What's new

PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

@ Indiarox

Good one..

YouTube - F-16 MATV Axisymmetric vectoring in the early 1990's.

Its something we did in the 80's with F-16 Vista program but threw it away after the proof of concept as it increased the operating cost with little or no corresponding improvement in combat effectiveness.

A 3-D thrust vector engine is offered for the F-16 IN by LM.

Please dial down the sarcasm a notch or two.:lol:

Sorry, I forgot about the F-16 MATV. So I guess that's 1 vs 6? Russia still seems to be much ahead here. Anyway, it is only a test-bed and not an aircraft fielded by the USAF. Guess what, Russia deploys the Su-35 and is offering the MiG-35 for exports - both use 3D TVC!!!

I was not aware that the F-16IN was offered with 3D TVC. As far as I knew, only MiG-35 had 3D TVC as an option. Can you please give me a source?
 
The F-22 is famous for 2D thrust vectoring technology. So let's compare how russia and america has progressed in that field. First let's list the aircraft currently or previously fielded by both sides that made use of 2D thrust vectoring.

<snipped>

Lacking in "creativity and innovation" as they are, the Russians seem to be much ahead of the US here!!!
:rofl:

Your gullibility continues to amuse US.

NASA Dryden F-15 ACTIVE Photo Collection

F-16 VISTA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The F-16 VISTA testbed aircraft incorporated a multi-axis thrust vectoring (MATV) engine nozzle that provides for more active control of the aircraft in a post-stall situation. The resulting aircraft is supermaneuverable, retaining pitch and yaw control at angles of attack beyond which the traditional control surfaces cannot change attitude.

We have a long history of thrust vectoring research in every way. You are gullible in that you think that just because the Soviets incorporated into a production model that automatically made the aircraft and pilot superior. Wrong...Sadly wrong.

Am going back to the basics...For example...When a pilot make a coordinated turn in a basic aircraft like a Cessna 152 single engine prop job, he must use both stick and rudder deflections. In a computer assisted aircraft like the F-111 or later, we have something called a 'pitch-roll mixer' assembly that works with the yaw axis probe and does everything for the pilot.

In avionics, especially good sh!t from the West, the goal is to make the aircraft do as much of the flying as possible and let the pilot be the killer. We know that Soviet/Russian avionics are at least one generation behind US. So just because we do not incorporate 3D thrust vectoring into production models does not mean we have no experience at flying them. We simply decided that 3D TVC is just not worth the effort at this time. This is a matter of philosophy. The greater the amount of time the pilot has to busy himself with the mechanics of flight, the greater the odds of him getting killed. The Soviets and everyone else was behind US in fly-by-wire technology and we have analog at that time. So by the time the Soviets finally caught up to US in FBW FLCS via stolen Western avionics, is it any wonder that they can incorporate 3D TVC into their fighters?

You are confused by the article I presented. The article's point was not about military technology but about technological innovations in general. Whatever the Soviets may have invented, it was under some governmental programs and whatever the government produces the government will keep. You think the iPod or the LCD TV or the simple microwave oven can come from the USSR? Where are the Russian equivalent of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?

---------- Post added at 09:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------

In other words you didn't know how to effectively use 3D TVC:toast_sign:
Sure as the sky is blue that we know more than India does...:D
 
I agree that it was the US who first applied the findings of russian and german scientists. It still doesn't change the fact that the US developed "stealth technology" using german and soviet research.
Ya know sumthin...There come a point where regression is obviously seen by everyone as plain jealousy. Regress far enough and you can claim that everyone else's inventions came from ancient India or China or Mayan or whatever, while using computers and assorted peripherals manufactured by others.
 
No the sky is not blue its an optical illusion:azn::azn:
Su30MKI uses the AL-31FP engine which has 3D TVC capablity.:azn::azn:
Yeah...And the Soviets got anything to match the SR-71? The MIG-25 turned out to be junk, not even a respectable 'jack-of-all-trades'. Need I go on?
 
Yeah...And the Soviets got anything to match the SR-71? The MIG-25 turned out to be junk, not even a respectable 'jack-of-all-trades'. Need I go on?
Oh how is this related to 3Dtvc,F-22 or pakfa.
 
Yeah...And the Soviets got anything to match the SR-71? The MIG-25 turned out to be junk, not even a respectable 'jack-of-all-trades'. Need I go on?

You are comparing two aircraft which have comletely different roles.

The SR-71 was a reconnaisance aircraft while the MiG-25 was an interceptor. The SR-71 was developed from the YF-12 which was a prototype interceptor. The SR-71 was designed to use its raw speed advantage to escape from enemy defences and had a reduced RCS. The SR-71 was never designed to engage in combat.

The MiG-25 however was a Mach 2.83 capable fighter. Envisioned as all-weather interceptor, the MiG-25 was designed to catch up to the fastest American planes and destroy them. The development of the MiG-25 and it's performance caused panic in the west and triggered the development of the F-15. The MiG-25s are widely considered to be a failure because many had been shot down by F-15s. While I do not deny that the F-15 was and still is a capable fighter, the MiG-25s could have easily given the F-15 a run for it's money despite being a 3rd generation fighter if the MiG-25 pilot was experienced and skilled enough to use the MiG-25's speed advantage. However, due to insufficient pilot training and lack of experience, many MiG-25 pilots engaged in turning fights with the slower F-15s who had the advantage. The F-15s were able to easily pull lead and kill them. The F-15 also had the advantage of being capable of BVR combat, while the MiG-25 was never designed for BVR engagements. This lead to many MiG-25 losses which lead to the widely accepted "failure of the MiG-25s. However, many of the MiG-25's successes are not known and skilled pilots were able to turn the tides. Here are some examples:

The MiG-25 was in service with the Iraqi Air Force during the Iran–Iraq War, but its success against Iranian fighters is largely unknown. Research by journalist Tom Cooper shows that as many as fourteen MIG-25s may have been shot down by Iranian fighters during the period spanning 1978 to 1988, although it is difficult to determine the validity of these claims. The most widely known Iraqi pilot of the war was Colonel Mohommed "Sky Falcon" Rayyan, who scored 10 kills. Eight of these were while flying the MiG-25P against the IRIAF from 1981 to 1986. This total makes him an ace and the most successful MiG-25 pilot.

During the Persian Gulf War, a US Navy F/A-18 piloted by Lt Cdr Scott Speicher was shot down on the first night of the war by a missile probably fired by a MiG-25. The kill was reportedly made with a R-40TD missile fired from a MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF.

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight U.S. Air Force F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111A Raven electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission and leave attacking aircraft without electronic jamming support.

With most of today's engagements taking place beyond visual range, the MiG-25 is no longer a good choice for aerial engagements. However, it makes a good reconaissance platform and according to wikipedia, Russia has assigned it that role. India has also used the MiG-25s for this role.

In May 1997 an Indian Air Force MiG-25RB was detected flying faster than Mach 2 at least 65,000 ft,over Pakistani territory following a reconnaissance mission into Pakistan airspace. However, from one of PAF's Forward Operating Bases, radar traced the intruder and the F-16As scrambled, but could not match the MIG-25 ceiling. India denied the incident but Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Gohar Ayub Khan, believed that the Foxbat photographed strategic installations near the Capital, Islamabad. The MiG-25 was an important strategic asset to India until the advent of reconnaissance satellites.

As a reconaissance aircraft, the MiG-25 has much less maintainence and unit costs than the SR-71 (which are the factors which finally resulted in it's withdrawal from service) while offering comparable, performance. However, the MiG-25 does not have a reduced RCS like the SR-71.

Having said the above, I would like to conclude that the MiG-25 more than exceeded what it was originally intended to do. The myth that the MiG-25 was a failure arose because it was piloted by ill-trained and unexperienced pilots who did not know how to use the aircraft's strengths to their advantage against one of the most advanced aircraft in the time piloted by skilled and well trained pilots.
 
A 3-D thrust vector engine is offered for the F-16 IN by LM.

I was unable to find anything in my search, so I posted what you said in the MRCA thread. Here are some of the responses I got from some members who really keep track of every minute detail in the MRCA deal:

No..i dont think so...

F-16IN uses General Electric F110-132A engine with 143 kN full reheat thrust
And F110 does not possess 3-d thrust vector imo..

They had an experimental version of the F 16 with TVC, which never entered serial production, but I never saw a report about it on offer for F16IN.
 
I was unable to find anything in my search, so I posted what you said in the MRCA thread. Here are some of the responses I got from some members who really keep track of every minute detail in the MRCA deal:

LM has committed to a customized version of the F-16 for the IAF and if the IAF so desires Multi-Axis Thrust-Vectoring (MATV) can be incorporated into the IAF block. There has been no official request for MATV just casual inquires as a matter of fact 3-D TVC is not explicitly mentioned in the IAF tender.

The advantage of the AVEN(Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle) is that it could be retrofitted to any F-16 that was powered by the F110 engine and which had a digital flight control system.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html
 
Last edited:
Not completely but they get they got close
Tsybin rsr
Close is only good for slow dancing. The Tsybin was a developmental aircraft, not a production model...

Tsybin RSR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1954, the design bureau headed by Pavel Tsybin started development of a ramjet powered strategic supersonic bomber, the RS. This design proved impracticable, and a smaller derivative, the 2RS was proposed, which would achieve intercontinental range by being air launched from a modified Tupolev Tu-95 bomber.[1]

This too was unsuccessful, with the aircraft unable to return to base if used on an intercontinental mission,[1] while being incapable of carrying a thermonuclear bomb.[2] The design was therefore revised again to a reconnaissance aircraft capable of operating from conventional runways, the RSR. As ramjets could not be used for take-off, they were replaced by turbofans.
You are being debunked left and right. Give it up.
 
You are comparing two aircraft which have comletely different roles.

The SR-71 was a reconnaisance aircraft while the MiG-25 was an interceptor. The SR-71 was developed from the YF-12 which was a prototype interceptor. The SR-71 was designed to use its raw speed advantage to escape from enemy defences and had a reduced RCS. The SR-71 was never designed to engage in combat.
And once again you missed the point, which was not a comparison between the SR-71 and the MIG-25, but was about counterparts. You and your cohorts here are trying hard to downplay the F-22 and the US lead in military aviation. You bring up 3D TVC as 'proof' of Russian lead. So where is the Soviet/Russian equivalent of the SR-71 for long range, high altitude, high speed aircraft, be it for reconnaissance or for bomber? Where is the Soviet/Russian equivalent for the XB-70, a design that exploit 'compression lift'...???

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - XB-70 Valkyrie
The aircraft was shaped to remain within its Mach cone throughout the flight regime thereby reducing drag and increasing lift. The latter was accomplished by manipulating the high pressure of the shock wave beneath the wing to generate compression lift.
The XB-70 effectively 'surf' its own aerodynamic shock waves.

Compression lift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The basic concept of compression lift is well known; "planing" boats reduce drag by "surfing" on their own bow wake in exactly the same fashion. Using this effect in aircraft is more difficult, however, because the "wake" does not generate until supersonic speeds, and is highly angled. Aircraft have to be carefully shaped to take full advantage of this effect. In addition the angle of the shock waves varies greatly with speed, making it even more difficult to design a craft that gains significant lift over a wide range of speeds.

To date the only potential production aircraft that used compression lift has been the XB-70 in the 1960s, although with the cancellation of the program after only two prototypes had been built, it ended up being a testbed only. The compression lift decreased the induced drag of the XB-70 about 30%.
As for the MIG-25, we took it apart in Japan, look it up, and found it overall far inferior to the F-15. We flew MIG-21s and MIG-23s with the Red Eagles out here in Nevada. We know well enough the state of Soviet military aviation, especially after the Soviet Union collapsed and we bought things from tanks to fighter aircrafts to complete missiles from the former satellites. So if you want to continue this match up, I can bring on many more where there is no Soviet/Russian equivalent or something that is inferior. Heck...All this talk about the PAK-FA's alleged low radar observability and we have not seen even a Russian equivalent of the F-117.
 
Back
Top Bottom