Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I remember the MiG-25, and if IIRC, it was the USAF brass, not the Soviets, who were exaggerating the capabilities of the Foxbat while touting the desperate need for thousands of FX's (F-15s) after the TFX Part I debacle...

As for the MiG-29 -The dismal combat record of that plane has more to do with guys in the seat, and the state of repair, than because of any intrinsic flaws in the a/c. After all, MiG 15's were shot down by Skyraiders, but no one seriously argues that the A-1 was a better air superiority fighter.

In any case, the PAK FA most likely will resemble its US stealthy counterparts in being too expensive to build and operate in any significant numbers.

F-16.net Sponsor

cfg wrote:

delta-shred, don't take it personally, please.
What you wrote is not 100% correct. From history, T-34 (and in some aspects KV-1) was match and excel only in 1943, and is just an example.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally...I'm just trying to point out the different mindsets and how people who don't know them can mis-interpret the data.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Flanker is a very purdy to look at but don't think its the bee's knee's when it compared to American counterparts.
Bottom line is the Russian's have alot to prove yet and some technological catching up to do.

shep1978 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Parting thought. Remember the Mig-25...

-DA

Or the much vaunted and frequently shot down MiG-29...

The funny thing is the Mig-29 is a good fighter too! I can't stress enough that a focus on platforms is the wrong way to look at this.

-DA

In a turning engagement, the T-50 up against the -22 is a pile of smoldering metal and composites. Like the F-14, and the previous Sukhoi, the engines being so far apart does quite a lot in restricting roll rate.

Only advantage the T-50 will have over the -22 is the IRST. But I'm certain there is a lot we don't know about the radar set in the -22, and it can probably survive quite nicely without IRST going up against the T-50.

Remains to be seen how stealthy the Sukhoi will be in *production* fit, form, and function. A pair of -22's, I am certain, can kill a 6 to 8 ship-flight of Sukhois.

Now then, that god awful F-35 is a different story and the inverse is true in favor of the T-50.

Can we agree that Russia has been and continues to be about 20 years behind in Technology/Manufacturing/Composites/Resources? Most of which has to do more with their Economics rather than their inferiority.

@Darkvarkguy

I think that is a very reasonable assessment except that I'd say they are actually about ~30 to 40 years behind at the system level when you factor in their demonstrated lack of effective battlemanagement and communications infrastructure(C4ISR) during the Georgia conflict of 2008. It makes a huge difference IMHO and it's why these platform level analysis fall apart so quickly.

-DA

Goon and Kopp have almost surpassed themselves with this pile of ****, dig the way they write as everything as fact based on a video and a few pics of the T-50.
And gotta love the speed comparison made between the F-35 and turbojet powered F-4E - great guys - and that's relevant where exactly?? - truly pathetic.

DarthAmerica wrote:

Parting thought. Remember the Mig-25...

-DA

I sometimes wonder: If we hadn't been so worried about the Mig-25, would we have the F-15?

mil_hobbyist wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Parting thought. Remember the Mig-25...

-DA

I sometimes wonder: If we hadn't been so worried about the Mig-25, would we have the F-15?

I think so. F-15 is the evolution of a requirement and not a platform tit for tat.

-DA

mil_hobbyist wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Parting thought. Remember the Mig-25...

-DA

I sometimes wonder: If we hadn't been so worried about the Mig-25, would we have the F-15?

I'll see the wonder and raise you: Given the wars we have fought, was the F-15 worth it? What has it done, historically, that could not have been done by the dollar equivalent amount of F-16's?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

mil_hobbyist wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Parting thought. Remember the Mig-25...

-DA

I sometimes wonder: If we hadn't been so worried about the Mig-25, would we have the F-15?

I'll see the wonder and raise you: Given the wars we have fought, was the F-15 worth it? What has it done, historically, that could not have been done by the dollar equivalent amount of F-16's?

The Hornets have filled in to cover the F-15 before when it was grounded during investigation. The idea behind a good defense is to have multiple layers of overlapping coverage. F-15 is worth it. But we do have redundacy built into the system. This is why F-35 is important.

-DA

Something else to consider:

The MiG-29 is a very good and respectable aircraft that originally achieved parity with western aircraft in many respects; especially when western aircraft were armed with AIM-7s vs the MiG’s AA-10a. The reason it has suffered an abysmal combat record, as most of us know, is because of the man in the cockpit. Western tactics have always been about loose control and the flight-leads making decisions based on a game-plan that is executable in dynamic environments. On the other hand, the Russians have spent their years developing tactics based on very close control from GCI. Every time they change heading, altitude, airspeed, flip a switch in their cockpit, or fire a missile it is because GCI has told them to.

We all know it’s better to have the pilots making the decisions, especially in dynamic environments, because it takes the man-in-the-middle out of the equation and speeds up the decision making process and the execution of that decision…things that are very important in air combat. Western aircraft manufactures have for years known this and built avionics based on providing the pilots with as much information as possible, while simultaneously making it very easy to interpret that information.

Sensor fusion and advanced avionics are designed for western-style combat where the pilot needs the information to make his decisions. However, in many ways they are useless for countries that operate under close control (read countries that fly Russian aircraft). All the information is fairly worthless if you are not allowed to make decisions based on it.

If the PAK-FA does achieve the sensor fusion it is claiming, that in-and-of itself would be a remarkable feat considering they are newcomers to this field. However, if they actually find a way to present it to the pilot in ways that don’t overload the pilot and make things easier in a fluid tactical environment, instead of overwhelming him, that would be even more remarkable.

Now, if we give the PAK-FA the benefit of the doubt and say that it actually does accomplish these things in a manner that is on par with western standards, that is still only about 10% of the battle. The Russians would need to completely change their strategy and tactics from the ground up in order to allow the pilot to take advantage of these advances in the same way western pilots do. This will literally be about 10 times more difficult than developing the technologies. To develop the tactics to the level western air forces operate at would take decades (this is not an exageration). However, even if they had the tactics already developed, it would take a generation of pilots operating from the ground up under these new tactics before they would be fully implemented. My main point being: western air forces will still hold a huge advantage with regard to the man in the cockpit.

My guess is that the Russians will develop some good avionics, especially the radar, which may be able to compete with western aircraft within about a decade. However, they will not fuse them together in a way that will take full advantage of them and thus will not receive the synergistic benefits that make the advances so important. Furthermore, I don’t foresee the Russians moving away from close control any time soon. It is their bread-and-butter. They developed it and are incredibly prideful about it. Thus, all their hard technological work will be mostly wasted, except for the few air forces that buy Russian aircraft and follow a more western style of combat (read India).

Maybe this T-50 hype will be the nudge to keep F-35 numbers and possibly jump start the F-22B/F119-PW-253 programs? Shrug

EDIT: Both of the latter are fictional/hypothetical, no insider info here; purely speculation

TEG

I have always said that a half-way decent PAK FA will likely cause F-35 sales to rise Wink

Code3 wrote:

Something else to consider:

The MiG-29 is a very good and respectable aircraft that originally achieved parity with western aircraft in many respects; especially when western aircraft were armed with AIM-7s vs the MiG’s AA-10a. The reason it has suffered an abysmal combat record, as most of us know, is because of the man in the cockpit.

Oh, I'm sure there are other reasons: Wink

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-68370.aspx

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Maybe this T-50 hype will be the nudge to keep F-35 numbers and possibly jump start the F-22B/F119-PW-253 programs? Shrug

EDIT: Both of the latter are fictional/hypothetical, no insider info here; purely speculation

TEG

Sure. You betcha. Wink

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 Outmatched?