PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[ptldM3]

Okay CAPTAIN AMERICA lets start thing off:


The Mig-31, and SU-30 were by far the most advanced fighters/interceptors not the Mig-25 like you stated.


Lets look at your link:

Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.

First off transistors were available but vacuum tubes were prefered because of EMP waves. Mind you, this is the 1960's and 1970's we are talking about, in any case the vacuum tubes were replaced long, long ago.

Welding was done by hand.
Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag.

If the rivets were not exposed to drag then there is no problem. Obviously you don't see ribets sticking out on newer Russian aircraft.

Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed.

The Mig-25 had better visibility then the SR-71. It was also an interceptor which means a bubble canopy was not essential. Moreover, the Mig-31 has slighly better visibility esspecially with the intakes moved back, and lastly Russian aircraft have used bubble canopies for decaded--example SU-27.

With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.

This is a good thing.

Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.

Forbidden because the harder the engines were pushed the sooner they would need an overhaul, in any case pilots still flew past mach 2.8.

Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.

The Mig-25's cousin used the much improved D-30F6 engines. And no, modern Russian engines don not overheat.

The combat radius is 186 miles.

Almost trippled that in the Mig-31, and modern Russian fighters have extreemly high combat radius', over 960 miles for the SU-30 class fighters and as much as 1200 miles for the SU-35.

The plane was so heavy at 64,200 pounds,

It was still lighter then the SR-71, the problem of weight was addressed in the Mig-31 with the use of more aluminum and titanium.

that according to early rumors Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. However this was disproved. Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat. The last versions used an early variant of the famous K-36 seat. The speed record for the fastest successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1 equipped MiG-25.

The first part just says the elimination of the ejection seat was a rumor (good thing) and that the Mig-25s ejection seat holds a world record at being able to work at mach 2.67.

Another good thing

Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum.
Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet.

This is not a bad thing, that is damn high.

Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.

This is incorect, the Mig-25 set an altitude record of 121,000 feet, so it would be able to fly as high or higher then the SR-71.

The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers.

Everything besides detecting targets past 1,640 feet is a good thing, the problem of not being able to detect targets past 1,640 was also solved, these days Russian aircraft can detect extreemly low flying aircraft and well as map ground targets.

Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter!

It's was not a fighter, it was a highs speed, high altitude interceptor that relied on BVR (beyond visual Range) combat; moreover, it used its speed and altitude not its manuverability.

If we need maneuverability we will use Sukhois and Migs which are capable of 9+ G's.

The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration.

This is why the Mig-31 used 16% titanium and 33% aluminum, so the problem, if you want to call it that, was solved.




So you see much of what was in the link was not bad. Moreover, you still have a fascination with degrading Russian aircraft by finding the smallest things to complain about. I could do the same with American aircraft but i'm more mature than you are.

If this is the way you build one of your most advanced planes ,

Why would I think this is not the same way Russia builds all its planes.

Oviously now you know we don't.


Your fasination with pointing out negatives are like a bad stutter, so let me try to cure your stutter by looking at just some of posstives from the Mig-25/31.

The HUD displayed radar information, a moving map, and the radar control panel which was a first in any aircraft.

The aircraft came with the first PESA.

The aircraft came with a very advanced data link, that was able to coordinate attacks, assign and track multiple targets, give the pilots and ground control to ability to communicate and it anticipated deceptive maneuvers. It was also one of the first aircaft with data-link

It was able to reach a record 121,000 ft


And it was able to fly past mach 2.8

 

[soaringphnx]

Wrong, as usual. Both aircrafts' first flight were within two years of each other. Given the development time it takes for any aircraft, it is not possible that the F-15 was some sort of response to the MIG-25.

I did not mean that the F-15 program started as a response to the MiG-25. The USAF stated their requirements for an air superiority fighter in 1965. The first concept designs had a top speed of Mach 2.7 and a thrust to weight ratio of 0.75. But it was during the F-15 development, (1967 to be exact) that the U.S. intelligence discovered that the Soviets were building the large MiG-25. The MiG-25 had hude tail-planes and vertical stabilizers. This lead the west to believe that the MiG-25 was highly manuverable and the USAF feared it might have higher performance and manuverability than the aircraft they operated. The USAF changed their requirements in 1967. They stressed for more manuverability, less weight, a top speed of Mach 2.2 to 2.3 and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97. Here it is apparent that the MiG-25 did affect the requirements of the USAF and the design of the F-15. So, the F-15 was designed to kill the MiG-25s.

However, it was known in the west that the MiG-25 was an interceptor and not an air superiority fighter. In reality, the MiG's large fins and stabilators were necessary to prevent the aircraft from encountering inertia coupling in high-speed, high-altitude flight.

Wrong again, as usual. Disadvantages are restrictions and the more disadvantages you have the less options available for you to fight.

Let's go back to basics... The MiG-25 is an interceptor. An interceptor is an aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy bombers relying as speed as their primary strength. Such aircraft sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (i.e., fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs (point defence role) or high speeds (area defence role).

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter designed specifically to destroy enemy fighters to gain and maintain air superiority over an area. It is actually foolish to compare an air superiority fighter to an interceptor. It is like comparing an interceptor to a bomber.

Despite being in a great disadvantage of having lesser manuverability (being an interceptor) and having limited BVR or dogfighting capability by design, the MiG-25 could have given the F-15s a run for their money, if the pilots were skilled and experienced enough to use their speed advantage. However, most most MiG-25 pilots who fought the F-15 barely knew how to fly. There have however been exceptions. In one of my earlier articles, I had cited the example of a MiG-25 pilot who scored 10 kills, eight of which were scored while in a MiG-25. The USAF on the other hand sent their best pilots whose superior training and experience converted into kills for the F-15. More than the aircraft itself, it is the pilot which makes the critical difference.

Wrong again, as usual. The MIG-25's engines were practically destroyed after every flight at that speed. No comparison possible between the two in this.

The airspeed indicator of the MiG-25 was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines. A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight resulted in the destruction of its engines.

Many aircraft can exceed their structural and design limits. However, this always causes a lot of damage to the aircraft as it's components and airframe are not meant to take that much of punishment. This is what happened to the MiG-25 which flew over Sinai. This applies to your beloved F-22 too.

It seems my friend that it was YOU who got your facts wrong (no offence meant). Now can we get back to the F-22 and PAK FA?

 

[ptldM3]

Despite being in a great disadvantage of having lesser manuverability (being an interceptor) and having limited BVR or dogfighting capability by design

The mig-25 was a BVR aircraft, and the much superior Mig-31 was an even better BVR aircraft thanks to its powerful radar and long range air-to-air missles.

Most people don't realize how edvanced the Mig-31's avionics were, HUD, radar, and datalink was all ahead of its time.

 

[soaringphnx]

The mig-25 was a BVR aircraft, and the much superior Mig-31 was an even better BVR aircraft thanks to its powerful radar and long range air-to-air missles.

Most people don't realize how edvanced the Mig-31's avionics were, HUD, radar, and datalink was all ahead of its time.

I never said the MiG-25 didn't have BVR. I said it's BVR ability is limited compared to the F-15. I agree with you about the MiG-31.

 

[Indiarox]

The mig-25 was a BVR aircraft, and the much superior Mig-31 was an even better BVR aircraft thanks to its powerful radar and long range air-to-air missles.

Most people don't realize how edvanced the Mig-31's avionics were, HUD, radar, and datalink was all ahead of its time.

Please tell that to gambit

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I never said the MiG-25 didn't have BVR. I said it's BVR ability is limited compared to the F-15. I agree with you about the MiG-31.

The MiG-31 is not very maneuverable, but it is fast (able to sprint at up to 3,200 kilometers an hour). Like the original MiG-25, it does not have much range (720 kilometers combat radius.
Its not stealthy and would never survive in combat against F22

 

[soaringphnx]

The MiG-31 is not very maneuverable,

This issue has already discussed about the MiG-25. But you seem to be too lazy to even go through all the posts. If you didn't know, both the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are interceptors. I suggest you first understand what an interceptor is and what it's intended role is. For starters, why not try wikipedia?

but it is fast (able to sprint at up to 3,200 kilometers an hour).

That is a good thing.

Like the original MiG-25, it does not have much range (720 kilometers combat radius.

Again you got your facts wrong. The MiG-31 has a range of 720 kilometers "at Mach 2.35". According to wikipedia it was sought after for a variety of long-range missions.

Its not stealthy and would never survive in combat against F22

Forgive me, I didn't know that the F-22 was built to counter the MiG-31.

Guess what? Earlier soviet fighters like the MiG-21, MiG-15 and Yak-1 won't stand a chance against the F-22. But I don't think that proves anything..

 

[Indiarox]

The MiG-31 is not very maneuverable,

I never was meant to be maneuverable its a supersonic interceptor which depended on speed and altitude to do take out enemy aircraft in BVR combat hence maneuverability not needed.

but it is fast (able to sprint at up to 3,200 kilometers an hour).

Good thing one of its main advantages

Like the original MiG-25, it does not have much range (720 kilometers combat radius.

its a interceptor it was designed to take off get to where it had to go quickly(which it did successfully) take out enemy planes in BVR and return to base hence long range not needed .

Its not stealthy and would never survive in combat against F22

It was not designed to be stealthy or take on the F-22.
PAK-FA is designed to take on the F-22.
so

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

This issue has already discussed about the MiG-25. But you seem to be too lazy to even go through all the posts. If you didn't know, both the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are interceptors. I suggest you first understand what an interceptor is and what it's intended role is. For starters, why not try wikipedia?



That is a good thing.



Again you got your facts wrong. The MiG-31 has a range of 720 kilometers "at Mach 2.35". According to wikipedia it was sought after for a variety of long-range missions.



Forgive me, I didn't know that the F-22 was built to counter the MiG-31.

Guess what? Earlier soviet fighters like the MiG-21, MiG-15 and Yak-1 won't stand a chance against the F-22. But I don't think that proves anything..

What proves something is that the India Air Force has crashed over 500 migs includeing at least 3 Mig 25s....It either proves that Indians cant fly planes or Migs are junk or both. India has crashed more Migs then most countries have in their entire Air Force.

 

[soaringphnx]

What proves something is that the India Air Force has crashed over 500 migs includeing at least 3 Mig 25s....It either proves that Indians cant fly planes or Migs are junk or both. India has crashed more Migs then most countries have in their entire Air Force.

Oh please, how many times has this been discussed and debunked? Read the previous posts of this thread carefully.

 

[Indiarox]

What proves something is that the India Air Force has crashed over 500 migs includeing at least 3 Mig 25s....It either proves that Indians cant fly planes or Migs are junk or both. India has crashed more Migs then most countries have in their entire Air Force.

Get some fresh air man/women.
This has been Debunked far too many times to be discussed here again.

 

[ptldM3]

What proves something is that the India Air Force has crashed over 500 migs includeing at least 3 Mig 25s....It either proves that Indians cant fly planes or Migs are junk or both. India has crashed more Migs then most countries have in their entire Air Force.

You seem to think that Migs are the only aircraft that crash.

There has been around 300 F-15 and F-16 crashes alone, not counting F-18's, F-4's or F-14. The Indian crash rate is considerably higher then most other airforces. For instance, F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flights, while India has 6-7 per 100,000 flights, and not all are Russian aircraft. However, around 50% of all crashes have been due to pilot error, but, and listen carefully on this one, it was mostly new pilots that were involved in crashes, this is and was because of the lack of trainer aircraft available. Moreover, the Indian airforce manufactured alot of its own spare parts for their aircraft.

You should also be careful when saying Mig crashes because India also operates French Mirages, Anglo-French Jaguars as well as Indian aircraft and helicopters.

The Indian airforce is large and it has been around for eight decades, so they will have crashes.

I'm going to remind you, again, that aircraft crash for many reasons and not because they are "junk" as you like to say. The following are just some reasons for aircraft crashes:

* Poor maintanance
* pilot error
* Anomolies such as bird strikes
* poor wheather

Lastely much of the IAF's aircraft that were involved in crashes were old. Earlier i mentioned the crash rate per 100,000 aircraft for the F-15's and F-16's, which turned out to be very low, but it was not always like that. The US built F-89 had a crash rate of 383 per 100,000 aircraft, when the aircraft matured the crash rate droped dramatically to 20 aircrat per 100,000 which was an amazing turn around but still extreemly poor. Point being India still operates old aircraft.

 

[dbc]

For instance, F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flights, while India has 6-7 per 100,000 flights, and not all are Russian aircraft.

Where did you get these numbers from?

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is a twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It is considered among the most successful modern fighters with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights. (you gotta love that)

The Eagle first flew in July 1972, and entered service in 1976. The F-15 is expected to be in service with the U.S. Air Force until 2025.

Looking at the F-15 rate, USAF stats show over the lifetime (since 1972), the F-15 platform has a Class A mishap rate of 2.42, with 140 aircraft damaged. It’s lifetime destroyed rate is 2.04 with 118 F15 aircraft lost — and that’s over a lifetime total of almost 6 million flight hours. But the stat that 43 pilots have died behind the stick of an F-15 and two of those were killed in fiscal 2009, speaks volumes to the family and loved ones of the fallen. 118 crashs out of 4400 F15s built..

Would you like to guess how many migs have crashed out of the Migs that India has purchased, just guess.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#ixzz0s6GidZTV
Defense.org

 

[ptldM3]

Where did you get these numbers from?

You seemed suprised? It's actually a very low number, here is one source:

The Indian Air Force unable to minimize the highest Crash rate in the world - Indian Armed Forces - Zimbio

•F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours

The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is a twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It is considered among the most successful modern fighters with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights. (you gotta love that)

The Eagle first flew in July 1972, and entered service in 1976. The F-15 is expected to be in service with the U.S. Air Force until 2025.

Another copy and paste job

I didn't know the F-15 was a twin engine aircraft or that it entered service in 1976.

Looking at the F-15 rate, USAF stats show over the lifetime (since 1972), the F-15 platform has a Class A mishap rate of 2.42, with 140 aircraft damaged. It’s lifetime destroyed rate is 2.04 with 118 F15 aircraft lost — and that’s over a lifetime total of almost 6 million flight hours. But the stat that 43 pilots have died behind the stick of an F-15 and two of those were killed in fiscal 2009, speaks volumes to the family and loved ones of the fallen. 118 crashs out of 4400 F15s built.

118 aircraft lost? Here is a list of all F-15's that crashed between 1975 and 2001. Total number is 133 and remember this list is outdated by nine years. This list is not to degrade anyone but to shut you up.


F15 Crashes

Would you like to guess how many migs have crashed out of the Migs that India has purchased, just guess.

Can you guess how many times you got owned, just guess. I'm afraid you're out of you league, all of your post and claims have been nothing more then bias fanboy talk.

I can not take anyone serious that doesn't know the difference between interceptors and fighters.

Further, i can not take anyone seriously that starts compairing the Mig-25 to the F-22 after they have ran out of thing to say.

Your knowledge in aviation is appearent and you lack absolutely zero critical thinking skills. For example, your claim was that Migs are junk because of the high rate of crashes, but you never onced considered factors other then mechanical malfunctions, i had to waste my time breaking the facts down, and those facts were that about 50% of all IAF crashes were due to pilot error and most of the pilots that were involved in crashes were fresh out of flight school. This has been well know and this has been linked to India's lack of trainer aircraft. You also failed to consider or take into account other factors such as maintanance, bird striked, demestic parts manufacturing, ect..ect.

The Russian airforce crash rate for the Mig-21 was five times less then of the Indian airforce even though they retired the aircraft decades ago. And remember older aircraft crash at a higher rate compaired to newer aircraft because of technology advances.