PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[soaringphnx]

Reality is ,There is no fighter aircraft in present times is comparable to Raptor..Its Damn good for others!!

I agree 100% with that statement.

 

[SBD-3]

as I went through the thread (sorry didnt had time to read all the posts but i did read about 60 odd)....there are few things...as members are saying that PAK-FA will be 2.5 times cheaper and easier to maintain....then they should be able to elaborate it concretely how?........If F-117 took hours of maintainance.....F-22 took hours of this.....then take T-50 on same lines it should also have the same problem cuz it is stealth. Secondly comparing the size of budgets....10 Billion USD against 189 Billion USD....Raptor was built from scratch. US conceptualized it to be unrivaled...you see they have not left a single corner or inch or surface to be reflective.....I dont know whether Russians built PAK-FA from scratch.....the apparent prototype is a mixture of shape redesign and borrowings from Flanker program......the performance stealth compromise is evident (Russians going for maneuverability)....one thing is this that when we say that Russia is catching up we mean that USAF has started with next gen...so by the time Russians will be on level-5, US will be on level-6.....

 

[zagahaga]

umm .. how can pakfa and f22 even track each other on radar when boath are stealth????? but i do know that pakfa has an upper hand in IRST which will let it get the first lock on .....

 

[soaringphnx]

as I went through the thread (sorry didnt had time to read all the posts but i did read about 60 odd)....there are few things...as members are saying that PAK-FA will be 2.5 times cheaper and easier to maintain....then they should be able to elaborate it concretely how?........If F-117 took hours of maintainance.....F-22 took hours of this.....then take T-50 on same lines it should also have the same problem cuz it is stealth. Secondly comparing the size of budgets....10 Billion USD against 189 Billion USD....Raptor was built from scratch. US conceptualized it to be unrivaled...you see they have not left a single corner or inch or surface to be reflective.....I dont know whether Russians built PAK-FA from scratch.....the apparent prototype is a mixture of shape redesign and borrowings from Flanker program......the performance stealth compromise is evident (Russians going for maneuverability)....one thing is this that when we say that Russia is catching up we mean that USAF has started with next gen...so by the time Russians will be on level-5, US will be on level-6.....

Here is an extract from an article which states that the PAK FA will be cheaper than other western fifth gen. fighters.

Russia's fifth-generation fighters for export will be cheaper than their foreign analogues, the general director of the aviation companies Sukhoi and MiG said on Tuesday.

"The price of the fifth-generation export variant is an issue for discussion and negotiation. But I can say that we believe its main advantage will be a competitive price margin," Mikhail Pogosyan said, adding that the aircraft would be significantly more expensive than Russia's fourth-generation fighter model.

Here is a link to the full article: Russia's fifth-generation fighter to be cheaper than foreign analogues

Regarding maintainance, we can surely expect the PAK FA to be much more maintainance intensive than fourth generation fighters.

The F-22 Raptor was conceived at the close of the cold war as an air superiority fighter to counter any possible future fighters from the Soviet Union. The F-22 relies heavily on all-aspect stealth as it's main advantage. For this reason, the F-22 has specially angled geometry, RAM coating and rectangular nozzles. However, the PAK FA / FGFA relies on a different strategy altogether. The PAK FA combines low observability with superb manuverability. For this the PAK FA too has angled geometry and RAM coating, but has a circular 3D thrust vectoring nozzle instead of a rectangular one and also has a moveable LERX which functions like a canard but does not compromise on stealth. 3D TVC allows the PAK FA to out-manuver any possible missiles. Moreover, the PAK FA has been designed from the beginning to be more "multi-role" than the F-22 (not that the F-22 is not capable of multiple roles) and hence has a bigger weapons bay and higher range.

The F-22's stealth is mainly optimised for X-band radars, the type commonly used in other fighters. To try and counter this, the PAK FA uses IRST and L-band radars in the wings. It also has an X-band radar in the tail boom in addition to the one in the nose to give it true 360 degree coverage.

The exact RCS of the PAK FA is not known. Let us assume it to be about the same as the F-35. So while the PAK FA has a higher RCS than the F-22, the L-band radars and IRST help it to find the F-22. Any missile fired against the PAK FA can be defeated by it's manuverability (and of course active defences like flares or chaff) while the F-22 tries to prevent a missile lock in the first place. If it all ends up in a dogfight (which is unlikely), then the PAK FA is likely to have an advantage because of it's high manuverability. Anyway, we can only know for sure when the PAK FA is fully developed. But my point is, the F-22 relies on very very low observability while the PAK FA relies on very low observability, high manuverability and tries to detect the F-22 with it's L-band radar and IRST. Whether or not the PAK FA is superior to the F-22, only time will tell. But the PAK FA will surely be a game changer.

 

[soaringphnx]

umm .. how can pakfa and f22 even track each other on radar when boath are stealth????? but i do know that pakfa has an upper hand in IRST which will let it get the first lock on .....

Stealth does not imply that the aircraft are "invisible to radar" as commonly but incorrectly stated in the media. Even the F-22 or B-2 can be detected by radars. But stealth aircraft like the F-22 or PAK FA have a reduced radar cross section (RCS) which makes it more difficult for enemy radars to detect it. So radars can detect these aircraft only at a smaller distance than other conventional aircraft which have a higher RCS. The lower the RCS, the harder it is for the radars to detect the aircraft allowing them to get much closer without being detected.

 

[SBD-3]

Regarding maintainance, we can surely expect the PAK FA to be much more maintainance intensive than fourth generation fighters.

Thats what i am pointing out it will have significant maintenance cost....as RAM quoting will be requiring continuous maintenance....so a way higher cost than even 4.5th Gen fighters as well....eventhough not as high as raptor

The F-22 Raptor was conceived at the close of the cold war as an air superiority fighter to counter any possible future fighters from the Soviet Union. The F-22 relies heavily on all-aspect stealth as it's main advantage. For this reason, the F-22 has specially angled geometry, RAM coating and rectangular nozzles. However, the PAK FA / FGFA relies on a different strategy altogether. The PAK FA combines low observability with superb manuverability. For this the PAK FA too has angled geometry and RAM coating, but has a circular 3D thrust vectoring nozzle instead of a rectangular one and also has a moveable LERX which functions like a canard but does not compromise on stealth. 3D TVC allows the PAK FA to out-manuver any possible missiles. Moreover, the PAK FA has been designed from the beginning to be more "multi-role" than the F-22 (not that the F-22 is not capable of multiple roles) and hence has a bigger weapons bay and higher range.

Thats the difference of USAF philosophy.....Unless they can't see you.....they can't hit you.....F-22 is a materialization of this concept and you know what JSF to other countries will have stealth for export purpose (which is way higher than you should expect on US versions) if even that is very low so you can imagine the level for JSF and then for F-22.....F-22 will see pakfa before PAK-FA can see raptor...and Raptor will follow a fire and run strategy....USAF pilots prefer BVR engagements.....Raptor pilot would not prefer to engage with PAK-FA in close in battle...he fire and then run....and even more dangerous....when datalinked with AWACS...Raptor wont be using its radar and slammer shot will also be guided by AWACS upto a certain distance when Slammer with turn its seeker on...ample time for raptor to get away quietly or position itself for another shot...

The F-22's stealth is mainly optimised for X-band radars, the type commonly used in other fighters. To try and counter this, the PAK FA uses IRST and L-band radars in the wings. It also has an X-band radar in the tail boom in addition to the one in the nose to give it true 360 degree coverage.

you can see PAK-FA houses 3 radars...Raptor does it with immense sensor fusion. Pilot has 360 degree view and unmatched situational awareness....but lets stay on radars....PAK-FA will be using three radars.....it means that it has three beacons on itself...making it more vulnerable to raptor......

The exact RCS of the PAK FA is not known. Let us assume it to be about the same as the F-35. So while the PAK FA has a higher RCS than the F-22, the L-band radars and IRST help it to find the F-22. Any missile fired against the PAK FA can be defeated by it's manuverability (and of course active defences like flares or chaff) while the F-22 tries to prevent a missile lock in the first place. If it all ends up in a dogfight (which is unlikely), then the PAK FA is likely to have an advantage because of it's high manuverability. Anyway, we can only know for sure when the PAK FA is fully developed. But my point is, the F-22 relies on very very low observability while the PAK FA relies on very low observability, high manuverability and tries to detect the F-22 with it's L-band radar and IRST. Whether or not the PAK FA is superior to the F-22, only time will tell. But the PAK FA will surely be a game changer.

here the author again neglects that whether PAK-FA will be able to take a shot on raptor???....raptor wont stay there.....as i said earlier...it will fire bravely and run....and then wait for another shot...IRST wont be helpful as Raptor can control its heat emission even at reheat.......so Raptor has every thing in its bag to excel....

 

[Thomas]

Any missile fired against the PAK FA can be defeated by it's manuverability (and of course active defences like flares or chaff)

I highly doubt any aircraft made today can out maneuver the AIM-9X

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_aim9x_datasheet.pdf

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Russia
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.116 trillion (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 8
$2.298 trillion (2008 est.)
$2.176 trillion (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars

GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.232 trillion (2009 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
-7.9(2009 est.) Decreasing Growth Rate
country comparison to the world: 206
5.6% (2008 est.)
8.1% (2007 est.)

United States

GDP (purchasing power parity):
$14.26 trillion (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 2
$14.61 trillion (2008 est.)
$14.55 trillion (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars

GDP (official exchange rate):
$14.43 trillion (2009 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
-2.4% (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 151
0.4% (2008 est.)
2.1% (2007 est.)
The US military spending is 7 times more than China, 13 times more than Russia, ...

Now here is the point, unless you belive in Miracles, Santa Clause and the tooth fairy Russia does not have the resources to build a complete new generation of fighters. Its not even a sure thing the USA can afford it.

For Russia to do any thing they have to sell them to other markets, the russian military cant afford to develope, build and aquire a new generation of fighters on their own. About the most the Russians can do is pimp up the migs, add a little stealth and this and that and sell enought to keep production going back in Russia....My predictions .Russian planes are still going to crash, Russia has never been good at quality control, and they are going to be shot down by american planes at a astonishing rate and its going to be a long time befor they are in full production.

 

[chauism]

Russia
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.116 trillion (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 8
$2.298 trillion (2008 est.)
$2.176 trillion (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars

GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.232 trillion (2009 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
-7.9(2009 est.) Decreasing Growth Rate
country comparison to the world: 206
5.6% (2008 est.)
8.1% (2007 est.)

United States

GDP (purchasing power parity):
$14.26 trillion (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 2
$14.61 trillion (2008 est.)
$14.55 trillion (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars

GDP (official exchange rate):
$14.43 trillion (2009 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
-2.4% (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 151
0.4% (2008 est.)
2.1% (2007 est.)
The US military spending is 7 times more than China, 13 times more than Russia, ...

Now here is the point, unless you belive in Miracles, Santa Clause and the tooth fairy Russia does not have the resources to build a complete new generation of fighters. Its not even a sure thing the USA can afford it.

For Russia to do any thing they have to sell them to other markets, the russian military cant afford to develope, build and aquire a new generation of fighters on their own. About the most the Russians can do is pimp up the migs, add a little stealth and this and that and sell enought to keep production going back in Russia....My predictions .Russian planes are still going to crash, Russia has never been good at quality control, and they are going to be shot down by american planes at a astonishing rate and its going to be a long time befor they are in full production.

How many wars Russia is fighting right now? How many oversea base Russia has to maintain? What is US soldier's salary and what is Russian's salary? It is not hard to believe that you drew this senseless conclusion just from the numbers you just cited, after seeing your capacity for plagiarism in the other threads. You know how I spotted your plagiarism in the other two posts? Because those two posts unlike your normal comments including this one, actually made sense to everyone. Your ability of logical deduction really keeps me amused.

But I have to give your credits as this time you actually did pull something out of your own *** instead of stealing from others.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

How many wars Russia is fighting right now? How many oversea base Russia has to maintain? What is US soldier's salary and what is Russian's salary? It is not hard to believe that you drew this senseless conclusion just from the numbers you just cited, after seeing your capacity for plagiarism in the other threads. You know how I spotted your plagiarism in the other two posts? Because those two posts unlike your normal comments including this one, actually made sense to everyone. Your ability of logical deduction really keeps me amused.

But I have to give your credits as this time you actually did pull something out of your own *** instead of stealing from others.

USSR GDP was half that of the USA, Russia GDP is 1/7 that of the USA. Russia now has more military to support now then they were part of the USSR with less money. Nothing really changed for the USA.

 

[chauism]

USSR GDP was half that of the USA, Russia GDP is 1/7 that of the USA. Russia now has more military to support now then they were part of the USSR with less money. Nothing really changed for the USA.

Yes, USSR with half of USA's GDP could even keep up militarily with USA and exceed in some area back then. How does Russia have more military to support than USSR when Russia was just a part of USSR now is beyond my wild imagination. This again proves you are clueless as usual. You can not find anything smart to say about from others on internet this time, can you?

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Yes, USSR with half of USA's GDP could even keep up militarily with USA and exceed in some area back then. How does Russia have more military to support than USSR when Russia was just a part of USSR now is beyond my wild imagination. This again proves you are clueless as usual. You can not find anything smart to say about from others on internet this time, can you?

Kid your just not right bright, Russia military was never on a par with the USA and when the USSR broke up, their GDP decreased a lot more then their military expenses. when they were the USSR all the members of the USSR were supporting the military. Maybe you have never heard of
Belarus
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Estonia3
Latvia3
Lithuania3
Thats why they had to scrap so much of their navy , army and airforce. Thats why a large part of Russia Navy, ships and subs as well as army tanks are now scrap as well as manpower. Keeping up with the USA was one of the reasons the USSR was destroyed.

 

[Brotherhood]

Kid your just not right bright, Russia military was never on a par with the USA and when the USSR broke up, their GDP decreased a lot more then their military expenses. when they were the USSR all the members of the USSR were supporting the military. Maybe you have never heard of
Belarus
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Estonia3
Latvia3
Lithuania3
Thats why they had to scrap so much of their navy , army and airforce. Thats why a large part of Russia Navy, ships and subs as well as army tanks are now scrap as well as manpower. Keeping up with the USA was one of the reasons the USSR was destroyed.

Mr Indian, did you have no shame, you got busted for copying and paste post of someone else from other forum as your own post, go and find yourself a hole to hide or keep up with your shameless act, whats your take?
PS, where did you copy this post from?

 

[chauism]

Kid your just not right bright, Russia military was never on a par with the USA and when the USSR broke up, their GDP decreased a lot more then their military expenses. when they were the USSR all the members of the USSR were supporting the military. Maybe you have never heard of
Belarus
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Estonia3
Latvia3
Lithuania3
Thats why they had to scrap so much of their navy , army and airforce. Thats why a large part of Russia Navy, ships and subs as well as army tanks are now scrap as well as manpower. Keeping up with the USA was one of the reasons the USSR was destroyed.

Obviously you had to copy the names of those formal soviet republics down from some internet sources, where as normal people can just remember most of them. Who sent first satellite, man and space station into the space? USSR hold numerous records in the military hardwares. "Not on par with USA." If it was not, there won't be a cold war.

Back to the topic, when USSR split up, all its military were divided proportionally among its formal republics. Obviously in your little mind, all those military were left with Russia. Good job on proving your sense of logic. Again obviously in the little brain of yours, the state of Russian economy after 1992 when they had to scrap some of their hardwares is the same of its economy today. Well, I think I am going to let our Russian friend to teach you that.

Again thanks for this opportunity to prove your credibility in front of everyone.

 

[chauism]

Mr Indian, did you have no shame, you got busted for copying and paste post of someone else from other forum as your own post, go and find yourself a hole to hide or keep up with your shameless act, whats your take?
PS, where did you copy this post from?

I don't think he copied this one, because it has no logic what's so ever.