Sukhoi PAK FA

[t_co]

5000 times is a bit much, don't you think so?

It might be an exaggeration, but if the air combat statistics @average american cites are true, then even a 5x stealth advantage for the F-22 could doom the PAK FA as a viable fighter.

 

[p2prada]

5x wouldn't do much. You need 15x just to halve detection range.

 

[sayareakd]

5000 times is a bit much, don't you think so?

they are american they can sell brick at the price of gold weight of the same with slight gold dust sprinkled on it, at the same time killing their competitor with misinformation.

 

[average american]

Global security: "An integrated airframe design, advanced materials and an axisymmetric nozzle maximize the F-35's stealth features. A quick look at the aircraft reveals an adherence to fundamental shaping principles of a stealthy design. The leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment). The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The canopy seam and bay doors are sawtoothed. The vertical tails are canted. The engine face is deeply hidden by a serpentine inlet duct. The inlet itself has no boundary layer diverter channel, the space between the duct and the fuselage, to reflect radar energy. And, of course, weapons can be carried internally. Each internal bay contains two hardpoints onto which a wide variety of bombs and missiles can be attached. According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2. Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges whcih interfer with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composits."

 

[average american]

An F-35 or F-22 or F-15 flyings as a part of a whole combat system. AWACS, JSTARS, Unmanned vehicles. All these work together to accomplish the mission. So for any comparison you would need to compare the system.

It doesn't matter if PAK-FA is faster or slower or stealthier or anything then a F-35/F-22/F-15. If the other party has a better system as a whole with matching support, training, tactics ect they will still beat you. Look at the first gulf war. On paper Iraq would be a hard opponent. It's airforce was relatively modern, good fighters, experienced pilots even AWACS. Yet they were completely outclassed and overwhelmed. This wasn't just superiority of the fighters but of the system as a whole. Tactics, Information superiority ect all that worked together to the point where the Iraqi's where just swept away.

 

[average american]

5x wouldn't do much. You need 15x just to halve detection range.

An F22 or f35 can detect a cruise missile over 200 miles away, they are going to be able to pick up a PAK FA.


A conventional fighter aircraft such as an F-4 has an RCS of about six square meters (m2), and the much larger but low-observable B-2 bomber, which incorporates advanced stealth technologies into its design, by some accounts has an RCS of approximately 0.75 m2 [this is four orders of magintude greater than the widely reported -40dBm2 ]. Some reports give the B-2 a head-on radar cross section no larger than a bird, 0.01 m2 or -20dBm2. A typical cruise missile with UAV-like characteristics has an RCS in the range of 1 m2; the Tomahawk ALCM, designed in the 1970s and utilizing the fairly simple low-observable technologies then available, has an RCS of less than 0.05 m2. about the same as a PAK-FA

* PAK-FA (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 120 ~ 170 km
* F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km
* F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km

 

[Defcon 1]

An F22 or f35 can detect a cruise missile over 200 miles away, they are going to be able to pick up a PAK FA.


A conventional fighter aircraft such as an F-4 has an RCS of about six square meters (m2), and the much larger but low-observable B-2 bomber, which incorporates advanced stealth technologies into its design, by some accounts has an RCS of approximately 0.75 m2 [this is four orders of magintude greater than the widely reported -40dBm2 ]. Some reports give the B-2 a head-on radar cross section no larger than a bird, 0.01 m2 or -20dBm2. A typical cruise missile with UAV-like characteristics has an RCS in the range of 1 m2; the Tomahawk ALCM, designed in the 1970s and utilizing the fairly simple low-observable technologies then available, has an RCS of less than 0.05 m2. about the same as a PAK-FA

* PAK-FA (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 120 ~ 170 km
* F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km
* F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km

Do you have any source to prove the above claims?

 

[Austin]

A nice and updated FAQ on PAK-FA .....Use your friendly English translator has many good details.

PAK FA. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

 

[Defcon 1]

A nice and updated FAQ on PAK-FA .....Use your friendly English translator has many good details.

PAK FA. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Sir can you please post the english translation of the post which starts with the question "What place in the structure of the Air Force will be at the PAK FA?". Apparently google has done a terrible job in translating it.

 

[Austin]

Another nice interview with General Designer and Director of Saturn Engine Developer , Talks on the PAK-FA engine and 2nd stage engine in details.

Use your friendly translator

PAK-FA Engine Development

 

[Somreet Bhattacharya]

New £150million combat jet F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is banned from flying in bad weather because it could EXPLODE | Mail Online

Came across this revelation...:shocked:..

 

[Bhon]

F-35 has and always will be one of the worst planned planes EVER !! It is better of posing as a peace and brotherhood symbol (which is why it was built in he first place) between the US and Euro Group. No wonder the British public are crying foul. Look at the comments section and you can understand their resentment and anger towards their politicians.

 

[average american]

Lot of anti military sentiment by liberals in the west, justfied to some extent by the massive amounts spent on defense. They like the other countries competing with the USA are quick to find fault with any problems with the F22 and F35. With the freedom of the press the west has all the dirty linen is hung out where every one can see.

One has to wonder what is we dont know and will never know about the T50 and PAK-FA.

 

[Austin]

T-50 prototypes had its own fair share of problem like cracks developed in tail leading to delay of few months till they fixed it , Russians are conservative in their design approach when it comes to new development and they go for incremental growth path leading to lower risk in design and development cycle.

Where as American defence development is handled by corporate America who would like to see they make most money from Pentagon by promoting high risk approach and making most profit from it in shortest possible time leading to higher chance of stumbling across more issues as it progress , JSF is the symptoms of the problem ailing US defence industry.

US Stealth Program barring the small fleet of F-117 has been a true disaster where programs like F-22 and B-2 had to be cancelled due to sipraling cost , tall promises that never met the design expectations , Documented issues that was overwhelming to be solved and had to be curtailed , F-35 has already had too much of its own issue something that really needs no mention.

The net looser in this bargain has been the US Tax Payer , US Armed Forces and Pentagon while the US Corporates of the like of Lockheed Martin and others have been happy stashing the money in their banks and making their share holders richer.

Never mind with the ailing economy and Debt higher then GDP and growing the planned defence cut on the anvil in the next two month means the Defence Industry has to cope with lower spending in years ahead and their greed would curtail , it would be good in the end for US Armed Forces and Tax payers

 

[Austin]

Here is a great example from USAF mouth how the B-2 Stealth Bomber underperformed below its design expectation in Kosovo campaign

From Lessons of Kosovo: More B-2 Bombers? by Chris Hellman, Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 3, Issue No. 24

Stealth technology did not bring about the anticipated reduction in support aircraft needed for combat operations.

After the March 27 crash of an F-117A "Stealth" fighter, both the F-117As and B-2s begin flying with escorts of Navy EA-6B radar jamming aircraft.

The Air Force decided to retire its fleet of radar-jamming EF-111 "Ravens" in 1991 primarily because it envisioned a fleet of stealthy F-117As, B-2s and F-22 fighters operating without the jamming support needed by conventional aircraft.

The Pentagon's reversal on the need for radar-jammers left the Navy's fleet of fleet of 91 EA-6B "Prowlers," -- 30 of which were used to support air operations in Kosovo -- overburdened by the unexpected new requirements to escort F-117As and B-2s. As a result, the Navy has stated it will need at least 50 additional jammer aircraft.

Maj. Gen. Dennis G. Haines, Air Combat Command's director of combat operations, acknowledged the significance of the Air Force's lack of a jamming capability. At a conference on June 24, the General said, "stealth reduces the signature of an aircraft but it does not make it invisible. We have really neglected [electronic warfare]."

This ability to operate autonomously has long been a big selling point used by B-2 supporters. Repeatedly the Air Force stated how the B-2 dramatically cut operational costs by reducing support requirements. In a now famous chart, two B-2s with a combined crew of four armed with smart munitions were shown to be capable of performing the same mission that would normally require 55 aircraft of all types and over 100 aircrew.

Yet in practice, the B-2 did not operate alone during Operation Allied Force.

Flying out of Whiteman AFB in pairs, B-2s required mid-air refuelings for each leg of the 30 hour round trip mission.

Over the target area, B-2s were escorted by F-15s which provided air cover, F-16s to provide fire suppression against enemy anti-aircraft systems, as well as support from airborne air traffic controllers and systems which monitored enemy communications, as well as their "Prowler" escort. In all, often more than a dozen aircraft supported B-2 missions.

 

[p2prada]

Here is a great example from USAF mouth how the B-2 Stealth Bomber underperformed below its design expectation in Kosovo campaign

From Lessons of Kosovo: More B-2 Bombers? by Chris Hellman, Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 3, Issue No. 24

Far too expensive for it to be lost in Kosovo, of course.

Things don't always go according to plan.

 

[Austin]

Armament PAK FA successfully tested

SC "Corporation" Tactical Missiles "has successfully implemented a test plan and prepare for mass production of new aircraft weapons, including fighter 5 th generation (PAK FA), said chief executive officer Boris Obnosov.

"The development of weapons systems PAK FA is in accordance with the schedule, which is designed to provide timely, given the country's leadership serial delivery of the combat vehicle in parade of the Russian Air Force, as well as our foreign partners - India," - said B.Obnosov.

He noted that "a number of weapons systems for fighter of the 5th generation are pre-tested on other types of aircraft, which act as a flying laboratory."

"As the number of arriving at the test range aircraft PAK FA test program aircraft weapons have increasingly been going on the main type of aircraft," - said B.Obnosov.

According to him, "for a number of products are in the final testing stage for him is a preliminary preparation for mass production, on the other - trials are ongoing."

"Completed tests missiles Kh-31PD, RVV-MD, RVV-SD and RVV-BD. Output - X-31AD. I note that the new export development meet the highest world standards, and in some aspects superior to them. It has no analogues in the world guided missile HAEDAT, have high efficiency at large distances to targets. In place of a uniform X-35E antiship guided missile comes a new generation of X-35UE, which greatly enhances the combat capabilities of shipboard type "Uranus" and land "Ball." Guided missile X-35UE nothing inferior to the latest versions of the U.S. "Harpoon" and superior to other well-known in the world of missiles of this class, including the French "Exocet" - said B.Obnosov.

 

[JAISWAL]

Sorry for Shabby English as this Artical is in Russian and is translated using Google Translate....


Armament PAK FA successfully tested



PAK FA flight at MAKS-2011. Photo: Alexander Kachkaev for "Heathcliff"
JSC "Corporation" Tactical Missiles "has successfully implemented a test plan and prepare for mass production of new aircraft weapons, including fighter 5 th generation (PAK FA), said chief executive officer Boris Obnosov.

"The development of weapons systems PAK FA is in accordance with the schedule, which is designed to provide timely, given the country's leadership serial delivery of the combat vehicle in parade of the Russian Air Force, as well as our foreign partners - India," - said B.Obnosov.

He noted that "a number of weapons systems for fighter of the 5th generation are pre-tested on other types of aircraft, which act as a flying laboratory."

"As the number of arriving at the test range aircraft PAK FA test program aircraft weapons have increasingly been going on the main type of aircraft," - said B.Obnosov.

According to him, "for a number of products are in the final testing stage for him is a preliminary preparation for mass production, on the other - trials are ongoing."

"Completed tests missiles Kh-31PD, RVV-MD, RVV-SD and RVV-BD. Output - X-31AD. I note that the new export development meet the highest world standards, and in some aspects superior to them. It has no analogues in the world guided missile HAEDAT, have high efficiency at large distances to targets. In place of a uniform X-35E antiship guided missile comes a new generation of X-35UE, which greatly enhances the combat capabilities of shipboard type "Uranus" and land "Ball." Guided missile X-35UE nothing inferior to the latest versions of the U.S. "Harpoon" and superior to other well-known in the world of missiles of this class, including the French "Exocet" - said B.Obnosov.
01/23/2013
rights to this material belong to the Military-Industrial Courier .
material was placed in the public domain owner.
Source---- http://vpk.name/news/83021_vooruzhenie_pak_fa_uspeshno_prohodit_ispyitaniya.html

 

[sayareakd]

are we getting any experience with the testing of this PAK FA ?

or our money is just for their R&D and production ?

 

[Austin]

I think the IAF cheif said we will get two prototypes to test in India one in 2014 and one i think in 2017 all from memory.

Till date India has not spent any money on FGFA program except for the small amount to train HAL people and build design office so that both parties can work on it.

Russian have totally funded the PAK-FA ,1st Stage Engine and Second Stage Engine till date.

At a later stage starting from next year we would start spending money on FGFA. when IAF specs for FGFA gets finalised