What's new

How would PAK-FA counter F22 in future aerial warfare

@gambit

Sir, how do you see F-35s against PAK-FAs

Since the former will be the new age f-16s will be flying all over the world, mostly Pak-Fas will be there in great numbers in the coming decades.

Since F-22 is very less in numbers and can't be deployed from air craft carrier, USAF or USN have to relay on F-35s. Even The other Nato countries also does not have access to F-22.
I believe the -35 will be at worst on a par with the PAK, but more likely superior in terms of low radar observability, meaning the -35 will be less noticeable on radar than the PAK. I do not care what the Australians say. There is no guarantee on the production level for the PAK, especially when it is still in testing stages, so I suggest caution on putting your bets on the PAK as future competitor for the American 'stealth' fighters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For other people as well. Volumetric target detection is somewhat an esoteric field.


Please...It was exposed that the -22 was EM enhanced as proved by the gun camera. :rolleyes:


The reason why no one copied the -117's method of RCS control was because the angled faceting techniques limited certain aerodynamic exploitation. Not because that technique was not effective. The -117 was agile and maneuverable more than expected, but not good enough to make it a genuine fighter-to-fighter combatant.

That forced Lockheed and pretty much everyone else to look for computational power to use curvatures to preserve agility and maneuverability as well as getting low radar observability. If Lockheed had an average gamer PC back then, not a high end gaming PC, but just an average one will do, the -117 would be quite different.

But then this begs the question of why not the Russians and the Chinese copied the -22's layout? They have supercomputers and EM test chambers. May be even as powerful as ours? Do they not have programmers as talented as ours? Perhaps not.

The answer is that an aircraft is more than just a single character trait. The -22 is shaped that way to meet the demands of BOTH aerodynamics and low radar observability and would not be possible unless Propulsion allows it. Fly-by-wire flight control systems (FBW-FLCS) demands highly sophisticated flight control laws which demands high quality avionics to execute those laws without noticeable lag that could kill the pilot in either peace time or in combat. The Russians are also seems to be very impressed with certain design philosophy proven by older fighters as the PAK have visual similarities with those older fighters. The Chinese did the same by adopting foreign sources for the J-20. The issue here is that in using older designs as basis for their 'stealth' fighters, they did risk imputing known radar signatures onto their 'stealth' fighters, no matter how much lower the new RCS values may be.

Regarding radar signatures, today's A-10 have more in common with WW II stumpy fighters than with the sleeker F-16 or F-18. But no matter how much absorbers we install on the A-10, which would help reducing overall RCS, major structures like straight wings and tail would still be recognizable. We could eliminate the cockpit and the A-10 would still be recognizable. We could install 'stealthy' pods to contain bombs and enclose the nose cannon and those straight wings and tail would still make the A-10 recognizable.

sharp_rounded_cubes.jpg


The right cube will have a lower overall RCS thanks to the rounded corners, but if we rotate both cubes, even if out of sync, today's radars, including 4th gen fighters, will tag the right cube as a cube based upon known structural signatures like the six flat sides that will fully reflect periodically as the cubes rotates.

Structural signatures that are preserved from one version to the next will be recognizable throughout the evolution of the species.

We will recognize the PAK because we have an EM record of its parentage when we bought a bunch of older Soviet fighters. We will recognize the J-20 because we know what canards look like thanks to our allies who flies with canards.


I look at these fighters mostly from a sensor specialist perspective. There is an old fighter pilot saying: Lose sight, lose fight. Meaning if you lose track of your opponent, you are dead. Sometimes literally. The corollary to that is whoever have first sight have the first advantage.

Well it does not mean that the present fighter will follow the principles of the parents. Remember this is Russia's first fighter programme and all that you have acquired is the old Soviet fighters. Even the F 15s had an RCS of a pegasus and hence the parentage does not prove anything about designing fighters with RCS in mind. The F 117 was supposed to fly in low and at night so that it will stay undetected. But the F 22 was built to be a high end Superiority fighter. So stealth in F 117 and the F 22 are totally different concepts.

The cube with sharp edges and the cube with rounded edges have been proven. And the A 10 reference was for the terrain following radar which you told the F 111 was having problems with.
 
Well it does not mean that the present fighter will follow the principles of the parents. Remember this is Russia's first fighter programme and all that you have acquired is the old Soviet fighters.
Yes, it will. Again, am looking at this from a sensor specialist perspective. There is no denying the visual heritage of the PAK. It is different in many ways, yes, but its heritage is recognizable.

Even the F 15s had an RCS of a pegasus and hence the parentage does not prove anything about designing fighters with RCS in mind.
If we put the A-5, F-15, and MIG-25 into a blind EM test. No one outside of the radar test station control room would know the difference. The F-15 and MIG-25 came from the A-5. Our Russian friends here may not like it, but the A-5 came before the MIG-25 and the Soviets copied a lot of its structural layout in order to meet high altitude and high speed demands. The MIG-25 is its own design, am not taking credit away from the Soviets for that. But structurally speaking, the parent for the F-15 and MIG-25 is the A-5 Vigilante.

Under radar, their large square intakes would look nearly identical to each other in the frontal aspect. Same for direct rear view with their twin engine exhausts close to each other, unlike the F-14's which are considerably wider apart. Topside, their large wing areas would also be virtually indistinguishable from each other. The only major difference is the A-5 have a single vertical stabilator while the F-15 and MIG-25 are equipped with twins.

So yes, structurally speaking, if I know what the parent look like, I will have an idea of what the children will look like as well.

The F 117 was supposed to fly in low and at night so that it will stay undetected. But the F 22 was built to be a high end Superiority fighter. So stealth in F 117 and the F 22 are totally different concepts.
Their methods of execution are different. But the philosophy is the same, which is to deny the seeking radar direction reflection. That is the foundation of 'stealth'.

And the A 10 reference was for the terrain following radar which you told the F 111 was having problems with.
I was not talking about the terrain following radar for the A-10. I was comparing its structural layout to that of WW II fighters versus the newer fighters. Under radar, the A-10 will have similar structural signatures with the WW II fighters, not with the newer fighters.

That is 'under radar'. Not 'using radar'. You confused the two.
 
Yes, it will. Again, am looking at this from a sensor specialist perspective. There is no denying the visual heritage of the PAK. It is different in many ways, yes, but its heritage is recognizable.


If we put the A-5, F-15, and MIG-25 into a blind EM test. No one outside of the radar test station control room would know the difference. The F-15 and MIG-25 came from the A-5. Our Russian friends here may not like it, but the A-5 came before the MIG-25 and the Soviets copied a lot of its structural layout in order to meet high altitude and high speed demands. The MIG-25 is its own design, am not taking credit away from the Soviets for that. But structurally speaking, the parent for the F-15 and MIG-25 is the A-5 Vigilante.

Under radar, their large square intakes would look nearly identical to each other in the frontal aspect. Same for direct rear view with their twin engine exhausts close to each other, unlike the F-14's which are considerably wider apart. Topside, their large wing areas would also be virtually indistinguishable from each other. The only major difference is the A-5 have a single vertical stabilator while the F-15 and MIG-25 are equipped with twins.

So yes, structurally speaking, if I know what the parent look like, I will have an idea of what the children will look like as well.


Their methods of execution are different. But the philosophy is the same, which is to deny the seeking radar direction reflection. That is the foundation of 'stealth'.


I was not talking about the terrain following radar for the A-10. I was comparing its structural layout to that of WW II fighters versus the newer fighters. Under radar, the A-10 will have similar structural signatures with the WW II fighters, not with the newer fighters.

That is 'under radar'. Not 'using radar'. You confused the two.

So you are denying the fact that the F 22 parentage is not the F 15 but rather it is F 117?

And in the end every aircraft designed for VLO follows it's own philosophy of fighting the enemy. The PAK-FA's philosophy is yet to be seen as it has not even cleared the IOC.
 
has f-22 a lower signiture than this??:

he-iranian-revolutionary-guards-show-display-us-rq-170-sentinel-drone-tehran-r-this-week-as-an-unidentified-colonel-right-talks-to-the-chief-of-the-aerospace-division-iranian-copy-ch1.jpg


the american fellows should stop rcs crap its no longer terrifying for anyone.......
and as always this kind of "this vs that" posts r not valuable
pak-fa is a very capable plane.....
usa has no longer the best in military industry ...... insisting on being the best wont help u....
accept that u r falling behind.... believe me it would do a lot good for u...
 
VHF radar systems have wavelengths comparable to aircraft feature sizes and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, allowing most stealth aircraft to be detected. This has prompted Nizhniy Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT) to develop VHF AESAs such as the NEBO SVU, which is capable of performing target acquisition for SAM batteries. Despite the advantages offered by VHF radar, their longer wavelengths result in poor resolution compared to comparably sized X-band radar array. As a result, these systems must be very large before they can have the resolution for an engagement radar.
 
So you are denying the fact that the F 22 parentage is not the F 15 but rather it is F 117?
Came from both.

Look at it this way...From an 'airplane' perspective, the -22 have more in common with the -15, but from a 'stealth' perspective, the -117 is the father of all, even to foreign fighters.
 
VHF radar systems have wavelengths comparable to aircraft feature sizes and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, allowing most stealth aircraft to be detected. This has prompted Nizhniy Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT) to develop VHF AESAs such as the NEBO SVU, which is capable of performing target acquisition for SAM batteries. Despite the advantages offered by VHF radar, their longer wavelengths result in poor resolution compared to comparably sized X-band radar array. As a result, these systems must be very large before they can have the resolution for an engagement radar.
We already knew that, even before the F-117 came to be. These large systems -- for now -- are Earth bound because of their array/antenna sizes. Their range is totally dependent upon their elevation.

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

They are of limited mobility and have high energy signatures, making them targets as well.

'Stealth' have nothing to do with invisibility and I have pointed this out many times before. An F-111 flying below the radar horizon is indeed a 'stealthy' opponent. But radar low observability or 'radar stealthy' is about being difficult to discern while being inside the radar beam. A B-2, F-22, or F-35 will exploit both situations when appropriate. That is where pre-war SIGINT comes in to study the EM signatures of these systems and to provide mission planning factors should conflict do arise. The adversary may move these systems, but the moment they transmit to provide coverage, inbound 'stealth' fighters will know exactly what lies ahead and will compensate. They can be attacked to be destroyed or just merely disabled, no matter how temporarily. That is what happened back in Desert Storm when timing was everything. Iraqi early warning radars were either destroyed or severely damaged, creating gaps and/or exacerbated existing ones, enabling Allied air forces to overwhelm Iraqi defenses in the first strike.

Long wavelengths arrays are no definitive solutions to 'stealth'. I said before and will say it again: The greatest threat to 'stealth' is bi-static detection, not long wavelength mono-static systems.

And even then, the bi-static radar have its own limitations and weaknesses.
 
@gambit

Hi, gambit. Can you tell me what could possibly be the factors (in regards to stealth/low observability,
aerodynamic capability, armament etc.) that a theoretical 6th generation fighter will need to have?

I'm pretty sure US is already into developing technologies for such a future fighter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the US is very high in marketing content. Everyone would agree US does much much better at marketing their products.

if you deflate the real potency of F-22 by the above factor, I see the F-22 would come down. Russian scientists are as good or better then the US counterparts. I am sure PAK-FA would hold its own against the F-22. For me a F-22 would be much much above PAKFA only if anyone can say that US scientists are much much advanced then Russians, which is not the case. Ultimately the performance is derived by the capability of the scientists of a nation. Russian scientists belong to tier 1 in the world. Russia couldn't produce the plane earlier due to funding problems and dissolution of Soviet. But late doesnt mean it wont be capable.I believe US would do itself a big dis-service by trying to under estimate PAKFA.

Russia is also giving PAK-FA to India. US is not giving F-22 to anyone. Now this could mean F-22 is super secretive or this could also be used to question the capability or the problems faced by the plane. US wont admit any such aspects. But not sharing the plane makes it suspect for me.

Also one cannot ignore the price factor. If F-22 is double or more the cost of PAK-FA then in a fight of 20 PAK-FA v/s 10 F-22, I would put 50% of my capital in favour of PAKFA. Rest 50% I need to keep safe in case I loose the bet. But am confident I wont lose the bet. :)

But most importantly its all speculation from lot of people, including me. US and Russian scientists are both very capable with long history of producing great machines. So the ultimate answer to which is better can be provided only by a fight b/w these two fighters. But considering the capability of Russian scientists I wont ever believe F-22 is better then PAK-FA. Only a battle can give us the winner.

But I believe overall Russian equipment is better then similar US equipment by a slight margin. It could be my bias towards the Russians but I feel Russians make more better scientists. It's just the Russians lack the funding.

Regarding F-35 I am more clear and have no such doubts, I wouldn't go for F-35 if I am getting a PAK-FA. Russia's best v/s US's second best. Odds are heavily stacked in favour of PAK-FA.
 
@gambit

Hi, gambit. Can you tell me what could possibly be the factors (in regards to stealth/low observability,
aerodynamic capability, armament etc.) that a theoretical 6th generation fighter will need to have?

I'm pretty sure US is already into developing technologies for such a future fighter.
Right now, there is a parallel pursuit in active cancellation technology. Am not talking about the French SPECTRA. That works against 3rd world defenses, not ours. Not talking about 'plasma stealth', either. The Russians can do a full PR piece on it all they want but no one in the field is buying it. The closest thing to a working 'plasma stealth' system is an array of plasma antennas buried under the skin of the aircraft, at leading edges and specifically calculated locations on any surface expanse such as top/under sides of wings and along the fuselage. These plasma antennas need not be transmitters but simply passive receivers. Most -- not all -- of the impinging signals are absorbed by the plasma antennas, leaving little radiation to both reflect and diffract for any radar to pick up. This is more technically realistic than the sci-fi version about a cloud or conforming shield of plasma gas enveloping a Mach 2 fighter. I read that a long time ago and just about spewed my beer.

Anyway...What the US is working on is much more simple in principle and effective in application, and it can be found in semi-conductor manufacturing. Essentially, since high performance fighters have a high percentage of composites, particularly in the skin, why not make those composites -- transistors? Basic transistor operation can be implemented at the composite level. Impinging signals will be absorbed -- at will. This will make the design less shaping dependent, though not completely eliminated. Radar observability can be flexible, as in regulated according to situational needs. To assist air traffic controllers, 'stealth' can be turned off. For combat, it can regulated to be decoys to assist other forces, for example. Simple in principle but difficult in R/D and eventual manufacturing, I will admit that.

But we are working on it to different degrees and it will keep US ahead of our adversaries for a long time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right now, there is a parallel pursuit in active cancellation technology. Am not talking about the French SPECTRA. That works against 3rd world defenses, not ours. Not talking about 'plasma stealth', either. The Russians can do a full PR piece on it all they want but no one in the field is buying it. The closest thing to a working 'plasma stealth' system is an array of plasma antennas buried under the skin of the aircraft, at leading edges and specifically calculated locations on any surface expanse such as top/under sides of wings and along the fuselage. These plasma antennas need not be transmitters but simply passive receivers. Most -- not all -- of the impinging signals are absorbed by the plasma antennas, leaving little radiation to both reflect and diffract for any radar to pick up. This is more technically realistic than the sci-fi version about a cloud or conforming shield of plasma gas enveloping a Mach 2 fighter. I read that a long time ago and just about spewed my beer.

Anyway...What the US is working on is much more simple in principle and effective in application, and it can be found in semi-conductor manufacturing. Essentially, since high performance fighters have a high percentage of composites, particularly in the skin, why not make those composites -- transistors? Basic transistor operation can be implemented at the composite level. Impinging signals will be absorbed -- at will. This will make the design less shaping dependent, though not completely eliminated. Radar observability can be flexible, as in regulated according to situational needs. To assist air traffic controllers, 'stealth' can be turned off. For combat, it can regulated to be decoys to assist other forces, for example. Simple in principle but difficult in R/D and eventual manufacturing, I will admit that.

But we are working on it to different degrees and it will keep US ahead of our adversaries for a long time.

Thanks, that seems pretty feasible given the money and expertise US puts into this field.

Any thoughts about the type of propulsion system for such a plane? Will it be working around the
field of anti-gravity technology or just improved versions of existing turbofan engines?

Will they still be carrying missiles/gun pods or move on to the field of directed-energy weapons? I would
think the latter would be it...your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
 
Any thoughts about the type of propulsion system for such a plane? Will it be working around the field of anti-gravity technology...
Aaahh...No. We are good, but not that good. We are still trying to decode the alien spacecraft stashed in Area 52...I mean...Area 51. :lol:

...or just improved versions of existing turbofan engines?
Yes. We are moving towards a true turbojet. The F119 is not a true turbojet despite its low bypass ratio.

Just in case you or anyone do not know the difference...

jet_engine_civil_mil.jpg


Top is the typical high bypass turbofan engine used by airliner aircrafts. Thrust comes mostly from the large fan assembly and far less from engine exhaust.

Bottom is still a turbofan but the bulk of thrust do come from exhaust. There is a certain amount of intake air that is NOT going thru the core and this amount versus core air is called the 'bypass ratio'.

Top have a high bypass ratio. Bottom have a low bypass ratio.

The F119 in the F-22 have slightly over 80% of intake air going to the core, making it a nearly true turbojet and highly influential in allowing supercruise. A true turbojet would have something like 95+ going to the core with some bypass air for cooling.

Will they still be carrying missiles/gun pods or move on to the field of directed-energy weapons? I would
think the latter would be it...your thoughts?
Sorry, but am not going there. But I will put it to you this way: We will use the missile mostly for for off boresight shots.
 
I think the US is very high in marketing content. Everyone would agree US does much much better at marketing their products.

if you deflate the real potency of F-22 by the above factor, I see the F-22 would come down. Russian scientists are as good or better then the US counterparts. I am sure PAK-FA would hold its own against the F-22. For me a F-22 would be much much above PAKFA only if anyone can say that US scientists are much much advanced then Russians, which is not the case. Ultimately the performance is derived by the capability of the scientists of a nation. Russian scientists belong to tier 1 in the world. Russia couldn't produce the plane earlier due to funding problems and dissolution of Soviet. But late doesnt mean it wont be capable.I believe US would do itself a big dis-service by trying to under estimate PAKFA.

Russia is also giving PAK-FA to India. US is not giving F-22 to anyone. Now this could mean F-22 is super secretive or this could also be used to question the capability or the problems faced by the plane. US wont admit any such aspects. But not sharing the plane makes it suspect for me.

Also one cannot ignore the price factor. If F-22 is double or more the cost of PAK-FA then in a fight of 20 PAK-FA v/s 10 F-22, I would put 50% of my capital in favour of PAKFA. Rest 50% I need to keep safe in case I loose the bet. But am confident I wont lose the bet. :)

But most importantly its all speculation from lot of people, including me. US and Russian scientists are both very capable with long history of producing great machines. So the ultimate answer to which is better can be provided only by a fight b/w these two fighters. But considering the capability of Russian scientists I wont ever believe F-22 is better then PAK-FA. Only a battle can give us the winner.

But I believe overall Russian equipment is better then similar US equipment by a slight margin. It could be my bias towards the Russians but I feel Russians make more better scientists. It's just the Russians lack the funding.

Regarding F-35 I am more clear and have no such doubts, I wouldn't go for F-35 if I am getting a PAK-FA. Russia's best v/s US's second best. Odds are heavily stacked in favour of PAK-FA.

I have to respond to this simply because of how inane and asinine your argument is. You reasoning that the "quality" of scientists correlate directly with the effectiveness of an aircraft is absurd to say the least. And how do you quantify how advanced a country's scientists are? By what measure does Russia have better scientists than America anyways? What makes you believe that Country A has better scientists than Country B? You think Russians somehow innately superior? The entire premise of your argument makes no sense, and your reasoning is so incredibly flawed.

This is not to say that the PAK FA has no merit, or that it's ineffective, and neither am I claiming that Russian scientists are bad. In fact, it's idiotic to claim that Country A has better scientists than Country B. Your argument for the PAK FA's superiority and "7 to 4" kill ratio is just nonsense.
 
@DrSomnath

Sir plz leave some part for others too, you read whole Ramayan and how we can read Sunderkand :)

On Topic

I think there shall be no dog fight between F-22 and Pak-Fa, why to come in typical situation, avoid dog fight depend absolutely on Electronics

We need first to Search Target, Then to Identify, and then Continually Track it, to keep watch on it. (so IRST and DAS like system would be appropriate); Including Radar with all frequency Modules), The New software able to show small quantity of radar wave return) and automatic IRST see that target with visual camera if possible. And LIDAR if possible.

(so to found F-22 RADAR, IRST or DAS, LIDAR, and high quality RWR)

After finding and tracking F-22 there would be need of fight) I prefer BVR fight only) the Next gen missile can do it and Other tech so missile can not be destroy or misguided by anything including Laser and High Energy of AWACS too.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom