I would like to discuss tactical use of the PAK-FA
I think it is fair to assume that PAK-FA will eventually find its way to many clients around world.
Of course Russia and India will be the biggest users of PAK-FA, and it is fair to assume that other clients will not be able to afford large quantities of PAK-FA, and in my humble opinion no other country will buy more than 50 airframes, while in most of the cases that number will be around 24 airframes. (Or less)

Now, if we look in to conflicts that have seen intense aerial warfare like Desert Storm Episode 1 and 2, NATO campaign over Serbia, and possible future conflicts like possible Israel / Syria /Iran or USA/Iran conflict (not that I am saying that Iran will get PAK-FA but Syria might) question is how PAK-FA would be employed in situation where one side would posses superiority in numbers and technological equality (both sides having access to “stealth” technology)

How would “weaker” side set up its air defence?

In my opinion , due to financial constrains , weaker side will put focus on multi-layered SAM network for example comprised of long range SAM like S-300/400 and what ever will be available in the future , supported by BUK-M or similar SAM and for point defence would be used Tunguska / Thor systems .

Where do we place those 24 PAK-FA in this picture?

If it was up to me I would use them to go after:

– Various Electronic platforms like AWACS
– Aerial Refuelling Aircrafts
– Cruise Missile Platforms (aerial and sea based)
– Ground based Radar Systems
– C3I

In pure air defence I would put them in between “dead zones” between SAM sites and Early Warning Radar Stations in order to introduce element of “fear” and uncertainty among attacking force.

By doing this I would force “Force Multipliers “ as far away as possible form my territory denying them clear picture , would reduce loitering time to minimum thus reducing overall combat effectiveness and would disrupt as much as possible C3I system.

So even by having smaller number of “stealth “platforms (PAK-FA, F-35 or similar), properly used , I think it would be possible to create sort of “asymmetric” aerial warfare situation that would force attacking force to reduce it effectiveness and over stretch its long term capability to conduct aerial warfare.

Put in to picture some ultra accurate medium range S-S missiles armed with conventional warheads (area denial package like cluster ammunition) that would be aimed at the airfield with ultimate goal of disrupting airfield operations I think that in the future even largest and most powerful air forces will face some serious problems achieving their operational goals.

I am not a specialist in radars (far from it, not in the tech world) but it seems to me that the radar cover is an issue of need rather than a technical one. Beyond/over the horizon radar are nothing new. They have been used for decades as part of early warning systems against balistic missiles and enable to track targets as far away as needed.

They have not been used for the civilian airline industry because, in all likelihood, it was not deemed necessary to have a constant view of all planes at all times over the vast and empty expanses of the ocean.

Over the horizon radars are option but they are suffering from not being very accurate …at 1000Km accuracy is some 10Km or more …, also facility is massive and it is very expensive , it would be better to deploy either ships with air search radar or even civilian versions of E-3 or something similar.

What I find amassing is how little understanding of modern air combat is among some participants in this forum.
This aircraft is better than this one ….or how come MiG never (or very little) scored kill against western type and so on and so on.

Lots of participants is failing to understand importance of various electronic platforms (E-3 , E-2,EA-6 , EF-18 , M-50 and so on)
For successful aerial combat it is important to have properly conditioned battle space , or to say it is important to know what your enemy is doing in the real-time.
Not only that but that information has to be distributed in real-time in most efficient and simplest way to end users (missile batteries crews , pilots and so on)
That was true in WWII and it is true today.
In 1940 RAF was seriously outnumbered by Luftwaffe by they still managed to beat them .Why? RAF had radar and where able to use their force in most efficient way. Not only that, but most of the engagements where performed in a way that gave RAF tactical advantage over Luftwaffe, like altitude advantage and coming on opponents 6 o’clock.

Same is true today. If you know where your enemy is and enemy does not have clue where you are , than it is easy to score victory. By the time RWR detects missile lock , most of the time it is too late. You will be hit , no matter what you flying , newest Su-35 ,F-22 Rafale or Typhoon , you had it , most of the time.
Even as you trying to manoeuvre in order to avoid missile , and even if you do manage to avoid it , aircraft will bleed speed , put itself in even worse tactical situation that will allow competent attacker to attack again and again.
In every modern engagement between Soviet/Russian and western hardware it was always true that western air forces had advantage of better SA due to better electronic intelligence , so other qualities of MiG never came to light in real life combat. That does not mean that western airframes like F-15 , 16,18 and so on are not as good as MiG (or better) in close in dogfights , just we never had classic head to head (except when Iraqi MiG-25 downed F-18 , maybe) dogfight since before Israeli action over Beka Valley , like both opponents knew where each other position was miles and miles away so that they could both start with BVR shot from far, far away.