Military Review

The National Interest: if Russian and American stealth fighters go to war

81
Comparison of different samples weapons or military equipment is a fertile subject for discussion, debate, and sometimes for swearing. Nevertheless, the dubious results of such a comparison do not stop debaters, specialists and the press, which, in particular, creates new interesting publications. Moreover, such articles attract the attention of readers.


Another attempt to compare existing samples was made by the American publication The National Interest. On May 26, in the Security section, it again published an article by Sebastian Roblin entitled F-22 vs. PAK-FA: What if Russia and America's Stealth Fighters Went to War? ” (“F-22 vs. PAK FA: what if Russian and American stealth fighters go to war?”), Originally released a few months ago. As is clear from the title, the theme of this material was a comparison of two combat aircraft, which represent the pinnacle of development aviation Russia and the United States.

S. Robin began his article with a statement of the obvious facts related to the combat use of modern and advanced aviation. He notes: if the US Air Force prepares F-22 Raptor fighter jets for a meeting with F-15, F-16 or other fourth-generation aircraft, then the newer technology will have noticeable advantages in detection and destruction. However, in the case of the meeting of two modern stealth aircraft, the detection and attack ranges will be much less.



The Russian aircraft PAK FA / T-50 and the American F-22, according to S. Robin, are capable of carrying long-range missiles with similar capabilities. So, the newest Russian K-77M missiles will be able to hit targets at a distance of up to 200 km, while American AIM-120Ds will fly 160 km. It is noted that the advantage in the firing range can be leveled by the inconspicuousness of the target aircraft. In addition, other missiles of new types are mentioned, but reliable information about their readiness for use by the troops is not yet available.

In the cargo compartments of the F-22 fighter, six AIM-120 missiles are placed, and the internal volumes of the T-50 are capable of holding only four. This, according to the American author, gives the United States aircraft very modest advantages, since the air battles of the future are likely to imply the massive use of rocket weapons. Probably, in order to reliably defeat a specific target, it is no longer possible to manage to launch just one missile.

S. Roblin mentions that many foreign experts doubt the technical potential of the Russian aircraft. They believe that the PAK FA may not have avionics and network technologies already used on fifth-generation American fighter jets. It is noteworthy that the creation of detection tools based on low-frequency radars with an active phased antenna array will allow missiles to be aimed even at inconspicuous aircraft. At the same time, we should not forget that over the past years, the F-22 is also outdated and may need to be modernized.

After such an introduction, The National Interest author proceeds to the main part of his article. He invites the ladies and gentlemen to take their seats, for the two best stealth aircraft of the present time converge in the ring: the F-22 Raptor and the T-50 / PAK FA. The first is already removed from the series (or not?), And the second is only preparing to leave the “factory nest” (or not?). The author suggests considering the possibilities of two aircraft in different fields and in solving different combat missions. To keep the reader in suspense, he intends to consider a hypothetical battle "in the reverse order" - not the way it should take place in reality.

At a distance of direct visibility - an invisible swordsman in a shootout?

The author recalls that the development of missile weapons has long allowed air combat at distances in 100 or even 200 km. However, in the case when both combatants have reduced visibility for radars, the radius of detection and attack of the enemy is sharply reduced. In theory, such features of the development of aviation can revive short-range rocket battles.

S. Roblin proposes to recognize that both the T-50 and F-22 have excellent performance. They are able to fly one and a half times faster than the sound without using an afterburner and develop in this mode the speed M = 1,6 and M = 1,8, respectively. The ceiling of both aircraft reaches 65 thousand feet (almost 19,7 km), which, in particular, more than the newest F-35.

So, who will emerge victorious from the “dance of death” at short distances? F-22 - the most maneuverable fighter in the whole history American combat aircraft. However, the Russian T-50 is even more maneuverable. The Russian fighter has a three-dimensional thrust vector deflection system, which provides additional control over the three channels, and also allows you to reach very large angles of attack. For complex maneuvers, the thrust vector may deviate at large angles relative to the direction of flight.

Raptor - reminds S. Robin - is equipped with a two-dimensional thrust vector control system capable of deflecting jets only up and down. Because of this, it is possible to increase maneuverability only in pitch. What still surprises the author - the F-22 is still the only US aircraft with the so-called. super maneuverability. However, its capabilities in this matter are not equivalent to the “dexterity” of the PAK FA.

What is the use of maneuverability for a fighter? With its help, the aircraft can evade enemy missiles (this positive trait applies not only to close combat), but can also reach the most advantageous position for an attack. However, active maneuvering requires an appropriate expenditure of energy, and American concepts have always preferred to preserve its maximum reserve. Because of this, the F-22 looks like it spends energy more slowly than a Russian competitor.

Then S. Roblin turns to the issue of weapons. F-22 differs in reduced visibility in the infrared. However, the problem is that in the melee even stealth planes are vulnerable to thermal homing missiles. Both vehicles in question can carry two such weapons each.

For a long time, the Russian Air Force had the advantage in the form of short-range air-to-air missiles of the P-73 type, coupled with a helmet-mounted target designation system. The pilot was not required to direct the entire aircraft at the target: he could just look at her and launch the rocket. However, now the USA has an analogue of this system. An AIM-9X rocket with similar capabilities was created in 2004. In 2017, it was planned to integrate it into the F-22 armament complex. By 2020, the rocket and the aircraft will be supplemented by a target designation.

By that time, Russian T-50 fighters will have to get into the troops. As a result, both aircraft will have approximately equal opportunities in terms of combat at short ranges.

S. Roblin summed up the first "battle". In his opinion, the Russian aircraft PAK FA has a slight advantage. Both fighters have high performance, but the Russian looks more agile. However, melee has one characteristic feature. To enter it, the aircraft needs to survive a collision at long ranges.

Out of Sight - Keep Close to the Locator

The author proposes to pay attention to the elephant in the room (or in the air) - to the obvious problem that they prefer not to notice. F-22 is notable for its great secrecy. Its effective area of ​​dispersion, according to open data, is equal to the total 0,0001 sq.m. The same parameter for the Russian PAK FA is 0,1 square meters in front of the projection. According to the patent for the PAK FA, the maximum EPR of the fighter reaches 1 sq.m. In this regard, S. Robin speaks ironically on the topic of three-dimensional vector thrust control: such cool nozzles simply cannot fail to attract the attention of radar.

A relatively large EPR may not be a serious limitation in the conduct of defensive battles when enemy aircraft are forced to search for targets at the maximum range for themselves. However, such features of the fighter seriously limit the ability to penetrate deep into the defenses of the enemy. Perhaps the Russian command is not very worried about such problems, but it still means that the PAK FA / T-50 is more noticeable than its American rival.

In other areas, two aircraft are approximately equivalent. F-22 and PAK FA carry radars with an active phased antenna array. At the same time, the H036 “Belka” station for the Russian aircraft is not yet ready for operation. Stations with AFAR are more secretive, accurate and resistant to interference. According to S. Roblin, the PAK FA and F-22 will be able to detect each other at a distance of about 50 km, although accurate data on this subject is simply not available.

The Russian T-50 carries an optical-location station capable of detecting a target by infrared radiation at distances up to 50 km. F-22 does not have this equipment, but should get it by the 2020 year. The nozzles of the Raptor fighter engines were designed to reduce infrared radiation and, accordingly, reduce the detection range. At the same time, PAK FA nozzles do not have such features.

As a result, it remains only to guess which of the aircraft will be able to first find a competitor. At the same time, S. Robblin recalls that the optical-location station only allows to monitor the air targets, but does not provide for the use of weapons of some types.

In the wings of the PAK FA, additional L-band radars are mounted. They, in theory, should help detect inconspicuous aircraft. However, their detection range is not too long, and accuracy does not allow to accompany the target. Also, additional wing stations have a certain disadvantage in comparison with optical detection tools: when operating, they unmask the aircraft with their electromagnetic radiation.

Then S. Robin repeats the reasoning and theses given at the very beginning of the article. He recalls that when two stealth planes collide, combat ranges will be noticeably less than in the case of fighters of the fifth and fourth generations. The author also again mentions the K-77M and AIM-120D missiles, and also considers aircraft ammunition volumes again. Finally, there are repeated assumptions about the possible lag of the PAK FA in terms of avionics and network capabilities, as well as the need to update the F-22.

The American author believes that in a real armed conflict, the F-22 Raptor should work in conjunction with other means of the armed forces. It must communicate with the systems of observation and detection of various kinds: marine, air and ground. In addition, the possibility of using low-profile aircraft as an intelligence tool is already being discussed. In such a role, F-22 will have to fly over enemy territory with minimal risks for itself and perform the detection of priority targets. Further, according to his target designation, a full-fledged air strike will be carried out, for which long-range B-52 bombers with long-range cruise missiles should be responsible.

In contrast, Russian analysts insist that ground-based long-wave radar stations, as well as long-range ground-to-air missiles from the C-400 anti-aircraft systems, should be the solution to the problem of the low-profile enemy aircraft. S. Roblin suggests that such a strategy is related to the need for T-50 fighters to work near important ground targets. In general, this corresponds to the current views of Russia in the field of security.

The results of the battle at large distances, according to the author of The National Interest, are as follows: it leaves the advantage in this area to the American F-22 fighter. History shows that in a dogfight the one who manages to shoot first will usually win. In this context, the more likely winner is the American aircraft. Nevertheless, the result of a real meeting of two fighters may be different.

Production capabilities

The next section of his article, Sebastian Robin, begins with a joke: “What is it, I hear your crying? How dare I discredit the purity of a noble falcon duel with vulgar financial nonsense? ”

The author immediately explains the reasons for his “bad deed”. He recalls that the PAK-FA / T-50 can be a real competitor or opponent for the F-22 only if the Russian Air Force receives a large number of such aircraft. In other words, troops need more than 12 aircraft planned for delivery before the end of this decade.

Of course, the American F-22 are not numerous - in the United States Air Force is the only 178 such machines. However, with so many of these aircraft remain "thin thread", which can rely on the command, wishing to ensure air superiority over the next two decades. S. Roblin notes that the proximity of the characteristics leads to specific consequences. Because of this, a small amount of T-50 will not be able to challenge the American F-22 or even the less advanced F-35.

Further, the author raises an important question: why the plans for the construction of the serial PAK FA underwent such a large reduction? First of all, the basis of such problems is the complexity and high cost of developing the required products, primarily engines. The cost of the program as a whole continues to grow, but in recent years the Russian economy has experienced a recession. As a result, financial opportunities are declining, and the country has to reduce its appetite for the construction of mass-produced aircraft.

As a result of all these processes, another unpleasant feature of the project is manifested. Many of the capabilities of the T-50 aircraft are planned rather than exist. For example, a new radar with AFAR is still being tested. Currently, the aircraft are equipped with AL-41F1 turbofan engines, which are characterized by insufficient fuel efficiency and do not provide the required high thrust. In the future, they are planned to be replaced with more advanced engines "Item 30", but their development and refinement can be delayed until the 2027 year.

In other words, the PAK FA project is still under development, and therefore the final characteristics and capabilities of production aircraft are not completely clear. At the same time, the project is distinguished by a very high cost, due to which the question of its real prospects in terms of the number of serial machines becomes relevant.

All this leads to new problems. Thus, India, an investor in the PAK FA program, has already openly complained about the problems of a promising aircraft. Both the project cost and technological deficiencies are criticized. There are violations of the quality of the assembly, such as a mismatch of the joints of parts, which, among other things, may increase the effective area of ​​dispersion. The Indian version of the T-50 under the designation FGFA may be significantly more complex than the base aircraft. However, if India decides to abandon the development of the fifth generation fighter for its Air Force and the subsequent construction of more than a hundred production aircraft, the basic project of the PAK FA may face the most serious financial problems.

The author of The National Interest does not exclude a positive scenario in which the situation will change in the future. Russia's defense policy and economic situation can seriously change. As a result, "one fine day" there will be additional orders for the production of low-profile serial fighter of a new type. Yet it is difficult to imagine that after all the costs and investments in the new project, the entire 12 production machines will be built.

Studying the problems of financial and industrial nature S. Robin is not the most positive thesis. So far, everything indicates that until the end of this decade, the Russian air force will be able to receive only a small number of promising fifth-generation fighter jets. A limited number of aircraft will not allow a change in the ratio of forces in the air in the near term.

The outcome of the situation with finances and production capabilities S. Robblin summarizes with the help of a famous quotation: quantity turns into quality.

***

The article "F-22 vs. PAK-FA: What if Russia? It should be noted that, despite a certain age, the publication still remains relevant and does not contradict the information available at the moment.

Comparison of the latest developments of leading countries is a very popular topic, but it is far from always being done correctly. In this case, the American author, using a few known data, managed to accurately compare the combat capabilities of the two aircraft and draw certain conclusions. What is important, with such a comparison, the author tries to adhere to a neutral position, and the supply of irony and malice spends only on giving the article vitality.

The conclusions drawn from the comparison of two aircraft in three situations are very interesting. In the context of close combat, according to Sebastian Robblin, a Russian-made fighter has significant advantages. The American aircraft, in turn, is the leader in long-range rocket combat. Nevertheless, the third section of the article and its conclusions are of particular interest. Indeed, it is hard not to agree with the American author that without mass construction, the newest T-50 / PAK FA aircraft simply cannot become true competitors of foreign technology, regardless of its belonging to one or another generation.

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the present comparison of various types of military equipment with real results can only be carried out during an armed conflict, while the study of known characteristics and capabilities remains just a fun exercise for the rest of the public. Nevertheless, it is better to compare weapons and equipment with empirical methods, and not on the fields of real battles.


The article "F-22 vs. PAK-FA: What if Russia and America's Stealth Fighters Went to War? ":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-22-vs-pak-fa-what-if-russia-americas-stealth-fighters-went-20856
Author:
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 31 May 2017 06: 25
    11
    Americans again cooked up the article "no way". All scenarios are considered without network-centric capabilities, and the interaction between all branches of troops in a modern conflict in any case will outplay the lone aces, no matter what "vunderväfle" they control.
    About 1 on 1 fights: in melee, even Rafalyam blew 4: 1, where he climb into the melee, at least reluctantly, but admitted. There will be few such fights, the tactics of using these "golden" fighters do not provide for dogfight from the word in general, only long-range combat and critically - medium distances, and they will go to meat 4+ for finishing.
    About T-50, my IMHO is not a serial fighter, and therefore the order from the MO is purely experimental-operational. Something whispers to me that on the T-50 they are just trying out what the real generation should be 5.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 31 May 2017 06: 34
      +5
      is it worth reading an article on "virtual" battles? request how to put in what is, so what is not?
      1. matak4b
        matak4b 31 May 2017 08: 34
        +4
        More and more convinced that the T-50 does not belong to the 5th generation. ESR too high. Accordingly, he has little chance against real fifth-generation aircraft (F-22, F-35)
        1. supertiger21
          supertiger21 31 May 2017 09: 20
          +2
          Nice to read, good article. good A very objective comparison from Sebastian Roblin. wink
          1. Venceremos
            Venceremos 31 May 2017 20: 07
            +2
            Quote: supertiger21
            A very objective comparison from Sebastian Roblin.

            Especially when Roblin in the Goblin translation wassat
        2. Machete
          Machete 31 May 2017 09: 21
          +8
          As far as I remember, American planes also technically do not reach the 5th generation.
          The same 4 ++, like our new fighters. But they are pushing the whole world that this is the 5 generation.
        3. supertiger21
          supertiger21 31 May 2017 09: 23
          +3
          Quote: matak4b
          More and more convinced that the T-50 does not belong to the 5th generation. ESR too high. Accordingly, he has little chance against real fifth-generation aircraft (F-22, F-35)


          Well, it began ... fellow Understand finally that at the moment, no one adheres to the general requirements for the 5th generation. Each country follows its own concept. The F-35 is American, and the T-50 is ours, so both of them should no doubt be recognized by the 5th generation.
        4. sentaniel
          sentaniel 31 May 2017 19: 16
          +3
          In 2009, a training battle was held between the F-22 and F-18 Growler in the United States. And not stealth won. Everyone forgets that there is no point in stealth if you yourself do not see the target on the radar. The same F-22 without external target designation from an AWACS aircraft is unlikely to remain a stealth and detect an enemy at long distances. And as practice showed, EW wins stealth.
        5. Setrac
          Setrac 31 May 2017 20: 02
          +2
          Quote: matak4b
          ESR too high.

          This indicator is necessary for the fifth generation aircraft only in the blue dreams of Americans.
          This parameter must be reduced, but without fanaticism - without prejudice to the main performance characteristics of the aircraft.
        6. Voyager
          Voyager 1 June 2017 09: 48
          +2
          You do not know the E-T-50, as well as the F-22. Nobody knows, except those involved in the development.
          And to consider the F-35 to be the notorious 5th generation is already bad manners. Where do you come from ...
        7. Abel
          Abel 3 June 2017 17: 26
          +1
          Especially the F-35, you bought them. And who admits that they paid dearly, but got a little wrong. By the way, about the EPR. Highly trusting in the "invisibility" of their ships, the Americans began to put Kevlar armor. On what and burned. Or Kevlar is not the same
    2. karish
      karish 31 May 2017 08: 44
      11
      Quote: g1washntwn
      The Americans again concocted the article "nothing"

      this is The National Interest - the article can not be read, like all of his opuses.
    3. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 31 May 2017 09: 39
      +4
      NI is not an American publication - it is Konstantin Tsimis. This is an RF resource, such as RT, only in a different guise. Therefore, the essence of the article perfectly meets the interests of our Moscow Region, the author’s main conclusion is “not everything is so obvious”
      1. Samaritan
        Samaritan 1 June 2017 00: 12
        +2
        Quote: arkadiyssk
        NI is not an American publication - it is Konstantin Tsimis. This is an RF resource, such as RT, only in a different guise. Therefore, the essence of the article perfectly meets the interests of our Moscow Region, the author’s main conclusion is “not everything is so obvious”

        That's what you mean ???
        A publication since 1985, experts from several former defense ministers and state. Advisers .. Learn first! am
    4. smart ass
      smart ass 1 June 2017 00: 29
      +1
      The Germans also thought that they had the best tanks while the war did not begin
      1. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2017 09: 48
        +1
        technically, purely engineering, they were the best, but their performance characteristics were insufficient.
        PzIII in 41 was a very carefully designed platform, including even improvements on river forcing, but with the mass production of T34 and KV-1 it was conceptually outdated.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 16 January 2018 14: 25
          +1
          and with a massive hit in the Russian off-road,
          and then the confrontation with Russian General Moroz ....
          1. yehat
            yehat 16 January 2018 14: 28
            +1
            you don’t know the story at all. just at pz3 there were not many problems. except caterpillars.
            another tank had problems - czech38, which formed the basis of the shock units near Moscow in the 41st. here he was in the cold at all unsuitable.
  2. Ace Tambourine
    Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 06: 30
    11
    I stand on the pavement ......
    At school I was taught physics. Since then, I assumed that 3-dimensional space is 3 coordinate axes ...
    It turns out that the top and bottom from the zero point are different measurements ...
    Not expected...
    Well, the equality of 65 tons of feet 10.7 km, ..... woe to me, woe ......
    They taught me the wrong thing ...
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 06: 38
      +4
      And further....
      F22 must fly to the territory of the enemy, and the PAK for the protection of objects ....
      Well, who is going to attack anyone?
    2. smart ass
      smart ass 31 May 2017 06: 40
      0
      Yeah yeah ege wouldn’t have passed right now
    3. NIKNN
      NIKNN 31 May 2017 08: 14
      +5
      Quote: Ace of Diamonds
      Well, the equality of 65 tons 10.7 km

      It also surprisedYou like 19800 ... sort of.
      I didn’t understand the meaning of the article at all ..., in a modern war, the databases do not seem to provide for these fights, but in vain the author belittles the dignity of F35, but somewhere else ...
      In general, meaningless articles on this topic are no longer readable ..., I won’t even choose from the text, there are a lot of mistakes ...
      It would be better if the author compared F22 and Armata, everything would have been more fun ... :)))
    4. jonhr
      jonhr 31 May 2017 09: 11
      0
      physics or stereometry? laughing
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 12: 10
        0
        Well then you understand me ....
        I just wrote on emotions, tried to imagine a controlled thrust vector in 3 planes ... neither .. I could not ...
    5. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2017 10: 12
      +1
      This is a poor translation. Surely, Roblin was talking about degrees of freedom, not the number of control vectors. But at the same time, he still made a mistake, because +1 vector = + 2 degrees of freedom.
      Because in this indicator f-22 exceeds f-1 not by 2, but by XNUMX.
    6. dzvero
      dzvero 31 May 2017 12: 36
      +1
      The third (actually first) axis is defined by the engine thrust.
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 13: 14
        0
        So then he also has to return ....
        I could not imagine it ...
        1. Ace Tambourine
          Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 13: 26
          +3
          And I also remembered a joke about fishermen ...
          1st caught the mermaid, cut, turned, looked and threw it into the water ..
          2nd amazed asks, what have you done, why threw it away?
          1st ... A. How !?....
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 31 May 2017 14: 34
        +1
        Quote: dzvero
        The third (actually first) axis is defined by the engine thrust.

        The plane is defined by two axes, that is, two planes, three xyz axes (the three-dimensional space in which we live), but the calculations are carried out with four unknowns (three coordinates and time).
      3. yehat
        yehat 31 May 2017 16: 48
        0
        why do they even consider it? Are there fighters without engines?
    7. aliis-M
      aliis-M 5 June 2017 02: 36
      0
      Well, as I understand it, the jet stream from the nozzle goes back - this is one axis (Z)
      for F-22, the nozzle rotates along the Y axis
      T-50, Su-35, etc. also along the x axis
      that is, the thrust vector along all three axes)
  3. K-50
    K-50 31 May 2017 06: 57
    +5
    Ek pin dos nickname praises his rattle, at least a little but, like, a raptor is better. laughing
    Using advertising data, not true, he wants to show that it is better not to mess with them.
    So after all, no one claims to a shitty Mattress, and all the scary horror stories are from inflamed moss and various manias. request
    To their doctor !!!! laughing
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 31 May 2017 09: 28
      +2
      Quote: K-50
      Ek pin dos nickname praises his rattle, at least a little but, like, a raptor is better. laughing
      Using advertising data, not true, he wants to show that it is better not to mess with them.
      So after all, no one claims to a shitty Mattress, and all the scary horror stories are from inflamed moss and various manias. request
      To their doctor !!!! laughing


      If you have your own, alternative from the author, version of a hypothetical battle between the Raptor and the PAK FA, I will be glad to hear ... hi In the meantime, I see only political giggles ... laughing
      1. K-50
        K-50 31 May 2017 11: 21
        +4
        Quote: supertiger21
        If you have your own, alternative from the author, version of a hypothetical battle between the Raptor and the PAK FA, I will be glad to hear ... In the meantime, I see only political giggles ...

        Who am I to let me know the TRUE capabilities of the latest Russian aircraft? belay fool
        Yes, even if he knew, then the public tribune is not the place where it is discussed. request
        So what do you think is the political giggles .. laughing
        Yes, don’t be so upset, because if these planes finish the confrontation in absentia and begin to specifically counteract it, then the power supply has come and everyone needs to crawl to the nearest cemetery. So above the nose, acre of death there will be nothing. laughing
      2. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 13: 33
        0
        Are you ready to pay the cost of both aircraft?
        Pay for the full training course me?
        Then forward ... it remains only suicides from that side to find ...
      3. Abel
        Abel 3 June 2017 17: 34
        0
        Hypothetically, McCain had an attack, and the Americans decided to defend the Baltic states by delivering a preventive strike, because, in their opinion, Russia is ready to capture these limitrophs. Here is the opportunity to try
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 May 2017 08: 06
    +1
    The National Interest. you need to plant a percentage of sales. Let the newspaper pay in Percentage of sales.
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 31 May 2017 08: 37
    +2
    But in the end, all the cunning Chinese-Iranians will love everyone who will launch a really cheap stealth light class fighter with, well, a very small EPR, without radar, but with an OLS, which can be detected only at close range and armed with missiles with missile defense, beyond maneuverability and the gun. wassat hi A joke of humor, of course, but in it, as in any joke ...
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 31 May 2017 09: 12
      +1
      This will be an UAV interceptor, with pseudo-AI sharpened for secretive approach and super-maneuverable combat at overloads inaccessible to manned fighters.
      Sneaked-hit-shed by ravines.
  6. 75 hammer
    75 hammer 31 May 2017 09: 14
    +1
    A joke of humor: “My dear, I have more ... than my neighbor !!!” “How did you know about this, did he show you?” “No, I think so, because my house is a whole floor higher!” “Believe me, I I know for sure, it’s not connected! ” wink
    That's about the planes, you have to ask the wife of an American !!!
  7. Machete
    Machete 31 May 2017 09: 29
    +2
    Again, the comparison is about nothing.
    They compare their planes with an airplane about which no one knows anything and the technical specifications are classified.
    Very professional investigation.
  8. yehat
    yehat 31 May 2017 10: 10
    +3
    what to say, Roblin speaks rhetoric well. He skillfully created a picture of pseudo-comparisons.
    put everything on the Raptor that he "should receive" by 2020, and the t50 troll for what has not been completed.
    Separately, I was surprised by a comparison of location capabilities and nonsense about the invisibility of the F-22.
    Bullshit, because only one of its cockpits has a visibility in the frontal projection higher than the Americans write for the entire aircraft.
    The only argument he brought seriously is the real number of aircraft delivered.
    In principle, that would be enough.
    1. jonhr
      jonhr 31 May 2017 16: 10
      0
      at a raptor, compressor blades are not visible to the naked eye. so your words about the cockpit can also be attributed to delirium.
      and speaking about these airplanes one must remember about the stealth technologies applied
      1. yehat
        yehat 31 May 2017 16: 49
        0
        my words? read what the Americans themselves write about their cockpit and what does the compressor blades have to do with it ???
        1. jonhr
          jonhr 31 May 2017 21: 06
          0
          and despite the fact that on the T-50 they are half visible when looking at the air intake.
          and dimensions are not critical. look at the size of the spirits and compare with the raptor. and it turns out that the spirit should have EPR dozens of times more than on the raptor
          1. yehat
            yehat 1 June 2017 09: 50
            0
            I talked about the cockpit. What does the shoulder blade have to do with ???
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 1 June 2017 11: 19
              0
              and despite the fact that you knit this with an EPR. and if you look at the raptor, it’s even very successful and gives a circular view to the pilot. and once again I remind you of the measures taken to reduce the EPR. tanning-free lamp. plus the gold-containing material of the lantern itself, which does not allow electromagnetic radiation from the cockpit to increase this same EPR
              1. yehat
                yehat 16 January 2018 14: 34
                0
                I know no less than you how the f-22 works. maybe a little more. Just don’t bother with everything. I talked about the cockpit. About any scoops or vanes, not about engines, etc.
                for example, no one talks about other aspects - on the f-22 there is a modernized system of enveloping the terrain, not showing itself poorly on the f-111. It is interesting to compare, because it is much more important for stealth than a cockpit sheath or fucking shovels.
  9. mvg
    mvg 31 May 2017 10: 46
    +5
    Currently, aircraft are equipped with AL-41F1 turbofan engines, which are characterized by insufficient fuel efficiency and do not provide the required high thrust.
    Translation difficulties. good The question is, is there really nothing for people to do there? How can one compare real and potential weight (that is, airplanes)? Not knowing the characteristics of PAK-FA, and vaguely familiar with the F-22A characteristics? Article a la Sivkoff, I do not know, but I write. “Reptors” will act as part of the group: AWACS aircraft, EW aircraft, F-15E “flying arsenals” will go in the second tier.
    They will carry out air defense with "shriki" and "axes", and there will be a struggle for air.
    PS: 1-in-1 war game is more likely for theorists. This will not happen in a real war. Empty "stuffing" of information for "srach'a"
  10. staviator
    staviator 31 May 2017 12: 24
    +1
    Quote: Ace Tambourine
    .
    Well, the equality of 65 tons of feet 10.7 km, ..... woe to me, woe ......
    They taught me the wrong thing ...

    nine was not taught to distinguish from zero, in article 19,7 km lol
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 31 May 2017 13: 17
      0
      In general, he was the first to write a comment, and the article was 10.7 ... Which cut the eye ...
      1. staviator
        staviator 31 May 2017 16: 48
        0
        Well it happens, I am so, no offense drinks
  11. Nitarius
    Nitarius 31 May 2017 12: 30
    +3
    100% of the battle will depend on the PILOT and its preparation! everything else is lies and nonsense!
    1. Walanin
      Walanin 31 May 2017 15: 46
      0
      Then PAK-FA is also a lie and nonsense. Would fly further on the obsolete Su-27
    2. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2017 17: 21
      0
      tell this to the Red Baron, who grumbled at the german fighters
  12. av58
    av58 31 May 2017 12: 57
    +1
    "The National Interest: if Russian and American stealth fighters go to war ..."
    The correct answer: if these fighters go to war, then The National Interest will close.
  13. Operator
    Operator 31 May 2017 13: 08
    +2
    Even if the K-77 (200 km) and AIM-120D (160 km) flight ranges given in the article are recognized as true, as well as the F-22 radar detection range (50 km), you can immediately write off the paper in NI as an application efficiency of these missiles for super-maneuverable targets is equal to 50 km and 40 km, respectively. But there is also the K-77M with 300 / 75 km range.

    From here it becomes clear which fighter will win the battle at long range.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 31 May 2017 20: 08
      0
      Quote: Operator
      From here it becomes clear which fighter will win the battle at long range.

      He won’t win, EW means are developing so rapidly that soon it will be possible to get into an enemy aircraft from machine guns.
  14. Altona
    Altona 31 May 2017 13: 23
    +5
    Quote: matak4b
    More and more convinced that the T-50 does not belong to the 5th generation. ESR too high. Accordingly, he has little chance against real fifth-generation aircraft (F-22, F-35)

    ------------------------------
    And the F-22 has a lot right. Stupid scribble. These aircraft are designed to overcome the air defense zone, and not to battle with each other. If the air defense zone is not overcome, then everything, let's goodbye. What kind of fights do you have with each other? The times of the Farman and Red Baron bookcase are long gone. Aircraft - PART OF THE SYSTEM! It is supported by ground-based radars. If there is something threatening ahead, then the task may be canceled. ALL! Your valiant Air Force antediluvian fighters filled up the then-modern MiG-25 interceptor by ambush in the "dead" zone of ground-based locators. And here you state that the F-22 prodigy is invulnerable. Yes, she is vulnerable and her EPR is not lower than that of the T-50. Moreover, this is a frontal projection, from below it is visible in the same way. The ancient Farman plane is even less visible because it is plywood.
    1. mahoney
      mahoney 31 May 2017 13: 45
      +2
      have not yet come up with "not surmountable" air defense.
      1. yehat
        yehat 31 May 2017 17: 23
        0
        like unbreakable aircraft
  15. Altona
    Altona 31 May 2017 14: 59
    +2
    Quote: mahoney
    have not yet come up with "not surmountable" air defense.

    -----------------------
    And the "invisible" aircraft also did not come up.
    1. mahoney
      mahoney 31 May 2017 16: 18
      0
      There are no optically invisible ones, but for radars ..... completely.
      1. yehat
        yehat 31 May 2017 17: 29
        0
        try drinking advertised juice or beer
        maybe then you will see
        even full wood planes do not have invisibility for radars.
        make a paper airplane - and there is a radar on it, you just need to pick up the characteristics.
        If earlier the radar could act only on the direct reflected signal, now AFARs already allow the target to be detected using other algorithms.
        1. mahoney
          mahoney 31 May 2017 20: 47
          0
          Quote: yehat
          even full wood planes do not have invisibility for radars.
          make a paper airplane - and there is a radar on it, you just need to pick up the characteristics.

          In simple terms, the radar sends short pulses that are reflected from everything, the radar receives various reflected objects (birds, for example). the receiver emits reflected signals from noise. And strengthens them.

          Quote: yehat
          If earlier the radar could act only on the direct reflected signal, now AFARs already allow the target to be detected using other algorithms.

          AFAR uses a pulsed method ... with a Doppler filter that passes a signal of a certain frequency. To date, the problem with low-flying objects, not to mention stealth, has not yet been solved. The problem was almost solved by the Doppler effect, while the stealth technology does not block the radars. Partly possible ... speed, decomposition, etc., must be determined correctly

          So to make the plane invisible to radars is not enough to reflect the momentum back.
          Or can you justify your opinion about stealth aircraft and radars?
          Or you can just throw a hat ... or something else)
          1. yehat
            yehat 1 June 2017 09: 55
            0
            you are not aware of military developments 15 years ago
            AFAR can work much more interesting
            There are algorithms for dealing with changes in signal reflection.
            This is partly reminiscent of how submarines now analyze acoustics
            In this regard, the computing power of aircraft equipment unexpectedly emerges.
      2. Evgeny Strygin
        Evgeny Strygin 31 May 2017 18: 21
        0
        It’s easier to make an optically invisible plane than invisible to radar.
  16. nnz226
    nnz226 31 May 2017 15: 04
    +3
    Pancake! The theoretical constructions of "analysts" including American ones are annoying! What to compare the EPR of aircraft, according to the declared characteristics? When the Americans forever in advertising for an order of magnitude or two verbally improve them ?! An EPR equal to 0,0001 sq.m (as in the text) is 1 sq.cm, as the cartoon hero said: "Don’t tell my horseshoes!" Tales - this is for the younger group of kindergarten! And all the equipment is checked in business. The Americans were scampering with their F-15 like "fools with a written shell", and how did their training battles with our Su-27 end ?! 10: 1 account in our favor. Something about this in the US media is not a letter, not a word ... So about the "clash" of the Raptor and the PAK FA ... And in general: "people win the war!" What aces were in the Luftwaffe, but how did it end? Karlshostom! Where besides Keitel, his signature on unconditional surrender was signed by General Luftwaffe ...
  17. Walanin
    Walanin 31 May 2017 15: 45
    +1
    Because of this, it is possible to increase maneuverability only in pitch.

    Not just in pitch. On a roll too.
  18. Evgeny Strygin
    Evgeny Strygin 31 May 2017 15: 56
    +1
    I don’t understand about energy saving at all - is it that while the economical f22 flies in a straight line at one distance, the uneconomical cabinet will involuntarily roll barrels and loops?
    1. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2017 17: 32
      0
      don't worry, this is rhetoric from the history of piston aircraft. the author simply carries a blizzard.
  19. san4es
    san4es 31 May 2017 17: 38
    +9
    Forgot to compare pilots and electronic warfare

    ... and what's the use of a rocket if it misses?

  20. Sedoy
    Sedoy 31 May 2017 19: 09
    0
    you can compare what is available ...
    even if we imagine that we already have these 12 pieces, then with the enemy, in the number of 178 pieces, any comparison in the style of “in battle and in war” is pointless ...
    our 12 pieces must have the superiority of "flying saucers" in order to talk about the war ...

    thanks to liberal :) Stam and other pacifists, our army is still in a deep ass, compared to Pindo :) Soviet ...

    perhaps we are still able to compete with them on the face-to-face field, but not in remote warfare ...
    we don’t have enough ammunition, bullets at them at a distance of hundreds of kilometers ...
    they have only cruise missiles, of the order of 3000, of different bases, against our several hundred ...

    thanks to the same "peace fighters" we are not even able to arrange a nuclear apocalypse ...
    there simply isn’t such a quantity of nuclear charges that "the whole world is in ruin", as the warrant officer from the DMB said
    therefore, Americans are confidently considering the issue of a preventive strike, without much risk of grave consequences ...
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 31 May 2017 20: 12
      0
      Quote: Sedoy
      they have only cruise missiles, of the order of 3000, of different bases, against our several hundred ...

      So they and TVD more. There must be considerable forces against China, against India, Europe must be kept in obedience, South America, Africa - how much can they allocate against Russia?
  21. rice
    rice 31 May 2017 19: 27
    0
    Quote: supertiger21
    If you have your own, alternative from the author, version of a hypothetical battle between the Raptor and the PAK FA, I will be glad to hear.

    not entirely alternative, but ..... An absolutely uninhabited continent, clear skies and it is not known where the two planes that came from that instantly begin to destroy everything they notice! laughing This should be inserted at the beginning of the article.
  22. Sergeyvb
    Sergeyvb 31 May 2017 22: 11
    +1
    It’s absolutely not clear, is it possible to compare a combat drill (in our terms) a plane with a plane that only “gets on the wing”, what is the debate about ???
  23. medvedron
    medvedron 1 June 2017 04: 28
    0
    Another fool. We combine time and space. Compare what is with what is just getting ready to go.
  24. Shahno
    Shahno 1 June 2017 07: 53
    +1
    I decided to change the number of comments 66. The article is of course funny. But today, in fact, on 60 sous 35 + even 120 sous 30 (although I doubt it) accounts for 190 s22 and about 200 s35. It turns out in this scenario, each single Su fighter is opposed to a pair of f22-f35. Of course I know thx su xnumx. But in order to gain the upper hand here, su should have an overwhelming advantage in most parameters. Otherwise, you have to connect the mythical T-35.
  25. Shahno
    Shahno 1 June 2017 08: 24
    +1
    By the way, formally su 35 received into service, but not accepted. But I think for practical use this is not very important. Procedure. I would consider that su 35 is accepted. In order to somehow simplify the comparison with NATO analogues. F 22 and f 35 and received and adopted.
  26. HEATHER
    HEATHER 1 June 2017 16: 47
    +4
    All the photos about the T-50 are fake. It is a monoplane. It drags on itself only four rocket launchers under the left wing. Because of this, its price is incomparable and huge. The Indians know this. Therefore, they complain. Interesting to anyone? Nevertheless, according to the reports Goblin, I’m sorry, Roblin-Amer’s aviation will be torn and scattered over the nearest body of water. wassat
  27. nikoliski
    nikoliski 14 May 2018 14: 42
    -1
    It seems that in the United States, experts know much less about our weapons than our members of the forum, look, it’s an expert who writes that our fighter has a missile with a maximum range of 200 km and a raptor of 160 km (and nothing that has already been on MiG 31 for a long time has missiles with a range of 300 km for Su-57 personally a rocket with a range of 400 km is completed!?) As for a raptor with a 160 km rocket, where did they "divide" the air-to-air rocket from a tomcat (f14) having a range of 175 km? so the analytics of our overseas "partners" already does not stand up to criticism because of this and you can’t read further the author’s fabrications (only a real 1-on-1 battle with the best missiles without any assistance will show who is better)