the Chinese are narrowing the gap but the Navy and AF still have qualitative edge. The advantage should increase with the wide scale introduction of the F-35.



The Super Hornet may have a smaller RCS than the Flanker while flying "clean". Yet, they never do under combat conditions. So, I don't see that aspect as a benefit.....

An armed Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than a clean Flanker.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 08:29
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
icemaverick wrote:The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the PLAAF Flankers and a superior radar. It has AMRAAM and AIM-9X and JHMCS. It should also have the backing of Growlers and a good AWACS platform. Certainly the Chinese are narrowing the gap but the Navy and AF still have qualitative edge. The advantage should increase with the wide scale introduction of the F-35.



The Super Hornet may have a smaller RCS than the Flanker while flying "clean". Yet, they never do under combat conditions. So, I don't see that aspect as a benefit.....

An armed Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than a clean Flanker.



Do you have a source to support that???

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 14:13
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:" the advantages favoring the SH aren't obvious to me. That in and of itself is concerning,


here are the words of a Rhino pilot regarding that question:
“Any of the Sukhoi products (‘Flanker’ series), it would be pretty fun to turn with those guys and see what they can do. We’re definitely not going to keep up with those guys in drag race, but it would be nice to mix it up in the BFM environment.”

“The biggest advantage the Super Hornet would have against the ‘Flanker’ would be the pilot-machine interface. I mean that was great on the Hornet, but even better on the new aircraft. It fuses your radar information, your link information, all the different sources are brought together for the pilot. This is combined with the HOTAS capability, allowing you to do anything pretty much. There isn’t voice control though and I don’t know if there are any plans to integrate that. But I’m pretty happy with the way the interface is now.”

https://hushkit.net/2012/07/13/hushkit- ... inal-word/

To me another big advantage the Navy has with their Hornets would be numbers. The VVS has what, 200+ Su-27s about 100 Su-30s and Su-35s. While the navy has close to 500 Rhinos alone, not counting Legacy and Growlers that will also act as support assets.

I'm pretty comfortable with the USNs abaility to beat down any opponent single handedly.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 13:59
by gta4
Doc. Kopp, a famous Australian fanboy of Sukhoi jets, had a ride on F/A-18F in 2001.

This maneuver, the pirouette, obviously astonished him:
F18F fast pirouette.gif


According to him, the most significant advantage of Superbug is BFM:

http://ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
"Flying the Pirouette
The pirouette manoeuvre was developed at the request of operational pilots, as a high alpha low speed reversal, akin in its purpose to the classical yo-yo. In a high yo-yo, the pilot unloads in a tight turn, climbing and decelerating, then rolls 90 degrees and pulls through 180 degrees to reverse direction, leaving the aircraft pointing at the target with an altitude advantage. The pirouette is an in-plane reversal manoeuvre which resembles a conventional stall turn or hammerhead in a piston aircraft.
...
In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight...the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30...a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes..."

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 15:44
by mixelflick
I'll concede the SH is great at high alpha, but the SU-35 looks to be at least its equal, if not moreso. What concerns me more is the Flankers speed advantage over the SH, something the SH driver acknowledged. So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....

I hope the SH's radar/AMRAAM combo can take the SU-35 out BVR. That's not a given though, and the platforms seem very evenly matched WVR. Not like the old days when F-14's held clear advantages over the SU-22's and Mig-23's it handily dispatched. Hopefully, we'll never have to find out!

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 16:52
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:I'll concede the SH is great at high alpha, but the SU-35 looks to be at least its equal, if not moreso.
What concerns me more is the Flankers speed advantage over the SH, something the SH driver acknowledged. So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


In order for the Su-35 to be "an equal" compared to the SH at high alpha the Su-35 needs to have TVC engines. Without TVC I would say that the Su-35 is inferior to the SH at high alpha.
I'm not sure how many Su-35's will actually be equipped with TVC engines and how many will be equipped with non-TVC engines.
However TVC is not an "end all - win all" solution (or else every modern fighter aircraft would be equipped with TVC which is clearly not the case). TVC also has it's own drawbacks such as making the aircraft losing more energy when performing those high alpha maneuvers compared with a SH performing those same high alpha maneuvers (since the SH doesn't have TVC engines and as such the energy loss would be less). TVC engines also increase the aircraft's weight (in the case of the Su-35 not by much but by something, that's for sure).
So and as I said above, it's quite possible that the Su-35 ends up loosing more energy when performing high alpha maneuvers compared to the Super Hornet which means that the SH could still have the advantage here.



mixelflick wrote:I hope the SH's radar/AMRAAM combo can take the SU-35 out BVR. That's not a given though, and the platforms seem very evenly matched WVR. Not like the old days when F-14's held clear advantages over the SU-22's and Mig-23's it handily dispatched. Hopefully, we'll never have to find out!


That's an unfair comparison. The F-14 is a 4th generation fighter aircraft while the Su-22 and Mig-23 are 3rd generation.
In the case of the SH and Su-35 both are 4.5th generation fighter aircraft. It's obvious that the SH and Su-35 are much more evenly matched compared to the F-14 Vs Su-22/Mig-23 and that's perhaps one of the reasons why the F-35, namely the F-35C when speaking about the US Navy is being developed and fielded, right? :wink:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 19:57
by marsavian
TVC is a nice to have as the F-22 and Russian fighters show but it is not essential for ACM. It does however mean though that their opponents should avoid the slow speed regime where these high AoA TVC effects really come into play. However in slow speed mock combat none of the TVC fighters have proved invincible although they definitely have the edge but more importantly the consistent trend for the last few decades has been for combat to become more BVR so legacy F-16s would benefit more from AESA updates than TVC ones. The F-35 also has pretty mean high AoA maneouvering without needing TVC so the Russian advantage will not be so great against the most common US fighter going forward once F-35 starts replacing F-16. Finally the PCA looks like it won't have a tail for long wave stealth reasons so it will need 3D TVC if it's planning to turn tighter than a B-2/B-21 ;).

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 01:02
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:




Do you have a source to support that???

A clean Flanker has an RCS in the 15 to 20m^2 range. As soon as you start hanging ordnance, it just gets worse. A clean Super Hornet has an RCS in the .5 to .1m^2 range. In an A2A configuration, a Super Hornet could easily stay in the 5 to 10m^2 range (and likely smaller.)

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 01:09
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:I'll concede the SH is great at high alpha, but the SU-35 looks to be at least its equal, if not moreso. What concerns me more is the Flankers speed advantage over the SH, something the SH driver acknowledged. So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....

I hope the SH's radar/AMRAAM combo can take the SU-35 out BVR. That's not a given though, and the platforms seem very evenly matched WVR. Not like the old days when F-14's held clear advantages over the SU-22's and Mig-23's it handily dispatched. Hopefully, we'll never have to find out!

Due to the difference in radar performance, and RCS, the Super Hornet should have first look, first shoot advantages over Flankers.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 07:14
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:




Do you have a source to support that???

A clean Flanker has an RCS in the 15 to 20m^2 range. As soon as you start hanging ordnance, it just gets worse. A clean Super Hornet has an RCS in the .5 to .1m^2 range. In an A2A configuration, a Super Hornet could easily stay in the 5 to 10m^2 range (and likely smaller.)



.....and you have a source to support that???

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 12:31
by gta4
mixelflick wrote:So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


This may surprise you, but F/A-18E is at least on par with, or slightly better than Flanker in subsonic acceleration.

A Su-27 single seater at 18920 kg flying weight (very little fuel on board) accelerates from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

A super hornet at 17241kg flying weight (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg Su-27) accelerates from 360 kts to 550kts in 10 seconds, average acceleration is 9.77m/s^2.

During the operation test and evaluation, the F/A-18E demonstrated subsonic acceleration comparable to Mig-29A, which was designated as the "primary threat".

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 12:39
by gta4
ricnunes wrote:However TVC is not an "end all - win all" solution (or else every modern fighter aircraft would be equipped with TVC which is clearly not the case). TVC also has it's own drawbacks such as making the aircraft losing more energy when performing those high alpha maneuvers compared with a SH performing those same high alpha maneuvers (since the SH doesn't have TVC engines and as such the energy loss would be less). TVC engines also increase the aircraft's weight (in the case of the Su-35 not by much but by something, that's for sure).
So and as I said above, it's quite possible that the Su-35 ends up loosing more energy when performing high alpha maneuvers compared to the Super Hornet which means that the SH could still have the advantage here.


The reason why Super hornet loses less altitude in high alpha is in fact quite interesting. It is all about aerodynamics.
This figure is from a book published by Sukhoi, the flanker designer:
18 27 lex design.jpg


Flanker picked the LERX that loses lift at high alpha. Super Hornet picked the LERX that maintains lift even at very high alpha, which was discarded by Sukhoi because this LERX generates strong and non-linear pitch moment which was hard to control at 1980s (when Flanker was designed).

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 15:21
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

Do you have a source to support that???

A clean Flanker has an RCS in the 15 to 20m^2 range. As soon as you start hanging ordnance, it just gets worse. A clean Super Hornet has an RCS in the .5 to .1m^2 range. In an A2A configuration, a Super Hornet could easily stay in the 5 to 10m^2 range (and likely smaller.)


.....and you have a source to support that???


It's pretty clear that SH has significantly lower RCS than Su-27 or even Su-35S. We don't have exact figures for operational aircraft, but there are lot of modeling software available which can give fairly good idea about RCS of these aircraft. Most models I've seen give roughly those figures but of course it also depends on very small details and materials used. The difference might be bigger in real life as SH seemingly has a lot more work put into those small details.

Weapons and EFTs don't necessarily affect RCS that much (for 4th gen fighters) with modern weapons and tanks that are designed for lower RCS. Western weapons definitely have lower RCS than Russian ones. AMRAAM, AIM-9X and ASRAAM have much better design from RCS PoV than R-77, R-27 or R-73/74 in Sukhois. They have a lot less reflecting surfaces and could easily have order of magnitude lower RCS even with equal materials and built quality. There have been studies made about different weapons. Even old weapons have pretty low RCS:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEB ... a51_13.PDF (document by Boeing from 1975)

The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 15:29
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


This may surprise you, but F/A-18E is at least on par with, or slightly better than Flanker in subsonic acceleration.

A Su-27 single seater at 18920 kg flying weight (very little fuel on board) accelerates from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

A super hornet at 17241kg flying weight (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg Su-27) accelerates from 420 kts to 550kts in 10 seconds, average acceleration is 9.77m/s^2.

During the operation test and evaluation, the F/A-18E demonstrated subsonic acceleration comparable to Mig-29A, which was designated as the "primary threat".


Indeed, I wasn't aware of this. Thank you. I was thinking comparing it moreso to the SU-35 though. I'll do my best to research that.

I always heard the following about the F-18: "Nothing gets slower, faster than a Hornet. And nothing gets faster, slower than a Hornet." So... does that refer only to the legacy Hornet?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 15:46
by gta4
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


This may surprise you, but F/A-18E is at least on par with, or slightly better than Flanker in subsonic acceleration.

A Su-27 single seater at 18920 kg flying weight (very little fuel on board) accelerates from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

A super hornet at 17241kg flying weight (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg Su-27) accelerates from 360 kts to 550kts in 10 seconds, average acceleration is 9.77m/s^2.

During the operation test and evaluation, the F/A-18E demonstrated subsonic acceleration comparable to Mig-29A, which was designated as the "primary threat".


Indeed, I wasn't aware of this. Thank you. I was thinking comparing it moreso to the SU-35 though. I'll do my best to research that.

I always heard the following about the F-18: "Nothing gets slower, faster than a Hornet. And nothing gets faster, slower than a Hornet." So... does that refer only to the legacy Hornet?


That Only refers To transonic acceleration rather than subsonic acceleration.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 19:32
by citanon
The su57 is a defendor, not a penetrator.

So, I'm wondering if the su57 is meant to be a mainly defensive fighter in Russian service.

In the years since its debut one thing= that's never made sense to me is the apparent neglect of stealth treatment on the bottom of the aircraft.

Today I saw a Russian state media video boasting of the extremely short takeoffs for the su57 and it all started to make sense.

These characteristics:

Stealthy top side, short takeoffs, extreme maneuverability, would make sense for a plane designed from the ground up to work over friendly territory with friendly air defenses to defend against enemy air incursions.

In this scenario, the situation would operate close to the ground, below the altitude of enemy aircraft, as a mobile, stealthy air defense element. This is why most of the stealth treatment is on top.

It will use its speed and the support of friendly iads to close in undetected on enemy aircraft or suspected positions of said aircraft, and engage them in close range fights.

The offensive fight will mostly be left to the army and long range precision fires. The job of the su57 is to buttress aa/ad over friendly territory to allow sustainment of such fires.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 20:15
by mixelflick
Interesting hypothesis..

If true, does that mean it won't be participating in something like Syria??

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:07
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:.....and you have a source to support that???


It's pretty clear that SH has significantly lower RCS than Su-27 or even Su-35S. We don't have exact figures for operational aircraft, but there are lot of modeling software available which can give fairly good idea about RCS of these aircraft. Most models I've seen give roughly those figures but of course it also depends on very small details and materials used. The difference might be bigger in real life as SH seemingly has a lot more work put into those small details.

Weapons and EFTs don't necessarily affect RCS that much (for 4th gen fighters) with modern weapons and tanks that are designed for lower RCS. Western weapons definitely have lower RCS than Russian ones. AMRAAM, AIM-9X and ASRAAM have much better design from RCS PoV than R-77, R-27 or R-73/74 in Sukhois. They have a lot less reflecting surfaces and could easily have order of magnitude lower RCS even with equal materials and built quality. There have been studies made about different weapons. Even old weapons have pretty low RCS:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEB ... a51_13.PDF (document by Boeing from 1975)

The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.


Thanks Hornetfinn. Again very interesting. What means TERs?

@Corsair1963

This Pic will help you. Left the Su-27, right the Su with RAM. Like the Su-35s. The Picture was posted from eloise.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16457&start=450

Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:28
by SpudmanWP
TER = Triple Ejector Rack (bomb rack with 3 locations)

Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Not going to lie, I thought that would be higher than 1m^2

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:40
by swiss
SpudmanWP wrote:TER = Triple Ejector Rack (bomb rack with 3 locations)

Image


Ah ok. Thanks for enlighten me Spudman.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:53
by citanon
mixelflick wrote:Interesting hypothesis..

If true, does that mean it won't be participating in something like Syria??


I don't know what other roles it might also play. The Russians could send it there to show the flag, conduct some trivial strikes, or reinforce their control over AD zones. I think the plane will be much more important to Russian operations in Europe.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 23:55
by SpudmanWP
The USMC just qualified a "Smart" TER that can mount smart weapons (JDAMs, Paveways, etc) on all three stations and the French have a TER also.

Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 01:18
by marsavian
gta4 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


This may surprise you, but F/A-18E is at least on par with, or slightly better than Flanker in subsonic acceleration.

A Su-27 single seater at 18920 kg flying weight (very little fuel on board) accelerates from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

A super hornet at 17241kg flying weight (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg Su-27) accelerates from 420 kts to 550kts in 10 seconds, average acceleration is 9.77m/s^2.

During the operation test and evaluation, the F/A-18E demonstrated subsonic acceleration comparable to Mig-29A, which was designated as the "primary threat".


From your figures I make the Hornet's average acceleration to be 6.69 m/s^2. In 10s the Hornet has increased its speed by 31% whereas the Su-27 has increased its speed by 83% in 15s.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 01:36
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.

What would your educated guess be for the RCS of an AIM-9X mounted on a F-35 stealth pylon?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 02:13
by gta4
marsavian wrote:
gta4 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So if they're similar performing machines at low speed and the Flanker holds the edge in acceleration/straight line speed....


This may surprise you, but F/A-18E is at least on par with, or slightly better than Flanker in subsonic acceleration.

A Su-27 single seater at 18920 kg flying weight (very little fuel on board) accelerates from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

A super hornet at 17241kg flying weight (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg Su-27) accelerates from 360 kts to 550kts in 10 seconds, average acceleration is 9.77m/s^2.

During the operation test and evaluation, the F/A-18E demonstrated subsonic acceleration comparable to Mig-29A, which was designated as the "primary threat".


From your figures I make the Hornet's average acceleration to be 6.69 m/s^2. In 10s the Hornet has increased its speed by 31% whereas the Su-27 has increased its speed by 83% in 15s.


I made a typo. F18 accelerates from 360kts instead of 420kts

Figures are from super hornet block ll flight manual.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 03:51
by element1loop
citanon wrote:The su57 is a defendor, not a penetrator.

So, I'm wondering if the su57 is meant to be a mainly defensive fighter in Russian service.

In the years since its debut one thing= that's never made sense to me is the apparent neglect of stealth treatment on the bottom of the aircraft.

Today I saw a Russian state media video boasting of the extremely short takeoffs for the su57 and it all started to make sense.

These characteristics:

Stealthy top side, short takeoffs, extreme maneuverability, would make sense for a plane designed from the ground up to work over friendly territory with friendly air defenses to defend against enemy air incursions.

In this scenario, the situation would operate close to the ground, below the altitude of enemy aircraft, as a mobile, stealthy air defense element. This is why most of the stealth treatment is on top.

It will use its speed and the support of friendly iads to close in undetected on enemy aircraft or suspected positions of said aircraft, and engage them in close range fights.

The offensive fight will mostly be left to the army and long range precision fires. The job of the su57 is to buttress aa/ad over friendly territory to allow sustainment of such fires.


Alternatively, it's a product of post-Soviet collapse and extremely limited austerity budget, and desperation, in the face of US 5th-gens, plus Eurocanards.

Which likewise explains the Su35 and late build MiG29s.

In 2005, as F-22A was becoming a thing, RuAF were scarcely able to afford fuell to train pilots and maintain corroding parked aircraft.

As I've pointed out before if you take the rear half of the PAK-AF (ignore the pointy end) it's not much different from an Su35s rump section.

Thus, it's not just the underside which is unimpressive.

And we all know about the intake tunnel design.

No need to over think it, PAK-AF design has a context, it's the product of severe austerity and desperation ... and continues to be that, due to the oil price collapse and sanctions of recent years.

It is as it is, because there were no good finance and tech options available to develop a more impresive design.

They need money - and time - lots of both.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 04:30
by rheonomic
I mean, the Su-57 is basically nothing more than a stealthified Flanker...

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 06:26
by element1loop
They've done it before in the Su34 'Platypus', which also has a 'stealthified' nose shaping, a hat-tip to contemporary ATF shaping development when it was being designed, as a development of the Flanker. The proof in the pudding is the evolved AL31 --> AL41 heritage within all three, Su34, Su35 and Su57. No budget for a new donk. No budget for a serious 5th-gen effort. Glorified target drone? ... ok, maybe that's a bit harsh but I wouldn't want to flying one of them into an air battle in 2025 ... nor will anyone else.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 07:58
by citanon
element1loop wrote:
Alternatively, it's a product of post-Soviet collapse and extremely limited austerity budget, and desperation, in the face of US 5th-gens, plus Eurocanards.

Which likewise explains the Su35 and late build MiG29s.

In 2005, as F-22A was becoming a thing, RuAF were scarcely able to afford fuell to train pilots and maintain corroding parked aircraft.



I have no doubt the Su57 is a product of Russia's constraints. What I think is interesting though, is given those constraints, and their inability to do better, could they still come up with a strategy to exploit what they could manage to slap together?

I mean adaptation under austerity is part and parcel of the Russian military hardware heritage.

So, what I'm saying is, given that we accept the Su57 is essentially a modded flanker, what could they get out of it? Could they make it dangerous to our 5th gen aircraft? Could they use it to enhance their offensive posture?

And the answer, I think, is a maybe.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 10:38
by hornetfinn
popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.

What would your educated guess be for the RCS of an AIM-9X mounted on a F-35 stealth pylon?


That's really tough to say without simulating that with some software. However Brazilians measured their MAA-1 Piranha (basically AIM-9L/M in shape and size) to have RCS of about 0.01 to 0.1 square meters from most angles (except directly perpendicular and directly from behind where there were spikes). AIM-9X and ASRAAM have a lot smaller fins and wings and their shape is better for low RCS. Their IIR seekers are also I'm sure the materials have improved a lot, but the RCS effects are impossible to know from public info.

That Brazilian study:
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n1/J ... 10_GHz.pdf

My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 12:00
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.

What would your educated guess be for the RCS of an AIM-9X mounted on a F-35 stealth pylon?


That's really tough to say without simulating that with some software. However Brazilians measured their MAA-1 Piranha (basically AIM-9L/M in shape and size) to have RCS of about 0.01 to 0.1 square meters from most angles (except directly perpendicular and directly from behind where there were spikes). AIM-9X and ASRAAM have a lot smaller fins and wings and their shape is better for low RCS. Their IIR seekers are also I'm sure the materials have improved a lot, but the RCS effects are impossible to know from public info.

That Brazilian study:
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n1/J ... 10_GHz.pdf

My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.


Thanks, JPO may be willing to accept a small RCS penalty in lieu of development spending for internal carriage.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 12:23
by marsavian
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Not going to lie, I thought that would be higher than 1m^2


It is. 1 and 2 refer to the average RCS of Su-27/stealthy Su-27 which according to the right horizontal scale is just over 20 m^2 and just under 10 m^2 respectively.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

Fig. 3. The "facet" model of the Su-27 (above) and the effective scattering surface diagram of the aircraft
as a function of the viewing angle in the horizontal plane (bottom)
The solid line corresponds to the diagram of the scattering of a real aircraft, the dashed line corresponds to an aircraft with a reduced radar visibility; 1 and 2 - averaged over the range of angles ± 30 ° EPR values


Image

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 14:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Not going to lie, I thought that would be higher than 1m^2


It is. 1 and 2 refer to the average RCS of Su-27/stealthy Su-27 which according to the right horizontal scale is just over 20 m^2 and just under 10 m^2 respectively.

I was referring to two TERs of Mk82s

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 17:05
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.


Thats indeed a very low impact on the RCS. I assume Amraam and Meteors RCS should be higher. Whats your opinion about the RCS of fuel tanks? Would be helpful for a discussion in a other thread.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 03:22
by gta4
I used Google Scholar and searched some keywords like "pylon" "RCS", no useful results so far

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 15:18
by garrya
hornetfinn wrote:
It's pretty clear that SH has significantly lower RCS than Su-27 or even Su-35S. We don't have exact figures for operational aircraft, but there are lot of modeling software available which can give fairly good idea about RCS of these aircraft. Most models I've seen give roughly those figures but of course it also depends on very small details and materials used. The difference might be bigger in real life as SH seemingly has a lot more work put into those small details.

Weapons and EFTs don't necessarily affect RCS that much (for 4th gen fighters) with modern weapons and tanks that are designed for lower RCS. Western weapons definitely have lower RCS than Russian ones. AMRAAM, AIM-9X and ASRAAM have much better design from RCS PoV than R-77, R-27 or R-73/74 in Sukhois. They have a lot less reflecting surfaces and could easily have order of magnitude lower RCS even with equal materials and built quality. There have been studies made about different weapons. Even old weapons have pretty low RCS:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEB ... a51_13.PDF (document by Boeing from 1975)

The document says that individual Mk-82 bomb has RCS of about 0.05 to 0.1 square meters from most angles. 2 TERs with 6 Mk-82s has RCS of about 0.5 to 1 square meter according to this. Modern A-G weapons likely have a lower RCS than that.

Good source

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 15:23
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:the last few decades has been for combat to become more BVR


Though I firmly believe that the majority of air combat would be BVR, I don't think saying that BVR accounted for the majority of kills during the past decades is a good way to prove this. Because people can counter by saying, the most recent air to air kills the past few years have been WVR.

Just like how a certain set of conditions were met to allow BVR kills in past wars, certain circumstances can also lead to the recent influx of WVR kills as of late.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 15:47
by icemaverick
zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote:the last few decades has been for combat to become more BVR


Though I firmly believe that the majority of air combat would be BVR, I don't think saying that BVR accounted for the majority of kills during the past decades is a good way to prove this. Because people can counter by saying, the most recent air to air kills the past few years have been WVR.

Just like how a certain set of conditions were met to allow BVR kills in past wars, certain circumstances can also lead to the recent influx of WVR kills as of late.


We haven’t had any major aerial conflicts since NATO bombed Yugoslavia in the late 90s. Even in the most recent Iraq War (not Gilulf War), there was almost no resistance in the skies.

Most of the shoot downs in the past ~19 years have been between sides that are not officially at war. In “peacetime” conditions, the ROEs are going to be vastly different.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 16:24
by zero-one
icemaverick wrote:
We haven’t had any major aerial conflicts since NATO bombed Yugoslavia in the late 90s. Even in the most recent Iraq War (not Gilulf War), there was almost no resistance in the skies.

Most of the shoot downs in the past ~19 years have been between sides that are not officially at war. In “peacetime” conditions, the ROEs are going to be vastly different.


Thats what I'm saying, so we can't use historical data to prove future predictions. Instead I'd use what the current technology brings and what the counter is and weigh the 2. Right now that tells me that a majority will be BVR but there will also be a modest number of post merge scenarios.

Iraq and Bosnia who are basically the poster child for BVR combat had no where near the amount of SA that peer adversaries had, there were also kills against aircraft that were running away to Iran, so I would say thats a poor man's victory.

And please don't say "Iraq was difficult, they only made it look easy". If the combined strength USAF, USN, RAF, RSAF and all the other air forces in the coalition had a hard time with Iraq (who was not supported by Russia or China) then they have no business challenging the Russians or the Chinese in any way.

Iraq had experience on their side, but that was about it. they were depleted and exhausted from the Iran-Iraq war, their tech was good for a regional power, but nowhere near Superpower levels. Russia and China on the other hand were near peer and continue to be to this day. So it was a numerical and technological over-match that allowed the Gulf war to be the way it is.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 07:47
by gta4
The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 09:03
by element1loop
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.


The technology exists in service now, to make this no longer a necessary act or presumption.

It's now viable to elect to maintain a given radial distance, below which you do not go, or seak to recover to, and you can also choose to not be seen at all.

Thus do not need to involuntarily go into WVR, but to fight a MDF-based (mostly passive) BVR-only engagement (a high intensity fight that is), then disengage from there, with cover.

There is presently almost no reason to enter, or be forced to enter into a WVR radius fight, if you chose in advance, to not do so, yet still engage to kill.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 13:21
by marsavian
WVR is positively dangerous now with all aspect missiles and targeting. You may not have the choice but I can't see anyone choosing to fight in that regime unless visual ID is required first. Successful long range target ID is crucial for SA to get full use of your long range weapons. That's why the F-35's supreme SA is more important than say the fancy TVC maneouvering of the Su-35/Su-57 with the latter probably not being that important anyway WVR if your opponent has a better aspect missile than you to hand. The F-35 is just the right combination of stealth, SA and kinematics for the first part of this century. The second half of this century I believe will be the era of combined cycle turbine/scramjet hypersonic aircraft and missiles with some attention to stealth where possible.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 13:50
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.


Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'... :mrgreen:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 14:00
by gta4
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.


Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'... :mrgreen:


Well that was true when F-35's flight control software limited its capability, especially when the pilot claimed F-35 has "insufficient pitch rate".

However, since 2017 Paris airshow, LM has changed its PR strategy completely and F-35 is advertised to be "fully capable in dogfight and is more maneuverable than Typhoon or Superhornet without a doubt". At least its pitch rate is sufficient now, judging from airshow moves.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 14:58
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:And please don't say "Iraq was difficult, they only made it look easy". If the combined strength USAF, USN, RAF, RSAF and all the other air forces in the coalition had a hard time with Iraq (who was not supported by Russia or China) then they have no business challenging the Russians or the Chinese in any way.



I'll be your huckleberry.

Not China or russia, no.

Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 15:12
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition


Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 18:04
by icemaverick
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition


Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser


I think you are underestimating how difficult Iraq really was. Of course they were not as powerful as China or Russia but can you think of many other countries that would have posed a bigger challenge at the time? Iraq was the 4th or 5th largest air force in the world at the time. They had MiG-29s, which were considered to be a pretty scary aircraft. The MiG-25 and Mirage F1s were no joke either. Plus, they also had a formidable air defense network. On top of that, many of their pilots were seasoned veterans whereas the US pilots were mostly untested in battle.

The North Vietnamese were also outnumbered and outgunned and look at how difficult it was for the USAF and USN....at certain points of that war, the kill ratio was less than 1:1. The reason Saddam Hussein chose to take on the US and allies is because he believed that he could turn it into another Vietnam; he thought he could bog down the Coalition and wear them out. At that time, no one knew for sure if America's new doctrines would work or not.

The success of the Gulf War is a testament to the lessons learned in Vietnam. Thanks to Boyd and others, the USAF (and also the Navy) completely revamped their approach to fighting wars. They changed the doctrine, strategy, the tactics, the aircraft and the missiles. Sure the Coalition should have dominated but it was something like a 39:1 air-to-air kill ratio. That's pretty damn impressive. Even the USAF and USAF were surprised at how badly Iraq was dominated.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 18:22
by SpudmanWP
It also helps when the Pols let the Generals do what they gotta do.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 20:44
by tailgate
You also have to remember that the Iraqis were heavily tied to GCI systems. Most of their pilots where being told “ when,what,where.....” and that played a significant part in what we were able to accomplish.....

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 21:50
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition


Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser


Lesser? Yes. That's what I said.

Far far far lesser? No.


If you were around in 1991, there were potential failures abound. Most of those pitfalls were avoided with nothing short of solid competency. It wasn't an accident and it wasn't all luck or Iraqi incompetence.

That's the fastest way i can put it. Whole very thick bOoks have been written on the 1991 war and the Iraq and Iran war that preceded it

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 22:10
by botsing
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition


Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

Must have been as easy as beating Germany and Japan during WW2. You know, where the allies build about 600.000 more airplanes and around 5 times the amount of tanks, to easily stomp over the axis? :mrgreen:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 22:20
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:Must have been as easy as beating Germany and Japan during WW2. You know, where the allies build about 600.000 more airplanes and around 5 times the amount of tanks, to easily stomp over the axis? :mrgreen:


I guess I'm in the grim position of asking how many Americans and allies would have to have died in order for Iraq to be considered a decent (though still overmatched) opponent.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 22:37
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.


Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'... :mrgreen:

There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 01:57
by nutshell
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

I think BVR goal is actually to achieve the unfair advantage of shooting before the enemy, to shoot again, to shoot again (this part is crucial because heads would roll in Rytheon) and possibly, one more time.

Then, go into a merge knowing your enemy has possibly burnt too much fuel(and luck)which is again grabbing that unfair advantage.

At least, imho.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 03:57
by Corsair1963
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.



What??? The whole objective is to fight at BVR and avoid WVR. :doh:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 08:19
by zero-one
icemaverick wrote:I think you are underestimating how difficult Iraq really was............


No I'm not, they were powerful for a regional power, but hilariously outgunned against the world's lone superpower at the time.

unlike Vietnam back in the 60s, they had no support from major players like Russia or Europe, hence they had no way of restocking used or lost armaments.

And unlike the Germany back in World war 2 they had no or very very little production capability. If I remember correctly, Israel was more powerful, though they were smaller, they had more modern equipment and had an actual production line of advanced aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles etc.

Okay answer me this, how many times would Iraq win against the US in 100 engagements? and by win I mean invading Washington and raising the Iraqi flag over the white house. I'm guessing zero,

What about a defensive victory where they defeat the coalition forces....I don't think thats possible as well.

The very best that they could achieve was increase the number of casualties inflicted against the coalition and maybe negotiate a case fire. But unlike Vietnam, they had no support which meant they could not sustain a high end war, it will inevitably lead to guerilla warfare. with nothing more than small arms.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 08:31
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:

What??? The whole objective is to fight at BVR and avoid WVR. :doh:


I think it depends on the situation.

If you're cleared to engage a few bandits from BVR, then BVR will be used to avoid WVR all together. But as Chip and Tailgate said, there will be situations that will call for WVR even in an F-22.

So I imagine one example would be while providing CAP. Multiple bandits trying to penetrate your protected airspace, you take out as many as you can BVR which will lead to advantages when you get to WVR.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 14:44
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.


Thats indeed a very low impact on the RCS. I assume Amraam and Meteors RCS should be higher. Whats your opinion about the RCS of fuel tanks? Would be helpful for a discussion in a other thread.


I think modern EFTs have fairly low RCS as they have clean shape and are made of composites nowadays which helps a lot. Of course they are pretty large objects hanging from aircraft and definitely increase RCS.

I found this about radar cross section for EFTs (seems pretty sound as far as theory goes from quick look): http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002901.pdf

Basically they calculated than the RCS of single EFT is something like 0.001 to 0.1 square meters from forward sector but spikes to tens of square meters directly from sides.

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 16:23
by mixelflick
"However, since 2017 Paris airshow, LM has changed its PR strategy completely and F-35 is advertised to be "fully capable in dogfight and is more maneuverable than Typhoon or Superhornet without a doubt".

To me, this is one of the most impressive aspects of the F-35. Although designed as a sensor/shooter and not a pure dogfighter, it somehow has some genuine supermaneuverable moves without the thrust vectoring, etc. seen on other jets. It may not be a Raptor WVR, but anyone that jumps it thinking easy kill is in for a nasty surprise..

"The success of the Gulf War is a testament to the lessons learned in Vietnam, the USAF (and also the Navy) completely revamped their approach to fighting wars. They changed the doctrine, strategy, the tactics, the aircraft and the missiles... "


When reading this, I couldn't help think about how the F-22 and F-35 have done the same. Well, almost the same... we still need new missiles, LOL. We continually hear about how 5th gen birds have re-written the playbook, and those changes are still coming now that the F-35 is in the hands of the warfighter and present so many options. Every time I see these SU-57 vs F-22 or 35 threads I think about that. You can even hear it in the Russian's statements, saying something to the effect that "the SU-57 will be at least equal to and in many ways superior to the F-22..."

They're thinking about yesterday's war, strategy and tactics. They don't have a robust tanker/AWACS force, nor do the Chinese. Time will tell if building tactical aircraft with huge gas tanks and "supermaneuverability" was a stroke of genius or a mistake.

The first time an F-35 shoots down an SU-57 with an SM-6, it'll be the first time it hits them...

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 16:39
by mixelflick
wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.


Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'... :mrgreen:

There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.


What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 17:28
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:
wrightwing wrote:There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.


What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..

Do you have some links to what you are talking about? I cannot remember LM spinning anything after the leaked CLAW test with an F-16 as observer/reference plane. Also after reading that CLAW test report I never got the impression that dogfighting was ever any part of that test.

Maybe we are talking about something completely different here? So please show us the links to that "dogfight" and LM's spinning of it so we can do some fact checking.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 17:45
by tsl256
What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..[/quote]

It was an AoA test, and not a dogfight.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 22:06
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.


Thats indeed a very low impact on the RCS. I assume Amraam and Meteors RCS should be higher. Whats your opinion about the RCS of fuel tanks? Would be helpful for a discussion in a other thread.


I think modern EFTs have fairly low RCS as they have clean shape and are made of composites nowadays which helps a lot. Of course they are pretty large objects hanging from aircraft and definitely increase RCS.

I found this about radar cross section for EFTs (seems pretty sound as far as theory goes from quick look): http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002901.pdf

Basically they calculated than the RCS of single EFT is something like 0.001 to 0.1 square meters from forward sector but spikes to tens of square meters directly from sides.

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.


Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 23:32
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..


A flight control laws test? Because that's what it was.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 23:56
by nutshell
"Basic Fighter Maneuvers"

Do you really dogfight against a clean f16 with a 4.5g frame that's testing its Claws?

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 01:15
by icemaverick
zero-one wrote:No I'm not, they were powerful for a regional power, but hilariously outgunned against the world's lone superpower at the time.


The same applies to Vietnam. Look at how much trouble the North Vietnamese gave the US. Look at the Russians' experience in Chechnya. On the first go of things, they were defeated by a ragtag bunch of rebels in what they claimed as their own territory.

Just because one side is better armed and better equipped than the other does not assure a victory. There are many examples of a smaller, supposedly weaker force defeating a larger, better equipped one.

unlike Vietnam back in the 60s, they had no support from major players like Russia or Europe, hence they had no way of restocking used or lost armaments.


They also had better trained pilots, better funding and better equipment compared to their enemies. Sure they couldn't restock their weapons, but it's quite amazing that they only managed to score 1 air-to-air kill. Compare that to Vietnam. Heck, even in Korea, US pilots were something like 12-1. 39-1 is truly astounding.

And unlike the Germany back in World war 2 they had no or very very little production capability.


The North Vietnamese also had no production capability but that didn't prevent them from giving the US forces fits.

If I remember correctly, Israel was more powerful, though they were smaller, they had more modern equipment and had an actual production line of advanced aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles etc.


I don't think the Israelis really had any advanced aircraft in production. The Kfir, which is basically an Israeli copy of the Mirage III was pretty long in the tooth by the early 90s. That being said, I do think the Israelis would have defeated the Iraqis thanks to their better trained military and their relative cohesion (Iraq is of course a country that has major ethnic and religious divides).

Okay answer me this, how many times would Iraq win against the US in 100 engagements? and by win I mean invading Washington and raising the Iraqi flag over the white house. I'm guessing zero,


It was never Iraq's objective to invade Washington. That's just silly. First off, how would the even get their expeditionary force across the Atlantic Ocean to attack the United States? Maybe the only country in the Western Hemisphere that would allow the Iraqis to base their forces on its territory would be Cuba. Good luck getting their forces there though!

That was never their objective. They hoped to bog the Coalition down and get them to give up....essentially turn it into another Vietnam for the US. They hoped that if they could turn it into a long drawn out war, the US public would lose its resolve.

What about a defensive victory where they defeat the coalition forces....I don't think thats possible as well.


Again, go back to the First Chechen War. This was Russia, the heir to the USSR, versus a bunch of rebels. The Russians were defeated and suffered nearly 6,000 casualties.

War is never as easy as it looks. For the US to go into a foreign country located thousands of miles away and to absolutely crush them is quite an accomplishment.

The very best that they could achieve was increase the number of casualties inflicted against the coalition and maybe negotiate a case fire. But unlike Vietnam, they had no support which meant they could not sustain a high end war, it will inevitably lead to guerilla warfare. with nothing more than small arms.


They could have definitely score more kills of Coalition aircraft. They could have inflicted much heavier casualties.

Also, do not underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. Besides the example of the First Chechen War, look at what the Afghans did to the USSR in the 80s. That war lasted over 9 years and ended with the Soviets withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988....just 3 years before the Gulf War.

The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 04:07
by element1loop
icemaverick wrote:The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.


OP "Desert Shield" build-up phase added another 6 months.

~7.5 months overall.

(best not to under state the actual duration - is all)

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 08:10
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.


Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?


No problem! I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides). Of course if it's fully bombed up with older ordnance, it will have much higher RCS. I base this on these calculated, simulated and measured RCS figures for weapons and EFTs. Also RCS reduction measures taken in advanced 4th gen aircraft would not make much sense otherwise. Far cry from VLO stealth aircraft, but better than older 4th gen fighters, which are likely at least 5 square meters from frontal sector with the same loadout (F-16 and Gripen might be slightly less though).

I think something like one order of magnitude difference in RCS between AMRAAM and AIM-9X sound about right, but that's just a guess.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 09:15
by zero-one
Fair points on all arguments icemaverick, but allow me to share my take.

icemaverick wrote:The same applies to Vietnam. Look at how much trouble the North Vietnamese gave the US. Look at the Russians' experience in Chechnya. On the first go of things, they were defeated by a ragtag bunch of rebels in what they claimed as their own territory.

Well Vietnam and to an extent Afganistan against the USSR is what I would call a political victory not a military victory. The US and the USSR won all or nearly all combat operations in those wars. The only reason they "lost" was because of politics. Yes the Vietnamese and the were able to inflict heavy casualties but they were dominated in every single aspect. they did not win a single battle.

icemaverick wrote:Just because one side is better armed and better equipped than the other does not assure a victory. There are many examples of a smaller, supposedly weaker force defeating a larger, better equipped one.


Most of those victories were political in nature, very rarely does an inferior force actually achieve a military victory specially in the modern era where tech becomes a force multiplier. The American revolution was probably one of the very few examples of an inferior force achieving military objectives against superior forces.

icemaverick wrote:They also had better trained pilots, better funding and better equipment compared to their enemies.

Compared to other middle eastern countries maybe, but Iran and Israel might have something to say about that. However against the US, UK, and many NATO nations, their airforce and navy simply pales in comparison in every aspect.
there wasn't a single aspect where the Iraqi' AF had an advantage over the RAF let alone the USAF and USN.



icemaverick wrote:
The North Vietnamese also had no production capability but that didn't prevent them from giving the US forces fits.


But they had something better, heavy Soviet support which meant lost aircraft could be replaced, armaments could be restocked and best of all, we couldn't target their production facilities in the USSR, something that Germany didn't have the luxury of back in WW2


icemaverick wrote:I don't think the Israelis really had any advanced aircraft in production.

Still far better than anything the Iraqis could produce themselves

icemaverick wrote:It was never Iraq's objective to invade Washington.


Well thats the point, even if they could ship their whole military to Cuba somehow they would be slaughtered once they try to cross. The point was the sheer overwhelming military mismatch that the US possesed over Iraq, it was literally David against 100 Goliaths except David didn't have God on his side this time.

icemaverick wrote:essentially turn it into another Vietnam for the US. They hoped that if they could turn it into a long drawn out war, the US public would lose its resolve.


yes that was the best they could have achieved, but like I said, Vietnam was just a political victory but a massive military defeat for the North.

icemaverick wrote:They could have definitely score more kills of Coalition aircraft. They could have inflicted much heavier casualties.

yes they could have, but they had essentially no chance of winning, I don't think they even had enough missiles to take down all the coalition aircraft in the area.

icemaverick wrote:Also, do not underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. Besides the example of the First Chechen War, look at what the Afghans did to the USSR in the 80s.

Well Guerilla warfare almost always results in military defeats in the sense that you are not achieving military objectives, you're just pestering the superior force until a cease fire or peace talks results in what you are hoping for politically.

icemaverick wrote:The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.


Agree, but again, my point is that they were simply far far far over matched. Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4. but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 15:29
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:
swiss wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.


Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?


No problem! I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides). Of course if it's fully bombed up with older ordnance, it will have much higher RCS. I base this on these calculated, simulated and measured RCS figures for weapons and EFTs. Also RCS reduction measures taken in advanced 4th gen aircraft would not make much sense otherwise. Far cry from VLO stealth aircraft, but better than older 4th gen fighters, which are likely at least 5 square meters from frontal sector with the same loadout (F-16 and Gripen might be slightly less though).

I think something like one order of magnitude difference in RCS between AMRAAM and AIM-9X sound about right, but that's just a guess.


And again, thanks a lot. :thumb:

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 15:58
by element1loop
zero-one wrote: ... Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4. but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.


It's so much more than even that, Z1, you forgot something that's rather big ... the reserve force.

The US and also Allies (plus ad-hoc coalition forces} only deployed a smallish subset of their total airforce capability for ODS.

But the Iraqis had their entire proficient war force present, and all their SAMs and IADS.

I hear people confidently voice the (absurd) presumption that US and Allied air power has shrunk, is tired, lacks maintainence, is overused, is too old, is outdated, is vulnerable to the usual suspects force, and western air power is a feeble shadow of ODS potential. They have no grasp of the current potential.

12 years later Sadam buried MiG25s - he got it. But PAK-AF has a shot? They really don't get it.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 19:50
by icemaverick
zero-one wrote:Most of those victories were political in nature, very rarely does an inferior force actually achieve a military victory specially in the modern era where tech becomes a force multiplier. The American revolution was probably one of the very few examples of an inferior force achieving military objectives against superior forces.


I don't think we completely disagree here. I agree with you that there is little no chance that Iraq could have defeated the US in an all out war. But in the real world, most wars are about achieving political objectives. It's not just about scoring the most kills and annihilating the enemy.

If Iraq could have drawn the Coalition into a long, drawn out war, it's entirely possible that the citizens of the Coalition nations would have lost their appetite for the war and their politicians would be pressured into signing a ceasefire. That would have been a victory for Saddam Hussein. Even if Iraq suffered heavier casualties and lost more aircraft/tanks/artillery/SAMs etc., they would have achieved their objective.

Going back to the example of the First Chechen War, Russia had overwhelming military superiority over the Chechen rebels. It wasn't even close. Even though Grozny was completely leveled while Moscow remained mostly untouched, in the end it was a victory for the Chechens because the Russians gave up and agreed to a peace treaty; the Chechens achieved their political objectives.

Compared to other middle eastern countries maybe, but Iran and Israel might have something to say about that. However against the US, UK, and many NATO nations, their airforce and navy simply pales in comparison in every aspect.
there wasn't a single aspect where the Iraqi' AF had an advantage over the RAF let alone the USAF and USN.


There wasn't a single aspect where the North Vietnamese had any advantage over the United States. There wasn't a single aspect where the Afghans had any advantage over the USSR. There wasn't a single aspect where the Chechen rebels had an advantage over the Russians. Yet in all of these conflicts, the inferior force was able to achieve its political objectives while the more powerful force gave up.

yes that was the best they could have achieved, but like I said, Vietnam was just a political victory but a massive military defeat for the North.


The North Vietnamese accomplished their objectives while the United States failed to achieve its objectives. South Vietnam was annexed and Vietnam became a communist nation. The point of war is to achieve political victories.

If Iraq could bog down the US and Coalition and force them to withdraw, it could have kept Kuwait and therein achieve a major political victory. This is exactly why Saddam Hussein chose to fight even though he was outnumbered and outgunned. He believed that he could achieve a political victory.

yes they could have, but they had essentially no chance of winning, I don't think they even had enough missiles to take down all the coalition aircraft in the area.


What if the Coalition was forced to operate under constant duress? What if the strike packages were constantly harassed? What the if the Iraqis had scored a number of air to air kills? They wouldn't have a chance of completely destroying the Coalition, but they would have had a great chance of making them quit.

Well Guerilla warfare almost always results in military defeats in the sense that you are not achieving military objectives, you're just pestering the superior force until a cease fire or peace talks results in what you are hoping for politically.


But you acknowledge that this is a still a victory for the guerrilla force.

Agree, but again, my point is that they were simply far far far over matched. Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4.


How powerful were the Chechens relative to Russia? How powerful was the USSR relative to the Afghans? What happened in those wars?

but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.


The USSR in the 1980s was built to defeat NATO. Surely a bunch of mujahideen in Afghanistan would have no chance, right? What about the Chechen Rebels? Sure Russia wasn't as powerful as the USSR but it still had an incredibly well-equipped military. The North Vietnamese had Soviet backing but the USSR never directly got involved in the war and they still managed to bog the US down and ultimately achieve their political objectives.

My point is that for the US the crush Iraq so thoroughly was very impressive. Yes, no one really believed that Iraq would invade Washington or even destroy most of the Coalition forces. But there was the possibility that Iraq could have inflicted heavy losses on the Coalition and make them give up.

Instead, Iraq was completely and utterly dominated. Everyone (including the Russians and Chinese) were very impressed with how decisive the victory was. In fact, this prompted them to change their doctrines. Even the American commanders were pleasantly surprised with how well everything turned out. They expected a much harder war and thought we would suffer much heavier losses.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 17:19
by mixelflick
I greeted the troops coming back from the gulf in 1991. Made me so proud to be an American, and those guys so appreciated it. Complete surprise. After they landed they were brought to a hanger. The doors swung open and.. cheering Americans saying thank you. Still gives me goose bumps..

The advent of precision guided munitions, cruise missiles and especially stealth seemed to completely revolutionize warfare. Accordingly, Russia and China have followed suit, and North Korea learned a powerful lesson: Unless you have a trump card, the US can and will impose "regime change" if you're deemed "bad guy".

What amazes me is how long its taken the Russians to catch up. I saw a lot of dumb bombs in Syria. A lot of them. They have a lot of precision weapons (on paper), but outside of some cruise missiles, I didn't see much else. I realize dumb bombs still have their place, but am I off base here?

The Russians seem to be real slow to adopt laser, IR, TV etc guided munitions? With respect to the PAK FA/SU-57, I see again a lot of paper weapons, especially air to ground. I know their BVR air to air stuff is suspect, but presumably the R-77 and a new generation of ultra long range anti-AWACS air to air missiles will rectify that..

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 18:38
by icemaverick
I don't think you're missing anything. The Russians are slow to adopt smart munitions because it requires a lot of time, money and other resources to develop them. Russia basically lost more than decade of R&D after the collapse of the Soviet Union and they were already falling behind the West in the relevant fields. Russia's economy was completely in the tank until the late 90s/early 2000s. Even though it has since improved, Russia's GDP is still less than that of Italy.

In addition to lack of money compared to the West, Russia is also not a big player in the high tech sectors. Their economy is heavily dependent on natural resources and they are not a major player in the fields of IT, microprocessors, software, telecommunications, materials science, optics etc. In order to develop such cutting edge weapons, a country needs a large talent pool of highly skilled professionals and Russia simply has a smaller supply than Western countries.

When you combine that with the fact that dumb bombs are also significantly cheaper than smart bombs, it's no surprise that Russia is still using the former.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 00:10
by juretrn
icemaverick wrote:Russia basically lost more than decade of R&D after the collapse of the Soviet Union

R&D really wasn't that much of a problem - at least when it comes to basic research - they've got lots of really talented folks in the natural sciences.
The main problem for them is first and foremost production capability.
They were far behind in all of the high tech production fields even in the 80's - remember the impact those Toshiba 8-axis CNCs had on their subs.
Then think about the semiconductor tech they've got avaliable in their Zelenograd fabs - even their best stuff are some old hand-me-downs from TSMC. Or the production of modern composites, or modern metallurgy, you name it.
Basically, the exact opposite of Germany. There's a reason Germany is the world's biggest producer of production tools/machines, and Russia isn't.

Re: PAK FA vs F-22A

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 00:37
by rheonomic
juretrn wrote:R&D really wasn't that much of a problem - at least when it comes to basic research - they've got lots of really talented folks in the natural sciences.


The Russians have always sucked at moving basic research to TRL 9.

icemaverick wrote:When you combine that with the fact that dumb bombs are also significantly cheaper than smart bombs, it's no surprise that Russia is still using the former.


сопутствующий ущерб? что это, товарищ?