PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

[soaringphnx]

Finally, you decided to present some facts to prove your statements. Just to be clear, I never said that the F-22 lacked in performance, I was only saying that these exorbiant maintainance costs would drastically increase operational costs and that has been my point from the start of this discussion. In fact, the high cost of the F-22 has made the US which has the biggest defence budget in the world to stop F-22 prodution at just 187. The F-22 just dosen't offer value for money.

 

[soaringphnx]

Avionics: The PAK-FA has several features of particular interest here. In the nose there is likely to be active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) as per F-22. This may actually have additional mechanical steering, although that would add weight. What’s virtually unique to the PAK-FA however is rear-facing radar in the tail. This too may be AESA and could simply be an additional array for the nose-mounted radar, or possibly a completely separate set.

The PAK-FA therefore has true 360 degree coverage. Additionally the PAK-FA is thought to have L-Band radars mounted in the wing leading edges. These would have both passive and active emitting roles and may be the key to ‘seeing’ stealth aircraft such as the F-22. Alternatively these may be located in the wing LERX sides – the exact location is subject to some speculation.

The F-22’s stealth is generally optimized against X-band radars as that is what fighters generally use – L-Band is a much longer wavelength and can more easily detect stealth aircraft but is also less accurate -hence X-band radars are still used for routine intercept and virtually all fighters use X-Band.

So do you think that even if the F-22 has a lower RCS than the PAK FA (which is very likely) do you think the PAK FA will see the F-22 first and have the upper hand?

 

[gambit]

Finally, you decided to present some facts to prove your statements.

Finally? They have been there since 10-29-2009, 09:37 AM. All you had to do was search for 'maddow' and related keywords. Did we not told you that Maddow has been debunked before?

Just to be clear, I never said that the F-22 lacked in performance, I was only saying that these exorbiant maintainance costs would drastically increase operational costs and that has been my point from the start of this discussion. In fact, the high cost of the F-22 has made the US which has the biggest defence budget in the world to stop F-22 prodution at just 187. The F-22 just dosen't offer value for money.

Whether it is 'exorbitant' or not is a matter of opinion. If the US were to go on a wartime footing, have no doubt that we could easily field a thousand F-22s and several hundreds B-2s. But that is not the issue here, which is whether these 'criticisms' are technically valid or not and I have shown that they are not.

 

[gambit]

So do you think that even if the F-22 has a lower RCS than the PAK FA (which is very likely) do you think the PAK FA will see the F-22 first and have the upper hand?

No...The L-band radar installed on the PAK-FA is simply too small to make any difference. In radar detection, antenna size have a direct influence on effective detection range. The smaller the array the shorter the range and the wider the beamwidth, even when the centimetric bands are employed. And the lower the freqs, the wider the beamwidth. And the wider the beamwidth, the greater the danger of...

Definition: radar resolution cell

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. The radar resolution cell depth (RCD ) remains constant regardless of the distance from the transmitting antenna. It does not increase with range.

Already a pair of F-16s can be hidden inside a resolution cell, depending on the seeking radar's operational freq. Both will be shown as one. Now add in the F-22's much smaller RCS. This wing installed L-band radar is at best a band-aid fix, not a true solution.

 

[DeathGod]

Whether it is 'exorbitant' or not is a matter of opinion. If the US were to go on a wartime footing, have no doubt that we could easily field a thousand F-22s and several hundreds B-2s. But that is not the issue here, which is whether these 'criticisms' are technically valid or not and I have shown that they are not.

For a country which is still struggling iwith recession its a big ask. Even if USA has to go on a war footing there is no way that it has resources to produce the kind of numbers that you have boasintingly announced.Anyways will give you a benefit of the doubt if you back it up with some figures or reliable sources.

 

[dbc]

Yes, the F-22 has a 97% sortie rate. But then it was a Lockheed official who said that the F-22 has to undergo an average of 30 hours of maintainence for 1 hour of flight. I also accept the fact that the F-22 has a RCS the size of the pellet, so the $44,000 hourly cost is to a certain extent justifiable, but is it really worth it? This just shows that the F-22 is not cost-effective and does not offer value for money. Cost-efectiveness and value for money have brrn my point from the first post. Maybe America is rich enough to bear this economic burden and I do not doubt America's economy.

If you go through one of my earlier posts, it is mentioned that the F-22 encounters a critical failure every 1.7 hours (on average). The link to that post is given below:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...22-raptor-detailed-analasis-3.html#post949383

Do you have any comments on that? And why is your government ashamed of the F-22? The link to the concerned post is given below:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...22-raptor-detailed-analasis-2.html#post949493

It seems the F-22's water vulnerability isn't just "skin deep" as I had indicated in a few of my earlier posts. The links to them are given below:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...22-raptor-detailed-analasis-4.html#post949383

http://www.guamnewsfactor.com/20091...r-4-Month-Deployment-To-Rain-Soaked-Guam.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...22-raptor-detailed-analasis-3.html#post949444

..Right, I suspect you've already made up your mind about the Raptor. But I persevere nonetheless for others that may not be as closed off as you are. You talked of Gaum and how the Raptor is vulnerable to water, but did you know that the F-22 is often rinsed with water to prevent corrosion so your vulnerable to water theory is a wash . Sure there were issues when the Raptor first deployed to Guam but four years later maintenance on the Raptor is fairly routine with the exception of LO maintenance work mentioned in my earlier post. Here is what the chief maintenance officer Captain Mary Lent of the Guam Andersen AFB has to say

All of the jets have held up quite well,We have had a few flight control issues. But other than that, maintenance has been fairly routine.The operational tempo here is about the same as Alaska, the nice weather is conducive to hot pit refueling. Hot pit refueling involves flying a mission and then refueling the aircraft on the ground without shutting down the engine. Because pilots don’t exit the aircraft during hot pit refueling, the technique allows them to fly two missions in rapid succession. Maintenance crews can hot pit refuel eight F-22s in less than one hour.The 90th brought its entire maintenance team to Guam. Many are fairly new to the squadron and to the F-22. They are getting a lot of hands-on experience here, I am immensely proud of their performance. These are some of the best maintainers I’ve worked with. Further, they are generating some excellent sortie rates.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=3

As for value, the mere presence of the Raptor in our arsenal is of great value. In a conflict, as an enemy combatant imagine the fear many will experience at the thought of going up against the Raptor. Fear itself is a powerful weapon we've seen first hand in Iraq and Serbia how fear has induced fatal mistakes. Imagine if the IAF had the Raptor in its arsenal in 2009 the surgical strikes threat could have been executed with ease without the fear of detection or interception.

 

[gambit]

For a country which is still struggling iwith recession its a big ask. Even if USA has to go on a war footing there is no way that it has resources to produce the kind of numbers that you have boasintingly announced.Anyways will give you a benefit of the doubt if you back it up with some figures or reliable sources.

I do have a very reliable source. It is called 'World War II'. Ever heard of it? Quite impressive production figures.

 

[Indiarox]

Finally? They have been there since 10-29-2009, 09:37 AM. All you had to do was search for 'maddow' and related keywords. Did we not told you that Maddow has been debunked before?


Whether it is 'exorbitant' or not is a matter of opinion. If the US were to go on a wartime footing, have no doubt that we could easily field a thousand F-22s and several hundreds B-2s. But that is not the issue here, which is whether these 'criticisms' are technically valid or not and I have shown that they are not.

NO Country with 13,050.8 billion Debt cant have 1000 F22's and
100 B2's
F22---150 mill per plane
Unit cost 150 mill
In order to have a thousand by your assumptions 813 more need to be built which would cost up to 121950(813*150mill) millUSD
Again by you presumptions of 100 B2's for that you need to build 79 more which would cost 58223 mill

Total cost=180.173 bill USD+ Cost to restart the B2 production line.
All factors taken in to account your presumption USofA Making 1000F22 and 100B2 is not happening.

 

[kallu_be]

For a country which is still struggling iwith recession its a big ask. Even if USA has to go on a war footing there is no way that it has resources to produce the kind of numbers that you have boasintingly announced.Anyways will give you a benefit of the doubt if you back it up with some figures or reliable sources.

LOL ... Just go to history books and learn how production lines of war machinery works.

 

[Indiarox]

I do have a very reliable source. It is called 'World War II'. Ever heard of it? Quite impressive production figures.

Back then your debt was 50.6bill
now its 13.05Trill
I think that counts for a lot

 

[gambit]

..Right, I suspect you've already made up your mind about the Raptor. But I persevere nonetheless for others that may not be as closed off as you are. You talked of Gaum and how the Raptor is vulnerable to water, but did you know that the F-22 is often rinsed with water to prevent corrosion so your vulnerable to water theory is a wash .

I have repeatedly asked for the precise and complete quote of this 'vulnerable to water' nonsense and have yet to receive it. These guys just do not seems to understand this...

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

So just because the NY Times is a nominally respected news organization, it simply means everything any news organization said is beyond challenge.

 

[DeathGod]

I do have a very reliable source. It is called 'World War II'. Ever heard of it? Quite impressive production figures.

This is what I call as deflection.. Instead of providing any sources you are citing example of WW-2. Many other countries in that war ( which were smaller to USA) were able to produce equipment in a very large quantity because a lot of technology was in nascent stage and a lot of technical and industrial improvements could be acheived fairly quickly. Sadly that is no longer the case today.

Also the world of today is not as polar as it was in days of WW-2.

Mod Edit: Instead of getting personal with a senior member who has shown his worth to be an experienced & learned person, try to counter with counter arguments, instead of attacking with BS stuff.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

NO Country with 13,050.8 billion Debt cant have 1000 F22's and
100 B2's
F22---150 mill per plane
Unit cost 150 mill
In order to have a thousand by your assumptions 813 more need to be built which would cost up to 121950(813*150mill) millUSD
Again by you presumptions of 100 B2's for that you need to build 79 more which would cost 58223 mill

Total cost=180.173 bill USD+ Cost to restart the B2 production line.
All factors taken in to account your presumption USofA Making 1000F22 and 100B2 is not happening.

The USA does not need 1000s of F22s , we dont even need the 18000 planes we have now and many of them are being retired. The w ay the next Air War will be fought will be just a few F22 to take out a part of the enemys air craft, and ground support and anti aircraft sites. As part of those attacks will be anumber of F16 and other air craft to do clean up and protect the heavy lifters, some willl be 747, B2, B1s carrying up to 1000 small smart bombs pre programed to glide to selected targets. Some of the planes will be carrying EMP weapons to take out air fields, communications, any sites that use electronics, the F22 will be carrying EMP weapons.


USA has learned that you dont need many planes when you have smart bombs,, smart bombs allow one plane to accompllish what it use to take 20 planes with dumb bombs to do.
You can look up the satistics.

What the F22 and F35 does will allow the USA to is dominated the battle field. With even enemy air force pliots being pretty smart and well education they are not going to want to die and will for the most part just bail out of the planes like the Iraqis or turn and run. Most enemy planes will never see an American Plane even on their radar.. Add to that mix an healthy number of drones and robot operated bombers.

 

[dbc]

It is funny the way you repeatedly dodge soaringphnx's question with the same rhetoric. You basically are saying Washington post's article is mere bullshit.
If you are American, you would know, Washington post is a very reputed news organisation(on the top with NYTimes etc). They dont post bullshit they pick up on the streets or they can't have the reputation they enjoy currently. It will be a suicide to post such a scathing article on such a politically sensitive topic. They would have definitely made enough groundwork and research before publishing.
Now lets get some straight answers. Link to the article... again...

High-Priced F-22 Fighter Has Major Shortcomings - washingtonpost.com

With due respect, maam, I acknowledge that your knowledge in these matters is superior to mine. But lets cut the rhetoric, shall we?

R. Jeffrey Smith is the author of that piece of questionable journalism, Mr. Smith a B.A. in Political Science claims the radar-absorbing skin is "metallic"? To the average Jo this isn't significant but to the informed reader this is a strong indication of the authors lack of knowledge since metal is known to exhibit poor radar absorption properties.

The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.

He does not offer any explanation as to why the skin is "vulnerable to rain" if the skin is made of metal like he claims then why is it vulnerable to water? All conventional aircraft's including commercial planes have metallic skin (aluminum) so why is vulnerability to water unique to the Raptor? Shouldn't all aircraft's exhibit the same vulnerability?

The author goes on to claim his information is obtained from "confidential Pentagon test results" but he does not say how those confidential reports were obtained. He quotes unnamed "Pentagon officials" and "former Lockheed employees" to make his story sensational.

He's made so many questionable claims in his piece - but does not provide a shred of evidence to back up his assertions. Sensationalism unfortunately takes precedence over due diligence and balanced reporting for many like Mr. Smith.

 

[Jigs]

The USA Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
The Russian Defense Budget: $43,200,000,000 [2008]
The USA Defense Budget is more then ten times that of Russia today an we cant really afford all we want in developing new fighter air craft, do you really think Russia can do more. Do you think Russia is even in the same ball park?

Actually they are and have been for a while in the aviation department.

Su-30MKI meets F-15 is a good example.





"The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer."

"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews

I am sure they have improved that some since this was a older article. Saying it isn't a maintenance heavy aircraft when many sources say it is doesn't make much sense. It isn't a insult to the aircraft i am sure it can still preform its role. It just has some issues that can get serious. Still better then the PAK-FA imo though.