1.) It doubt the PAK-FA has a top speed of Mach 2.45. Especially, with its fixed inlets to conserve its low RCS. Plus, the top speed for the F-35 is Mach 1.8+. Regardless, top speed hardly wins battles. As Mach 1.8 Hornets and Mach 2 F-16's have been shooting down Mach 2.35 Fulcrums and Mach 2.5 Mig-31 for years........Acceleration is far more important!
2.) As for Super Cruise both are likely to do so. The big question is to what degree??? If, the PAK-FA is able to develop the successor to the S117's the odds are it will have a higher Super Cruise than the F-35. Yet, at this stage that's a big "if". Even then if it does how much faster??? The F-22 has a Super Cruise of > Mach 1.5 and the F-35 likely around Mach 1.2 maybe even Mach 1.3. So, were does that put the PAK-FA??? Well, likely somewhere in between. Hardly, a deciding factor when comparing the PAK-FA to the F-35. In short a draw..........
3.) Internal Weapons: True the PAK-FA carries more internal weapons. (8 vs 6) Yet, the US has have a record of producing far better Weapons that usually have a longer range. Plus, the F-35 will be produced in far greater numbers. So, the F-35 can bring more fighter to the fight! Which, means it will have more weapons to bare.......
4.) Thurst to Weight......That's hard as who are we to believe Russian Numbers or American Numbers??? All I will say is the US has a great lead in Engine Technology. The current P & W F-135 is developing 43,000 lbs of Thurst. Yet, many experts claim that is way to conservative. As a matter of fact several sources claim the GE F136* can easily make more! With number flying around from 48,000 all the way up to 56,000 lbs! Clearly, the US has a large lead......In short the F-35 can match the PAK-FA (T-W) and will likely exceed by a large margin in the future!
5.) Ferry Range hardly matters to the debate at hand. Yet, if you want to argue the point the F-35 can carry CFT's in addition to its large internal fuel load. (18,000 -20.000 lbs +) Plus, external tanks. So, it maybe able to match the PAK-FA. Yet, I am hardly going to waste my time on that one........
6.) The PAK-FA has better Weapons.............PLEASE (i.e. ridiculous)==no+=way==
7.) The F-35 has EO/DAS which incorporates 360 degree coverage. That includes IRST, AESA Radar, and a JHMDS. Which, marries them all together to give the F-35 the best Situational Awareness in the Business...........BAR NONE! (GAME CHANGER!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzDke56vMiU
8.) Yes, the PAK-FA has TVC and the F-35 doesn't. Yet, TVC is hardly effective other than in a slow turning dogfight. Which, is very dangerous for any modern Fighter. As you can't out turn high off bore sight weapons and cueing from HMD's. So, what's the the advantage???? NONE
The F-35 has a lower RCS than the PAK-FA. With better Weapons and the best Situational Aware of any fighter flying today. Which, will give it the ability to SEE FIRST, SHOOT FIRST, AND KILL FIRST!
..+u=
i have quotes all those figures from wikipedi and air attack ( so i am sure they are american numbers ) , please PAK FA is larger aircraft than F-35 so yeh but lower RCS and yes better weapons ( because R-77 and R-27 are better than yankee counterparts ) and by the way F-35 is not yet even ready
do not talk about Mig 31 it can over run missiles with its high velocity ,and there is no supercruise for F-35 i have checked all the websites on F-35 ( not even yankees themselves claim that )
if america has long history for long range of weapons so does russia ( so that is not valid point for you to argue)
PAK FA has larger combat radius , more survivalbility because of being twin engine , we do not fully know of avaionics but yes it is gona be more effective than anything we have witnessed in the past about russian aircraft
even if i buy your this theory " In short the F-35 can match the PAK-FA (T-W) and will likely exceed by a large margin in the future!" pPAK FA has 2× New unnamed engine by NPO Saturn and FNPTS MMPP Salyut of 175 kN each it still wins by thrust to weigh to weight ratio
PAK FA is also being produced in larger numbers ( IAF will have atleast 250 , Russia maybe 400 ) so your quantity theory isnt right
Avionics
The PAK-FA will have two X-Band AESA radars located on the front and back of the aircraft. These will be accompanied by L-Band radars which are thought to be located on the wing LERX sides. L-Band radars are proven to have increased effectiveness against VLO targets which are optimized only against X-Band frequencies, despite being less accurate.
Unlike the F-22 the PAK-FA will feature an IRST optical/IR search and tracking system. The IRST promises to be the best way to target stealth aircraft since regardless of the IR stealth claims .made of the F-22, jet engines are fundamentally not conducive to IR invisibility. The trail of hot air behind the F-22 is likely the first thing the PAK-FA may see, perhaps as far as 25km.
plus high speed does matter because fast interception and destruction of the enemy
It is important to consider that the publicly displayed PAK-FA prototype does not represent a production configuration of the aircraft, which is to employ a new engine design, and extensive VLO treatments which are not required on a prototype. A number of observers have attempted to draw conclusions about production PAK-FA VLO performance based on the absence of such treatments, the result of which have been a series of unrealistically optimistic commentaries.
An important qualification is that most recent analyses of relative air combat capabilities performed in the United States assume that BVR combat will arise much more frequently than WVR combat. The basis of this assumption is that opposing air combat capabilities are easily detected and tracked by ISR systems, permitting United States fighter aircraft to choose the time, place and type of engagements to an advantage. This assumption collapses if the opposing fighter has significant VLO capability, as a mature PAK-FA will. The result is that attacking PAK-FAs will have to be engaged at much closer ranges than existing non-stealthy threats, as they enter predictable geometries, when attacking high value targets such as AWACS/AEW&C platforms, tankers, or defended surface assets.
Another important qualification is that the extreme agility of the PAK-FA design will significantly degrade the kill probability of all United States Air to Air Missiles, (AAM) especially though the AIM-120 AMRAAM, which will be challenged to sustain the necessary manoeuvres to defeat the PAK-FA. Like the F-22A Raptor, the PAK-FA will provide a significant capability for the kinematic defeat of inbound missile shots. How stealthy does the PAK-FA need to be to defeat US legacy fighters? A radar cross section of only -20 dBSM would deny early Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile shots using the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM to all current and planned US fighters. Doing any better, like -30 dBSM or -40 dBSM, simply increases the level of difficulty in prosecuting long range missile attacks."
"The consequence of this is that missile combat will be compressed into shorter distances and shorter timelines, putting a premium on the stealth, supersonic persistence and close combat agility of US fighters. A larger portion of engagements will be at visual range, and most BVR engagements will end up taking place inside 30 nautical miles."5
In Beyond Visual Range combat, the combination of supersonic cruise and competitive VLO performance will allow the PAK-FA to emulate the tactics developed for the F-22A Raptor. The PAK-FA can thus be expected to produce greater lopsided air combat exchange rates to those achieved by the F-22A Raptor when flown against legacy "teen series" fighters in exercises since 2004. Even if the PAK-FA design were only to attain half of the effectiveness of the F-22A Raptor, it will still yield BVR exchange rates of the order of 50:1 against legacy fighters.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter struggles to survive against the conventional Su-35BM Flanker, with only its -30 dBSM class front sector stealth keeping it alive in some BVR combat situations. Against even a -20 dBSM class PAK-FA, the F-35 falls within the survivability black hole, into which US legacy fighters such as the F-16C/E, F-15C/E and F/A-18A-F have already fallen."5
"The fate of the F-35 Lightning II would be far worse in an air combat environment challenged by the PAK-FA. If the Mach 1.5 PAK-FA is using its infrared sensor as the primary sensor and observes radio frequency emission control (EMCON), then the first detection by the F-35's APG-81 radar could be at ~20 nautical miles or less with a missile launched by the PAK-FA's infrared sensors already inbound from 60 to 70 nautical miles away. The PAK-FA could easily break to a direction outside the F-35's AIM-120 engagement zone."6
"The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A's aerodynamic performance is 'retrograde' when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated 'freebie' shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA, possibly much higher."The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter struggles to survive against the conventional Su-35BM Flanker, with only its -30 dBSM class front sector stealth keeping it alive in some BVR combat situations. Against even a -20 dBSM class PAK-FA, the F-35 falls within the survivability black hole, into which US legacy fighters such as the F-16C/E, F-15C/E and F/A-18A-F have already fallen."5
"The fate of the F-35 Lightning II would be far worse in an air combat environment challenged by the PAK-FA. If the Mach 1.5 PAK-FA is using its infrared sensor as the primary sensor and observes radio frequency emission control (EMCON), then the first detection by the F-35's APG-81 radar could be at ~20 nautical miles or less with a missile launched by the PAK-FA's infrared sensors already inbound from 60 to 70 nautical miles away. The PAK-FA could easily break to a direction outside the F-35's AIM-120 engagement zone."6
"The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A's aerodynamic performance is 'retrograde' when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated 'freebie' shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA, possibly much higher."The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter struggles to survive against the conventional Su-35BM Flanker, with only its -30 dBSM class front sector stealth keeping it alive in some BVR combat situations. Against even a -20 dBSM class PAK-FA, the F-35 falls within the survivability black hole, into which US legacy fighters such as the F-16C/E, F-15C/E and F/A-18A-F have already fallen."5
"The fate of the F-35 Lightning II would be far worse in an air combat environment challenged by the PAK-FA. If the Mach 1.5 PAK-FA is using its infrared sensor as the primary sensor and observes radio frequency emission control (EMCON), then the first detection by the F-35's APG-81 radar could be at ~20 nautical miles or less with a missile launched by the PAK-FA's infrared sensors already inbound from 60 to 70 nautical miles away. The PAK-FA could easily break to a direction outside the F-35's AIM-120 engagement zone."6
"The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A's aerodynamic performance is 'retrograde' when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated 'freebie' shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA, possibly much higher."The arrival of the PAK-FA therefore also irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, defined around a 1990s technology threat spectrum, in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. The F-35 will, not unlike legacy fighters, retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where neither the Su-35S nor the PAK-FA is deployed or is able to be deployed.
The operational impact of indecisive combat loss exchange rates between a mature production PAK-FA and the F-22A Raptor, and very high F-35 Joint Strike Fighter loss rates against a mature production PAK-FA have major implications at an operational level, and consequently, at a strategic and political level.
Once the PAK-FA is deployed within a theatre of operations, especially if it is supported robustly by counter-VLO capable ISR systems, the United States will no longer have the capability to rapidly impose air superiority, or possibly even achieve air superiority. This will not only deny the United States access to an opponent's defended airspace, it also presents the prospect of United States forces being unable to reliably defend in-theatre basing and lines of resupply. Should this occur, in-theatre basing and surface assets become exposed to air attack by aircraft armed with a wide range of accurate and highly lethal Precision Guided Munitions, with the potential for very high loss of life and equipment deployed in-theatre.
