How PAK-FA would counter F-22 in future aerial warfare

DrSomnath999 wrote:
I)OLS-50 IRST (QWIP)

Russian OLS -50 IRST is a farcry from previous shorter wavelength Irst as it can detect IR signatures of F22

DrSomnath999 wrote:
No doubt F22's aesa radar is technologically more advanced than russian Aesa radar....

RTN wrote:

max steel wrote:Chief designer of PAKFA, Davidenko  says the real RCS of F-22 is 0.4 meters.

FAIL! He obviously never got any access to the F-22. How did he arrive at this figure? Has he shown the calculation? Just empty bluster.

As some of you have noted, the 0.4 figure could have been born as a result of whatever wavelengths, what conditions etc.

GarryB wrote:

As some of you have noted, the 0.4 figure could have been born as a result of whatever wavelengths, what conditions etc.

I rather suspect 0.4 is an average figure... something the US aircraft makers never mention... they prefer peak or ideal angle numbers which are often orders of magnitude smaller... and to be honest absurd.

The purpose of the PAK FA is not to be stealthier than the F-22 or F-35, just to be stealthy enough that AMRAAM... both aircrafts main BVR weapon becomes useless at any range... with that being the case then it comes down to a turning knife fight... the PAK FA is optimised for manouver capability and should win such fights more often than not, so I think the Russians have a very good design that has been sensibly designed... not 0.0001 m^2 stealth that would cost trillions to buy and maintain...

But with the tools to do the job... IIR guided AAMs, IRST, long wave radar etc etc.

The IRST for F-22 has been scrapped so it has and will remain this advantage and superior in maneuverability that is since decades the russian philosophy for air fighters and wars have shown that this outweights BVR combat by a significant margin.

i have a question for you:
every stealth plane no matter become visible in IR from very long distance. about ~100 km. so the plane purely has no time to launch his rockets againts targets because he will be aquired from long range by IR. what chances has such a plane? most missiles on plane have range of most better 30 km. but he will be aquire from 100 km. he has no time to launch his missile.

are all tell me that in the wars in gulf in 1992 serbia 1998 afghanistan and irak again this countryes didn't have any land based IR IRST IIR or whatever ? even in visible range at night would not be a problem to aquire target because of the flame. rockets are vulnerable to this kind of measures. those countryes didn't have any new tehnologies like lock on to target in IR , visible camera and so on and they based only on radar ?

and another thing that i dont get it is why land forces are struggeling to make a anti plane missile as long as they can make a anti missile system.

garry you forgot to add nuclear bombs . Germans made first nuclear bomb for them .

Patent analysis shows how PAK-FA differs from F-22 in air combat philosophy

The PAK-FA patent document published by Russia’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property shows the fifth generation stealth aircraft’s design is heavily influenced by low radar visibility requirements. At the same time, the Russians are prepared to sacrifice some stealth in their quest for super maneuverability and excellent flight characteristics.

The aim of the invention, say the patent papers, is to provide an aircraft having low radar visibility, super maneuverability at high angles of attack (close to an astounding 90 degrees), and simultaneously preserving high aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic speeds.

Creating an aircraft that is capable of performing tasks in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds and also has a low radar signature is a technical challenge, the Russians admit. “All these requirements are contradictory, and the creation of an airplane that meets these requirements represents a compromise.”

On the radar screens

The papers claim that the intention of the designers is to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of the aircraft to an “average figure of 0.1-1 square metre”. At this range the aircraft appears like a bird on enemy radar and becomes difficult – though not impossible – to spot.

The Sukhoi compares well with the American F-22 stealth fighter which aviation experts believe has an RCS of 0.1 square metre. (The actual figure is classified) Fourth generation fighters such as the Sukhoi-27/30 and F-15E have an RCS in the range of 10-15 square metres.

Reducing the radar visibility of the aircraft is achieved through a combination of design and technology, in particular by shaping the contours of the airframe.

According to Piotr Butowski of Jane’s International Defence Review, “Some openings and slots on the airframe’s surface – such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit – are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.

“The surfaces of the PAK-FA’s own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to ‘deflect’ enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing ‘curtains’ to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.”

Versatile aircraft

The PAK-FA’s two engines are placed apart in isolated pods, creating space for a large cargo compartment in between. The air intakes are located further apart in respect to the vertical and horizontal planes than the engines, creating a curvature that hides the compressor and reduces the radar signature of the aircraft from the front.

The engines are also placed at an acute angle relative to the vertical plane, allowing thrust vectoring – an area in which Sukhoi excels – in the longitudinal, transverse and travel channels. The engine nozzles point outwards, which transfers a significant portion of the control of the aircraft to them even at low altitudes. This considerably improves flight safety.

The movable airfoil above and in front of the engine air inlets is a unique feature of the PAK-FA, and is typical of Russian ingenuity in airframe design. The airfoils can rotate downwards around their rear edge. Similar to wing slats, they assist control when the aircraft is at high angles of attack. The air intakes are located on each side of the fuselage and they are bevelled in two planes in order to maintain flow even at high angles of attack.

PAK-FA weaknesses

The paper also lists some of the disadvantages of the aircraft:

   The inability to control roll and yaw channels when flying at low speeds because the engines are located close to each other.
   The curved shape of the air intake duct requires an increase in their length, and therefore, the mass of the airplane.
   The inability to ensure the “vanishing” of the aircraft during supercritical angles of attack.
   The use of fixed keels with rudders requires increasing the required area of the vertical stabiliser to provide directional stability at supersonic flight conditions, which leads to an increase in weight tail, and hence, the aircraft in general, and to an increase in drag.

Why balance is the key

Comparing the PAK-FA with the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II is a difficult task because most of the specs of these cutting edge aircraft are highly classified. Still, going by available data, the Russian aircraft doesn’t look as stealthy as the $420 million F-22.

The F-22’s stealth advantage doesn’t seem to worry the Russians. For, the PAK-FA embraces an entirely different combat philosophy where super maneuverability is considered a vital weapon. In contrast, the Americans have thrown all their eggs into the stealth basket, relying on near invisibility to strike at targets. The idea is to have “first look/first shot/first kill” air dominance capability. The aim – in reality hope – is to see the enemy first while avoiding detection.

However, hope is a poor substitute for preparation. The Russian view is that it never hurts to have dogfighting abilities. At some point stealth aircraft will have to close in for the kill and that’s when a knife fight is inevitable. That’s also when super maneuverability comes into play. Slow, ponderous and poorly armed stealth aircraft such as the F-35 are likely to be clubbed to death in a fight with the PAK-FA.

Plus, new radars are on their way which can detect stealth aircraft. At any rate stealth is not really an invisibility cloak as the American manufacturers and war planners are pitching it. The 1999 downing of the American F-117 stealth fighter by a highly motivated and well-trained Serbian anti-aircraft battery was a huge slap in the face of the American stealth industry.

The Serbians used a 1960s vintage – yet highly advanced – Russian S-125 Neva/Pechora surface to air missile conjointly with a P18 metre band radar. They were able to bring down the F-117 within 18 seconds of detection – a stark example of the vulnerability of stealth aircraft.

It will take the wars of the future to deliver the verdict on which philosophy is better – total stealth or the Russian insistence on super maneuverability. In the meantime, Russian and Indian Air Force pilots can’t wait to get their hands on what promises to be a fighter pilot’s dream.

They’ll have to wait a bit longer: according to the Russian National Armament Programme, 60 PAK-FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.

The inability to control roll and yaw channels when flying at low speeds because the engines are located close to each other.

The engines are also placed at an acute angle relative to the vertical plane, allowing thrust vectoring – an area in which Sukhoi excels – in the longitudinal, transverse and travel channels. The engine nozzles point outwards, which transfers a significant portion of the control of the aircraft to them even at low altitudes. This considerably improves flight safety.

The curved shape of the air intake duct requires an increase in their length, and therefore, the mass of the airplane.

The inability to ensure the “vanishing” of the aircraft during supercritical angles of attack.

The use of fixed keels with rudders requires increasing the required area of the vertical stabiliser to provide directional stability at supersonic flight conditions, which leads to an increase in weight tail, and hence, the aircraft in general, and to an increase in drag.

Berkut wrote:Indeed. One has to be particularly thick in the head thinking that was T-50 weaknesses... It is very clear in the patent that is F-22's design weakness according to Sukhoi. T-50's engines are like super close man!

jhelb wrote:It seems to me that the PAK-FA will be a hunter killer. It will detect a F22/F35 at BVR with its powerful radars and then defeat them in a WVR combat.

Russia's New Fighter Uses Long-Range Weapons To Overcome Its Weaknesses

Russia’s fledgling Sukhoi T-50 fighter, also known as the PAK-FA, continues to waddle through development even though the demand for the aircraft may turn out to be less than stellar. Nonetheless, Sukhoi hopes to integrate a wide array of weapons onto their new jet, including everything from supersonic cruise missiles to the latest available medium range air-to-air missiles. This is all shown in a visually explosive chart that was released by Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation in a recent tweet.

Regardless of the T-50’s future prospects of being fielded in large numbers, you can see that many of the weapons on the chart above are beyond those needed for the basic air-to-air or air-to-ground mission sets. By looking at this menu of destruction, standoff attack is clearly a main tactic envisioned for the stealthy jet.

According to the graphic, the T-50/PAK-FA will carry long-range missiles that are built to destroy the enemy’s airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and key surface assets capable of similar duties at great range. This includes the Izdelie 810, the Kh-58USHke, Kh-35UE and the Brahmos-NG among others. The first three of which are designed to fit inside the aircraft’s weapons bays.

The fact that the PAK-FA can haul these missiles internally, keeping its radar cross-section at a minimum, is key as even its more moderate approach to low observability, at least compared with American and even emerging Chinese fighters, when combined with its supercruise ability (cruise beyond mach 1 without the use of gas-guzzling afterburners), is aimed at allowing it to get within launching distance of these key command and control and sensor assets without being successfully engaged. If anything else, this capability will make enemy fighter aircraft tasked with protecting high value, low density assets have to adapt their tactics to counter those of the T-50s, such as extending out farther from the dependents they are trying to protect. Such a move can result in other other tactical vulnerabilities and strategic deficits that can be exploited as a result.

The U.S., by comparison, relies on the AIM-120 AMRAAM for its longest reaching air-to-air weapon, with even the new AIM-120D sporting a range that is said to be well less than the detection ranges that modern active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, like those on the F-15C, F-22 and F-35, can provide. Additionally, the networked battlespace can potentially offer targeting via third party sensors (AEW&C assets, AEGIS destroyers and cruisers) over many hundreds or miles in addition to that of even the best AESA radars used in U.S. fighter aircraft. These targets cannot be engaged as there is no missile in the U.S. inventory that can do so. Additionally, there is no anti-radiation or long-range anti-ship missile in the U.S. inventory that can fit within either the F-35 or the F-22’s weapons bays. As such, these advanced fighters have to do their bidding at closer distances to their targets than their Russian counterpart based on available weapons alone, or they would have to fight without their stealth advantage, slinging long-range weapons under their wings.

This all adds up to an interesting intersection in air combat theory. On one hand, America’s more stealthy fighters should be able to carry their shorter-ranged air-to-air munitions closer to enemy targets than their competitors. At the same time, the best of both worlds is packing long-range standoff weaponry inside a very stealthy aircraft, as distance and the aircraft’s degree of low-observable treatment from certain angles equals its detectability range by a given enemy radar system. Extra weapons range therefore buys extra stealth, or in other words, it keeps the launch aircraft outside of the detection range of enemy sensors at closer ranges.

This may not be a big issue for the U.S. today as America’s stealth technology and weaponry combo is adequate even against advanced enemy air defense systems, but as stealth shaping and materials become less effective due to developments in radar systems, processing power networking, being able to carry longer-range weapons internally would buy an weapon system time as far as its relevancy and effectiveness on the battlefield goes.

The weapons range issue is more important for Russia than the U.S. and NATO because the west relies heavily on AEW&C assets for air combat supremacy, and even if the PAK-FA can be detected, it may not be able to be engaged within the distance that it can launch its long-range weaponry. Thus a supercruising PAK-FA showing up on radar briefly at great range may give an AEW&C aircraft crew awareness of its existence, but it will not kill the long-range missile that was launched from the PAK-FA during that moment in time. As such, the PAK-FA’s low observability, although far cruder than American stealth designs, will buy the jet extra undetectability at long-range so that they can get a long-range missiles successfully on their way towards key aircraft, surface targets and surface-to-air missile sites.

In the end, even the most advanced fighter in the world is still enabled or handicapped by its available weaponry. The designers of the PAK-FA/T-50 are clearly aware of their own limitations and are using weaponry to exploit the aircraft’s strengths and de-emphasize its inherent weaknesses. A relevant, albeit far from ideal strategy when your aircraft is clearly at a low obseravability disadvantage.

Still, this does not take into key factors like how reliable these weapons are or will be, when they will they be operational and how accurate the claims made about them by Russian manufacturers are. Not to mention their susceptibility to jamming and countermeasures.

American Journal compares the 5th generation fighter T-50 and F-22A

Ten years have passed since the F-22 Raptor Lockheed Martin's began to come into service in the US Air Force. He was named the most demonstrated his fighting qualities in the skies over Syria and Iraq. However, this machine is not used for a militant fighter for air superiority. But he was only a year ago, the destruction of the Soviet tank armada in the Fulda Gap, or to suppress the integrated air defense system of the modern enemy is planning its designers. Instead Raptor basically functions as a flying platform detection devices.

However, the day will come when the F-22 will face an opponent who will have the chance to fight him on equal terms, and even win (although the chance for this small). Russia and China are hard at work on the creation of aircraft T-50 PAK FA and J-20. These two machines PAK FA is perhaps the most serious opponent. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had somehow managed to keep more or less effective military-industrial base - although she now recalls only a pale shadow of its Soviet past.


All in PAK FA says that this machine is in concept similar to the Raptor. This high-speed, high-altitude and low-profile fighter for air superiority. However, as might be expected, the Russian one paid more attention to the characteristics and less to others.

A good example - stealth. The design of the T-50 is given much less stealth value in all ranges and angles. Instead, the designers focused on the invisible front part of it, because of what the aircraft on its telltale signs like a Pacman computer game of the same name. But the F-22 is more like a spider, if you look at it is not particularly closely. Stealth - is one aspect where Raptor has a huge advantage over the Russian plane.

With regard to kinematics, there is the T-50 and F-22 are comparable - particularly when the PAK FA will have new engines. Mounted on it today engine called "Article 117" - a very decent, but eventually the plane will need to install a pilot engine "article 30", in order to fully harness the power of the airframe.

Both aircraft are able to fly at supersonic speed. In the F-22 rate of slightly more than Mach number 1.8 (without afterburner), and PAK FA without the high pressure compressor can develop a speed of at least M = 1.6. Maximum operating altitude the F-22, 20 thousand meters, as well as the T-50. At the Raptor has a restrictive limit the maximum speed of M = 2.0, due to his lack of radar absorbing materials. I believe that the same red line will have the PAK FA.

Although the F-22 has advantages in stealth characteristics, Russian ahead in maneuverability. T-50 is equipped with a three-dimensional thrust vector control, and says a lot about what he has advantages in terms of turning capacity. In Russian can also be mounted in a helmet display system. In addition, the PAK FA from day armed with rockets FAQ distance.

Meanwhile, Raptor in 2017 were armed with a missile AIM-9X, and the Air Force, slowly overcoming the obstacles are to the creation of a helmet-mounted display system, which will be ready by 2020. Plus the fact that, given the state of the Russian economy, the PAK FA at this time is unlikely to be ready.

As for the on-board electronics, then the F-22 will certainly be benefits in the form of a combination of sensors and pilot-vehicle interface. Russian can not boast of much success in creating a user-friendly cabins - just look at the cockpit of the MiG-29. But they are improving. In general, the detection devices and sensors of the two cars are about equal, although the Russian radar does pretty well, and they have an excellent system of electronic warfare.

So, other things being equal, if the stealth will be a decisive factor, the PAK FA will be in an unenviable position. But if faith in the US Air Force stealth wrong, PAK FA will have the advantage. However, the war is by its own rules, and to predict its outcome is highly likely to be very difficult.