PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[Thomas]

Then why did SR71 succeeded U2 even though Russian didn't have any parallel plane!!

The answer is besides a MATCHING plane US had to counter advance missile threats & breach through russian airspace radars something cant be done via Hornets or rather even F35

The U-2 was susceptible to missile shoot down, The SR-71 was not. Also both were Cold war projects. I guarantee you if the cold war was still going the F-22 production line would have remained open as well.

The SR-71 has been retired to museums since the 90's. And you are wrong about the F-35 capabilities. Also Russia is not considered an enemy anymore.

 

[ptldM3]

The U-2 was susceptible to missile shoot down, The SR-71 was not. Also both were Cold war projects. I guarantee you if the cold war was still going the F-22 production line would have remained open as well.

The SR-71 has been retired to museums since the 90's. And you are wrong about the F-35 capabilities. And Russia is not considered an enemy anymore.

 

[Thomas]

Here's a video of the MiG-29OVT which also employs 3D TVC

YouTube - Mig 29 OVT Thrust vectoring (closeup and display) at RIAT'06

You do realize that thrust vectoring aircraft have quickly become obsolete? Thrust vectoring missiles such as the AIM-9X can out maneuver flankers.

 

[gambit]

L-Band radars do not need to have large antennas. Since they have a longer wavelength and a smaller frequency they can travel further, that is why airports use L-band radars when detecting incoming airplanes at a long range, and communication between GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo systems.

First...The L-band is of a lower freq than the X-band...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the source above, the L-band is 1-2 ghz and the X-band is 8-12 ghz.

Second...Radio communication is not the same as radar detection, even though both may uses the exact same signal. Explanation why below.

Finally...The B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 are considered 'non-cooperative' targets. Civilian airports searches for 'cooperative' targets. Airliners WANT to be seen. Military aircrafts usually do not. So the example of airports using the L-band is inappropriate.

There is a reciprocal relationship between beam width, which affect target resolutions, and antenna dimensions. The narrower the beam, the greater the target resolutions, such as altitude, airspeed and aspect angle to the seeking radar.

RADAR BEAM CHARACTERISTICS

Beamwidth varies directly with wavelength and inversely with antenna size.

For any desired beam width, either we change the antenna dimension or we change the transmitting freq. In other words, for any transmitting freq, the larger the antenna, the narrower the beam. That mean the antenna using the L-band will be larger than another antenna using the X-band for the same beam width. If we cannot change antenna size but want to affect beam width, we must change the transmit freq to affect/produce the desired beam width.

Beam width affect a radar detection property called 'resolution cell'...

Definition: radar resolution cell

The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

So even though the L-band in this small wing mounted antenna may have longer reach than the larger X-band nose mounted radar, which I highly doubt, against a target whose body is designed to deliberately affect radar surface wave behaviors, a 'non-cooperative' body, target resolutions will be so poor that the pilot will not be able to determine beyond the %50 certainty threshold that he is seeing a target, let alone the possibility that there may be more inside the large resolution cell created by the L-band beam width. By the time this L-band radar is able to produce any target resolutions, the pilot will be on his way to meet Charon.

Keep in mind 3 very important items in radar detection:

- Antenna size
- Beam width (transmit freq)
- Resolution cell

Their relationship and effects on each other cannot be separated.

 

[amalakas]

beyond the %50 certainty threshold that he is seeing a target,

Right, you are joking right !!!! ???

you did not just come up with that figure, you deliberately want to say that with an L - band radar it's a coin toss. .. ...right !!!!!

Look, you have to finally allow yourself to admit that other people have ideas that work outside the US. The fact that they design, build and field various systems is not by accident.

I would like to remind you that some of the people you so clearly doubt and between the lines make fun of have "forgoten" an astronaut in space for far longer than ANY US astronaut has been in a mission.. not to mention that they then brought him back to earth alive. !!! US tech, is beyond any doubt innovative and effective, but it's not the only one out there and superior is a very relative term.

 

[gambit]

Right, you are joking right !!!! ???

Nope...The jokers are those who proclaimed that these small wing mounted L-band radars will be able to detect a US 'stealth' aircraft outside of missile range.

you did not just come up with that figure, you deliberately want to say that with an L - band radar it's a coin toss. .. ...right !!!!!

Radar detection is a statistical process. Whether we want to assure ourselves at the %50 mark or lower is not of that process. So if you want to assure yourself that there is a 'valid' target from 3 echoes out of 10 pulses...Regardless of freq used...Have a nut.

Look, you have to finally allow yourself to admit that other people have ideas that work outside the US. The fact that they design, build and field various systems is not by accident.

Of course not by accident. More like desperation.

I would like to remind you that some of the people you so clearly doubt and between the lines make fun of have "forgoten" an astronaut in space for far longer than ANY US astronaut has been in a mission.. not to mention that they then brought him back to earth alive. !!!

And we went to the moon and back several times. One of our guys even whacked a golf ball on the moon. We even have a fleet of reusable space vehicles.

US tech, is beyond any doubt innovative and effective, but it's not the only one out there and superior is a very relative term.

Not always relative. One hundred km/h is faster than 99 km/h. The laws of physics does not play favorites.

 

[soaringphnx]

You do realize that thrust vectoring aircraft have quickly become obsolete? Thrust vectoring missiles such as the AIM-9X can out maneuver flankers.

The AIM-9X is no doubt very manuverable and is a definite advantage for the F-22 in a dogfight. But it can be countered by flares and of course some violent manuvers made possible by 3D TVC. Remember that TVC is not the only defence the PAK FA has.

The AIM-9X may be able to out-manuver flankers, but this is not a discussion about flankers is it? Anyway, even for flankers, won't a batch of flares confuse the warhead?

 

[gambit]

The AIM-9X is no doubt very manuverable and is a definite advantage for the F-22 in a dogfight. But it can be countered by flares and of course some violent manuvers made possible by 3D TVC. Remember that TVC is not the only defence the PAK FA has.

The AIM-9X may be able to out-manuver flankers, but this is not a discussion about flankers is it? Anyway, even for flankers, won't a batch of flares confuse the warhead?

There is a problem here. Infrared is part of target characteristics and the detection mode is passive, meaning whoever is using an IR sensor, he is not an active transmitter of a medium, such as EM waves. That mean the target is never aware if there is an IR seeker around. The attacker launch an IR missile at his leisure, that mean he can launch AFTER the defender deploy his flares.

 

[soaringphnx]

There is a problem here. Infrared is part of target characteristics and the detection mode is passive, meaning whoever is using an IR sensor, he is not an active transmitter of a medium, such as EM waves. That mean the target is never aware if there is an IR seeker around. The attacker launch an IR missile at his leisure, that mean he can launch AFTER the defender deploy his flares.

This is applicable for all infrared sensors right? Anyway, the AIM 9X can only be launched in WVR, so a pilot should see it coming as he checks his tail. I mean, the pilot will not be caught off guard.

 

[Thomas]

The AIM-9X is no doubt very manuverable and is a definite advantage for the F-22 in a dogfight. But it can be countered by flares and of course some violent manuvers made possible by 3D TVC. Remember that TVC is not the only defence the PAK FA has.

The AIM-9X may be able to out-manuver flankers, but this is not a discussion about flankers is it? Anyway, even for flankers, won't a batch of flares confuse the warhead?

The newest generation of missiles can distinguish between flares.

Also F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35, F-22 all can carry the AIM 9X. I am actually surprised Pakistan has not been seeking it to counter Indian Su-30's. And I was responding to the question about thrust vectoring.

 

[gambit]

This is applicable for all infrared sensors right?

All infrared sensors are passive sensor. Look at it this way...The next time you go out at night, how do you know if somewhere in the bushes, someone is/is-not watching you with an NVG? Or the next time you go out during the day, how do you know if anyone is looking at you from behind?

 

[gambit]

The newest generation of missiles can distinguish between flares.

Not all. But I do know that ours have highly sophisticated IR and UV discriminator sensors and algorithms.

 

[soaringphnx]

The newest generation of missiles can distinguish between flares.

It would be greately appreciate if you could elaborate.

And I was responding to the question about thrust vectoring.

This was my reply to Gambit who felt that 3D TVC will only be an unused feature.

Here's a video of the MiG-29OVT which also employs 3D TVC

YouTube - Mig 29 OVT Thrust vectoring (closeup and display) at RIAT'06

Here is my reply to one of your posts:

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

YouTube - AIM9x intercepts

Here again we can only speculate. Keep in mind that the F-22's manuverability is attributed mainly to 2D TVC. So just imagine what 3D TVC can do. Let's not forget that the PAK FA (and all modern fighters for that matter) will have active defences. Anyway, the AIM 9x is a WVR missile right?

That's why I included the concept of using flares in my relpy.

Anyway, in an imaginary scenario, suppose the F-22 manages to be at the PAK FA's 6 o'clock position. The PAK FA pilot will use his aircraft's superior manuverability to shake the F-22 off it's tail and turn the tables before it can gain a missile lock.

 

[dbc]

It would be greately appreciate if you could elaborate.



This was my reply to Gambit who felt that 3D TVC will only be an unused feature.



Here is my reply to one of your posts:





That's why I included the concept of using flares in my relpy.

Anyway, in an imaginary scenario, suppose the F-22 manages to be at the PAK FA's 6 o'clock position. The PAK FA pilot will use his aircraft's superior manuverability to shake the F-22 off it's tail and turn the tables before it can gain a missile lock.

How much more maneuverability do you expect in the horizontal plane?

 

[gambit]

How much more maneuverability do you expect in the horizontal plane?

This is typical of his gullible and simplistic 'more-must-be-better' mentality assumption that just because the PRAT-FALL has 3D thrust vectoring, it must have 'superior' maneuverability.