It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia to launch new F/A-22 competetor

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Stealth Spy
 


the good old saying

there will always be a $1 solution to a Billion dollor problem
the Russians have also been good in the field by producing air craft that are formidable but fraction of their counter parts which is quite cool.

why spend billions on something when you can spend a fraction and get the same job done?




posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by Stealth Spy
 


the good old saying

there will always be a $1 solution to a Billion dollor problem
the Russians have also been good in the field by producing air craft that are formidable but fraction of their counter parts which is quite cool.

why spend billions on something when you can spend a fraction and get the same job done?

exactly, that's a russian philosophy and how they always did and came on top.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
So, let me see if I'm interpreting the logic of several posters on this thread correctly.

First of all, Russia previously stated the Pak-Fa would make its first flight in 2007. Wow, and we haven't even seen an official drawing or anything from Russia concerning the Pak-Fa.

Then some specific people who love a specific country argue that this plane that hasn't even been drawn (Oh, I know it must be a secret) is automatically somehow better than or equal to the F-22?

I'm confused as to where the foundation of argument lies from these people from this specific country who are arguing in this way. Would someone care to enlighten me on this issue? Would anyone care to produce some actual specific and verifiable facts as to how good the Pak-Fa will be compared to the F-22. I don't mean facts such as a Russian military person talking about how much better or equal the Pak-Fa will be since we've already seen how reliable they are when they said this supposedly amazing competitor would fly in 2007.

This going back and forth of this plane is better than that when we know nothing of either. All we know is the US has new stealthy aircraft and Russia is working on one. How can you guys get so worked up over all of this when we really ultimately know nothing? Russia can say they can detect stealth. They can say they are producing an aircraft that will compete against the F-22. Just like they said the Pak-Fa would fly in 2007. Maybe they will produce a plane that can compete. Maybe they can detect stealth. All I'm saying is that words from these men mean nothing. Those from the US shouldn't get so worked up over this either. Russia can say whatever they want but they can't back up their claims. They can throw their propaganda in any direction they choose but they can't prove any of their naive statements. It doesn't even matter in the long run.

Sorry, overall it's just a pointless debate that turns into my country is better than your country idiocy. Both countries have great attributes. Both countries have made mistakes. Both countries have produced amazing aircraft. Both countries will continue to produce amazing aircraft.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you make a plane better when you have NEVER built a stealth airframe and are 30 years behind, and you don't know the capabilities of the one you're trying to top?
You can make it better than you THINK the other aircraft is, but there's no way to say "This airframe is better!" until you put them head to head and prove it.


Well that analogy and thought process works more often than not but here's a couple of examples to bring things into perspective:



  1. The Americans were the sole knowledge owners of nuclear weapons tech at the end of WWII. Soviets got it (by whatever means), and soon enough they were either equal or better than the Americans in the field. The learning curve was not slow; in fact it was fast enough to catch up to the Americans before they were able to surge forward with their already existing chronological advantage.
  2. After the 2nd world war, I believe a prominent scientist involved in the Manhattan project went to someone in the US Govt. He said to them: "Listen, I know what the soviets are looking at.. I know what knowledge base the German scientists they've taken, have. I believe that they have the capability to put an object in orbital space in the next 'n' years. Let me work on this for the US so that we can do that too". The person(s) at the US govt laughed him off. One of them said: "I've just been to Moscow. They don't even have decent cars on the road there! They most definitely cannot put something in space!! They don't have a decent missile program either!!" And I believe the scientist was sent off to fit the nuclear bomb onto long range missiles. The launch of Sputnik and the closely followed by the orbital flights of Laika the Dog, and Gagarin were one of the most shocking and disastrous miscalculations by the US.


Just wanted to say that, its safe to overestimate than to underestimate.

And btw Waynos, the MiG 23 was indeed a disappointment, to us as well. They tried to sell it to us enbulk, saying that it was the best solution to the PAF F-16s. We took a few, but we stuck for the MiG 29.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Sure, and I'm not saying that they CAN'T catch up rapidly on stealth, but in your examples how many failures did they have BEFORE they announced those successes? It also helps that with the A-bomb they where handed everything by former Manhattan Project scientists. So they didn't really have a learning curve to overcome with that, as they had everything they needed.

Can they make something better than the F-22? Sure. Do I think they can do it on their first try? No.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sure, and I'm not saying that they CAN'T catch up rapidly on stealth, but in your examples how many failures did they have BEFORE they announced those successes? It also helps that with the A-bomb they where handed everything by former Manhattan Project scientists. So they didn't really have a learning curve to overcome with that, as they had everything they needed.

Can they make something better than the F-22? Sure. Do I think they can do it on their first try? No.


Again not trying to say that the PAK-FA case is analogous to the A-bomb and the space race.
However, announced failures is quite a misnomer in itself. Has the PAK-FA flown yet, al beit with disastrous results? Maybe in 2003? Who knows? The whole point is that the US (intel et al) found out about Sputnik, Gagarin etc off world radio. Its not like the soviets decided to build the A-bomb overnight or send sputnil up overnight either. They planned years (even decades?) in advance. The point is that the got it right the first publicized time. Whether they stole the A-Bomb tech or not is moot. Its irrelevant actually. The point is that they caught up/shot ahead when they were least expected to do so; on more than one occasion.
There are hints to this. Maybe not the PAK-FA; maybe something else.
We (India) see this in their behavioral patterns too. There's something afoot in Russia.
They're exuding illogical amounts of confidence and bravado...amongst longstanding allies as well.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I don't know if I would see it as a first attept, there is no doubt that much ground based work has gone on over the years, similar to what the Americans and British have done. I don't know anything specific of course but it would be particularly remiss of the Russians if they haven't. The Russians also have a benchmark to compare with, as far as they can, which America, being the first did not.

Also the MiG 1:42 and Sukhoi S-37 will contribute a lot of knowledge to the Pak Fa as technology demonstrators so the Russians have, I would say, a 'decent' chance of making something at least comparable to the F-22.

Although the Russians would like Pak Fa to be better than Raptor, it doesn't actually have to be to worry the USAF, only close to it. And while it is true that to assume it will be better is totally wrong, to just dismiss it is not only equally wrong, but if the generals do the same it could be dangerous too.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Mig23 a dissapointment?

It was intended to be a cheap mass produced front line fighter. Imho the mig23 is very underrated.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Mig23 a dissapointment?

It was intended to be a cheap mass produced front line fighter. Imho the mig23 is very underrated.


Not all variants; not the one that was offered to us to counter PAF F-16 blk15s.
Not the ones that the VVS flew to engage PAF F-16s over Afghan/Pak airspace.



MiG-23MLD. The MiG-23MLD was the ultimate fighter variant of the MiG-23. The main focus of the upgrade was to improve maneuverability, especially during high angles of attack (AoA). The pitot boom was equipped with vortex generators, and the wing's notched leading edge roots were 'saw-toothed' to act as vortex generators as well. The flight-control system was modified to improve handling and safety in high-AoA maneuvers. Significant improvements were made in avionics and survivability: the Sapfir-23MLA-II featured improved modes for look-down/shoot-down and close-in fighting. A new SPO-15L radar warning receiver was installed, along with chaff/flare dispensers. The new and very effective Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 'Archer') short-range air-to-air missile was added to inventory. No new-build 'MLD' aircraft were delivered to the VVS, as the more advanced MiG-29 was about to enter production. Instead, all Soviet 'MLD's were former 'ML/MLA' aircraft modified to 'MLD' standard. Some 560 aircraft were upgraded between 1982-85. As with earlier MiG-23 versions, two distinct export variants were offered. Unlike Soviet examples, these were new-build aircraft, though they lacked the aerodynamic refinements of Soviet 'MLD's; 16 examples were delivered to Bulgaria, and 50 to Syria. These were the last single-seat MiG-23 fighters made, and the last example rolled off the production line in December 1984.

en.wikipedia.org...


Still not good enough for the F-16, we thought. (I didn't know about the R-73 compatibility till now though).



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I would like to compare it cotemporarily with F-4 or Su-15
I don't know too much about Su-15, but as I am Chinese, according to some stuff estimated, despite instantaneous or sustain the turn rate of J-8II always alittle better than F-4, so I bet the turn capabiliy of Su-15 must be analogous to J-8II at least, whereas in terms of someone called MIG-23MLD said in other forum, such capability of F-4 is close to MiG-23 indeed, we have to say "each has its strong point" on different altitude. But MiG-23 will lose all comparable sort of climb capability on variant altitude.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Umm how about not enjoying dealing with the military industrial complex that is the USA and how they treat their allies efforts. The program is being mismanaged and that is largely why air forces like the RAF, RAAF and CF are being turned off slowly.


My point is more - if the F-35 was sh*t hot, then the alternatives would pale into insignificance in comparison.


It is not, they do not, and the partner nations are thus looking elsewhere.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You are comparing a hypothetical aircraft with an operational aircraft, without knowing the true abilities of either aircraft.


THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL AIRCRAFT.

How can ANYONE pull out graphs and data on performance?



Oh, and I've a fair idea of the F-22's kinematic performance.













Originally posted by BlueRaja
My comparisons were against currently fielded/soon to be fielded threat aircraft, which the F-22 will have no problem seeing.


There you go - inherent bias - you think the F-22 is automatically better without knowing a thing about the adversary.




Originally posted by BlueRaja
You're also comparing aircraft from a country with about 20+ yrs of operational stealth aircraft vs. a country that has yet to field an operational stealth aircraft.


The Tu-160 has had radar treatment for years. MiG upgraded the Indian MiG-21s to Bison spec, incorporating further technologies to reduce radar signature.

The Su-34 has reduced radar signature measures built in, as does the MiG-35. The Su-35/27BM also has similar measures built in.



The operational experience of VLO aircraft is in dealing with surface/skin treatments, its maintainability, tolerance to damage etc.]


The techniques of building the airframe (under the skin) to direct radar waves are well understood (heck, a Russian made the initial formulation for surfaces way back in the day).



Originally posted by BlueRaja
What makes you so certain that the latter will leapfrog the technical abilities of the experienced user?


They've had 20+ years since the F-22 was first sketched out.



Originally posted by BlueRaja
LW radar may be able to detect an F-22, but like you said, without X band locking up, no firing solutions are available.


Indeed.




Originally posted by BlueRaja
As for a passive attack using IRST and IR missiles, you're not gonna have a 30-80km range against a Raptor, so unless the missile launch is within the no escape zone, the missile launch warning on the Raptor combined with supersonic speeds will give the pilot pretty good odds of staying out of the kinematic range of the missile.


How good is the resolution on the the AN/AAR-56?


I believe it is also mounted in the nose of the aircraft - so a beam shot may sneak past it.


Don't forget, an IR missile is entirely passive in attack, and detecting the launch, or incoming missile is not easy by any means.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Although the Russians would like Pak Fa to be better than Raptor, it doesn't actually have to be to worry the USAF, only close to it.



If they produce 95% the aircraft at 50% the cost, then the job is a good one.



Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[edit on 20/2/08 by kilcoo316]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Umm… how would anyone get an undetected IR shot against an F-22 without dying 99.9% of the time before their inferior IRST systems maybe works? Also, I suggest you look up the AN/ALR-94, the single most complex system on the F-22. More effective than an IRST in my oppinion, even if you're still delusional about the APG-77's LPI capability.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
and how do you know that the russian kit is inferior? guessing again? as no one in the west has seen it or used it - in fact the first real look at russian IRSt will be at red flag with india.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… how would anyone get an undetected IR shot against an F-22 without dying 99.9% of the time before their inferior IRST systems maybe works?


By not using active systems. In a stand alone environment, the F-22 is reliant on passive systems for acquisition.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, I suggest you look up the AN/ALR-94, the single most complex system on the F-22.


No matter how good it is, if the other guy ain't making ANY electronic noise there is NOTHING to detect.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
More effective than an IRST in my oppinion, even if you're still delusional about the APG-77's LPI capability.


This really isn't complicated stuff.


A passive system requires the other guy to emit something. For an IRST it is heat in the infra-red spectrum, for other systems it is UHF and longer wavelengths.

The AN/ALR-94 is still just a RHAWS/RWR when you get down to it - a very, very, very good RHAWS/RWR, but it is a RHAWS/RWR nonetheless... is still reliant on the enemy making ELECTRONIC noise.

An IRST is a thermal scanning system, the enemy will always be putting out a thermal signature of sorts (even though the F-22 does take measures to move all of this signature to its aft quadrant it will still have significant heating of the nose).

While the AN/ALR-94 and an IRST operate in similar fashions (both detecting electromagnetic waves), the infra-red spectrum requires use of the 'eyeball' exposed to the atmosphere as the infra-red waves are be quickly damped to zero by travelling into aircraft skin. Therefore, the AN/ALR-94 thus cannot detect infra red waves, (nor can an IRST detect radio waves - although that is a sensor wavelength limitation and not position on the airframe).

[edit on 20/2/08 by kilcoo316]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


If the foe is flying passive, without any other cueing, then that leaves a big open sky for the F-22 to hide in. It'll be sheer dumb luck if a SU/MIG just happened to be flying at the right place and time, with their IRST oriented in to location the F-22 happens to be flying. Additionally you're giving zero credit to the LPI capabilities of the APG77, or that of the ALR94 to detect a wide variety of EM/RF emissions.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
from what westy has posted about the radar on the F22 - to give him his well researched dues here , it seems to be able to operate in active mode , but near imposible (or rather darn harder to detect) - by having not 1 great big sweeping pulse but alot of little ones.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If the foe is flying passive, without any other cueing, then that leaves a big open sky for the F-22 to hide in. It'll be sheer dumb luck if a SU/MIG just happened to be flying at the right place and time, with their IRST oriented in to location the F-22 happens to be flying.


Yes it does leave a big empty sky, and yes, the probability of detection drops off alot.


BUT - and this is the point I raised to start with in this thread - an IRST gives the other guy more of a chance of finding the F-22 than the reverse.


If you are defending a point target, and you have a couple of flights doing fig-8 skytracks (like the F-14s used to do for their own BARCAPs) - then at least you stand a chance of airspace denial.



Originally posted by BlueRaja
Additionally you're giving zero credit to the LPI capabilities of the APG77, or that of the ALR94 to detect a wide variety of EM/RF emissions.


Yes, I am giving zero credit to the "LPI" capabilities of the -77 as I believe its a load of bollocks.

Do you really think the AN/ALR-94 would not easily detect the APG-77 in LPI mode? Really? Honestly?

Exactly.



The -94 will not detect IR emissions, no matter how good it is as it is integrated inside the aircraft skin. If the other guy is under strict emcon, then no matter how sensitive it is, nothing to detect is nothing to detect!



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


With regard to the ALR 94, I wasn't referring to IR emissions, but rather things such EM/RF emissions(i.e. radio traffic, datalinks, etc..). If the threat aircraft emits anything, they're gonna get DF'd.

Do you have some test analysis as to the effectiveness or lack thereof for the LPI capabilities of the APG 77? F-22s have flown against very sophisticated western aircraft, and they haven't detected the emissions.
I think LPI needs to be looked at like VLO capabilities. It's not invisible, but the amount of reaction time an opponent has against it is greatly diminished, giving the Raptor an advantage.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join