Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

Originally posted by Canada_EH
It funny zaph but your basically saying at the same time that a plane like the F-15 when used correctly could be a threat to the F-22. Or dare I say a mig-29 could be a threat too?

Now I hope you'd agree with me because really its just proving the point that the best pilot should eb able to make his opponet fight his type of battle. Really leads me to ask why aren't the other USAF squaderns with F-16 winning againest the F-22? why can't they make the F-22 fight their a2a battle?

Under certain conditions sure. The problem is that for that to happen, you have to know where they are so you can set up the ambush. If you could track the F-22 and know exactly where it's coming from and where it's going to be, then yes you could do the same thing. ANYTHING can be a threat to the F-22, the problem is that to do it the way the did with the Buffalo, you have to know exactly where they are, and where they're coming from and going to.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Ace pilots are very ideal to have, I'm not trying to convince you that they're not, I'm simply saying that getting rid of the current avionics disadvantages and producing an aircraft superior to a great deal of others is a good idea, and just takes place over training pilots in current rigs which are quickly becoming out of date.

This is another argument that comes up every so often too. If you notice, even though the Raptor is such a great BVR platform, they're STILL training for WVR too. And until the F-35 comes out, nothing in Europe is a true Stealth platform as far as I know. So what you're saying is that there's no point in training to fight anymore because of the F-22? Just because the F-22 is a great BVR platform doesn't make it the end all be all of fighters. Yes it's hard to track, but if you get in visual range of it, that becomes MUCH easier. You train WVR, and you try to force the F-22 into YOUR fight if you go up against it.

You're not trying to train "ace pilots" because there's no such thing unless you're fighting. You're trying to train pilots that can at least get INTO the fight, and survive long enough to get some experience, and become better. Pilots that fly less than 50 hours a YEAR aren't those. You'll be lucky to FIND the fight with that little training, let alone survive it.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Your right that its the best way to approach it but the design teams for the raptor didn't make the mistake that you think they did.

Point conceded, it does appear as though I was saying something that I don't think I meant. I'm not trying to say that the F-22 was completely opposed the YF-23, just that PAK-FA will be more integrating between Sukhoi and Mikoyan. The two have been temporarily combined into the Consortium for the construction of PAK-FA. Although F-22 did combine some of the facets of the YF-23 into its construction, the two previously competing companies were not plopped together and instructed that they were building a new airframe. F-22 was rather a major upgrade of the YF-22. PAK-FA is a completely new airframe based on the discoveries of Sukhoi and Mikoyan. Since more of the aircraft is being redesigned, it allows for more assimilation of innovations between the two companies. Again, that this process is an improvement over the methods used by Raptor is just IMO, so nobody's restricted to believing me.

3-Way debate hurting the brain! Systems overload!

Sorry. Back to being serious.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This is another argument that comes up every so often too. If you notice, even though the Raptor is such a great BVR platform, they're STILL training for WVR too. And until the F-35 comes out, nothing in Europe is a true Stealth platform as far as I know. So what you're saying is that there's no point in training to fight anymore because of the F-22? Just because the F-22 is a great BVR platform doesn't make it the end all be all of fighters. Yes it's hard to track, but if you get in visual range of it, that becomes MUCH easier. You train WVR, and you try to force the F-22 into YOUR fight if you go up against it.

I'm saying that right now it's not just yet ideal to start stuffing money into training programs as they are on the brink of letting out PAK-FA. Taking money away from PAK-FA for training puts into jeopardy a program that has been going on for years and is getting ever closer to putting out some serious results. This money needs to come from somewhere. Since training pilots in the use of things like Su-24 Fencers and MiG-31 Foxhounds is not particularly useful as the airframes are getting aged it logically follows that they should hold off on training until they start producing the aircraft that is slated to replace it (as well as putting them in the newer aircraft they churn out, such as the latest Su-27, Su-30, and Su-35 variants).

I'm not saying that there's no point in training things heavily because the threat of the F-22 is insurmountable. I'm saying that it's better to put money into a project that is nearing completion, and then start training when you have more of the new aircraft (which are still being produced, remember?) to put the pilots into rather than putting them in ancient aircraft on the brink of replacement and decommission. What you have to remember is that the latest Su-35 variants are still in low numbers and are being produced. This is partly the reason why pilots have so few hours. Most planes in Russia are really old, and there aren't enough new ones to go around. Funding just isn't there to keep the new ones up around the clock anyway.

I wouldn't say the Pak-Fa is anywhere NEAR complete. You're probably looking at close to 10 years before you see it in service in any numbers. They still have to build the prototype, wind tunnel test it, test the engines, flight test it, etc. It actually makes plenty of sense to keep training, because it's going to be a long time before the Pak-Fa enters service.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I wouldn't say the Pak-Fa is anywhere NEAR complete. You're probably looking at close to 10 years before you see it in service in any numbers. They still have to build the prototype, wind tunnel test it, test the engines, flight test it, etc. It actually makes plenty of sense to keep training, because it's going to be a long time before the Pak-Fa enters service.

Completion is dependent on point of view, I suppose.

But even taking PAK-FA out of the equation, Russia has a great deal of very new fighter aircraft that are slated for production but have not been built in significant numbers. Su-35, for example, was made in very small numbers since it is still being produced for the Russian Air Force. There are currently 11 in service. This is not enough to have pilots training in constantly. MiG 35 has been reviewed by the Russian Federation Air Force but is not yet being produced for them. Even the very newest Su-35 variant (The Su-35 UBK or something like that, it's got a very sexy grey/black paint job. One prototype has been built, it's currently doing tests with the AL-31F M2 installed) has been heavily considered by the Federation Air Force and is very likely to go into production very soon, but therein lies the problem.

The problem so far is that there are loads and loads of good upgraded aircraft with Russia, but they're put out mainly for export. The Russian air force doesn't want these new variants, they're designed and upgraded at the request of buyers. The Consortium may get grants to develop aircraft for Russia, but they've still got to be profitable. The manufacturing time has to be shared between other buyers as well as for Russia, so things get slowed down a tad. As more aircraft enter the arena in the Russian Air Force, more training will be possible. Until then, training will be slow with new aircraft, and hopefully not particularly continued with the old aircraft that are soon to be replaced.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Completion is dependent on point of view, I suppose.

Yes and no. would you call a fighter that is done being built but has no weapons done? not in my books same with any of its flight systems or radar etc. those things all need to be at a point. I think a good example at this point is the F-22 and the A-380 are either plane complete ? which one mroe then the other and why? If you answer that you'll get a good idea of how we differ on the subject, but I'm pretty sure we all will be fairly close to the same answer.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Yes and no. would you call a fighter that is done being built but has no weapons done? not in my books same with any of its flight systems or radar etc. those things all need to be at a point.

Like I said, it's nearing completion. There are components that are ready to go, there are components that are not. But for the most part the work is done. It has been in development for years, but it's slated for first flight in late 2008, rollout a little bit before then. So we're nearing the end with the PAK-FA's development. Now, I say PAK-FA, but I refer specifically to the prototype. I'm not referring to the fighter aircraft that will be put into production as there will be doubtless improvements and differences. But, for a flight slated next year, this project is getting close to finished. The aircraft itself may not be, but the project certainly is.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Like I said, it's nearing completion. There are components that are ready to go, there are components that are not. But for the most part the work is done. It has been in development for years, but it's slated for first flight in late 2008, rollout a little bit before then. So we're nearing the end with the PAK-FA's development. Now, I say PAK-FA, but I refer specifically to the prototype. I'm not referring to the fighter aircraft that will be put into production as there will be doubtless improvements and differences. But, for a flight slated next year, this project is getting close to finished. The aircraft itself may not be, but the project certainly is.

Speculation again.

Where is the evidence that there is an aircraft due to hit the streets? The first flight of something has been reported to happen in 2007 or is it 2008? However, there’s no guarantee that funding will be made available to complete anything, except perhaps a few more artist impressions.

There is no evidence that the next aircraft to appear under the PAK-FA banner will be a prototype – or just another one-off concept? No-one knows! There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the PAK-FA work is on the road to a conclusion with the output of a design which will go into production.

It is more likely IMHO (speculation, of course) that the Russians will go for a low risk, lower cost evolution of a current design. They have not got the cash to develop a F22 / F35 competitor / equal. Russia’s military budget just does not stretch that far. This is the reality.

Wikipedia is not evidence.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Like I said, it's nearing completion. There are components that are ready to go, there are components that are not. But for the most part the work is done. It has been in development for years, but it's slated for first flight in late 2008, rollout a little bit before then. So we're nearing the end with the PAK-FA's development. Now, I say PAK-FA, but I refer specifically to the prototype. I'm not referring to the fighter aircraft that will be put into production as there will be doubtless improvements and differences. But, for a flight slated next year, this project is getting close to finished. The aircraft itself may not be, but the project certainly is.

Speculation again.

Where is the evidence that there is an aircraft due to hit the streets? The first flight of something has been reported to happen in 2007 or is it 2008? However, there’s no guarantee that funding will be made available to complete anything, except perhaps a few more artist impressions.

There is no evidence that the next aircraft to appear under the PAK-FA banner will be a prototype – or just another one-off concept? No-one knows! There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the PAK-FA work is on the road to a conclusion with the output of a design which will go into production.

It is more likely IMHO (speculation, of course) that the Russians will go for a low risk, lower cost evolution of a current design. They have not got the cash to develop a F22 / F35 competitor / equal. Russia’s military budget just does not stretch that far. This is the reality.

Wikipedia is not evidence.

Regards

Well if you can read russian then I can provide you with some sources where it states about the actual plane which will be entered in service of 2010-2011. btw about funding, their budget increases every year, and I am sure since it is a 5th generation fighter, I am sure Putin will not this project let die, the thing is it is already designed on the paper. all is left is build the components for the plane. RUssia's economy is booming with all that oil, since the prices are high on oil, they get huge amount of money to finance their military projects and not just military of course. Russia always counters something that America builds, in this case it is f-22 and therefore Russia is required to make a balance and build a fighter that is superior to the existing F-22, since it will be older than the russian newly build 5th generation fighter and I am sure it will be better, just a common sense, why would you build a plane that is inferior , therefore Russians will make sure, they have advantage over F-22 with their 5th generation figther. If build it, build it better and superior, otherwise why build it at all knowing that it is not going to match up the existing f-22.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by K_galmine]

"It will be superior...because they wouldnt bother building an inferior plane"

That is very flawed logic. The thing is, russia doesnt know how good the F-22 actually is. The released specs are obviously inaccurate and understated. Russia has no idea how understated they are. Neither do americans. Therefore, they can only build an aircraft superior to its specualted real limits.

On top of that, building something inferior is not a matter of just not bothering to build something SUPERIOR, its a matter of how good you can ACTUALLY build it. Such as avionics, you cant just say "it will be better because they wouldnt bother building it if it wasnt" because there is a chance russian tech JUST ISNT THERE. Russia has a general lag in computer technology. Its possible they just dont have the tech to match the F-22. Or stealth, same thing, maybe russian stealth JUST ISNT THERE. There is a chance that the Russians CANT build something better.

You cant just...POOF...worlds best technology because we want it to be better than the F-22...its harder than that.

Analogy...its like Russia and America are climbing paralell ropes. You seem to think that when America takes the lead, russia can just climb higher. But in reality, you have to weave the rope you are about to climb a step higher on if you want to get higher.

Ok...bad analogy

[edit on 15-6-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Actually, as far as Russian tech goes you may be selling them a bit short. Although during the cold war the avionics tech was quite behind that of the United States, that lead is no longer a huge effect. Have you seen the cockpits of the latest Russian toys, particularly the Su-35BM? It's just as modern as the Raptor's, a fully glass cockpit. the BM even has a PESA radar, and PAK-FA is slated to have AESA (this is not an option for them; the PAK-FA WILL have AESA, I believe Phazotron was contracted for it). There have also been extensive RCS studies on the body of PAK-FA, one of them is posted up on Wiki actually.

Just because the Russians had a disadvantage doesn't mean that it is still the same case. Even if there is still a lag, it's been balanced out quite a bit in the last few years.

Hmm I think that there was a bit of a misinterpretation. I dont badmouth Russian tech at all, in fact I think that its some of the best in the world. It IS however still behind american tech by a good margin, I know this will change eventually. Remember that the US isnt standing still either - its constantly creating new radars and upgrading aircraft with them. I wouldnt be surprised if we had an F-22B by 2015.

I simply want to make the point that creating a better aircraft isnt as easy as just WANTING TO.

Production version of an AESA radar is already on the new MiG 35.
Its a first for the Russians so I don't expect it to work wonders, but its a start.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
I simply want to make the point that creating a better aircraft isnt as easy as just WANTING TO.

True, but after a couple decade's work on the aircraft it would likely be an acceptable assumption that the aircraft would perform nearly as well as the Raptor to possibly outdoing it. I think, however, that the best assumption to make is that it will be much like the F-15 vs. Su-27 conflicts; there's no real winner unless you take very specific circumstances that inevitably favour one over the other.

Oh, and as for the MiG 35's AESA, you're absolutely right, that's my bad. I had forgotten to consider Mikoyan's latest toy. Bad me.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Production version of an AESA radar is already on the new MiG 35.
Its a first for the Russians so I don't expect it to work wonders, but its a start.

Daedalus3,

That looks like a Planar array


Maybe you were referring to the Zhuk-AE

A great read for me, keep it up

As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them?

Yes it was the Finnish Air-Force.

I understand both points of views in this matter. If you can't train pilots and develop a new fighter at the same time, which do you chose? If it was me I would obviously go for the fighter. As already mentioned Russia has aging planes in its inventory that require replacing. Without planes even the best pilots will stand empty handed, believe me. Russia is currently not facing any great threats aside from a growing NATO. And that problem can easilly be dealt with missile threats. Russia has no current need for well trained pilots. When the PAK-FA is in service (if it ever will, I'll return to this shortly) more money can be put in training. On the other hand I don't understand why training can't be issued aside of this "glorious fighter" -project. You don't have fly at Red Flag to learn how to act in war situations. Nowadays a great deal of training is done in simulators, computersgames that simulate the reality. This is done to a great extent in countries with smaller defence budgets, like Finland. We don't have the money to keep pilots fly 200 hours a year. Instead pilots sit in simulators and train all day.

When it comes to the PAK-FA, I don't know what to think. I've only seen reports from more or less unrealible sources. They make it sound like Russia is developing the ultimate fighter. I am wondering though, why there are no pictures. There has always been pictures of prototypes when it comes to fighters. Why are there none of the PAK-FA? It's hardly that big of a secret. I did a quick google image search and couldn't find anything useful. An other thing I would like to point out is the top-speed of this fighter. According to this thread we are talking about numbers close to mach 2.83 if memory serves me. How come this fighter can be so fast? It can't be the engines. Russia is way behind USA on that frontier. Therefore the only possible reason is the avionics and purely the shape of the plane. The F-22 goes Mach 1.7 because it has huge air intakes and due to the fact that it carries all of its weaponry internally. This causes friciton which makes the plane slower. Still, the PAK-FA can fly much faster, and it is also reported to be stealthy. The only reason I can think of is that it doesn't carry weapons internally, this would cause less friction and the plane would go faster. This would however mean that the PAK-FA stealth charachter would be seriously compromised if it would be forced to carry its weapons externally. Don't you agree?



[edit on 16-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
That is very flawed logic. The thing is, russia doesnt know how good the F-22 actually is. The released specs are obviously inaccurate and understated. Russia has no idea how understated they are. Neither do americans. Therefore, they can only build an aircraft superior to its specualted real limits.

Why?


Has the KGB (or RVS) or whatever they are these days gone out of business?



I believe the PAK-FA will be an improvement on the F-22 (which evolved from the YF-22), simply because it has been conceptualised 20+ years later. An awful lot has happened in that time, which makes the reception of initial ideas totally different.


For instance, 20 years ago when thinking about the F-22, did LM think of places to house lasers? Of course not, but you might expect the PAK-FA to.

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
The F-22 goes Mach 1.7 because it has huge air intakes and due to the fact that it carries all of its weaponry internally. This causes friciton which makes the plane slower. Still, the PAK-FA can fly much faster, and it is also reported to be stealthy. The only reason I can think of is that it doesn't carry weapons internally, this would cause less friction and the plane would go faster. This would however mean that the PAK-FA stealth charachter would be seriously compromised if it would be forced to carry its weapons externally. Don't you agree?

You've got that the wrong way around FIN


Weapons inside = less friction = more speed

Originally posted by kilcoo316


You've got that the wrong way around FIN

Weapons inside = less friction = more speed

If you say so I can do nothing else but believe. Can you then explain to me what the restictions are on the F-22? What makes it "so slow." And why is there less friction if weapons are carried internally. One would think that carrying them internally would mean that a larger area of the planes front would collide with air, thus slowing it down.