PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[chauism]

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

It doesn't matter how maneuverable the airplane's airframe can sustain or achieve, the aircraft is still limited by human pilot's tolerance of g-force. Normally its maximum is +9/-3 g.

 

[notorious_eagle]

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.

PAF will definitely be ordering the AIM 9X, that i am certain off. By 2015, PAF will be fielding close to a 100 F16 Block 52's. In order to fully exploit the JHMCS, PAF will need the AIM 9X. AIM 9M's were ordered in 2005 to replace the L series, at that time AIM 9X had just achieved its IOC thus it was not feasible to order them at that time. Once the new Block 52's became operational and the process for MLU starts, i am sure PAF will order these deadly missiles.

 

[dbc]

It doesn't matter how maneuverable the airplane's airframe can sustain or achieve, the aircraft is still limited by human pilot's tolerance of g-force. Normally its maximum is +9/-3 g.

True, if the pilot attempts a transonic or supersonic tail deflection maneuver. But in a subsonic turning fight the pilot can attempt to get inside the turn but risks stalling due to disrupted airflow to the engine. But this desperate maneuver is necessary only to gets guns on the adversary meaning the pilot has used up all high off boresight AAM's and is left with guns as the only offensive weapon against a more agile enemy.

 

[ptldM3]

It doesn't matter how maneuverable the airplane's airframe can sustain or achieve, the aircraft is still limited by human pilot's tolerance of g-force. Normally its maximum is +9/-3 g.

Not exactly:

Seasoned pilots are able to sustain 12+ G's.

 

[Thomas]

It would be greately appreciate if you could elaborate.

I am not an expert on the technical aspects of how it is accomplished. I'm sure Gambit can elaborate though. Here is a video however of an AIM 9X shoot down against a remote controlled F-4 using flares as counter measures.

 

[ptldM3]

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.

I doubt that detecting an F-22 outside missle range would be possible. However, the pak-fa should be able to get fairly close to an enemy aircraft before it would be detected, so even if the L-band has some what of a limited range, it would still be effective because in theory the pak-fa would be able to exploit the L-band's range before detection.

 

[soaringphnx]

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.

There is no denying that Thrust Vectoring dramatically increases an aircraft's manuverability. The F-22 and Su-30MKI are considered to be very manuverable aircraft. How do these aircraft achieve this high level of manuverability? The answer is undoubtedly the use of 2D TVC. Here's what the MiG-29 OVT/MiG-35 achieved using 3D TVC:

The fighter jet stops mid-air, turns 360° and fires

A helicopter can stay still mid-air. But a fighter plane? No way. The laws of physics and jet propulsion dont allow that.

Russian engineers have achieved just that.

The aircraft, temporarily called MiG-29M (since it is based on the airframe of the tried and tested MiG-29) and soon to be christened MiG-35, is claimed to be the only aircraft in the world with a thrust vector control that allows it to stop mid-air and manoeuvre 360 degrees.

And it is not just aerobatics to impress kids. "The thrust vector gives the aircraft certain advantages in close combat," said Andrey Karasev, deputy general designer of MiG. "An aircraft that can abruptly change speed and direction does not allow enemy aircraft to leave its firing range."

The manoeuvre, called Bell, also enables the pilot to stop mid-air and thus prevent himself from entering the enemy plane's missile firing range. And then he can turn around abruptly in any direction but still fire its missile at the enemy.

A conventional aircraft cannot turn around abruptly; it will have to jet forward, take a long loop and then close in towards the enemy, by which time the enemy would either be waiting for it or have fled. "This is important in close combat," said Alexei Fyodorov, general director of MiG corporation. "This enhances the safety of the pilot and the manoeuvrability of the aircraft. "The pilot can recover from any position with this technology. We have modified the aircraft control system to enable this."

The Sukhoi-30MKI also has thrust vector technology, but is limited to one direction. The technology installed in MiG-29M would allow 360 degree manoeuvrability.

MiG-29 OVT

It can fly tail forward, make flips and perform “boomerang” aerobatic figure.

“Performance capabilities of VFT engine you were able to see today on the show. The main task of this flight was to demonstrate that due to vectoring throttle flight in zero-speed and negative-speed (tail forward movements) areas became to be fully controlled in distinction from previous modifications of planes like Mig-29 and Su-27, which could only temporarily get into this area while performing Kobra, for example.” - says Pavel Vlasov, test-pilot

“Everybody is afraid the lifetime cycle of this moveable hardware will be very short. To the honor of engine manufacturer I need to say that during 2 years of test flights not even one small part both in engines and nozzles were replaced.”

We can surely expect something similar for the PAK FA.

 

[ptldM3]

There is no denying that Thrust Vectoring dramatically increases an aircraft's manuverability. The F-22 and Su-30MKI are considered to be very manuverable aircraft. How do these aircraft achieve this high level of manuverability? The answer is undoubtedly the use of 2D TVC. Here's what the MiG-29 OVT/MiG-35 achieved using 3D TVC:



MiG-29 OVT



We can surely expect something similar for the PAK FA.

There is no question that thrust vectoring enhances an aircraft's performance. However, 2D vectoring is adequate enough. Having an extra X-axis is nice but not too useful since most maneuvers are in the vertical plane.

 

[soaringphnx]

There is no question that thrust vectoring enhances an aircraft's performance. However, 2D vectoring is adequate enough. Having an extra X-axis is nice but not too useful since most maneuvers are in the vertical plane.

Yes, most maneuvers are in the vertical plane, but 3D TVC allows so much more - even maneuvers which were not possible before (refer my previous post). This would be very helpful in a dogfight. Even in BVR combat, 3D TVC can help an aircraft to evade missiles using a combination of active defences and manuverability. So I don't agree that it is not too useful. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ptldM3]

Yes, most maneuvers are in the vertical plane, but 3D TVC allows so much more - even maneuvers which were not possible before (refer my previous post). This would be very helpful in a dogfight. Even in BVR combat, 3D TVC can help an aircraft to evade missiles using a combination of active defences and manuverability. So I don't agree that it is not too useful. Just my 2 cents.

3D Thrust vectoring does allow the Mig-29ovt to perform some amazing maneuvers that would not otherwise be possible and it does enhance overall maneuverability, so of course if given the choice i would opt for the 3D over the 2D, but overall the vertical axis is the most used. However, i will say this, using the X-axis/vertical stabalizer while banking will drasticaly decrease a 180 degree turn; in a dogfight this might prove decisive but overall 2D is adiquate enough.

 

[dbc]

Yes, most maneuvers are in the vertical plane, but 3D TVC allows so much more - even maneuvers which were not possible before (refer my previous post). This would be very helpful in a dogfight. Even in BVR combat, 3D TVC can help an aircraft to evade missiles using a combination of active defences and manuverability. So I don't agree that it is not too useful. Just my 2 cents.

The Herbst maneuver or "J-Turn" named after Wolfgang Herbst is the only thrust vector post stall maneuver that can be used in actual combat but very few air frames can sustain the stress of this violent maneuver.

You may disagree but TV maneuvers are usually reserved for air shows because it results in loss of air speed and altitude. The Herbst maneuver is the only thrust vector maneuver in which the entry speed and altitude can be recovered at exit after a 180 deg turn. But it is discouraged because it shortens service life of the airframe. See below thrust vector mechanism on the X-31 followed by a short demonstration of the Herbst maneuver.

 

[gambit]

I doubt that detecting an F-22 outside missle range would be possible. However, the pak-fa should be able to get fairly close to an enemy aircraft before it would be detected, so even if the L-band has some what of a limited range, it would still be effective because in theory the pak-fa would be able to exploit the L-band's range before detection.

Since the news about the wing leading edge L-band radar came out, I have been unable to come up with a valid justification for the system. This has nothing to do with the technical feasibility of if but about how effective it is in actual combat, not just as a standalone system but whether how complementary it is to the main radar.

In theory, I can blast so much power into this much smaller array that it will out-range the larger main antenna but there would so poor target resolutions that it would render the system useless. That is what radar beacons do -- sheer output -- and I doubt this is what the PAK-FA's designers intended. So if these smaller arrays are supposed to be for detection, then their main lobes must be just as tightly regulated as the main lobe in the larger radar regarding width. And that would limit their effective detection range.

 

[nightcrawler]

@ Death.By.Chocolate
Can you explain the 5th step??

Good to see a real picture about thrust vectoring in a different way!!
Previously I only witnessed jet vane & iron flowers techniques

 

[dbc]

@ Death.By.Chocolate
Can you explain the 5th step??
Good to see a real picture about thrust vectoring in a different way!!
Previously I only witnessed jet vane & iron flowers techniques

look at your avatar image to understand "coning" the missile in your avatar image seems to be creating a visible "cone" as it move..

A cone is similar to the wake created by a boat moving on a water surface. The cone or disturbance of air molecules move outward and rearward from the nose of the airplane forming a invisible cone..

 

[nightcrawler]

look at your avatar image to understand "coning" the missile in your avatar image seems to be creating a visible "cone" as it move..

A cone is similar to the wake created by a boat moving on a water surface. The cone or disturbance of air molecules move outward and rearward from the nose of the airplane forming a invisible cone..

Thnx 4 reply & I am well aware of my avatar
to be creating a visible "cone" as it move..

According to my knowledge this ain't a imaginary cone but rather is an actual torpedo nosecone part. To be exact the avatar shows a supercavitated torpedo & the cone you are referring is only their to cause boundary layer separation till the rear of torpedo body (bluff bodies to be exact) for less drag & greater speed!!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/11/darpa-awards-contracts-for-underwater.html

Proposal documents seen by Jane's suggest that the demonstrator vehicle will improve upon the Shkval with a movable, retractable cavitator on its nose cone.

I dont know how this cone( with respect to aiplane) can carry out the required movement especially at very low (~stall) speeds?? or even conning that you refer occur at those speeds??