PAK FA and J-20/31 vs. NATO 4th Gens: how big is the edge?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

franciwzm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 11:55

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 02:29

armedupdate wrote:How outgunned are 4th Generation Fighters facing the Russian PAK FA and Chinese J-20 and J-31? India for example may have a huge gap against future Chinese Stealth fighters. France also has no stealth fighters in their arsenal.

PAK FA I believe has a RCS only 0.1m2 decrease I believe which is not a lot compared to the F-22. Rafale and Eurofighter and Super Hornet I believe have a RCS around that, however they are greatly effected by their internal carry increasing that RCS.

The J-20 will use the dual pulse PL-15 and the Russians have a duel pulse R-77M. Both France and India will get he Meteor so they will have a missile able to stick up just as well.

How do avionics compare? I believe the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Super Hornet all use PowerPC processors, with the SH using a PowerPC G4 chip(same gen as F-35). PAK FA and J-20 are larger and have bigger radar arrays however, not sure if they are more powerful in terms of general technology and computing power. PAK FA can use it's own radar to jam and has a broadband datalink. J-20 I am not too sure. Most 4th gen NATO aircraft lack instantaneous datalinks now, however the Gripen I believe will getting the TIDLS, the Rafale with TRAGEDAC, and the SH with some sort of multi-ship sensor fusion. The Russian still lack IIR missiles making them vulrable to a WVR fight.

In the end, the other 4th Gens may stand a chance. However IMO the stealth fighters have a advantage for they are simply faster and not carrying anything externally.

Assuming both sides are able to detect eachother at lets say 30 km, the PAK FA and J-20 can launch their missiles first, and more time guiding it for enemy active radar homing missiles will need more time finding it. The 4th Gens have to launch, disengage quicker to break lock.


You are dreaming: pak-fa rcs could reach 0,5 if properly assembled, using composites were planned (while current prototypes use titanium), flat head rivets instead of current round ones, and new air intakes blockers, as Indian military claims: at the moment russian themselves say that pak fa rcs i s very high as yuo can read here "“The engine for the T-50 was significantly upgraded from the original models, incorporating the latest control system, compressors, etc. Nevertheless, it still falls short of the 5th generation model, and is very noticeable on radar screens,” said the expert." https://rbth.com/defence/2016/11/25/new ... aft_651123 in Eurocanrads rcs in air to air rcs is around 0,3; considering new repositioning antenna for typhoon AESA and meteor, I would say pak fa vs typhoon tranche 3 does not stand a chance. Full stop. Pak fa project would only drain resource to keep su-27 and su-30 operative.Full stop. Consider also that pak fa thermal signatur eis gigantic, not using any visible maskig tecnicque. For example old al31f fuel consumption is 0,54 km per litre, while more recent al41f (used on su35 and current pak fa) is 0,19km per litre: russian get more thrust with thiier more recent engine, still not enpugh to grant supercruise, but fuel consuption get horrible, that indicates also an inherent high thermal signature.They mus t do miracles with new engine. Furthermore consider that EJ200 (typhoon engine)has born with 30% grow potential and even current batch is so reliable that pilots has and electronic key on two steps: step 1 10% more dry and post combustion power, step 2 25% more thurst. Pilots are alllowed to enable this military power just in real war scenario: as you can imagine already very good supercruise capabilities of typhoon would be significantly augmented. No other military plane has this electronic key flexibility, granted by legendary EJ200 efficiency. Both rafale and eurofighters are not stealth but use S-ducts ,while pak-fa use air intakes blocker like on f18, a much more primitive reducing rcs tecnique (f22 and f35 use S-ducts); furthermore pak fa air intake s are gigantic and very distant from each other; so it could reach an 0,5 rcs, if engineered from scratch, as Indian autorites say and russian themselves admit rcs is very high. So you are dreaming about an 0,1 rcs. Not consodering all other problems...Furthermore consider thatonce you get locked by a meteor chance to survive are very low, 5 times lower then with amraam. Russian R77, altough scarce in numbers, is compared to old sparrow for efficiency: russian should invest in a decent bvr missile, if they dont want their su-35 get shot down by f16 block 40 with amraam.
Offline

terrygedran

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 08:54

arian wrote:
hythelday wrote:I have a feeling this thread is about to get quite retarded really soon, F-22 kill silhouettes are a sure sign.


That is a YF-22 silhouette BTW. So it invalidates any arguments.

Do you want to say that EA-18G kill YF-22 not F-22A ?
Really? And you can prove it?

The silhouette is very detailed and comprehensive that's for sure.

Which MIG model is depicted there?
Image


And by the way is it also YF-22?
Attachments
closeup1.jpg
df_3029_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2010
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 10:22

Just waiting for all the F-22 kill markings on T-38s... :roll:
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 11:17

So... the F-22 doesn't win every doghfight ever? You mean it's not invincible?
Okay lads, time to pack up and go home, send those -22s to the graveyard in Arizona.
Offline

terrygedran

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 12:00

juretrn wrote:So... the F-22 doesn't win every doghfight ever? You mean it's not invincible?
Okay lads, time to pack up and go home, send those -22s to the graveyard in Arizona.


It is not the point.
My contention that from western planes are the most uncomfortable opponent for the 5th generation is EA-18G.
And then I asked for confirmation of the claim about YF-22.
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 12:07

terry, just because a Growler managed to bag an F-22, that means jack. There are other fighters that also bagged the F-22. Which one would be most dangerous is pure speculation as the technical details are, surprise surprise, not known.
Fact is that BVR they're all just Raptor feed anyway.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1167
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 14:56

juretrn wrote:terry, just because a Growler managed to bag an F-22, that means jack. There are other fighters that also bagged the F-22. Which one would be most dangerous is pure speculation as the technical details are, surprise surprise, not known.



Spot on.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1492
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 16:26

juretrn wrote:So... the F-22 doesn't win every doghfight ever? You mean it's not invincible?
Okay lads, time to pack up and go home, send those -22s to the graveyard in Arizona.


This really is an interesting dynamic, especially if you stop and think about it...

Americans have enjoyed air superiority for so long, we demand a shutout to declare the F-22/35 "worth it". Even a single combat loss is looked upon as a failure, and not necessarily of just that pilot/plane - the entire fleet! When an F-117 was lost in the Bosnia conflict people acted like stealth was dead. Ridiculous, IMO...

You can see it in the F-15 community too. If we do lose an Eagle in the future, all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork claiming how dated it is. This, despite what would then be a 105-1 combat record. I keep thinking about the poor F-15 pilot who might be first. But you know what?

I still think the F-15 will remain victorious if it goes head to head with advanced Flankers (and even PAK FA's)...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1492
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 16:28

With respect to PAK-FA's RCS...

Is it fair to say it's in the neighborhood of a clean Super Hornet?
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 18:24

mixelflick wrote:Bosnia conflict

Weren't some F-16s lost in that one?
And some F-18s over Iraq in 1991?
Maybe these planes are not so popular to bash on?

But yeah, you're right. These days the expectations are set really high for the whole of US armed forces.
A few Abrams are knocked out in Iraq occupation? Sky is falling! Meanwhile, T-72s get absolutely wrecked by the hundreds in Desert Storm? "meh, mild steel monkey models"

And you can be sure if one day a F-22 (or, god forbid, an F-35) gets killed in air-to-air, you can expect a shitstorm of monumental proportions.
Online

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1049
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 22:19

terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:
hythelday wrote:I have a feeling this thread is about to get quite retarded really soon, F-22 kill silhouettes are a sure sign.


That is a YF-22 silhouette BTW. So it invalidates any arguments.

Do you want to say that EA-18G kill YF-22 not F-22A ?
Really? And you can prove it?


My comment was a joke. And yes, that is a YF-22 silhouette.
Offline

franciwzm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 11:55

Unread post22 Apr 2017, 00:47

mixelflick wrote:With respect to PAK-FA's RCS...

Is it fair to say it's in the neighborhood of a clean Super Hornet?


NOT AT ALL as explained before: it could reach 0,5 if properly assembled; not at all current flying prototypes, with much higher rcs ou are dreaming: pak-fa rcs could reach 0,5 if properly assembled, using composites were planned (while current prototypes use titanium), flat head rivets instead of current round ones, and new air intakes blockers, as Indian military claims: at the moment russian themselves say that pak fa rcs i s very high as yuo can read here "“The engine for the T-50 was significantly upgraded from the original models, incorporating the latest control system, compressors, etc. Nevertheless, it still falls short of the 5th generation model, and is very noticeable on radar screens,” said the expert."
What we can say is that uses same technology then f18 (air intakes blockers) to reduce exposed parts of engines, but its air intakes are much bigger and very distant form each other, compared to superhornet: pls consider that rafale and eurofighter use more advanced tecniques then superhornet to reduce rcs such s-ductsm same used on f22 and f35; consider also that eurocanards mass is just 15% metal, helping reducing rcs as well (eurofighter 85% composites and rafale 80%)

https://rbth.com/defence/2016/11/25/new ... aft_651123
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1492
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Apr 2017, 18:30

OK so their "stealth" Raptor killer.... really doesn't have stealth? Sounds like it. I'm not certain what the clean SH's RCS is, but if PAK FA's exceeds that then it's a far cry from what "5th gen" jets currently flying. This would make sense, given it's really their first foray into the world of stealth.

Good for us/F-22 :)
Offline

franciwzm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 11:55

Unread post23 Apr 2017, 14:09

mixelflick wrote:OK so their "stealth" Raptor killer.... really doesn't have stealth? Sounds like it. I'm not certain what the clean SH's RCS is, but if PAK FA's exceeds that then it's a far cry from what "5th gen" jets currently flying. This would make sense, given it's really their first foray into the world of stealth.

Good for us/F-22 :)


Leaving a part thermal signature, (gigantic considering giagantic engines with no thermal masking tecniques evident) and lack of a decent bvr missile, if you design large and distant air intakes with simple blockers, like on f18, and refuse to use S-ducts from very start in order not to compromise engine trhust, wou will never have an rcs comparable to an F18 since air intakes are much larger and distant form each other: rafale and typhoon use s-ducts, so even the rcs design of pak-fa is very questionable, it is not just a matter of manifacture and quality controls on material and components; furthermore pak fa has 4 small bays, separate form each other, much smaller then 2 close to each other on f22: air to air russian missiles are also much larger compared to western ones, so gonna be a problem accomodate something else then an R73 (wvr missile)...So why rafale and typhoon are considered 4,5 gen and pak fa 5 gen? May be opposite, considering design,aerodinamics,materials,(85% in mass of typhoon is composite, that means also inherent reduced rcs, and 80% of rafale as well) engines, avionics, radar, and last but not least missiles..If you consider aerodinamics,materials and missiles eurocanards are more advanced then f22 and f35 (Even if F35 could accomodate meteor, if integration gonna be funded) Honestly even f18 looks much different form eurocanards in aerodinamics and materials and should not be considered in same generation in my opinion.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2010
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post25 Apr 2017, 11:56

I find it pretty telling that YF-22 (and YF-23) had and did things that PAK FA, J-20 and J-31 have not. They had 5th gen engine prototypes (YF119 and YF120), both had all-aspect RF stealth features, both had IR reduction built in, both managed high supercruise speeds and YF-22 fired weapons from internal bays. They did so 26 years ago. With all that and a lot of money to spend, it still took almost 15 years for F-22 to achieve IOC... I think Western 4th++ gen fighters will have very little to worry about from these Russian and Chinese "5th gen" fighters for a long time. They do have basic structure to be very dangerous for 4th gen fighters, but they will need huge amount of development work to achieve clear advantages over them. Then they will need advanced weapons to go along with their aircraft and not the current technology from 1980s and early 1990s.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests