Because the nozzle design has less IR shielding than the Raptor’s 2D one does, not to mention a higher RCS.

As people have said, you are assuming the 117S is the same as the new 5th gen engine. Bad assumption. You’d think Salyut knows they need to reduce IR signature.

Well the open source numbers that I’ve seen show it having a 125-150nm detection range in LPI mode against a 1m^2 target. If LPI isn’t of concern then those figures would go up.

We also don’t know how good LPI is against a new RWR. Moot point.

Also, how great is LPI at locking on to new ECM equipped fighters?

This is true, however the USAF/USN/USMC will be operating primarily 5th Gen fighters in the future.

Some document is scrapping all world aviation AWACS, bombers, tankers? I don’t believe so.

Well it may not have gone up against real world high ECM environment targets, but it has gone up against manuevering Mig 29s, and high speed/high altitude Mig 25s, and acquitted itself well, even in the early variants. The new versions have greater ECM resistance, HOBS, significantly longer NEZs, more modes, etc… combined with a combat proven system.
As for the ballistic range differences, that doesn’t tell you what the terminal performance comparisons will be though. How does the R-77 compare in HOBS shots, NEZ, etc…, or when the -120D is fired from the Raptor at 10-20k feet higher, and at 2x the speed?

That is some nice, biased thinking there. So the PAK-FA is 2x as slow, 20k feet less ceiling? I don’t think so. . . where’s this coming from?

The AIM-120D exists right now, as it’s been undergoing operational testing. It’s going to reach IOC very soon. Weapons that have yet to be seen are a little less definite with regard to their status.

Right, so is the R-37, R-77PD and R-74. These are comparable to late 4+ gen US weapons. These weapons have been seen.

The newer weapons are in development. I’m sure in 5-6 years they will be publicly shown.

Unless the PAK FA is flying at low speeds/post stall regime, the TVC isn’t going to make much difference. You’re certainly not going to do a Cobra, etc… at supersonic speeds to avoid a missile. However being a 3D design, the RCS/IR signatures will be higher, making the necessity to avoid incoming missiles a greater priority.

And by what XXXXMUST 3D TVC mean more IR signature WHEN IT COUNTS?

Claimed? That’s hardly definitive. Less capable in LPI? Try not capable. The PESA Irbis would be more of a HPI radar. When I see functioning(as advertised) examples of production models, rather than technology demonstrators, then perhaps comparisons can be drawn.

Well where would you get APG-77 date at all then? There’s nothing official really that’s of any use.

Only limited numbers of R-37s could be carried. You’re going to waste one on a fighter, and let an AWACS get away? That doesn’t seem like a very efficient use of resources. Against 5th Gen fighters, it’d be a huge waste. High numbers of shorter range missiles will be far more useful.

This depends. Against a 5th gen fighter? Maybe. Against 4+ gen, it’s great. Against bombers, it’s great. Again, PAK-FA wins versatility here.

What’s the real world performance of any R-77 variant? Have any even been fired in combat, against a non-cooperative target? I’m skeptical of effectiveness claims, when there’s no data available to use for comparison.
The AIM-120D will have a longer range in any event, even if all other aspects were equal. The AIM-120 series has been highly effective, and that’s just the early versions without greatly improve ECCM, 2 way datalinks, HOBS, lofted profiles, etc…

XXXX, 9 kills against completely outgunned airforces? Get outta here man. That proves little. This is the same logic I’m using with the R-77PD, which will be what, 5-10KM less range than the AIM-120D launched at same airspeed?

So in essence they’re vaporware. Lemme know if and when they reach IOC.

Weapons that don’t exist, and there are no details for, yet they’re being claimed to be superior? Again, it’s very premature to start making such claims.

AIM-120D might as well not exist then too.

The weapons do exist, I told you, someone might even be able to tell you the Izdeliye numbers, XXXXXXXX If I find the numbers, I’ll let you know.

Just because it’s top secret, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

XXXXX

echonine I will not ask you again to be polite, you are close to being banned!
M’Pacha

TVC only comes into play in post stall flight regimes, and the Raptor can hardly be considered a slouch there. It won’t increase the turn rates(at least not sustained turn rates). The Raptor also bests the Flanker line, so that’s not necessarily a guarantee to best the Raptor.

Pogosyan wasn’t particularly impressed with what the Raptor did. Also, considering the PAK-FA is clearly any evolution of the Flanker, it is bound to be more maneuverable. 3D TVC will be used by the self-defense suite, something that’s highly automated and advertised about the PAK-FA, likely far ahead of anything the Raptor has. I assume this auto-defense and 3D TVC combo will allow the PAK-FA to perform very extreme terminal counter-missile maneuvers.

We have no idea how capable the AESA Irbis will be. Russia doesn’t even have a functioning example of a production AESA, much less one that’s at the generation of the APG-77(v)1. The IR/RWR capabilities remain to be seen too, so it’s perhaps a bit premature to say that a system that isn’t in service, will be superior.

We know it will be more capable than the PESA Irbis, which is already claimed to be mostly as effective as the APG-77, if not more significantly powerful in raw procession, while less capable in LPI.

A-How many R-37s(whose primary mission isn’t against the Raptor, or fighters in general)?
B-what sort of demonstrations of effectiveness have the R-77PD had, to make the claim they’re the equal of any D variant?
C-what are these new generations of weapons, and when can we expect to see them? The R-37 and R-77PD aren’t even in service yet.

A. The R-37 can mission kill a fighter. That’s plenty. It also allows the PAK-FA to hunt larger aircraft better. Big winner here.

B. The R-77 is exported to countries that can use it. What can you say AGAINST its performance? Would you also seriously assume at the 170KM range R-77PD is suddenly then going to perform worse?

C. They are not in service because they are in last development stages, and the aircraft designed to carry them are only in small numbers – nor is there any rush to get them into service. Is NATO invading Russia next week?

C1. What are these new generation of weapons? I don’t know, go ask Zelin or Ivanov. They seemed to mention them – they didn’t give details. I can’t remember the “Izdeliye” numbers – but they were basically R-77 and R-73M improvements to the 5th generation.

What do you base the superior avionics, weapons, and manueverability on? By the time the PAK FA reaches IOC, the F-22 will have at a minimum, the APG-77(v)1, AIM-120D+, AIM-9X Block 2, and the JDRADM will be coming on line too. I suspect there’ll have been engine upgrades by then too, among other systems.

Maneuverability: 3D TVC and Sukhoi’s ingenious design to best the Flanker line makes sense here.

Avionics: AESA Irbis will be significantly more powerful than the APG-77. How powerful the V-1 will be remains to be seen. The electro-optical system on the PAK-FA, derived from the OLS-35 on the MiG-35, will also offer a huge advantage. New RWR systems upgraded from Su-35 aircraft remain to be disclosed.

Weapons: The weapons bay can accommodate Kh-58U / R-37 size weapons. The R-77PD is also no worse than any AIM-120D variant. Also, new generation weapons far more advanced than AIM-9X / AMRAAM / R-73/77 are already in plan for the PAK-FA. Weapons like the Kh-38 also offer very powerful anti-ground strike. The only parity for the US A2A arsenal WOULD be the JDRADM when it comes to the new A2A missiles that are yet to be revealed.

That’s Your assumption … but not the meaning of Mr. Pogosyan’s words.

I think now You are wrong ?!!!!

Farnborough in Hampshire, UK: http://maps.google.de/maps?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4IRFA_enDE286DE286&q=Farnborough&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=de&ei=zfY4SuC0MtTb-QbjvKHYAw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1

Deino 😉

Are you purposely being an pain in the rear or are you really that bad?

The Farnborough Airshow is in Bahrain.

And what is your evidence that that’s not what Pogosyan meant? Read the article that Otaku posted.

Conflicting reports, as ever:

The Stephen Pope article is correct.

Pogosyan said that Farnborough will reveal INFORMATION on the PAK-FA – but we’ll see the bird this year likely.

Farnborough is in Bahrain – in Jan 2010, so that’s I guess when they plan to reveal information on the jet. I wonder if the first flight will get any technical specs out.

RS-24 is just a MIRVed Topol-M with a throw weight around 1.2 tn. SS-19 have a throw weight of 4.2 tn and SS-18 of 8.8 tn (!!). According open sources the new liquid fueled ICBM will be in the SS-19 class with a throw weight near 5 tn. This jointly with newer lighter warheads carried in the RS-24/Bulava will allow the new ICBM to carry the same destruction power of a 80s vintage SS-18.

So, a current 100 tn class ICBM can be labeled as “heavy” since is no necessary to construct 200 tn monsters anymore. Better efficiency (like on Sineva) and better warheads made it possible.

Where are these “open sources?”

I imagine with new warheads that the RS-24 will hit as hard as the SS-19, even with a 1/4 throw weight.

The RS-24 is not just a MIRVed Topol-M, I’m quite certain the missile had specific design with larger payload in mind – in other words, a larger payload possibility.

Much smaller. The F 16 has a (frontal) RCS of ~ 1m2, and isn’t considered LO. The F 18 E/F is ~ 0.1 m2. Probably the F 15 SE will be similar.
And still like in a F 18 E/F this can be cured with blockers.

There’s no way on Earth the F-16 or F-18E loaded have anything under 2m2.

Especially for their usual bombing roles.