Best fighter jet in the future?

[shining eyes]

I gave the vote to F22 and is now winning having 33 votes while PAK FA has 32 votes

 

[Jackal]

There is no 'faith' about it. By the time you spent your money, you will KNOW that 'stealth' is real.

For something that cost as much as it does, I'd very much hope it'd work...The 'stealth is real' part is very debatable, of course. For example, I once read an article in AirForces Monthly about the F-35 and a very highly experianced RAF pilot said; "You'll be stealthy going in, but sure as hell you won't be stealthy coming out", when talking about a particular, quite simple scenario.

If you do have that thought, you might want to find the radar warning receiver control panel and change its mode to 'ON'. The radar warning receiver set is supposed to alert you if there are any seeking radar transmissions in the area. But only if it is powered up and working.

I'm aware of it. But what I'm getting at, at the end of the day, is what you feel safest in. I'm not comparing them in a "versus" way you understand, just a matter of choice. And choice wise I'd go for Typhoon. Its not not all what other manufactures think when they make a new promotional video for their fighter, i.e it flying in a straight line without a care in a world and getting shot down. Believe that then you're very much mistaken it.

Just my two pennies.

 

[Jackal]

Avionics of the f35 are the best.
better then f22 these are said by those industries that made these aircraft.

The same company, LM, when talking about the F-22, say its the best, nothing can touch it etc. Then when they talk about the F-35, they say the same thing...Rather silly really, their marketing department ought to think things through more thouroughly. It'd certainly make them look more intelligent.

 

[Kinetic]

Though this website is 'Aussies must get F-22' slogan site.. liked this words...

"Another element of the PAK-FA ‘surprise’ is that the aircraft has been designed with a clear understanding of the effects of ‘stealth’ on air combat when both sides present with low-observable aircraft. Obviously, the combatants will be closer when their radar sensors detect the other side, so close in fact that the Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST) might be the first sensor to detect the presence of an enemy aircraft. The problem is this: the PAK-FA has IRST capability and the F-22A does not. Worse, the extreme agility of the PAK-FA will allow it to dodge the F-22A’s AIM-120 missile shots, while the Raptor will likely not be able to out-turn the more advanced Russian (and Chinese) missiles. Surviving F-22As would then be committed to what fighter pilots call a ‘knife fight’ – close-in dogfights where superior agility wins – and the PAK-FA will out-manoeuvre the F-22A.

The answer to this air combat puzzle is simple: build more F-22s and build a better F-22, and give it better missiles. The basic design of the F-22 is sound and there is internal space for additional sensors such as IRST, cheek AESA arrays and possibly lower frequency radar that will detect the PAK-FA first. The thrust of the F119 series engines could be increased and a more advanced 3D thrust-vectoring nozzle fitted. Controls with more power and driven by smarter software can be added. The MBDA Meteor missile has a specification and design to kill a 9G target at 50,000 feet – about the edge of where the PAK-FA can operate. If the Europeans can make such a missile, why not the United States? "

PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and ?Capability Surprise?

 

[xMustiiej70]

Stealth is real.
it can detected.
but ofcourse. if you dont role what the int he books says you can be detected.
i think it has to do with speed and moves.

Besides that Pak fa from russia is a gaint thing.
its easy to detect and shoot down if you ask me.
also that greek dude that says that f35 will be surpassed sometime..
Ofcourse everything get surpassed thats why it gets upgraded.
and also designing new toys for the next decade can do wonders.
it might save your country.

 

[amalakas]

Gambit, sometimes I wonder.

I meant it's a conditional state because even things such as the aircraft orientation in relation to the observer can alter the "stealth" factor of the plane.

Since Stealth is "conditional" it's not real ! it's just a limitation of established infastructure. If someone decides to take the step and change said infastructure, voila ..the plane is pretty non stealth again ...

Would you call a Fokker Dr.1 a highly successful all aspect stealth plane because simply there were no radars at the time to pick it up ? That is what the F22 has done for current infastructure. It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !!

The SR-71 and the B-58 have nothing to do with this argument. I was trying to say that since the F22 is a Colossal investment and a Colossal shift in operational tactics.. a dramatic shift in its ability to be stealthy would be a major economic setback for the US because you simply cannot justify such spending on human-machine interfaces and some sensor fusion technology alone,

I think its YOU who needs to do a bit of thinking....

 

[ptldM3]

Stealth is real.
it can detected.
but ofcourse. if you dont role what the int he books says you can be detected.
i think it has to do with speed and moves.

Besides that Pak fa from russia is a gaint thing.
its easy to detect and shoot down if you ask me.
also that greek dude that says that f35 will be surpassed sometime..
Ofcourse everything get surpassed thats why it gets upgraded.
and also designing new toys for the next decade can do wonders.
it might save your country.

The B-2 is giant too, so how easy is it to shoot down? also care to explain how you know, "its easy to detect and shoot down" did you detect and shoot one down?

 

[amalakas]

The B-2 is giant too, so how easy is it to shoot down? also care to explain how you know, "its easy to detect and shoot down" did you detect and shoot one down?

haven't you heard? the T-50 is being shot down all over the place...

 

[gambit]

Gambit, sometimes I wonder.

I meant it's a conditional state because even things such as the aircraft orientation in relation to the observer can alter the "stealth" factor of the plane.

Since Stealth is "conditional" it's not real ! it's just a limitation of established infastructure. If someone decides to take the step and change said infastructure, voila ..the plane is pretty non stealth again

Conditional? The proper word is 'fictitious'. Radar cross section calculations and values are essentially fictitious precisely because they do change.

Would you call a Fokker Dr.1 a highly successful all aspect stealth plane because simply there were no radars at the time to pick it up ?

No I would not because radar detection, its avoidance and countermeasures depends on...what else but the existence of the radar detector itself?

That is what the F22 has done for current infastructure. It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !!

The SR-71 and the B-58 have nothing to do with this argument. I was trying to say that since the F22 is a Colossal investment and a Colossal shift in operational tactics.. a dramatic shift in its ability to be stealthy would be a major economic setback for the US because you simply cannot justify such spending on human-machine interfaces and some sensor fusion technology alone,

Absolutely they do. Here is your argument...

What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.

The B-58 was defeated by high altitude capable surface-air missiles. It was a less expensive countermeasure than manned aircrafts. But the SR-71 was defeated by neither missiles nor manned aircrafts. Why not? No one 'decide' to defeat it? The reason why the SR-71 retired undefeated is because people searched in vain ways to bring down the aircraft, if even just once, and all methods failed. There were no decision making process for the B-58 and the SR-71. Cost was of secondary concern. So your question regarding sensor capability to electronically defeat the F-22 missed the point entirely -- That there is no decision at all. There is a need and so far no one have stepped up with the answer to that need.

I think its YOU who needs to do a bit of thinking....

I have. And everyone can see it.

What we casually call 'stealth' is very real. Perhaps someday someone will come up with some clever device to reveal these 'stealth' aircrafts, but given the intended lifespan of these aircrafts -- decades of service -- we would not be investing so much just on a hope that someone would not 'decide' to develop a radar, a less expensive option than manned fighters, to find the F-22. No one 'decide' anything.

 

[amalakas]

No one 'decide' anything.

So the F22 was born out of ...magic ??? No decisions were ever made during its inception ? well that is news for me...

This is the core of the argument.. you are a clear believer (it seems) of the principles behind the creation of the stealth fighters.. I am a supporter..but not a believer...

It's not your understanding of what the aircraft (F22,F117,B2, not F35) can do that ...I don't share.. it's your faith in the whole species of ( US only ) stealth aircraft.

The SR-71 situation was very far from what you described.
First of all, the SR-71 was not really a USAF plane..its was more a CIA plane and let's not kid ourselves about that.. and second Gambit...
as far as I know, it never actually overflew USSR space...at least officialy ... and please do correct me if I am wrong... but my understanding of flying tells me that the USSR could successfully intercept such a high flying high speed target using their MiG 25s and later their MiG-31s ...
And before you jump off your seat, I don't mean use them to get the SR-71 in dogfilghts... you are a military man, you know what intercept means. ..
So from a physics and flight characteristics point of view, ( and a little knowledge on the AA missiles available at the time) one can conlude that interception was possible....

So................ I will not hold my breath over your argument on the blackbird... first i got to be convinced it actually overflew the USSR

 

[gambit]

So the F22 was born out of ...magic ??? No decisions were ever made during its inception ? well that is news for me...

This is the core of the argument.. you are a clear believer (it seems) of the principles behind the creation of the stealth fighters.. I am a supporter..but not a believer...

Looks like you are having difficulties following your own arguments. So I will refresh your memory...

What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.

The highlighted 'decide' imply that electronically defeating the F-22 is optional. No...There is no option. Even if one fail in the attempt, failure does not negate the necessity. That is why I said no one 'decide' anything. The US felt that creating a new generation of aircraft, based upon new technology, to elude radar detection is a necessity. Our 'decision' was not so much driven by whims as it was from financial limitations. So...No...'stealth' was not an option, it was a necessity waiting for resource allocation to come to being. Once 'stealth' proved to be viable and overwhelmingly advantageous to one side -- US -- its defeat also became a necessity and THAT is also a need waiting for resource allocation.

So you are wrong...No one 'decide' anything. The only decision is how much money, aka resources or investments, to allocate to the effort to defeat 'stealth'. Do we --US -- know of a way to defeat it? I will leave it up to speculations. But the less resources allocate to ATTEMPT to defeat 'stealth', the longer it will take to find a solution. The implication for militaries worldwide is serious. Resources at any time period, one year or one decade, is finite. Governments always play the jugglers between non-military and military needs for their own countries. If it is possible in the near future to create a sensor, either through new discoveries or creative exploitations of current technology, to detect 'stealth' aircrafts, no one will 'decide' to develop said new sensor. The need is compelling enough. Then if American 'stealth' aircrafts can be detected, what need is there for anyone to develop their own 'stealth' aircrafts?

It's not your understanding of what the aircraft (F22,F117,B2, not F35) can do that ...I don't share.. it's your faith in the whole species of ( US only ) stealth aircraft.

I do not have 'faith', only a realist's attitude that we should create and maintain every possible advantage for at least 10 yrs. The F-15 proved to be dominant beyond expectations. From what we have seen so far, the F-22 and its cousins are likely to have the same record.

The SR-71 situation was very far from what you described.
First of all, the SR-71 was not really a USAF plane..its was more a CIA plane and let's not kid ourselves about that..

And let us not kid ourselves on the importance of parsing who benefited more from the SR-71, the military or the CIA.

and second Gambit...
as far as I know, it never actually overflew USSR space...at least officialy ... and please do correct me if I am wrong...

Fine...You are wrong.

but my understanding of flying tells me that the USSR could successfully intercept such a high flying high speed target using their MiG 25s and later their MiG-31s ...
And before you jump off your seat, I don't mean use them to get the SR-71 in dogfilghts... you are a military man, you know what intercept means. ..
So from a physics and flight characteristics point of view, ( and a little knowledge on the AA missiles available at the time) one can conlude that interception was possible....

So................ I will not hold my breath over your argument on the blackbird... first i got to be convinced it actually overflew the USSR

SR-71 pilots are practically astronauts. For those who were privileged enough to have listened to mission tapes, whenever these pilots felt a potential threat is rising from the ground, the pilot would just casually said to the guy-in-back (GIB) that they should head out to 'space', which is pretty much at 100k ft or 74 km altitude. Why did the US stopped U-2 overflights of Soviet airspace...???

The Cold War Museum - The early U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union

On every flight, the pilot reported seeing Soviet fighters flying beneath him at various times. They were too far below to pose any danger, but it was obvious that they were searching for a target that their ground controllers had identified. The bad news was soon confirmed by the US National Security Agency, whose ground stations intercepted the voice reports from the Soviet Air Defence Troops.

Soviet air defences were better than expected! However, the early U-2 overflights strongly suggested that Soviet offensive airpower had been over-estimated.

The U-2 overflights, and of course violations of Soviet airspace, were stopped because eventually Soviet air defense became capable enough to reach the U-2's operational altitude, aka the Powers U-2 shoot down. But here you are telling everyone here, people who can be cynical enough, that the US never sent the SR-71 over Soviet airspace? Give us all a break, will ya...??? May be you need a transfusion of said cynicism.

But even if we are to accept the US government's official statement that the SR-71 never violated Soviet airspace, what is there to prevent the Soviets from trying to shoot it down anyway...???

SR-71 Det 1 CIA Operations

Between 01 January and 31 March 1968, six missions were flown: four over North Vietnam and two over North Korea.

Why should Soviet missiles be confined to Soviet air defense when Soviet military prestige would gain global eminence and desirability if even just one SR-71 was shot down?

So could a defense be possible against the SR-71? Of course, it would be a blatant violation of the laws of physics for me to say anything else. Was the SR-71 defeated? No... How long was the attempt? Nearly 60 yrs. How much money invested in the failed attempt? Is anyone continuing? Probably not. Not because the SR-71 became worthless but because it is no longer an immediate threat. But the more cynical among us would say that once governments analyzed their finite resources, they threw up their hands and pretty much gave up, for the SR-71 as well as the F-22.

 

[amalakas]

they threw up their hands and pretty much gave up, for the SR-71 as well as the F-22.

Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it)

I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong.

1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way.

2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...

a) First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve...for an interception it's more than enough

b) The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ...

C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...)

So please.. sarcasm ...not

 

[ptldM3]

Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it)

I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong.

1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way.

2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...

a) First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve...for an interception it's more than enough

b) The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ...

C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...)

So please.. sarcasm ...not

The Mig-25 acheived a world record service ceiling of 123,000 ft but its official service ceiling is around 80,000 ft but i assume the RS-71 could probably do the same.

The SR-71 flew before the Mig-25 so it is likely that it did indeed overfly the USSR. However, with the introduction of the Mig-25/31 the over flights of the SR-71 (if this did happen) was most likely drastically reduced or stoped all together, but with thr SR-71's speed i could see how the reaction time would still make overflights possible--in other words if it was well coordinated flight, meaning the SR-71's flew the safest possible rought at the safest time and fully utilized its speed and altitude then further flights were probable but given the Migs altitude and speed it would be risky for the SR-71.

 

[indianairforce1]

Voted For PAK-FA Becoz ....

If we read characteristics of F-22 and MiG 1.44 and Sukhoi 47, we will see that the russians are better. So T-50 I think will have a lot of tech of Su-47 and MiG 1.44.
If is better or not T-50 against F-22 and F-35 we will se only in combat (after many years).

What are we doing are only speculations and opinions.

What I don't understanding is how can Russia keep the step with western with so fewer money.
If any is very good in aeronautics will go at NASA BOEING GRUMMAN or at another US company because there are money. In Russia sallary are aprox 300$ in aviation industry. Is anybody for ex. from Germany that will go to work for Sukhoi. He want to work for BAE DASSAULT NASA etc. Am I right?

P.S. russians are better in aeronautics and astronautics in general, my opinion.

 

[indianairforce1]

The PAK FA was designed to compete with the F-35 Lighting II (AKA JSF) not the F-22. They are two different leagues.

The Su-35 vs. the F-22? Well for one these aircraft are built with two different purposes in mind.

If one looks at the Su-35/37 they notice forward canards. Something that only the americans are not incorporating into their new fighters. The reason for this is forward canards speak to manuverability in a pinch. This boils down to dogfighting. In the hands of pilots of equal skill, the Su's have the advantage in a dogfight.

However dogfights account for only 1 out of 10 aerial victories. The rest being attained in BVR (beyond vidual range) combat. This is what the F-22 was designed for.

You see we've all seen movies like "Top Gun" and "Iron Eagle" and when we think of a missile being fired we think "Break Right!" Well against short range missiles that works. Against longer range missiles such as the AMRAAM this doesn't work. When one fires an AMRAAM at you that's flying mach-4/5 you don't try to break right. Its got plenty of time to compensate, and you don't wait for it to get close then dodge, its moving to fast. What you do is go into erratic manuvers forcing the missile to use up fuel and speed to keep up. The goal being to either cause it to burn up its fuel, or lose so much speed matching your manuvers that you can dodge it.

The F-22 was designed with this purpose in mind. Get so close you can't escape the missiles, fire them, then leave. Dogfighting only as a last resort.

In BVR combat the F-22 has a clear advantage. Also keep in mind AIM-120 are more effective from an F-22, why? Despite what you see in the movies in most air to air combat the fighters stay close to the ground to stay out of the view of surface to air missiles. The stealth F-22 does not, and its high altitude and supercruising speed adds range and speed to the missiles.

There is no doubt in my mind the F-22 is capable of scoring a 10-1 ratio on the Su-35 based purely on the merits of the plane. However combat is much more complicated than this. Those fighting the F-22 will try to avoid engaging it unless they are over their home territory with SAM's, and multiple radars to help them. The americans will send F-35's and F/A-18's on Wild Weasel to degrade this capability. The determinant factor in the battle of Su-35 vs. F-22 is distance. From long range I don't think even the Su-35 could escape such a close missile launch. In a close range fight, both have thrust vectoring, and the Su has canards. However one thing often overlooked in the craft's manuverability is weight. Russian aircraft are big, mean, and heavy. American aircraft are lighter making them easier to move.

I think the Su-35 would likely retain the manuverability advantage which could give a skilled enough pilot an edge, but its getting that close that's the key. A favorite American tactic is "the grinder" where aircraft go high, launch AIM-120, then spiral downward presenting a confusing radar image. From here they retreat reform, and come back. A Su-35 would have to dodge the AIM-120's, then kick in his afterburners to catch the supercruising F-22 before it reforms. This leads to a short combat time.

For russian aircraft fighting the F-22 will depend on its ability to do the following. Find the F-22's avoid their missiles, close the distance, force them into a dogfight, and shoot them down before the Su or Mig "bingo's" on fuel. If a Su can force an F-22 into a dogfight he has a chance, without it, I don't like his odds.

As far as PAKFA vs. F-22, this is like comparing F-22 to F-35 JSF, aircraft designed on different parameters. A better comparison is the PAKFA versus the F-35 in which case unless the F-35 pilot is of much higher quality the PAKFA wins. Thanks to congressional penny-pinching the Air Force has been forced to dump more and more tasks on the F-35. This leads to compromise and to many have been made.

The F-35's better wait until the F-22's clean the skies out for them.