Face it the T-50 is clearly well above Mach 2 design and Bondarev confirms yet.

Did he say “well above” Mach 2?

Faster than F-22 for sure, much sleeker.

So it’s your own personal eyeball estimate, then. Does it look sleeker and therefore faster than the MiG-25 and MiG-31, too?

How fast is the F-22? Is it’s top speed in the public domain?

No, it’s not public, but the “1600 mph” (about Mach 2.4 at altitude) figure represents a lower bound. That said, this level of speed is not a requirement, as far as I’m aware, and operationally it may be limited to lower speeds for various reasons (e.g. to save on wear, if nothing else–it just doesn’t need to go that fast normally, although in combat a pilot would do whatever it takes in order to survive, of course).

1600mph was basically him lowballing it. It is even faster than that.

Paul Metz mentioned an arbitrary speed that he presumably had actually flown at, and being that he was the chief F-22 test pilot and a real pro, I think that is a fairly safe assumption. So you’re right that the F-22’s top speed is higher than that, but by how much is unknown (to the public), and whether it could or would be allowed to fly that fast operationally is not definite (with actually reaching such speeds in practice unlikely except for extreme/dire circumstances). Suffice to say that it’s pretty fast–faster than it probably needs to be.

Well, that’s pushing Mach 2.5 at typical altitudes – so why’s it so implausible for the T-50 to be a piddling 0.1 of a Mach faster (assuming definitive engines of course), bearing in mind it has generally similar technology plus a couple of traits which ought to make it better adapted to that speed bracket?

We’d have to be a lot more specific than “generally similar technology”–this basically tells us nothing.

Some years ago, I posted an arrested temperature chart. If you’d cut the information with with that from Jõ regarding skin composite max sustainable temperature, you’d come around the same conclusion (Mach2+).

The temperature tolerance of the materials used is certainly a factor. Even composites are not all the same (heck, reinforced concrete is a composite), and even in the case of aircraft and carbon fiber-reinforced composites their physical properties can vary quite a bit. The F-22, for example, uses BMI matrix composites (Cycom 5250-4 and/or 5250-4HT) for most of its skin panels, and it can withstand a temperature of 400°F/204°C – 500°F/260°F, which is significantly higher than typical epoxy matrix composites; most of the rest of its skin is made of titanium, so there is no temperature issue with that. For comparison, the F-35 uses quite a bit of epoxy composite in its skin, so there is probably a reason the F-22 uses the more expensive BMI, and it’s probably ultimately related to speed. In the worst case, based on stagnation temperature at the leading edges of BMI-skinned panels, the F-22 should be good for Mach 2.6-2.85 at 50000 feet. I’m NOT saying that it necessarily can go this fast–maybe it can and maybe it can’t for a variety of other reasons–but its skin can withstand the associated temperatures without losing structural strength.

As for the PAK-FA/T-50, who knows at this point? It depends on precisely what it’s made of (and where), among many other things. All we know is that its top speed is at least Mach 2, that is all. It might be faster than the F-22, but based on comments made by those in the know, at least so far, probably not. But it really doesn’t matter because neither will likely ever use their top speeds–they’re both fast enough for their envisioned roles.

F-22 can’t go 1600 mph that is just speculation by one pilot not confirmed at all.

It’s a lot more like confirmation than your assumption that he was merely speculating. Speculating is what you’re doing, unless you’re more qualified and have better firsthand knowledge than the F-22’s chief test pilot.

T-50 is much more aerodynamic than F-22. Simple fact T-50 got more advanced inlet and greater sweep.

There is more to it than that. For example, the YF-22 PAV1 demonstrator had greater leading-edge sweep as well as more sophisticated variable-bypass-ratio engines than the F-22, yet the F-22 can still supercruise significantly faster.

There is no way T-50 can be any slower than F-22 a 20 year old design. F-22 is also full of composites.

It depends on, among many other things, the exact composition of the composites, as I pointed out above with examples. As for the age of the designs, your argument is absolutely ridiculous, as others have already pointed out.

Doesn’t sound very convincing though – the F-22 is built with similar but older materials, so why wouldn’t the same considerations apply?

Why are people automatically assuming that newer designs will necessarily use higher-temperature-rated materials? There are a lot of old materials that can withstand higher temperatures than many new ones, and new designs might use lower-temperature-rated materials for other reasons.

And while deliberately lowering performance expectations to save cost is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, it kind of defeats the point when this is not taken advantage of to reduce aircraft complexity and actually obtain said savings. If no more than Mach 2.0 flat out was the goal, there would be a couple of substantial simplifications which could be made to the T-50 in favour of cost reduction.

I get your point and am in general agreement, however sometimes a particular set of requirements happens to result in overperformance in another requirement. I don’t know about the PAK-FA, but the F-22 probably has a much higher top speed than required due to being optimized for cruising supersonically in dry thrust–light the afterburners and of course it’s going to go even faster. I’m not sure how a fighter that is designed to cruise at Mach 1.5 on less than full military power could be limited by design to a top speed of, say, Mach 2 while gaining something in return (e.g. removing the intake ramps is out because the F-22 has never had them), as it doesn’t even need to use afterburner to get to Mach 1.8. Now, if the PAK-FA is not required to economically supercruise at well over Mach 1 and it’s a lot faster than Mach 2, then it could be further optimized as you said.

Did any pilots, apart from US (French, UK, German, etc…), reported problems with locking on F22 and I’d appreciate any link, that discuss that topic in more detailed manner. Thx.

Search for the phrase “it won’t let me put a weapons system on it,” which was uttered by an RAAF exchange pilot. Unfortunately, he was flying an F-15 at the time, but at least he’s not American. Taken literally, the statement is a bit of an exaggeration because it certainly is possible to obtain a firing solution on an F-22 if you’re close enough (usually WVR), although your systems may have difficulty as his did, hence his frustration and/or being very impressed with the F-22.

Now, I’m pretty positive that F22 is more stealthy at certain aspects than F117 (although marginally by my estimation). However, I also believe EADS’ claim that EF is more stealthy than F22 at certain aspect(s?), although that would be marginally as well. All of this is mainly semantics and less important as such.

The question is which is the most stealthy in realistic combat scenarios, and I’ve been told, without being given any classified information, of course, that it’s the F-22. There are angles from which it has a much higher RCS than the F-117, but these are fewer in number than the F-117’s “glitter ball” effect with higher radar frequencies, overall lowering the F-22’s probability of momentary detection at longer ranges. The F-117 may indeed be marginally stealthier from most angles, but this is much less useful in real combat scenarios.

Anyway, the verification of what I wrote in my previous post, comes from F22’s (and F35) design and its sharp shaping (surface angle reduction) suggests that designers followed the same philosophy used on F117, but adapted for different role.

It’s a combination of shaping characteristics that makes newer VLO aircraft look more continuously “dull” to radar rather than spiky. In turn, the spikes (concentrated by planform alignment) are larger but fewer in number. The idea is that you’re less likely to be able to detect the newer stealth planes from a useful range, even momentarily. It’s not that the F-117 was designed according to different principles, but in a sense its finite facets are a lower-resolution version of the smooth contours used on the B-2, F-22, and F-35.

Also keep in mind that the F-117 program had limited funding as a combat-capable concept demonstrator for stealth in general, meaning that optimization between stealth and flight characteristics would be a lot more limited than with later VLO aircraft.

After all, F22 has high cruise speed and really doesn’t need as much stealth as F117’s Mach 0.9 and so Raptor can turn the tail and run, while F117 is left hanging on its LO (and possibly ground hugging) only.

True, but I think that the designers made the F-22 as stealthy as they could for a fast, agile fighter. It would have benefitted from any advances made in stealth technology, as well as the tools used (i.e. computing power) and effort required (i.e. program budget) to fully optimize its design.

In the end, it’s always a trade off between performances which are usually contradicting.
Everyone would want to have a plane that has zero drag, zero fuel consumption, 30 missiles, 1000km radar range, Mach 5, etc…There’s no such thing and this same rule applies to LO degree, as well.

That’s true enough, although there’s a big difference between designing all of these features together cohesively from the start and either retrofitting stealth later or not taking it into consideration at all. With careful design and a lot of work, you might be able to get the first 90% of the benefit of one feature at the cost of only 10% of the other, just as an arbitrary example.

Finally, I don’t think this is counter conventional wisdom, since THIS IS conventional wisdom :).

Yes, but remember that the F-117 was done fairly quickly at limited cost–there wasn’t much time or resources available to figure out how to do everything as well as they possibly could. They just had to make it work to get the concept some amount of testing and proof in combat.

However, its possible that LM designers used some other RCS optimizing techniques that I’m unaware of and if someone know anything about that, please post your ideas, datas, links to articles and so on, so we all may see what’s new in the world of stealth.

Well, for one thing having a vastly increased amount of computing power makes it a lot more feasible to find smooth forms that are mutually compatible between stealth and aerodynamics. Evidently, such forms exist, and sort of like prime numbers, the more computing power one has, the more one can find in a finite amount of time.

Shape isn’t everything,

True, but it is perhaps the most important aspect of stealth, along with details such as sensors and other subsystems that must access the outside environment. Even without its topcoat, the F-22 has been able to close to WVR against the F-15 without being detected on radar, which was tested during the EMD phase. Perhaps some critical areas that require RAM were treated on this development aircraft, I don’t know, but the main overall coating was definitely not present. Also note that the canopy relies on shape alone, and that if shape (and subsystem details) were not the primary factor behind stealth, then it could be retrofitted more successfully on existing airframe designs rather than necessitating entirely new designs.

RAM and RAS which has evolved over the time,

RAM must be used in conjunction with shaping and other measures, and RAS (which can be much more effective) takes room and must be strategically placed, which is why it is usually impractical to retrofit.

materials used in the airframe,

This is not critical in most areas, as stealth aircraft use bulk amounts of conventional metals and composites all over their outer surfaces. Metals would actually seem to be better (or at least easier to use) for stealth purposes because they are reflective and conductive, which is exactly what stealth shaping requires. I imagine that nonmetals, such as the composites typically used for aircraft skins these days, would need to have a radar-reflective foil and/or RAS to help keep a VLO-shaped aircraft stealthy.

antenna design, assembly accuracy etc. all matters.

Yes, these are very important–more so than RAM except for the few places where it is absolutely critical and works in conjunction with shaping, such as intake ducts and within RAS.

The F-117 is faceted because stealth technology at the time of its design was limited to flat surfaces.

You’d want to be able to calculate the RCS of a design from many angles before building it, which is limited by computer power.

The B-2 is a generation after the F-117 in steath technology & includes the (due mostly to much greater computing capability) the ability to apply steath priciples to curved surfaces but like the F-117 is mostly ‘making a stealth shape fly.

The B-2’s (and the F-22’s and the F-35’s for that matter) curved surfaces can be viewed as an infinite number of individual facets (approximated by a large number of facets or by formulas that work with curves directly).

The F-35 is a generation after the F-22 but with the improvement being more in cost, durability & maintainability than in superior shaping.

The F-35 program would cost more if the same amount of effort were undertaken to make it as stealthy as the F-22. It also cannot spare as much room for RAS as the F-22, which may make it more vulnerable to whatever threats the F-22 uses RAS to counter, such as long-wave radar possibly.

Since then the USAF said the F-22A is more stealthy than the specifications called for.

It does indeed exceed the RCS requirement, from everything I’ve heard. Even the development airframes did, much to the astonishment of the F-15 pilots that first pointed their radars toward it in flight. There have been upgrades to its stealth characteristics since then, too, which suggests perhaps a discreet requirement for even greater stealth in some circles.

The USAF has stated that the F-22A has less drag than ANY previous USAF aircraft! Technology moves on!

It has less drag in relative terms and under certain flight conditions, I would assume.

Anyway, I don’t argue the posted numbers. You see that difference between F22 and F117 is marginal. However, RCS isn’t a fixed number, but a dynamic value and the given figures, mean exactly what? Front RCS, rear RCS, or what RCS?? It most definitely isn’t an average RCS…

I think you’re right, but the true average RCS doesn’t matter as much as what works best for most combat scenarios.

Now, you mentioned continuous curvature stealth. This is exactly the opposite to known principles of radio waves spread. However, designers may have well exploit some “blind spot” nobody was counting on and if you have some more insight into these techniques, I’d appreciate if you’d share them :). Thx.

It’s kind of a mystery to me, too, but basically it’s a matter of finding shapes that exploit how radio-frequency electromagnetic waves are converted into electrical currents that flow on the surface. The aircraft’s skin is a large antenna, really, that will convert waves into currents and create waves from these currents that form the reflection. What stealth designers do in a faceted design, for example, is carefully place the facets–which are each a planar antenna individually–in certain angles relative to others that somehow affects how their combined currents finally form the reflection. Curved shapes could simply be viewed as having an infinite number of such facets. This may be a fancy way of saying nothing new, or maybe when looking at this issue in this way, there is some kind of secret method for ensuring that radio waves do not return from the direction they originally came.

I realize that this is not a strong statement by any means, but that’s only because I’m not privy to the secrets of stealth technology. I’m just trying to get people to open their minds a little bit to the possibilities, like when I compared CDMA cell phones and LPI radar earlier. Now, an LPI radar would not spread its signal in the same manner at all, but broadly similar principles apply. Read up on CDMA if you’re not familiar with this widely-used yet little understood (among the public) technology–it may astound you with what can be done in seeming defiance of physics (it does not defy physics, of course–it’s just a different way of looking at information).

Another good example is the hard drives we use in our computers today. Have you noticed the astounding leaps and bounds in storage density that have taken place over the past few years, even though the drives themselves are almost exactly the same as older ones physically, using the same magnetic media? Have you also noticed that while older drives typically had some bad sectors when new, the newer, far denser drives usually have zero bad sectors? Given no major improvements in read/write head miniaturization and signal/noise ratio, how is this possible?! It seems to violate the laws of physics! The answer is simple: powerful error-correction was added as a necessary aspect of reading poor-quality signals from densely-packed data. Basically, newer drives physically cannot reliably read the raw data like older ones could, so redundant information based on mathematical principles is stored with the data in order to help retrieve it from the awful noise on the media. Digital itself is a form of noise rejection, if you think about it, but it is insufficient in this case, and is therefore supplemented by more complex, sophisticated mathematics that allow modern hard drives to store more retrievable data on magnetic media than people had previously thought possible in physical terms.

I apologize for rambling on a seemingly unrelated topic, but if you think about it, that’s how LPI radar, for example, would work–send out a signal that looks like low-powered, jumbled noise across many frequencies. To other receivers, it looks like random noise, but the radar knows exactly how to extract meaningful, accurate information using mathematical techniques and parameters that are specific to both the radar and each individual pulse. It’s like a form of encryption! Now that we’re all somewhat familiar with how physics can seemingly (to the uninitiated) be worked around with mathematics, maybe we can be a bit more open-minded about other technologies that may seem impossible because of something we don’t know but a few other people do, such as stealth technology.

Is someone surprised by the result from such exercises really. Similar thing did happen in the 70s, when the new F-15s did engage the F-4s.
Such exercises were run under given rules and do give the results from that.

It’s true that you have to look at the specifics of these exercises, which aren’t always available for public perusal. They change over time, too, I would imagine. The usual assumptions are that the F-22 is being used much as the F-15 would be on the “blue force” and that the F-15 is less successful in the same role. All we’re told explicitly is that the F-22’s stealth is highly effective against “red force” radars, and that its sensors are extremely effective in comparison to those of older systems.

The F-22 pilots are briefed, that they will engage “Red Forces” at a given time and in a given area. They do not have a problem of IFF in that restricted training area, when in reality that is a problem always.

From what I’ve heard and read, it seems that the “blue force” generally (at least in these exercises) trusts what the F-22’s sensors say. There is at least some simulation of IFF issues, and AWACS crews are said to have asked F-22 pilots (over the radio) to help them identify targets in order to give clearance to fire. The crews may know that the “red force” is out there, but they still have to get positive identification as if they didn’t know. How this would translate to real life with regard to ROE is always a big question, but recently in large exercises such as Red Flag, the F-22’s NCTR capability is heavily relied upon (the F-22s stick around for sensor coverage even after their simulated missiles have been expended).

Did the F-16 pilots do use special anti F-22 tactics and were trained about that?

I’m sure they were briefed about the F-22’s capabilities, and it is mainly up to them as a group to develop tactics to counter the F-22. I don’t know what progress they might have made by now, but it’s hard when your radar can’t pick up your adversary at a useful range.

Did they got all possible network help?

I’ve been told by F-22 pilots and others that opposing fighters are sometimes given coordinates based on the F-22s’ telemetry, as if the F-22s were spotted by ground observers, for example, but it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference. In cases where the F-22s are required to visually identify their targets before firing (usually bushwhacking them from behind, I would guess), this would seem to make their job more difficult, but the result is said to be the same (stealth + kinematics = lots of WVR kills in exercises).

Did the F-16 fighter-bombers go to bomb the F-22 base, before the F-22 did become a threat.
The US-forces did so in WW2 to hunt down the superior Me-262.

That’s a valid point, but it’s a lot broader than the subject of the quality of a particular fighter. In this context, it’s like asking whether it’s worth having a superior fighter at all–a valid question, but not the question being addressed. In short, you’d better be able to defend an airbase if you want to use aircraft at all. If you can do that well enough, then it’s good to have superior fighters, otherwise no.

When not in “stealth mode” the risk of colliding will of course not be higher than for e.g. F-16, however I would guess that sometimes they would like to train in stealth mode, and I would think that the probability of mid-air collision would increase. Or can they use the datalink when they are in “stealth mode”?

The datalink can be used in stealth mode, and can actually be an important part of remaining as stealthy as possible, since many aircraft can refrain from using active radar. While the datalink is an emitter, it is of much lower power than an LPI radar, and therefore easier to hide in the noise.

By the way, during exercises F-22s still send telemetry to observers, which is used for air traffic control and training purposes, and sometimes even to tip off the adversary force so that they’re not flying completely blind.

The biggest limitation I see here is the fact that the enemy RWR only needs to detect the primary signal with incomparably smaller drop off (theoretically only square of distance) while the LPI radar has to rely on scattered reflections of the target (twice the distance plus a considerable energy loss at the reflection surface). I am with Cola on this – I think the next generation of digital RWR devices will move today’s LPI into HPI category, again.

The problem is a matter of being able to distinguish a signal that is spread randomly (well, pseudorandomly) and always changing over time from the noise that surrounds it. At any given frequency, the power level of each pulse is quite low. The reason that the radar can more effectively pick out the signal from noise, despite the severe degradation from traveling twice the distance after a reflection, is that it knows exactly how the pulse was originally spread. The resulting data will have many bad points due to the low power of each pulse division, but collectively provide useful information after the signal is processed according to the spreading function.

Conversely, it is difficult for RWRs to pick out the signal at all without knowledge of the spreading function. Even if a RWR could reliably detect an LPI radar like the APG-77, it would have to provide a fire-control-quality location in order to fully exploit the capability. And even if all of this were possible, fully compromising the APG-77, then F-22s could use the tactic of having low- or zero-emission F-22s positioned forward of emitting F-22s, the former receiving data from the latter while the latter try to stay out of missile range.

I’ve been bothered by the idea that a company can produce a receiver that can make up a picture of an aircraft with a radar return the fraction of the energy it sends out, but can’t build the same receiver to pic up anything at all with the full force.

That’s probably because you’re viewing this in terms of basic physics rather than information theory. I’m not saying that the laws of physics are ever violated, of course, but for example how is it that a high-definition television picture can fit in the same radio bandwidth as a standard-definition analog picture? It’s not magic, it’s a result of technology that manages information in a special way. Closer to the subject at hand, how can multiple CDMA phones all share the same frequency band without interfering with one another? It’s simple–each cell phone knows exactly what to look for (the signal is inherently “coded” by its spreading function), so even the relatively weak signal from a distant tower can be picked out from the noise and the relatively strong signal of a nearby cell phone emitting in the same frequency band.

Sprey takes a similar stand, and due to his profession, i take it he knows more then enough on “LPI”
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197

He seems to be quite the Luddite when it comes to fighter technology. And just because he is/was in the profession of fighter pilot does not necessarily imply that he understands all of the technology being used, especially highly technical subjects such as stealth and LPI radar.

Just because Mr. Sprey shaped and designed F-16 in 1970s doesn’t mean his thought and description for F-22A and APG-77 today must be right.

It is quite common for people to become stuck on what they’re comfortable with rather than moving on when the time comes. I know because I’m one of those conservative people, but even I can’t deny that the F-22 is a game-changer because of its combination of characteristics–conservatism and denial are different things.

What a daring declaration ~ Especially when the fighter this man designed have been senselessly slaughtered thousand of times by Raptor + APG-77 during the exercises in the past six years:D

I’m sure that current F-16 pilots have a rather different view of the Raptor than he does. The only times they ever kill a Raptor are during deliberate WVR ACM (anybody can lose a dogfight, even in a superior fighter) or when a Raptor pilot goofs up, like when that one pilot ignored an F-16 because he thought it had already been “killed” and was leaving the area to “regenerate.” Otherwise, the Raptor kills F-16s like baby seals in exercises, or so I’m told by pilots of both fighters.

We can assume to a high degree that Mr. Sprey has worked within a team of experts from different branches. They had and they will exchange opinions to a high degree too.

Why is his opinion worth so much? Because he helped conceive and develop the F-16? I’d say his opinion is worth less than those of who designed the F-22 that kicks the crap out of the F-16 on a daily basis.

I am sure that Mr. Sprey has no intrest to make himself a fool, by claiming guesses from the stomach alone.

Neither do his opponents. I’m not surprised that he would continue to support something that he helped develop–and is therefore biased toward–over its replacement. Some people just can’t let it go and accept that things change over time.

Even the F-22A has its weak-points otherwise the 750 intended were bought without hesitation or the other way around, the present 183 are as good as the 750 intended. :diablo:

The F-22 is still only a fighter in most respects (limited range, ammunition, etc.), and with fighters you need sufficient numbers. How many is the question, and the reductions from the original order came about primarily as a result of the fighter’s good qualities, as opposed to its weaknesses, in addition to cost and changing priorities.

Geez, the Raptor pilot who got “shot down” (simulated, of course) probably bumbled into the sensor range of the Growler. :rolleyes: While this is far less likely to happen in a Raptor, people can still make mistakes–and hopefully learn from them.

As for all of the speculation that this proves conclusively that an AMRAAM can successfully engage and down a Raptor, were you people born in a barn? Do you believe that a real AMRAAM was actually launched at the Raptor in question and brought it down in flames? During training?! 😮 I’m not sure exactly how kills are awarded, but it could simply be given for obtaining an accurate solution and simulating the firing of a missile. This specific aspect of what would happen in real combat after a real missile is fired is beyond the scope of such training exercises. A Raptor pilot should never allow himself to get into such a predicament in the first place–doing so is a failure and is rightfully scored as a kill. Kills on Raptors are rare but have happened and do happen occasionally.

So could an AMRAAM down a Raptor in combat? This example tells us nothing in that regard. I don’t have the relevant data, but most likely its PK would be substantially reduced although not down to zero by any means. The main point is that the Raptor should not have been detected and fired upon, and I’m sure that the pilot was briefed on why it happened and how to avoid it in the future. The same is done with any other fighter, although it happens a lot less often with the Raptor. Anybody making the argument that this proves that the Raptor is not invincible is simply setting up a lame straw man because nobody ever claimed that it was invincible. Flown perfectly, it comes amazingly close to being invincible against other fighters, but it is not always flown perfectly. Get too close to other fighters, for example, and stealth will no longer be such a decisive factor.

So the west got and maintains world domination by accident?

It fell from the sky and landed in their lap I suppose?

There are too many questions about who we’re talking about and in what context. Is this about US domination as a “superpower” following World War II (more by circumstances than desire in this case), domination of global economics or cultural influence by the West, or what? Domination has many “flavors” as well. There are too many instances of mixing up what we’re talking about haphazardly to have a decent debate, really.

The western media describes the resumption of Russian bomber flights as a political attempt to remain relevant. Of course the reality is that they were always going to restart flying their bombers when they could afford to… there isn’t much point in having bombers if you don’t fly them and keep your pilots up to scratch.

Flying the bombers with the obvious intent of being intercepted by other countries serves both purposes at once. Virtually every country desires relevance, and this is one specific form of relevance the Russians are trying to achieve (not that I blame them).

Such an inability to read Russian actions and intentions shows the paranoia of the west and its fear that its current world dominance might not last.

And if Russia or the “East” were dominant today, then the “West” would not be fearful? See, there is no need to frame the issue in terms of “dominance” and the bitterness it implies (intentional or not)–all countries are afraid of other countries that oppose them in some fashion, and for good reason. Is Russia merely being “paranoid” and unable to read the intentions of the US as they plan to set up ABM systems in Eastern Europe?

However, another interesting comparison may be between the PAK-FA, once more is known about it, and the Flanker series. If, for example, the PAK-FA is VLO but is also noticeably less maneuverable than the Su-35, which I base loosely on rumors in this thread, then I wonder how Flanker fans around the Internet at large are going to react.

What is the difference? The reality is that like the US who has bought less than 200 F-22s I very much doubt the PAK-FA will enter service and be built in its thousands whether it is the best plane in the world or not. Like the F-15, the Su-27 and its descendants will be in service for some time to come… though the Su-27s will be in better condition no doubt the F-15s will be supplanted by numbers of F-35s.

I agree with you here in real-world terms, but I was referring to Internet discussions. Obviously, what we talk about here is of no consequence, but it must be interesting to us or else we wouldn’t be doing it, and I wonder how some people would react to a hypothetical scenario.

Right now I think that would be a good thing if there were no superpowers. None of the countries in the world seem to be able to create a perfect society within their own borders, how can they justify interfering inside the borders of other countries.

I’m not trying to justify any specific actions here, but on the flip side, if perfection is expected from anyone at any level–whether it’s countries or individuals–then we all might as well just give up.

Allow me to interject…

:confused:

You people are actually taking this whole ‘evil’ thing seriously??

Perhaps not as seriously as many other people around the world do.

Su-53/57 Flayer :dev2: :diablo:

Do we have to stick with NATO’s convention? In that case, while Flayer is great, I think that F-35 fanboys would be more than happy to call it Fatass if it’s going to carry KS-172 missiles internally as rumored (a little retribution). 😉

Eh, if the recent naming of jets is any indication, (Flatpack, Flounder *barf*) it will probably be named something like “Furnace” or “Fishpuppy” or “Foreplay” or “Fornification” or something. :rolleyes:

The absolute worst names would be Fanboy, Flamingo, Flamboyant, and Foreskin–that’s retribution for Craptor. 😉

I’m having trouble thinking of good, strong/vicious names that begin with “F”. How about Flesheater? Nah. Fracas? Maybe not. I like Flayer the most so far. 😎

I know that Russians have a very famous aircraft history.And I’m fallowing most of the news about PAK-FA and today’s Russian aviation industry.And my impressions are very positive because they are getting latest equipments from western countries for creating more advanced aircrafts and they are allocating big funds for this industry.

I think that there is also an increasing proportion of avionics of Russian origin of late, particularly in the Su-35 and I imagine the PAK-FA.

But against the everything they are also operating soviet times equipments and technics.For this reason I’m little cautious about PAK-FA’s capabilities but I trust their experiences and their intellectual capasity.

It depends on what exactly they’re trying to accomplish, which is still kind of a mystery at the moment (some rumors seem convincing but are contradicted by other rumors). To take one example, Sukhoi were able to “leapfrog” the aerodynamics of the F-15 by taking more time to design the Su-27 while using their experience (with major help from TsAGI) and ever-increasing knowledge of the subject (the F-16 and F/A-18 benefited from the same on the US side), but it still took a long time to catch up in terms of avionics.

In the case of the PAK-FA versus the F-22, honestly it’s kind of hard to believe that Sukhoi would be able to leapfrog the F-22’s low observability, for example, due to lack of known experience, even with all of the time they’ve had and still have. In contrast, for Lockheed Martin and US military contractors in general, the F-22 could be considered a “third-generation” stealth design (combined with the current best US efforts in other areas). We’ll have to wait and see whether Sukhoi can accomplish the improbable, will compensate for any shortfalls by other means, will settle for second-best due to infeasibility or cost issues, or will produce a different class of aircraft altogether (e.g. FB-22-class medium bomber/interceptor).

More on B-2 crash:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/29/221916/b-2-crash-revives-airwothiness-worries.html

So in addition to everything we’ve heard already, there is an issue with high stress on the fan blades. That’s one type of issue I haven’t heard about before, at least to the point where it could be a safety issue. Like I said, just about every known or potential issue is going to be brought up eventually (might be the only way they’ll get fixed if they need to be).

If i rememeber reading correctly the F-22s were cleared to fly above 50k feet without pressure suits, i forget the number that was put out for the Upper limit, but i do remember something about over 50k.

The main point seems to be that the F-22 will fly at altitudes near or even slightly above 50k feet on a routine basis. I encounter references to such altitudes all the time, which includes weapon separation and high-speed testing. It appears to be a sweet spot for performance and range–according to the pilots, the F-22 does “like” fast and high, which is what it was designed for. And much like the B-2, apparently, it doesn’t like being anywhere near the runway. 😉

The F-22 it´s a superlative ATA aircraft, the best in that role, and it will maintain a clear edge for the next decade,

If the F-22 will maintain a clear edge for only the next decade, then other current fighters will soon be in big trouble! 😮 In that case, other air forces had better get their Raptors while the production line is still open. 😉