What's new

PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis

.
but still raptor is more sexy and has got a futuristic design !

Russians are not exactly known for their asthetics when it comes to designing weapons of war. For them functionality and simplicity always came before beauty (Thats why inspite of all these years a 1947 year model assault rifle is still the favourite among terrorists and security agencies alike).
 
.
f22vst50.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
The F-22 may or may not be a better plane, but it just isn't worth the money. An enormous development cost, high unit cost and very maintainence intensive.... I think that could lead to a lot of headaches, especially in a war. The PAK FA has been made with a budget that is only a fraction of the F-22s and is designed as a multi-role fighter wheras the F-22 is originally an air superiority fighter which is now modified for multiple roles. Value for money is very important and PAK FA gives much more punch for the buck than F-22.
 
.
The F-22 may or may not be a better plane, but it just isn't worth the money. An enormous development cost, high unit cost and very maintainence intensive.... I think that could lead to a lot of headaches, especially in a war. The PAK FA has been made with a budget that is only a fraction of the F-22s and is designed as a multi-role fighter wheras the F-22 is originally an air superiority fighter which is now modified for multiple roles. Value for money is very important and PAK FA gives much more punch for the buck than F-22.

:blah::blah::blah: heard it all before.. but can you prove it is 'maintenance intensive'?:blah! blah! blah!

PAK FA has been made with a budget that is only a fraction of the F-22s
..has the PAK FA been made? is it being produced in large enough quantities for you to make this comment?:blah::blah::blah:
 
.
:blah::blah::blah: heard it all before.. but can you prove it is 'maintenance intensive'?:blah! blah! blah!

Here's an extract from an article in washingtonpost.com:

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
This Story

*
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
*
Growing Costs for the F-22

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.

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.

"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.


I hope that proves my point.

..has the PAK FA been made? is it being produced in large enough quantities for you to make this comment?:blah::blah::blah:

As mentioned in the above extract, F-22 production stopped at 187 aircraft which results in a very high flyaway cost. The PAK FA however has a far less developmental cost and unit cost. Both Russia and India have already decided to induct 250 fighters each. There is also the possibility of further orders and possible exports.
 
Last edited:
.
Guys F-22 had its 1st flight in 1990 and PAF-FA in 2010, you know well that USA have many secret programs, may be USA would have completed a jet much more better then PAK-FA, because defence budget of is nearly 12 times higher as compared to Russia!
 
.
Guys F-22 had its 1st flight in 1990 and PAF-FA in 2010, you know well that USA have many secret programs, may be USA would have completed a jet much more better then PAK-FA, because defence budget of is nearly 12 times higher as compared to Russia!

It is a possibility that the americans are developing another fighter in a black project. But for now let's not stray from the topic. Let's compare the F-22 and PAK FA.
 
.
Here's an extract from an article in washingtonpost.com:





I hope that proves my point.
No...It does not. All you did was repeated the same debunked nonsense a long time ago. The F-22 is stationed in Alaska. You might want to use something called 'google' to check up on Alaska and see how is it that if the F-22 is oh-soooo 'vulnerable' to water the Pentagon decided to station it in Alaska.
 
.
No...It does not. All you did was repeated the same debunked nonsense a long time ago. The F-22 is stationed in Alaska. You might want to use something called 'google' to check up on Alaska and see how is it that if the F-22 is oh-soooo 'vulnerable' to water the Pentagon decided to station it in Alaska.

Gambit, if the F-22 is indeed "invulnerable" to water/rain as you said, then please tell me why your own country and government are trashing it. The facts that I stated were from an American website. The video is also American.
 
.
Here's an extract from an article in washingtonpost.com:





I hope that proves my point.



As mentioned in the above extract, F-22 production stopped at 187 aircraft which results in a very high flyaway cost. The PAK FA however has a far less developmental cost and unit cost. Both Russia and India have already decided to induct 250 fighters each. There is also the possibility of further orders and possible exports.

..no it doesn't prove anything. It just proves that you are gullible and believe everything you read on the internet.

All the stuff you are posting, such as vulnerability to rain and intensive maintenance has been debunked several times on this very forum. If you are capable of critical thinking please read what has been written so far and then form an opinion.
 
.
Hey Gambit, look what I found....

The following extract is from an article from airforcetimes.com:

F-22 problems linked to rain in Guam

By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Oct 5, 2009 11:53:34 EDT

Rain and Raptors don’t mix.

Wet conditions at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, caused mechanical problems in a dozen F-22 Raptor fighters deployed to the Pacific island from the much less rainy Alaska.

Guam, about 3,800 miles west-southwest of Hawaii, averages 80 to 110 inches of rain a year, according to the National Weather Service. The U.S. territory gets much of its precipitation during the rainy season of July through December.

The jets’ cooling systems drew in moisture from the air, which caused shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components.

The following link is to a similar article at an other website:

Alaska Crews Find Mechanical Glitches On F-22s After 4-Month Deployment To Rain-Soaked Guam
 
Last edited:
.
..no it doesn't prove anything. It just proves that you are gullible and believe everything you read on the internet.

So you are suggesting that i should instead be gullible and believe everything you say blindly... After all, you are the most reliable source of information... :hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:
 
.
This just keeps getting better and better...

The following is an extract from a report I found in thecable.foreignpolicy.com:

When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

If the F-22 is as incredible and invincible as you claim to be, why is Obama and the White House ashamed of it? :lol::lol:
 
.
So you are suggesting that i should instead be gullible and believe everything you say blindly... After all, you are the most reliable source of information... :hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:

Mate you are fighting a loosing battle here... Cause no matter what you say a few people will just bog you down by displaying utter stubborness.

The true fact is F-22 was conceptualised and produced in the 90's and the technology is 2 decades old. Maybe in the past 20 years some problems that would have surfaced have been rectified but there will be a lot many still remaining. I find it hard to beleive that if there are no problems then why the aircrafts production has been kept to such low limits ( people talk about acheiving air supremacy as its main goal and that they reckon is acheivable by 187 or so jets , which to me is a non-rational view).

Having said that one has to conceed that F-22 is the best 1 v 1 fighter as of now ( not talking about the price etc). Is there a future for F-22.. I dont think so... It all certainity it will be replaced by a new air superiority fighter from the U.S ( not JSF) or U.S will loose airiel superiority it has become used to.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom