FGFA vs J-XX

[ptldM3]

My friend:
I Suggest you Read the history of 1990s,After The collapse of the Soviet union of aviation icbc.

I know the history very well, there was little money, so the amount of hours flown and the pay was cut. Companies such as Sukhoi continued to sell aircraft and develop new aircraft.

 

[wdyy918]

Russian Federation is a friend not an enemy.It's aviation industry is much much more better than us. Stop being stupid.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

My friend:
I Suggest you Read the history of 1990s,After The collapse of the Soviet union of aviation icbc.

You think Russia could not have trained that many doctrates within two Decades of time? You must be dreaming

 

[ptldM3]

Russian Federation is a friend not an enemy.It's aviation industry is much much more better than us. Stop being stupid.

And the ironic thing was that i never said anything bad about the Chinese aviation industry, nor did i ever question the J-20's capability. It all started with a few members here trying to prove how bad the PAK-FA was, when i confronted them with the science of radar theory and the PAK-FA's design they ignored it and continued to act like children taking any and all cheap shots even when i disproved and debunked them.

 

[SBD-3]

Russian Federation is a friend not an enemy.It's aviation industry is much much more better than us. Stop being stupid.

okey, stop talking out of your ***. US is no comparison with anyone, not China, not Europe and not Russia.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I actually think that the mods should put the versus threads on hold from time to time. Sometimes they escalate into national pride contests that escalate into pissing contests.

 

[cross1993]

Russian Federation is a friend not an enemy.It's aviation industry is much much more better than us. Stop being stupid.

Agree.

 

[SBD-3]

Russia lacks an aviation industry? Sukhoi is one of the most successful aviation companies in the worlds, even in the 1990's they worked on the SU-34, different SU-27, SU-35 and SU-30 varients, they also had a number of prototype aircraft including SU-37 and SU-47. Ironic how China purchased aircraft during and after the brain drain period, If Russia was so brain drained why did China purchase aircraft that were build by these brain drained Russians, better question what would that make China?

But I do like to point a weakness here for both Russia and China. They still believe in traditionalist docrine of manuverbility. So we get SU and J series of aircraft where manuverbility is basic theme and comes at the cost of RCS or less than optimized stealth. On the other hand US has a more futuristic approach (Feel free to disagree) that with ever increasing potency and development of air to air armory, the manuverbility will become less and less important. Since one wont be able to beat a missile tomorrow, he should defeat missile. So they went on with enhanced emphsis on jamming, systems development which unfortunately Both China and Russia haven't been able to apprehend. Now with optical seekers replacing IR seekers, upto 90% HOBS, HMD support. I think future is not with manuverbility but rather missile defeating systems. While China has Just Jumped on to wagon with (KG-3000) [lets give them some freedom because they are new] but unfortunately Russia which has established aviation industry, hasn't incorporated it in its doctrine as it should have been.

 

[siegecrossbow]

But I do like to point a weakness here for both Russia and China. They still believe in traditionalist docrine of manuverbility. So we get SU and J series of aircraft where manuverbility is basic theme and comes at the cost of RCS or less than optimized stealth. On the other hand US has a more futuristic approach (Feel free to disagree) that with ever increasing potency and development of air to air armory, the manuverbility will become less and less important. Since one wont be able to beat a missile tomorrow, he should defeat missile. So they went on with enhanced emphsis on jamming, systems development which unfortunately Both China and Russia haven't been able to apprehend. Now with optical seekers replacing IR seekers, upto 90% HOBS, HMD support. I think future is not with manuverbility but rather missile defeating systems. While China has Just Jumped on to wagon with (KG-3000) [lets give them some freedom because they are new] but unfortunately Russia which has established aviation industry, hasn't incorporated it in its doctrine as it should have been.

Friend you are overlooking the fact that air to air combat between 5th gen fighters may very well take place within visual range. This is why the F-22 emphasized manueverability as well. A true 5th gen fighter must be equally adept in each of the 4 S.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

But I do like to point a weakness here for both Russia and China. They still believe in traditionalist docrine of manuverbility. So we get SU and J series of aircraft where manuverbility is basic theme and comes at the cost of RCS or less than optimized stealth. On the other hand US has a more futuristic approach (Feel free to disagree) that with ever increasing potency and development of air to air armory, the manuverbility will become less and less important. Since one wont be able to beat a missile tomorrow, he should defeat missile. So they went on with enhanced emphsis on jamming, systems development which unfortunately Both China and Russia haven't been able to apprehend. Now with optical seekers replacing IR seekers, upto 90% HOBS, HMD support. I think future is not with manuverbility but rather missile defeating systems. While China has Just Jumped on to wagon with (KG-3000) [lets give them some freedom because they are new] but unfortunately Russia which has established aviation industry, hasn't incorporated it in its doctrine as it should have been.

Well each country's doctrine and understanding of stealth and tactics differ according to the environment and threat perceptions they face. Russia belongs to the tier 1 kind of countries that produces weapons according to their needs. It is their top brass that decides how efficient their weapons must be made. We must first understand the basic reason for PAK-FA design and the ASR which demanded all these. Right now they are not available to the public domain.

If China required an aircraft which is of the Fighter-Bomber category then it is according to their doctrine as China has moved towards the tier 1 group of nations.

So everyone has their own perceptions and everyone has a different thinking of warfare.

 

[SBD-3]

Friend you are overlooking the fact that air to air combat between 5th gen fighters may very well take place within visual range. This is why the F-22 emphasized manueverability as well. A true 5th gen fighter must be equally adept in each of the 4 S.

Yes, thats why raptor was made manuverable and all aspect stealth. While J-20 and T-50 may be stealth but as long as they are less stealthy as compared to Raptor, Raptor will always have the upper hand and first shot.Thats why i was debating the trade off of manuverbility. Russia and China have overwighed manuverbility while US has overweighed stealth. But manuverbility has a limit (both aircraft structure and human factor) so by the pace, weapons development is going on, this limit will eventually be overwhelmed. okey for example while an aircraft can use its SC to escape a turbojet based missile (or a ramjet, though i dont think so), he wont be able to do against a missile powered by scram jet. An aircrafft can aviod a 4th gen IR missile. But 5th Gen WVRAAMs have pushed the bar very high. So thats why US went with All aspect stealth ( they call it "unless you cant be seen, you cant be hit") differentiates itself from J-20 or T-50 doctrine

 

[SBD-3]

Well each country's doctrine and understanding of stealth and tactics differ according to the environment and threat perceptions they face. Russia belongs to the tier 1 kind of countries that produces weapons according to their needs. It is their top brass that decides how efficient their weapons must be made. We must first understand the basic reason for PAK-FA design and the ASR which demanded all these. Right now they are not available to the public domain.

If China required an aircraft which is of the Fighter-Bomber category then it is according to their doctrine as China has moved towards the tier 1 group of nations.

So everyone has their own perceptions and everyone has a different thinking of warfare.

the whole post seems like a verbatious effort around the highlighted general idea. I would rather appriciate if you point out the likely doctrine and factors behind it

 

[satishkumarcsc]

the whole post seems like a verbatious effort around the highlighted general idea. I would rather appriciate if you point out the likely doctrine factors behind it

As I have already mentioned in my post:

Well each country's doctrine and understanding of stealth and tactics differ according to the environment and threat perceptions they face. Russia belongs to the tier 1 kind of countries that produces weapons according to their needs. It is their top brass that decides how efficient their weapons must be made. We must first understand the basic reason for PAK-FA design and the ASR which demanded all these. Right now they are not available to the public domain.

So without knowing the different parameters that went into the design of the PAK-FA we cannot say why the Russians are inclined towards Super-Manueverability. The main edge the PAK-FA has against most of its competitors is it's inbuilt IRST which seems to be lacking in both the American and the Chinese fighters.

 

[ptldM3]

But I do like to point a weakness here for both Russia and China. They still believe in traditionalist docrine of manuverbility. So we get SU and J series of aircraft where manuverbility is basic theme and comes at the cost of RCS or less than optimized stealth.

Manuverability comes in many forms, Trust to weight, TVC, canards, and overall geometry of the aircraft. Something like canards may pose a problem for an aircraft the same can be said for traditional nozzles, how much if any do these factors contribute to RCS depends on which aircraft we're are talking about, or in other words each aircraft is different even if, for instance, they both have canards.

On the other hand US has a more futuristic approach (Feel free to disagree) that with ever increasing potency and development of air to air armory, the manuverbility will become less and less important. Since one wont be able to beat a missile tomorrow, he should defeat missile. So they went on with enhanced emphsis on jamming, systems development which unfortunately Both China and Russia haven't been able to apprehend. Now with optical seekers replacing IR seekers, upto 90% HOBS, HMD support. I think future is not with manuverbility but rather missile defeating systems. While China has Just Jumped on to wagon with (KG-3000) [lets give them some freedom because they are new] but unfortunately Russia which has established aviation industry, hasn't incorporated it in its doctrine as it should have been.

I'm not familiar with what China has been working on in terms of jamming capability and EW but Sukhoi aircraft use the KNIRTI SAP-14 jammer and the SAP-518 ECM pod these are said to be quite good. You also have to remember that much of the avionics on a Russian aircraft or any aircraft whether it's American or Chinese is not made by the aircraft manufacturer but a company that usually specializes in a particular feild such as radars, or engines. Sukhoi tries to produce the best aircraft they can and equipe it with the best avionics available to them. The companies that produce these avionics usually only specialize in a few fields or only one field, so naturally they do the best they can because if they don't no one will buy from them. This is not to say that Sukhoi does not develope systems for their aircraft but that rather sukhoi and all other major aircraft companies have subcontractors that provide them with avionics.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Manuverability comes in many forms, Trust to weight, TVC, canards, and overall geometry of the aircraft. Something like canards may pose a problem for an aircraft the same can be said for traditional nozzles, how much if any do these factors contribute to RCS depends on which aircraft we're are talking about, or in other words each aircraft is different even if, for instance, they both have canards.



I'm not familiar with what China has been working on in terms of jamming capability and EW but Sukhoi aircraft use the KNIRTI SAP-14 jammer and the SAP-518 ECM pod these are said to be quite good. You also have to remember that much of the avionics on a Russian aircraft or any aircraft whether it's American or Chinese is not made by the aircraft manufacturer but a company that usually specializes in a particular feild such as radars, or engines. Sukhoi tries to produce the best aircraft they can and equipe it with the best avionics available to them. The companies that produce these avionics usually only specialize in a few fields or only one field, so naturally they do the best they can because if they don't no one will buy from them. This is not to say that Sukhoi does not develope systems for their aircraft but that rather sukhoi and all other major aircraft companies have subcontractors that provide them with avionics.

He hasnt heard about Tiikhmorov, Phazotron, et al.