PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Garry, how do you rate F-35 as an air to air platform. Do you think it will have good manoeuvrability and decent kinematic performance?

It's common knowledge that Americans rely more on stealth/radar technology to kill their enemies from far off than try to outmanoeuvre them in a dogfight. So, how dangerous F-35 is going to be as a pure A2A platform?


Also is it true that F-35 is going to have 360degree IRST? What about PAK-FA/FGFA?

Indian Flanker wrote:Garry, how do you rate F-35 as an air to air platform. Do you think it will have good manoeuvrability and decent kinematic performance?

It's common knowledge that Americans rely more on stealth/radar technology to kill their enemies from far off than try to outmanoeuvre them in a dogfight. So, how dangerous F-35 is going to be as a pure A2A platform?


Also is it true that F-35 is going to have 360degree IRST? What about PAK-FA/FGFA?

against Pak-Fa and advanced Flanker variants it will be in trouble. Cant maneuver and run for sh!t, with stealth that is effective only from the front, wimpy missiles that the sukhois can duck, etc.
Pak-Fa too till have 360 degree IRST- plus supermaneuverability to fully use the 360 degree IRST feature.

Indian Flanker wrote:Garry, how do you rate F-35 as an air to air platform. Do you think it will have good manoeuvrability and decent kinematic performance?

It's common knowledge that Americans rely more on stealth/radar technology to kill their enemies from far off than try to outmanoeuvre them in a dogfight. So, how dangerous F-35 is going to be as a pure A2A platform?


Also is it true that F-35 is going to have 360degree IRST? What about PAK-FA/FGFA?

F-35's air-to-air performance has won it the "Baby Seal" title. Actually that title is way too laudatory for that aircraft.

To be fair most combat the US engages in these days does not really involve dogfighting anyway and the F-35... if used correctly should not get involved in dogfights.

Having said that... it is a step down in air to air WVR combat from an F-16, so many US allies like the UK will use the f-35 as a carrier plane or a light strike aircraft.

I remember someone described the F-35 as a stealthy Buccaneer in that it is carrier capable and would be used in the light strike role with the ability to defend itself.

Against a first rate enemy it will be in trouble against PAK FAs and Su-35s and Su-30MKIs for that matter, but when was the last time the US took on anyone with a first rate air force?

For WWIII it will be in trouble, but in WWIII it wont be a deciding factor like ICBMs will.

It would not even be that bad if it was cheaper.... but they have tried to make a plane that can't get cut... just like the C-17 so production plants all around the place in the US and abroad where unemployment is high... this makes it more expensive but less likely to get its funding cut.

the Mig-35 will have 360 degree IRST and so will the Su-35 and PAK FA.

GarryB wrote:To be fair most combat the US engages in these days does not really involve dogfighting anyway and the F-35... if used correctly should not get involved in dogfights.

But Top Gun still exists for a reason, right? And I've read comments on pro-US websites like f-16.net that F-35 will have very good kinematic performance.

But will it be able to outmanoeuvre a TVC equipped Flanker, that's the real question?

Having said that... it is a step down in air to air WVR combat from an F-16, so many US allies like the UK will use the f-35 as a carrier plane or a light strike aircraft.

Those so called experts on f-16.net don't agree with ya(step down from F-16s)...

Against a first rate enemy it will be in trouble against PAK FAs and Su-35s and Su-30MKIs for that matter, but when was the last time the US took on anyone with a first rate air force?

After the Crimea incident, US may sell F-35s to Ukraine, and in future a non US F-35 may square off against either Russian or Indian T-50s or advance flankers. So you never know!

For WWIII it will be in trouble, but in WWIII it wont be a deciding factor like ICBMs will.

Of course world war3 would mean mutual destruction, and that's why its pretty much redundant. But in future a US ally who operates F-35 may square off against Russian/Indian/ASEAN/Arabian Sukhois. So, who would prevail then, is the real question(especially in BVR)?

It would not even be that bad if it was cheaper.... but they have tried to make a plane that can't get cut... just like the C-17 so production plants all around the place in the US and abroad where unemployment is high... this makes it more expensive but less likely to get its funding cut.

Absolutely. Hope Mig. LMF comes out soon as an inexpensive option of the T-50.

the Mig-35 will have 360 degree IRST and so will the Su-35 and PAK FA.

On that note, did India made a bad choice by not buying Mig-35? Also why the Russian AF is so reluctant in ordering it?

Indian Flanker wrote:

GarryB wrote:To be fair most combat the US engages in these days does not really involve dogfighting anyway and the F-35... if used correctly should not get involved in dogfights.

But Top Gun still exists for a reason, right? And I've read comments on pro-US websites like f-16.net that F-35 will have very good kinematic performance.

But will it be able to outmanoeuvre a TVC equipped Flanker, that's the real question?

Having said that... it is a step down in air to air WVR combat from an F-16, so many US allies like the UK will use the f-35 as a carrier plane or a light strike aircraft.

Those so called experts on f-16.net don't agree with ya(step down from F-16s)...

Against a first rate enemy it will be in trouble against PAK FAs and Su-35s and Su-30MKIs for that matter, but when was the last time the US took on anyone with a first rate air force?

After the Crimea incident, US may sell F-35s to Ukraine, and in future a non US F-35 may square off against either Russian or Indian T-50s or advance flankers. So you never know!

For WWIII it will be in trouble, but in WWIII it wont be a deciding factor like ICBMs will.

Of course world war3 would mean mutual destruction, and that's why its pretty much redundant. But in future a US ally who operates F-35 may square off against Russian/Indian/ASEAN/Arabian  Sukhois. So, who would prevail then, is the real question(especially in BVR)?

It would not even be that bad if it was cheaper.... but they have tried to make a plane that can't get cut... just like the C-17 so production plants all around the place in the US and abroad where unemployment is high... this makes it more expensive but less likely to get its funding cut.

Absolutely. Hope Mig. LMF comes out soon as an inexpensive option of the T-50.

the Mig-35 will have 360 degree IRST and so will the Su-35 and PAK FA.

On that note, did India made a bad choice by not buying Mig-35? Also why the Russian AF is so reluctant in ordering it?

Here's some points that should be made:

1.) Mig-35 isn't ready yet, so that's why they didn't buy it however it was a bad idea for them to try to buy Rafales with the costs rising, and especially now if France cancel's the Mistral contract with Russia, proving they're not a reliable logistic supply chain. They should have either waited for the Mig-35, or used that money for the FGFA program, or used some of that money to sponsor the Mikoyan LMFS program.

2.) The F-35 will not outmaneuver any modern Mig, Sukhoi, etc. The maneuverability and kinematics of the plane are terrible due to the fact that it has a fat fuselage, tiny wings, and a VTOL system. Tiny wings gives you less lift, a fat body makes you less maneuverable, and VTOL comprises the speed of your aircraft as well as the safety of your pilot, just look at the failure that was the Harrier jet I know Indians know all to well! Less lift from small wings plus a fat fuselage that carries more drag and air-resistance, means your more likely to stall in mid-air while trying to out-maneuver an enemy jet in a dog fight, and a engine designed for VTOL wont be designed for speed, meaning the speed of your dog-fight maneuvers will be slower. The design and principle of the F-35 makes no sense, a full stealthy ground attack plane is a contradiction of design principles, you need larger wings and several hard-point pylons to be an effective ground attack plane (the Su-25 has 11 hard-point pylons) but you lose all your low observable stealth attributes by having externally attached munitions. The best compromise between stealth and ground attack is the Su-34, which costs 14% to 20% of the cost of one F-35 (highly unlikely the poor Ukrainian govt. could afford it), for every "1" F-35 you could buy 5-to-7 Su-34's. While the Su-34 wasn't designed for air-to-air/ air-superiority role, I'll bet all my money that I have that Su-34's would defeat F-35's 10-times-out-of-10 in a dog fight.

But Top Gun still exists for a reason, right? And I've read comments on pro-US websites like f-16.net that F-35 will have very good kinematic performance.

Bayonet training is to improve aggression and may never be applied by the soldier who does the training. What it does teach him however is worth more than being able to defend himself in close quarters.

the F-35 is gaining weight and has OK kinematic performance... but without thrust vectoring in flight engines (note two engines) which it can never have... like the F-16... even if it did have TVC engines it would not gain the same benefit as an aircraft like a Mig-29/35 or Su-27/35.

the ability to point your main sensor (and stealthiest aspect) and all your main weapons at a target no matter where that target appears could be critical in the near future.

With DIRCMS able to defeat optically guided missiles and the Flankers ability to turn in any direction immediately and point an enormous AESA radar that would overwhelm the tiny radar in an air to air missile like AMRAAM that really just leaves guns... and the ability to turn and point your gun directly at the enemy and shoot straight away without the fear of stalling or going in to a spin makes it a very one sided dogfight.

But will it be able to outmanoeuvre a TVC equipped Flanker, that's the real question?

No. It wont.

Those so called experts on f-16.net don't agree with ya(step down from F-16s)...

Without TVC engines it turns as fast and as far as lift allows but it only has about 6 shots with missiles and then it becomes a gun fight. The F-16 on the other hand has the ability to carry rather more missiles so it can start firing sooner and fire rather more and it has some chance of leaving the area if it needs to...

For the price of one F-35 you get probably about 6 to 8 F-16s... in recent combat experience which would be more value?

After the Crimea incident, US may sell F-35s to Ukraine, and in future a non US F-35 may square off against either Russian or Indian T-50s or advance flankers. So you never know!

Ukraine can't afford tanks let alone 250 million dollar fighters... they would have to be gifts and all the support and weapons would have to be included too. As soon as they got airborne they would be shot down by S-400...

But in future a US ally who operates F-35 may square off against Russian/Indian/ASEAN/Arabian Sukhois. So, who would prevail then, is the real question(especially in BVR)?

Our Australian friend has seen the simulations of Taiwanese F-35s and Japanese F-35s and Chinese Su-35s and that was pretty one sided in favour of the Chinese... within the parameters of the simulation.

Needless to say reality might not be so favourable, but Russia or India also have options China does not too.

On that note, did India made a bad choice by not buying Mig-35? Also why the Russian AF is so reluctant in ordering it?

Depends when they get their Rafales and how much they cost... if it takes another 5-10 years to start production or more then the Migs make rather more sense.

The Russian AF wants the Mig-35s now but their requirements (which are different from the Indian requirements) mean they wont be ready till 2015-2016 before production can start. In the mean time the RuAF are getting other model Migs.

hey should have either waited for the Mig-35, or used that money for the FGFA program, or used some of that money to sponsor the Mikoyan LMFS program.

An immediate purchase of 150 Mig-29M2s probably would have cost less than half the 10 billion the were talking about, plus an upgrade of existing model Mig-29s to M2 standard and they would have a force of 200 multirole planes that would probably be in service within 4 years of signing.


A Mig-29M2 in service is better than the paper performance of a Rafale.

Our American friends just don't agree with the idea that T-50 can close in on the F-35/F-22 and knock it down using super nay ultra-maneuverability. They think F-22/F-35 will "see first, shoot first, and kill first".


I think they're just underestimating the BVR fighting capabilities of the Super-Flankers(Su-30SM/MKI/Su-35S) and of Su T-50. Russians/Indians have learnt from what transpired in the Gulf War and now are ready to deal with this challenge.


PS: On the pro-US forum(F-35 vs PAK-FA thread), plenty of bashing is going on of the Russian planes(especially Su-30MKI and T-50). I guess the averageamericans are up for a massive surprise within next few years

hehe, supermanueverability actually helps a lot in BVR combat- makes it easier to duck missiles in time and fire your own missiles.

collegeboy16 wrote:hehe, supermanueverability actually helps a lot in BVR combat- makes it easier to duck missiles in time and fire your own missiles.

Don't think so, for BVR combat (which would require radar guidance) the best counter measure would definitely be proper ECM/ECCM capabilities.

collegeboy16 wrote:hehe, supermanueverability actually helps a lot in BVR combat- makes it easier to duck missiles in time and fire your own missiles.

Actually the most valuable asset to BVR combat is speed+height, which allows BVR missiles to greatly exceed the normal kinematic parameter of the missile. I can see when the Mig-41 is developed that the range of the R-33/R-37 BVR missiles will greatly exceed the range of the same missiles fired from a Mig-31 with all likenesses adding an additional 50-100km in range to said BVR missiles. It's safe to assume the Mig-41 will be a large aircraft, probably larger than the Mig-31 and I can see it being powered with modernized and specialised versions of the Tu-160 engines (Kuznetsov NK-32), it'll probably need large delta wings for more lift which will allow it too carry rather more BVR's, and also allow BVR growth potential allowing for larger BVR missiles with greater range...even hypersonic BVR's as shown here at "8:10" of this video:

http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=564068

Our American friends just don't agree with the idea that T-50 can close in on the F-35/F-22 and knock it down using super nay ultra-maneuverability. They think F-22/F-35 will "see first, shoot first, and kill first".

On paper against a non stealthy plane they should see first which gives them a combat advantage, and being able to pick off enemy aircraft at distances they can't see you is obviously an ideal for a country that likes UCAVs.

the problem is that the PAK FA will be stealthy and the F-22 does not carry any sensors that can detect stealthy aircraft at long range.

The F-22 is designed to be a lone sniper that doesn't feed data into the system because that would give away its presence.

The PAK FA on the other hand will likely operate with Su-35s, both using radar and ground stations to detect and attack stealthy targets.

The problem for the US is that they rely on AMRAAM, which wont be much use against modern Russian Fighters and with DIRCMs the short range AAMs wont be much good either... which leaves guns... first point and shoot wins... see how TVC might be useful?

I think they're just underestimating the BVR fighting capabilities of the Super-Flankers(Su-30SM/MKI/Su-35S) and of Su T-50. Russians/Indians have learnt from what transpired in the Gulf War and now are ready to deal with this challenge.

I think their problem is that they forget that 90 percent of their fleet are not stealthy and that losing all their AWACS and JSTARS and even their inflight refuelling aircraft would have a catastrophic effect on their ability to reach out and touch.

PS: On the pro-US forum(F-35 vs PAK-FA thread), plenty of bashing is going on of the Russian planes(especially Su-30MKI and T-50). I guess the averageamericans are up for a massive surprise within next few years

Armchair generals are one thing... but most military men have respect for the other side.

hehe, supermanueverability actually helps a lot in BVR combat- makes it easier to duck missiles in time and fire your own missiles.

Ducking missiles is hollywood BS... in the real world most missiles are supersonic and you wont even be able to track them zipping past with your eye... even with super human reaction times the plane you are in is stable and in an air flow and weighs 10-20 tons... it is not going to be able to leap aside with a small command from the flight stick.

The best you can hope is to look at the incoming trajectory of the missile and try to turn your aircraft so that it increases the turn the missile has to make to hit you... turning inside the max turn rate of the missile is your best bet... and that requires situational awareness... you need to know there the missile is coming from and when.

Don't think so, for BVR combat (which would require radar guidance) the best counter measure would definitely be proper ECM/ECCM capabilities.

Or being in a stealthy plane they never spot in the first place...

Actually the most valuable asset to BVR combat is speed+height, which allows BVR missiles to greatly exceed the normal kinematic parameter of the missile.

Very true... if you are up high and moving fast then a BVR missile will have its lowest kill probability.

It's safe to assume the Mig-41 will be a large aircraft, probably larger than the Mig-31 and I can see it being powered with modernized and specialised versions of the Tu-160 engines (Kuznetsov NK-32),

NK-32 engines wouldn't be the worst engines to base the new engines for the Mig-41, but high bypass engines where the bypass air act as ramjets would be a requirement so that at top speed instead of flowing through the turbine blade filled engines the air will be bypassing the engine and just having fuel added and burned to create thrust.

But Garry, those Yanks don't think T-50 would be as stealthy as F-35 and F-22. They argue that this is Russia's first attempt towards stealth fighter, while US already has fielded a plethora of Stealthy planes(fighters, strikers, plus spy).

And according to them both F-22, and F-35 would spot T-50 much earlier and hence fire the first shot.


I just hope Russians make T-50 more stealthy than F-35, if not F-22 just to shut these critics up( while maintaining the famous Russian trademark super-manoeuvrabiliy which shall make it inimitable in its class ).


PS: I've read that F-22 can share its data with other F-22s.

But Garry, those Yanks don't think T-50 would be as stealthy as F-35 and F-22. They argue that this is Russia's first attempt towards stealth fighter, while US already has fielded a plethora of Stealthy planes(fighters, strikers, plus spy).

And according to them both F-22, and F-35 would spot T-50 much earlier and hence fire the first shot.

The problem is of course... will AMRAAM get a lock with its small radar... I mean if the AMRAAM can get a lock on the t-50 why can't it get a lock on the F-35 or F-22?

Even if it could get a solid lock on a T-50 what is to stop the T-50 focussing 5MW of radar energy using its radar on that little radar in the AMRAAM that will be emitting its own energy and would therefore be easy to target...

And if AMRAAM is useless because of the AESA radar of the T-50 and presumably the Sidewinder will be useless against DIRCMS then we are left with guns and the ability to turn and shoot... and my money is on the t-50 in that.

PS: I've read that F-22 can share its data with other F-22s.

By telepathy? If it uses an L band datalink then teh L band radar in the wings of the t-50 and the Su-35 come in to use... making long range detection of F-22s much easier.

GarryB wrote:By telepathy? If it uses an L band datalink then teh L band radar in the wings of the t-50 and the Su-35 come in to use... making long range detection of F-22s much easier.

Here is some info about F-22 data link:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_25_2014_p0-666721.xml

The company recently showcased a new datalink capability for the fighters through Project Missouri, a proprietary program. During the demonstration, Lockheed validated the use of a Link 16 transmit capability from the twin-engine F-22 Raptor as well as showcased a waveform developed by L-3 Communications and optimized for low-probability-of-intercept/low-probability-of-detection transmissions (LPI/LPD), says Ron Bessire, vice president of technology and innovation at the company’s Skunk Works.

“We demonstrated the data was being transmitted at a high rate, [enough] to support rapid update of the air tracks to whomever was on Link 16,” Bessire says

Bessire said the “LPI/LPD waveform still needs some additional maturation,” Equipment and the optics for the waveform are at a technology readiness level of 9, he said, indicating more work needs to be done before it can be proven in a relevant environment and garner full programmatic status at the Pentagon. The F-22 is, however, able to use its existing apertures to operate the waveform, he said.

Installation of a so-called “open system architecture” (OSA) rack and the radio took place within a year of starting the effort to add Link 16 to the Raptor, Bessire said.

Indian Flanker wrote:
Here is some info about F-22 data link:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_25_2014_p0-666721.xml

The company recently showcased a new datalink capability for the fighters through Project Missouri, a proprietary program. During the demonstration, Lockheed validated the use of a Link 16 transmit capability from the twin-engine F-22 Raptor as well as showcased a waveform developed by L-3 Communications and optimized for low-probability-of-intercept/low-probability-of-detection transmissions (LPI/LPD), says Ron Bessire, vice president of technology and innovation at the company’s Skunk Works.

“We demonstrated the data was being transmitted at a high rate, [enough] to support rapid update of the air tracks to whomever was on Link 16,” Bessire says

Bessire said the “LPI/LPD waveform still needs some additional maturation,” Equipment and the optics for the waveform are at a technology readiness level of 9, he said, indicating more work needs to be done before it can be proven in a relevant environment and garner full programmatic status at the Pentagon. The F-22 is, however, able to use its existing apertures to operate the waveform, he said.

Installation of a so-called “open system architecture” (OSA) rack and the radio took place within a year of starting the effort to add Link 16 to the Raptor, Bessire said.

I'm curious on how this method is implemented.

given the nature of stealth i'd expect multiple directional antenna placed around the plane for 360 degree coverage. instead of single "omni directional" antenna as was customary for conventional plane.

I think it would be similar as PAKFA.. Using L-band phased array   That's the most logical thing in my mind seeing the constraints imposed on stealth platform.

JSF is also use similar stuff for its datalink.

Stealthflanker wrote:I'm curious on how this method is implemented.

F 22 uses transmission in short bursts to communicate with sats and non stealthy platforms .

Here is some info about F-22 data link:

Beep... lose.

Even a burst transmission radio can be located with direction finding equipment... with the Russian IADS using thousands of nodes listening for datalink transmissions an F-22 is going to be that signal that occasionally emits a datalink signal, that has a low radar signature in short wave frequencies and a normal fighter sized signature in long wave radar ranges... that is just going to scream stealth aircraft and draw interest from most platforms and optically guided surface to air systems...

The L band AESA array on PAK FAs and Su-35s will mean they will rapidly triangulate the location of all emitting aircraft very quickly...

There was a discussion of a pilot who claimed to fly eurofighter jet .. in aviation forum.. he had a report ,
where he claimed..

1)The raptor have been shot down several times by TYphoons and Rafales and other nato planes..
2) The F-22 communications are detected by their planes ,even in ultra silent and stealth mode.
3)The F-22 have a major performance failure , that lose a lot of energy in tight turns ,that they exploit it for their advantage.
4)The F-22 'stealth' is over rated.

Vann7 wrote:
There was a discussion of a pilot who claimed to fly eurofighter jet .. in aviation forum.. he had a report ,
where he claimed..
1)The raptor have been shot down several times by TYphoons and Rafales and other nato planes..
2) The F-22 communications are detected by their planes ,even in ultra silent and stealth mode.
3)The F-22 have a major performance failure , that lose a lot of energy in tight turns ,that they exploit it for their advantage.
4)The F-22 'stealth' is over rated.

Actually, Typhoon pilots claim that they have shot Raptors and Rafales multiple times during DACT, while Rafale pilots claim that they have defeated both Raptor and Typhoon multiple times.

However, even Raptor pilots have said that they have scored multiple gun shots against both Typhoon and Rafale in simulated guns only dogfight.(One Raptor was also shot by a Super Hornet in a gun-fight.)

So, please take all these pilot claims with a grain of salt. Fact of the matter is F-22 is world's best plane, all attributes combined. And will remain so, until T-50 is deployed in good numbers.


Rafale, Typhoon, SH, may or may not have defeated Raptor in a simulated dogfight, but in reality they are not in F-22s league and F-22 should defeat themm pretty comprehensively in the real world fight situation.

I think only one plane can defeat F-22 in a real fight, and that is none other than our Su- T-50

Indian Flanker wrote: Fact of the matter is F-22 is world's best plane, all attributes combined. And will remain so, until T-50 is deployed in good numbers.

Funny claims, it is outperformed overall by Su-35 and the only parameter the F-22 is better than Su-35 is the RCS.

Werewolf wrote:

Indian Flanker wrote: Fact of the matter is F-22 is world's best plane, all attributes combined. And will remain so, until T-50 is deployed in good numbers.

Funny claims, it is outperformed overall by Su-35 and the only parameter the F-22 is better than Su-35 is the RCS.

Nope. Su-35S kills it in WVR dogfight. But Stealth, supercruise @Mach 1.6-1.8 is still a huge advantage in favour of F-22.

If Super flankers were overall better than F-22, then why would Russia(and India) spend millions of dollars in developing T-50?


Having said that, I think T-50 would be better than F-22 in most criteria(s). Only point of contention is its level of VLO vis-a-vis- Raptor!


PS: Not only Su-35S, even Su-30MKI would outmanoeuvre F-22 in an one on one knife-fight. But F-22 would still dominate the current super-flankers in BVR, IMO. That's why Russia and India need T-50, and China their J-20/21.

Indian Flanker wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Indian Flanker wrote: Fact of the matter is F-22 is world's best plane, all attributes combined. And will remain so, until T-50 is deployed in good numbers.

Funny claims, it is outperformed overall by Su-35 and the only parameter the F-22 is better than Su-35 is the RCS.

Nope. Su-35S kills it in WVR dogfight. But Stealth, supercruise @Mach 1.6-1.8 is still a huge advantage in favour of F-22.

If Super flankers were overall better than F-22, then why would Russia(and India) spend millions of dollars in developing T-50?


Having said that, I think T-50 would be better than F-22 in most criteria(s). Only point of contention is its level of VLO vis-a-vis- Raptor!


PS: Not only Su-35S, even Su-30MKI would outmanoeuvre F-22 in an one on one knife-fight. But F-22 would still dominate the current super-flankers in BVR, IMO. That's why Russia and India need T-50, and China their J-20/21.

Su-35 are better than F-22 in all regards except RCS.

Russia and India doesnt spend trln USD for a technology that is only a dangerment for maintenance personal and their freetime.

Developing VLO/LO objects isn't the matter here at all, it is how effecient the entire system is and not how effecient your advertisement (propaganda machinery) is.

That is also a bad assumption to think F-22 has a lower RCS than T-50, it is not yet finished and uses a much higher degree of composite materials and has the advantage of beeing newer, meaning newer technologies are implemented to lower RCS.

F-22 does not dominate anywhere, it is a paper tiger, even against a Su-35 both could enter the range and see each other before any side is decided.

Stealth is not magic, it only reduces the range where it can be seen nothing more nothing less.

Werewolf wrote:

Indian Flanker wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Indian Flanker wrote: Fact of the matter is F-22 is world's best plane, all attributes combined. And will remain so, until T-50 is deployed in good numbers.

Funny claims, it is outperformed overall by Su-35 and the only parameter the F-22 is better than Su-35 is the RCS.

Nope. Su-35S kills it in WVR dogfight. But Stealth, supercruise @Mach 1.6-1.8 is still a huge advantage in favour of F-22.

If Super flankers were overall better than F-22, then why would Russia(and India) spend millions of dollars in developing T-50?


Having said that, I think T-50 would be better than F-22 in most criteria(s). Only point of contention is its level of VLO vis-a-vis- Raptor!


PS: Not only Su-35S, even Su-30MKI would outmanoeuvre F-22 in an one on one knife-fight. But F-22 would still dominate the current super-flankers in BVR, IMO. That's why Russia and India need T-50, and China their J-20/21.

Su-35 are better than F-22 in all regards except RCS.

Russia and India doesnt spend trln USD for a technology that is only a dangerment for maintenance personal and their freetime.

Developing VLO/LO objects isn't the matter here at all, it is how effecient the entire system is and not how effecient your advertisement (propaganda machinery) is.

That is also a bad assumption to think F-22 has a lower RCS than T-50, it is not yet finished and uses a much higher degree of composite materials and has the advantage of beeing newer, meaning newer technologies are implemented to lower RCS.

F-22 does not dominate anywhere, it is a paper tiger, even against a Su-35 both could enter the range and see each other before any side is decided.

Stealth is not magic, it only reduces the range where it can be seen nothing more nothing less.

I also think F-22 is slightly over-rated (though overall I still find it most dangerous/capable American plane). However, we must not under-estimate the capabilities of the enemy. And I know Sukhoi/HAL folks don't

nah, F-22 level of stealth wouldnt matter much to a Pak-Fa since it has the tools to nullify the F-22s marginal stealth advantage-if there is any, and effectively defeat it. Where is the F-22s IRST, AESA missiles, L-band radars etc? Like with most of its hardware, the murican F-22 is optimized to defeat non-peer enemies- typically one gen down the ladder.