Is Russia's PAk-FA really, actually stealthy?

Ok, folks.

Everyone's favorite F-35 hating website has posted an update about the Russo-Indian collaboration to produce the FGFA, the Indian variant of the PAK-FA. I'd argue the new deal only has a 50% chance of survival. After all, the Indians are paying for 50% of the development from here on out but the Russians are getting 11 FGFAs out of the deal while the Indians get 3.

However, what I want to point out is the bottom side of the PAK-FA. Specifically look at the forward weapon's bay. Yup, are those WELDS?! And look at those projections everywhere. holy crap.

For comparison, here's the F-22's underside. Likewise, just because some could claim its a bad idea to compare the US vs anyone else, since we do things our way, let's look at the J-20 underside.

Then consider the rivets and whatnot seen in the first flight video.

I have to put out there I am seriously reconsidering whether or not the PAK-FA is even stealthy at all.

Given I have been and will be wrong on things, I'm putting it out there for the forum. Is the PAK-FA really a stealth fighter? Or even truly a 5th gen and not a 4th++ gen?

a reply to: anzha

There was talk a year ago that it was really not a Fifth Gen aircraft, even though it was stealthy. Even with welds and rivets, that shape is going to seriously cut down the RCS. It also depends on how the production aircraft are built. We haven't seen any production aircraft yet, and they may be different than the testing aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

IDK. The shape looks on par with the Rafale then. We're talking a reduced RCS plane, not a low RCS one. Even with the -117, it required special materials. The PAK-FA doesn't appear to have those.

You are correct in that what we've seen are prototypes. We'll have to wait and see for the production planes. It'd be interesting to see if the last prototype had any clean up compared to the earlier ones. If not...

a reply to: anzha

The RAM on the F-22 and F-35 looks just like normal skin. So does the B-2. You can't just look at the skin and say it's not special materials or not. The way the antennas and other features are blended, and even the stabilizers have almost no gap is a sign that this aircraft is going to have a very small RCS naturally.

a reply to: anzha

IIRC I thought that the Russians chose maneuverability over full on stealth.

a reply to: Sammamishman

They did. It's stealthy, but not as stealthy as current western stealth fighters.

a reply to: anzha

They all look like badass toys to me.

From the upper picture, seems they used planform alignments (I hope thats the word)

a reply to: Zaphod58
Is it stealthy enough though? Obviously it will have a higher RCS than western stealth designs, but how much higher? Will it be enough to make a difference in combat vs a modern ADS?

a reply to: Bfirez

That's the question. It's probably close to the original F-117 in terms of RCS. Maybe slightly larger.

It's a bad copy of the f22, which is 26 year old American stealth technology at this point.

a reply to: avgguy

It's not a copy. Form follows function. If you want a highly maneuverable fighter that's stealthy, you get a design that's going to look similar to the F-22.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I see the similarities, but honestly as you say form follows function. To me it looks like a stealthed up Mig-29, which aint a bad idea. We know their engines blow, but how does their material science department rank compared to say china and the J-20?

a reply to: Bfirez

Their engineering is excellent. Where they run into major problems is actual production.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The source isn't great, but it seems the PAK-FA has had ANOTHER CUT to its initial order (down from 17 to 12) and the entire program may be in jeopardy.

a reply to: anzha

So we only get to play with the Chinese. I wonder if oil prices came back up it would change anything?

a reply to: Bfirez

They need to get back up above $60/barrel for Russia to not hemorrhage cash, iirc.

Well, it seems Jane's and crew are calling the PAK-FA a 'fifth generation fighter in name only.'

This is apparently making exports of the PAK-FA to asia rather difficult. I wonder if the Indians might just pack up (yuckyuck) and go after others are stating this publicly now.

www.janes.com...

a reply to: anzha

Well this sort of depends on your definition of 5th generation aircraft. Polling Wikipedia returns Lockheed Martin's definition: "defining them as having all-aspect stealth even when armed, low probability of intercept radar (LPIR), high-performance airframes, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the battlespace for situation awareness."

Funny enough, this pretty much defines 5th generation aircraft as Lockheed products only. What a coincidence. However then you run into the problem of defining more terms. How stealthy is all-aspect stealth? How armed is armed? How low is low probability? How high performance is high performance? How advanced are advanced avionics? People often brush this stuff off as "hurr well that's just semantics" but then I would point this entire interpretation as just that: calling something 5th Gen for the sake of calling it a 5th Gen.

If you actually look at what the word Generation means then you can really see what's going on as aircraft get phased out, and phased in. You might even say they get generated.

1st Gen: F86 Sabre -> 2nd Gen: F101 Voodoo -> 3rd Gen: F4 Phantom -> 4th Gen: F15 Eagle -> 5th Gen: F-22 Raptor
1st Gen: MiG-15 -> 2nd Gen: MiG-19 -> 3rd Gen: Su-17 -> 4th Gen: Su-27 -> 5th Gen: PAK-FA

The argument can be made pretty easily. The trouble is that saying "well this is this generation, and this is last generation" is trying to put separations on a continuous scale, and like locating anything on a continuous scale the divisions are usually pretty arbitrary.

a reply to: Darkpr0

And besides Lockheed, who exactly has produced 5th generation aircraft to set the definition with?