Military Review

US F-22 vs Russian PAK FA: Who will win? ("The National Interest", USA)

83
US F-22 vs Russian PAK FA: Who will win? ("The National Interest", USA)It has been ten years since Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor began to enter service in the United States Air Force.


He was called the most combat-ready fighter for air superiority. But he only a year ago demonstrated his fighting qualities in the sky over Syria and Iraq. However, this machine was not used to destroy the Soviet tank armada in the Fulda corridor or to suppress the integrated air defense system of the modern enemy, as its designers planned. Instead, the Raptor basically serves as a flying platform with detection devices.

Nevertheless, the day will come when F-22 will face the enemy, who will have a chance to fight him on an equal footing and even win (although the chance for this is not great). Russia and China are working hard on the creation of T-50 PAK FA and J-20 aircraft. Of these two cars, the PAK FA is perhaps the most serious opponent. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia somehow managed to maintain a more or less effective military-industrial base - although it today resembles only a pale shadow of the Soviet past.

Everything in the PAK FA says that this machine is similar in concept to the Raptor. This is a high-speed, high-altitude and unobtrusive fighter for gaining air superiority. However, as might be expected, the Russians paid more attention to one characteristic and less to another.

A good example is stealth. In the design of the T-50 attached much less than the value of all-aspect stealth. Instead, the designers focused on the invisibility of the front part of it, because of which the aircraft is similar in its unmasking features to Pacman from the same-name computer game. But the F-22 looks more like a spider, if you look at it not particularly closely. Stealth is the aspect where the Raptor has huge advantages over the Russian aircraft.

As for the kinematics, here T-50 and F-22 are comparable - especially when the PAK FA receives new engines. The 117 engine installed on it today is a very decent one, but ultimately it will be necessary to install an 30 experimental engine on the plane to take full advantage of the airframe.

Both aircraft are able to fly supersonic. In the F-22, the speed is slightly higher than the Mach number 1,8 (without the afterburner), and a PAK-FA without a high-pressure compressor can reach a speed of at least M = 1,6. The maximum working altitude of the F-22 20 is thousands of meters, as in the T-50. Raptor has a limiting maximum speed of M = 2.0, which is due to the drawbacks of its radio absorbing materials. I believe that the PAK FA will have a similar red line.

Although the F-22 has advantages in stealth characteristics, Russians are ahead in maneuverability. The T-50 is equipped with a three-dimensional controlled thrust vector, and it says a lot that it has advantages in terms of agility. Russians can also have an information display system mounted in a helmet. In addition, the PAK FA from the very first day is armed with missiles with indirect fire.

Meanwhile, in the 2017, the Raptor will receive the AIM-9X rocket for service, and the Air Force, slowly overcoming obstacles, is proceeding to create a display-mounted information system in the helmet that will be ready for the 2020 year. Plus, given the state of the Russian economy, the PAK FA is unlikely to be ready by this time.

As for on-board electronics, the F-22 will surely have advantages in the form of a combination of sensors and a pilot-machine interface. The Russians cannot boast of any special success in creating user-friendly cabs - just look at the MiG-29 cockpit. But they are improving. In general, the operation of detection devices and sensors, the two machines are approximately equal, although the Russians do quite decent radar, and they have excellent EW systems.

So, all other things being equal, if stealth is the decisive factor, the PAK FA will be in an unenviable position. But if the US Air Force belief in stealth is wrong, the PAK FA will have advantages. Nevertheless, the war goes by its own rules, and it is very difficult to predict its outcome with a high degree of probability.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-f-22-stealth-fighter-vs-russias-pak-fa-who-wins-13806
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Barakuda
    Barakuda 16 September 2015 05: 50 New
    +18
    We will stamp the Su-35, and be healthy .. Nobody canceled the laws of the economy .. although this is not for our people ..
    1. crazyrom
      crazyrom 16 September 2015 06: 00 New
      +13
      So if you take the raw T-50 and the old F-22 right now and let them fight, I can’t vouch for the F-22. He does not even have a normal OVT (only up and down).
      1. Rostovchanin
        Rostovchanin 16 September 2015 06: 14 New
        0
        The F-22 had problems with sealing and it was limited by the ceiling, the problem was fixed, does anyone know? Something about the maximum speed is also not the same numbers ... In general, all the characteristics are secret
        1. Rostovchanin
          Rostovchanin 16 September 2015 06: 20 New
          +6
          here is one of the comparative characteristics, here is the fifth generation, only potential.
          1. Baikal
            Baikal 16 September 2015 07: 36 New
            +24
            Everything in PAK FA says that this machine is similar in concept to the Raptor.

            One must think, now everything that has wings is now similar to the "Raptor"? Author udak, as they say.

            By the way, an interesting fact about the name "Raptor" ...
            Illiterate authors in a typically American illiterate manner have seen enough of their Discovery, Jurassic Park, and flashed the idea. The name "raptor" itself means "bicycle therapist", widely publicized by the same illiterate American cinema. In fact, the bicycle therapists were about 60 cm tall. The living thing that is shown in the films actually has the name "deinonych" ...
            Based on the author’s ideas, it’s correct to call the plane F-22 Deinonychus wink
            1. Corsair
              Corsair 16 September 2015 09: 51 New
              +51
              Quote: Baikal
              Based on the author’s ideas, the plane is correctly called F-22 Deinonychus

              For me it's better to call the F-22 Danunahui-s tongue
              1. Tiamat2702
                Tiamat2702 16 September 2015 11: 15 New
                +6
                Quote: Corsair

                For me it's better to call the F-22 Danunahui-s tongue

                5 points)))))
            2. Tiamat2702
              Tiamat2702 16 September 2015 11: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: Baikal

              Based on the author’s ideas, it’s correct to call the plane F-22 Deinonychus wink


              Let's hope that the actual name for the F-22 turns out to be true in comparison with what ultimately comes out of the PAK FA))) (60 cm against our monster)
              1. gjv
                gjv 16 September 2015 16: 33 New
                +1
                Quote: Tiamat2702
                (60 cm against our monster)


                And to his side, at the very 60 ...
            3. Revolver
              Revolver 16 September 2015 23: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: Baikal
              The name "raptor" itself means "bicycle therapist" ...
              seen enough NOT their Discovery, "Jurassic Park" and flashed the idea.

              Actually a word Raptor in English, the common name for birds of prey, and covers all eagles, falcons, hawks, and even owls.
              I suppose he escaped to the cinema from the English lesson in which this word was passed?
              Deuce to you in English. negative
              So learn languages, and less watch not very science fiction.
              tongue
              1. Baikal
                Baikal 17 September 2015 05: 09 New
                +1
                Deservedly done with English, to blame, sir wink
                As for the cinema - everything is still messy there)
      2. Kent0001
        Kent0001 16 September 2015 12: 05 New
        +6
        Yankers will not draw a line between computer games and a real battle with a strong opponent. They are used to fighting an enemy who does not possess the entire complex of layered air defense plus new electronic warfare systems. And this, I will tell you, is not at all the same thing.
      3. Asadullah
        Asadullah 16 September 2015 14: 22 New
        +7
        Now, if you take


        By and large, if the characteristics of the side are similar but vague, the pilot's skill wins. By the way, the Americans have very good pilots. Real good pilots. From that, throwing caps will not work.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 16 September 2015 14: 26 New
          +9
          Quote: Asadullah
          From that, throwing caps will not work.

          He didn’t need hats ... good pilots who argue. And in Vietnam there were good pilots. And what was the ratio of shot down to Amer’s Phantoms?1 to 3!Here you have the naked statistics and the truth, without any comparative nonsense of unfortunate experts.
        2. Wheel
          Wheel 17 September 2015 01: 04 New
          +2
          Quote: Asadullah
          By the way, the Americans have very good pilots. Real good pilots. From that, throwing caps will not work.

          So, nobody argues that really good pilots ...
          However, even these pilots do not like to die.
          Recall Yugoslavia, when bombs and missiles fell stupidly into the Adriatic Sea, because it was sysskotny ... hmm ...
    2. CALL.
      CALL. 16 September 2015 06: 12 New
      +15
      Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia somehow managed to maintain a more or less effective military-industrial base ... Nevertheless, as might be expected ... I believe that the PAK FA will have a similar red line .. ., but ultimately the aircraft will need to install the experimental Product 30 engine ... Russians may also have a helmet mounted information display system ... Plus, given the state of the Russian economy, PAK FA the time is unlikely to be ready ... In general, the operation of the detection devices and sensors, the two machines are approximately equal, although the Russians make quite decent radars, and they have excellent electronic warfare systems.

      And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.
      1. Cheshire
        Cheshire 16 September 2015 06: 26 New
        +4
        MORE: Russians cannot boast of particular success in creating user-friendly cabs - just look at the MiG-29 cockpit.
        And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.

        hi And here is a frivolous analytics, because there is no particular data on the T-50. So, fabrications, grinding the frayed, nothing more.
        if stealth becomes a decisive factor, then PAK FA will be in an unenviable position. But if the US Air Force’s belief in stealth is wrong, PAK FA will have advantages.

        He remains right in any situation. laughing
        1. SSR
          SSR 16 September 2015 07: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: Cheshire
          MORE: Russians cannot boast of particular success in creating user-friendly cabs - just look at the MiG-29 cockpit.
          And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.

          hi And here is a frivolous analytics, because there is no particular data on the T-50. So, fabrications, grinding the frayed, nothing more.
          if stealth becomes a decisive factor, then PAK FA will be in an unenviable position. But if the US Air Force’s belief in stealth is wrong, PAK FA will have advantages.

          He remains right in any situation. laughing

          Dave is modestly silent about the convenience of the F-35 cabin))))
          1. eagle11
            eagle11 16 September 2015 14: 27 New
            +2
            To be extremely honest, the cockpit of the MiG-29 is really (especially the first series) unsuccessful. After it, in the Su-27, it seems incredibly spacious, as if it had moved from a trench to a loggia.
        2. andj61
          andj61 16 September 2015 07: 51 New
          +21
          There is only one conclusion - Americans rely on stealth, Russians rely on maneuverability. Which in the end will give an advantage in real combat use - God knows him.
          In fact, in some places, the thought flashed that after Belenko’s flight to the MiG-25, our “tracked” certain data in the development of radars - both stationary and aviation. As a result of the "invisibility" of the 20th century, the F-111 type? FB-111, B-2 were not visible only in the opinion of the Americans: ours saw them perfectly, discovered, accompanied them. And even the air defense systems adopted long before the appearance of these same "invisibles" - air defense colleagues will not let you lie. And given the fact that the achievement of stealth requires sacrificing other characteristics - maneuverability, aerodynamics, etc. - then they got an advantage.
          I am tormented by vague doubts bullythat with 5th generation aircraft the same crap, and that even our birds of generation 4+ and above are not inferior to American 5th generation aircraft. yes
          1. 0255
            0255 16 September 2015 10: 44 New
            +5
            Quote: andj61
            As a result of the "invisibility" of the 20th century, the F-111 type? FB-111, B-2 were not visible only in the opinion of the Americans: ours saw them perfectly, discovered, accompanied them.

            Since when did the F-111 and FB-111 become invisible? The first was a tactical bomber with a variable sweep wing, the second - sort of like a strategic bomber based on the first, an “intermediate” aircraft before the Rockwell B-1 aircraft was adopted
            F-111:

            FB-111:
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 16 September 2015 23: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: 0255
              Since when did the F-111 and FB-111 become invisible? The first was a tactical bomber with a variable sweep wing, the second - sort of like a strategic bomber based on the first, an “intermediate” aircraft before the Rockwell B-1 aircraft was adopted

              It is more correct to compare F / FB-111 with SU-24 and / or TU-22M. Letter F generally appeared because Congress in those years did not want to hear that money was needed for yet another bomber project (letter B).
              And Rockwell B-1, especially version A, is more appropriate to compare with the TU-160.

              Invisibility is the B-2 Spirit and its smaller technology demonstrator, which, for some misunderstanding, went into the series under the designation F-117 Nighthawk.
          2. Beaver
            Beaver 16 September 2015 10: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: andj61
            ... ours saw them perfectly, discovered, accompanied them. Moreover, even anti-aircraft weapons adopted long before the appearance of these same "invisibles" - air defense colleagues will not let you lie.


            I won’t let you lie. "Ramona" and everything after.
            1. eagle11
              eagle11 16 September 2015 14: 38 New
              +1
              Castor, not correct, "Ramona", after all, the station is Czechoslovak and is not related to the radar, this is CRTR. It captures the radiation of the radio electronic equipment, and in a given sector, at low altitudes, the detection range is very small. And F-111, FB-111 and B-1B, are sharpened for low-altitude supersonic flight.
        3. lelikas
          lelikas 16 September 2015 10: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: Cheshire
          He remains right in any situation.

          Serbs proved - the second option is more true!
        4. Altona
          Altona 16 September 2015 11: 58 New
          +5
          Quote: Cheshire
          MORE: Russians cannot boast of particular success in creating user-friendly cabs - just look at the MiG-29 cockpit.

          -----------------
          ANALiTEG apparently climbed into the cockpit of the MiG during the Warsaw Pact, some German or Czech ... Our planes have long had multifunctional LCD displays and analog understudies ... Easy control of the aircraft ... Apparently the analyte tried to pile up and mix what was 30 years ago and what is now ..
          1. eagle11
            eagle11 16 September 2015 14: 29 New
            +2
            Yes, in the MiG-29cmt, there is modern avionics, but not all MiG-29s are modified to SMT. And the review is still the same, MiG.
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 16 September 2015 06: 52 New
        +6
        Quote: Z.O.V.
        And is that serious analytics?

        I’m also doing one research here, who will win: a whale or an elephant? smile
        1. Cheshire
          Cheshire 16 September 2015 06: 56 New
          +4
          hi I put in Russian laughing
      3. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 16 September 2015 09: 45 New
        +1
        Author Dave Majumdar made his comparative description based on Internet data? in its place before writing such articles, it was necessary to really get acquainted with the performance characteristics of both aircraft .... nonsense
        1. Camel
          Camel 16 September 2015 21: 45 New
          +2
          The designated citizen, EMNIP, was recently published on VO, with an overview of the SU-35 vs F-22. The article was similar: - "... I don’t own the data, but something (D. Mudge ..) tells me that the Raptor is better. But any comparison should be made in a real battle ..." well, etc.
          This article is in the same vein. Is he going to ALL of our fleet thus compare with the F-22? laughing
          Not otherwise, the rating on VO shakes fool Maybe preparing for what?
      4. lelikas
        lelikas 16 September 2015 10: 48 New
        +5
        Quote: Z.O.V.

        And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.

        He just "looked" into the wrong cabin ....
      5. bastard
        bastard 16 September 2015 11: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Z.O.V.
        And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.

        This is ANAL analytics.
      6. Absurdidat
        Absurdidat 16 September 2015 15: 14 New
        +1
        No, he was still talking about pacman and spiders. Very expert, very.
      7. Voha_krim
        Voha_krim 17 September 2015 04: 54 New
        0
        Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia somehow managed to maintain a more or less effective military-industrial base ...
        Yeah! In the 90s, the Americans were trying very hard to ruin our military-industrial base. And now they are surprised how something new appears in our country.
    3. Juborg
      Juborg 16 September 2015 07: 51 New
      +7
      Article bullshit, amateurish. The author so boldly appeals to TTX on the essence of both secret projects, you wonder how amazing it is, and you immediately think about why we are building the PAK FA if he loses F-22 in advance. I think we are not foolish sitting and knowing what he is doing. Well, the author wrote what he was told or what he wants to do just that, and the situation was not otherwise, well, at least with this airplane, and then with the 35th completely got into a puddle.
    4. urii
      urii 16 September 2015 19: 52 New
      0
      if the invisibility was visible for the old Soviet system, then for any on our aircraft all detection is also provided for the raptor
    5. iouris
      iouris 16 September 2015 22: 28 New
      -4
      This is deja vu. MiG-21 vs F-4 again? No matter how good the Su-35 is, it’s yesterday’s technology, and our economy needs to be “cut across." Another Pyrrhic victory is planned.
  2. Utlan
    Utlan 16 September 2015 05: 53 New
    +9
    Another crap from amerikosav.
  3. Afotin
    Afotin 16 September 2015 06: 02 New
    +10
    Solid water. But how to "give money for modernization," this article can be considered, because mattresses fundamentally refuse to fight without overwhelming technical superiority.
    1. afdjhbn67
      afdjhbn67 16 September 2015 06: 46 New
      +1
      fortune telling by the principle - who is stronger than an elephant or a whale?
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 16 September 2015 06: 52 New
      +11
      Quote: Afotin
      because mattresses fundamentally refuse to fight without overwhelming technical superiority.

      And they’re doing it right. The situation of the 6th company at an altitude of 776 in the US Army is unthinkable. With the same introductory gangs, they would first be treated with aviation and / or artillery, and only then would the landing force be cleared, and not the only company, but at least a battalion with the statewide armor. Even if one distracts from the irreplaceable loss by the families of sons and husbands, it is better to pay a salary to a live company than an insurance sum to the families of the dead And a salary to those who were recruited to the place of the dead because they still need to serve in their place. And even taking into account the cost of used fuel and ammunition for air / artillery preparation, it is still more profitable than payments to families. Something like this.
      1. biznaw
        biznaw 16 September 2015 19: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: Nagan
        Quote: Afotin
        because mattresses fundamentally refuse to fight without overwhelming technical superiority.

        And they’re doing it right. The situation of the 6th company at an altitude of 776 in the US Army is unthinkable. With the same introductory gangs, they would first be treated with aviation and / or artillery, and only then would the landing force be cleared, and not the only company, but at least a battalion with the statewide armor. Even if one distracts from the irreplaceable loss by the families of sons and husbands, it is better to pay a salary to a live company than an insurance sum to the families of the dead And a salary to those who were recruited to the place of the dead because they still need to serve in their place. And even taking into account the cost of used fuel and ammunition for air / artillery preparation, it is still more profitable than payments to families. Something like this.


        That is why you will NEVER defeat US. We are not fighting for money, but for a just cause. And we go for machine guns for free.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 16 September 2015 23: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: biznaw
          And we go for machine guns for free.

          And in vain. Because it’s more correct to move to a safe distance, report on the situation and coordinates, wait an hour, and with relative comfort see how these machine guns with their positions, as well as everyone and everyone who was nearby, mix heavy artillery with the ground. And do not tear the vest on the chest.
          And further. Not a single American general will ever dare say or even think that "women still give birth." Such is the difference in attitude towards people.
          1. ImPerts
            ImPerts 17 September 2015 06: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Nagan
            then "women still give birth."

            This is a propaganda slogan, which is popped by no means laziness.
            http://www.politonline.ru/provocation/22882876.html
            "Actually, this phrase came to Russia from England.
            There was a tradition in the English Navy, when a warship was drowned (in battle), the captain or senior officer said the ritual phrase: "The king has a lot!"
          2. Corsair
            Corsair 17 September 2015 10: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: Nagan
            And in vain. Because it’s more correct to move to a safe distance, report on the situation and coordinates, wait an hour, and with relative comfort see how these machine guns with their positions, as well as everyone and everyone who was nearby, mix heavy artillery with the ground. And do not tear the vest on the chest.

            laughing In this case, in your opinion, it will turn out that it will not be possible to fight with enemies of equal strength or even slightly inferior enemies because of losses, and even to defend when the enemy attacks en masse - this is generally fraught. Apparently, this is why amers have so many comics with mega-heroes, you can’t motivate anyone to do real deeds, or they are few or not at all.
  4. ImPerts
    ImPerts 16 September 2015 06: 13 New
    +4
    You can compare two aircraft for a long time and hard. Give some arguments according to TTX, counterargument with other TTX data ...
    And so on to infinity.
    And in reality, everything can be outrageously simple:
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam 16 September 2015 06: 19 New
      +10
      On video: distracted - got into the pug.
      This is not TTX, but the professionalism of the "pilot"
      1. ImPerts
        ImPerts 16 September 2015 07: 04 New
        0
        No need to literalize anything and everything.
        According to TTX, the big one was supposed to crush the little one.
        Did you get distracted? Did not see on the display? decided that eggs are not worth it? The end result is there.
        Therefore, measured by tsifirkami is not the most successful option.
      2. Beaver
        Beaver 16 September 2015 11: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: MainBeam
        This is not TTX, but the professionalism of the "pilot"


        That's it! The pilot's level of training, morale, reaction speed, courage - will be a decisive factor in a real battle. And the gasket between the helm and the seat has a chance of zero.
  5. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 16 September 2015 06: 14 New
    +5
    Mattress can fight with multiple technical superiority, and at approximate parity, when they can get in the face, never.
  6. Wolka
    Wolka 16 September 2015 06: 23 New
    +1
    the article is not about anything, everything is relative ...
  7. mamont5
    mamont5 16 September 2015 06: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Z.O.V.
    And is that serious analytics? I expected more from Dave Majumdar.

    This is not analytics. This is another attempt to "put a shadow on the wattle fence" after all the publications about the collapse of the armies of the West and the predominance of the Russian army.
  8. taxis
    taxis 16 September 2015 06: 29 New
    +2
    The characteristics are classified, the analysis is not true. For whom they write such articles, I do not understand.
  9. meriem1
    meriem1 16 September 2015 06: 29 New
    0
    Meanwhile, in the 2017, the Raptor will receive the AIM-9X rocket for service, and the Air Force, slowly overcoming obstacles, is proceeding to create a display-mounted information system in the helmet that will be ready for the 2020 year. Plus, given the state of the Russian economy, the PAK FA is unlikely to be ready by this time.


    Someone who is oblique ..... Are you going to ..... Yes, we are like a sandwich. Microbe ...... in the mouth.
    A lot of pathos !!! Hindus have already shown a lot to Amers. Well, let them dream.
  10. Golddigger 96
    Golddigger 96 16 September 2015 06: 33 New
    +6
    Not a single concrete minus in the direction of the Raptor, when in reality the plane is completely composed of these minuses. And it was removed from production, of course, for economic reasons, only they are very extensible, these considerations. And one more not unimportant fact is the Raptor, if memory serves me for 15-20 years, although as a schoolboy in the late 80s I already read articles about the beginning of the creation of two super fighters in the USA by two companies, I don’t remember the name exactly, but the pictures are clearly transmitted the appearance of F-22 and F-35. And sow the day these so-called super fighters are super raw.
    1. goose
      goose 16 September 2015 12: 54 New
      0
      You are right for the F-22 and F-35 projects for at least 30 years, and so far they have not been finalized.
  11. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 16 September 2015 06: 46 New
    +3
    It seems that maneuverability is an obvious quality that does not need to be checked. Accordingly, the PAK FA dances on the spot, and the F-22 flies around in awkward circles, as was already the case on demonstration flights.

    But with stealth, everything is more complicated - no one in real life has observed it. First you need to irradiate the F-22 from all sides in centimeter, decimeter and meter waves in order to evaluate the EPR (which is real, and not in the Pentagon's advertising booklets) for the applied radars (aircraft), as well as the radar systems S-300 and S-400. But the Americans just do not fly close to areas where there is an S-300! Real EPR is the great state secret of the USA!

    Stealth should not be taken harshlybut now the situation is this: on the one hand, an Explicit chip, and on the other - an SUGGESTED.

    Well. IMHO, the US is too keen on stealth technologies. Questions must be resolved in a concise manner. You can’t make planes at $ 2 billion apiece (the United States has such - B-2); this will not pull any budget. F-22 turned out to be very expensive (in particular, and due to changes in the volumes of its purchase by the Pentagon)
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts 16 September 2015 07: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Gormengast
      Real EPR is the great state secret of the USA!

      Therefore, analogues are sometimes compared, in particular the T-50 EPR, and the picture is far from the stated Yusov parameters. Maybe that's why the "analysts" rely on the statements of our designers and share the "invisibility" and stealth, all-aspect and so on.
      Quote: Gormengast
      Well. IMHO, the US is too keen on stealth technologies. Questions must be resolved in a concise manner. You can’t make planes at 2 billion dollars apiece (the United States has such - B-2); this will not pull any budget.

      Therefore, ours are not soared. Absolutely invisible no. And we don’t need such bombers.
      Quote: Gormengast
      F-22 turned out to be very expensive

      Wunderwaffles did not work out of it, which once again confirms the correctness of our designers.
  12. shinobi
    shinobi 16 September 2015 07: 32 New
    0
    The masked message of the article: If they notice us sooner than we hope for it, then it’s 100% for the arctic fox. And in general it seems that the author does not write in the subject. Well, or a clumsy translator.
  13. MolGro
    MolGro 16 September 2015 07: 38 New
    +5
    wassat wassat
    amateurs)
    Tell me what characteristics the T-50 has.
    The maximum range of the radar?
    The maximum sensitivity of a radar -?
    The maximum range of new missiles?
    Nomenclature of weapons t-50-?
    The maximum speed?
    EPR-?
    All this is unknown at all!
    and fortune-telling on coffee grounds is not analytics!
    1. goose
      goose 16 September 2015 13: 01 New
      -1
      Quote: MolGro
      The maximum range of the radar?

      The radar has no such characteristic. There are energy and aperture parameters. The range of any radar is unlimited. Limitations come from signal processing and environmental parameters, and often depend even on a specific software firmware.
      The maximum sensitivity of a radar -?
      The same parameter, consisting of several steps. You can evaluate the sensitivity at a particular moment, but not as a parameter of the engineering system as a whole. Usually indicate the spectral distribution of transceiver powers.

      Quote: MolGro
      Nomenclature of weapons t-50-?

      Known
      Quote: MolGro
      The maximum range of new missiles?

      Well this is an incorrect question. Only energy and the modes that they implement are evaluated. Large missiles that are not hit-to-kill can fly slowly and, accordingly, far.
      Quote: MolGro
      EPR-?

      EPR data is NEVER published.
  14. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 16 September 2015 08: 04 New
    0
    The article is designed for incompetent people, such as "we have the best, etc., etc.), but let me remind you of how the" stealth "of their so-advertised F-117 ended ?! I remember this" stealth ", the Yugoslavs, shot down obsolete air defense systems of the 60-70s of the Soviet release! What’s what, and the adverts of the “minke whales” are at the highest level, but in reality almost all of their vaunted devices were easily defeated (if they dared to do so) with our machines that were even at the helm not Russian pilots! After all, somehow you need to justify the billions of dollars spent on this "miracle plane" - as they say: "Business and nothing personal!"
  15. zombiunian
    zombiunian 16 September 2015 08: 23 New
    +1
    u decides speed)))). 1. radar-speed of light 2. rockets-acceleration and speed such sho people can not stand it. 3. airplanes, etc. Hence missile defense and air defense (in the Donbass MANPADS - and stopped flying), then planes. BUT!!! victory will not be until BOOT! the soldier will not set foot on the ground. Conclusion is a competent bunch of ALL military branches, and the super duper of individual "mirrors for the Indians from Columbus")))) - the statement is incorrect initially.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 16 September 2015 13: 40 New
      0
      Quote: zombiunian
      BUT!!! victory will not be until BOOT! the soldier will not set foot on the ground. Conclusion is a competent bunch of ALL military branches, and the super duper of individual "mirrors for the Indians from Columbus")))) - the statement is incorrect initially.

      what Victory may not be, but the infrastructure will be significantly disrupted and chaos elements will be created with due accuracy and poor (insufficient, out of date) air defense
  16. wild
    wild 16 September 2015 08: 35 New
    0
    The author is a kind of slippery type, wrote a bunch of tupy letters and concluded that PAC. Exactly, I could immediately write three words and that's it, the article is superfluous on the 1000% site. These are published on foreign media.
  17. ARES623
    ARES623 16 September 2015 09: 03 New
    +2
    The article compares two hypothetical aircraft according to the characteristics declared by the manufacturer, but not confirmed in real conditions. But the trick is that the PAK FA and the Raptor are not I-16s at all with the Bf-109C, but the ground-to-space-space complex will participate in the meeting of the two planes. What the plane did not see will tell the earth and space. And if the advertising values ​​of the EPR are given for frontal projection, then space and earth will see it in all its glory in other ranges and angles. The case of the F-117 in Yugoslavia showed that the advertised stealth and invulnerability in modern execution is a deceiving thing. Everything is very ambiguous. The author made a reservation that if the stealth of Raptor does not work, then everything will be a little sadder for him than we would like, and he is right about this. Bottom line: the analyst’s big name and no analysis. This is America .... IMHO
  18. akudr48
    akudr48 16 September 2015 09: 15 New
    +1
    You must be more modest, more modest with our PAK FA.

    Even when foreigners emphasize its advantages, what is most often done with the sly aim of obtaining more money for their aircraft.

    How many T-50s were produced, pieces 5 or 6, right?

    The Americans produced more than 200 F-22s and closed the production program.

    There is a difference, let's see it and hope that Russia will at least put at least several regiments of these new T-50 combat vehicles into the troops.

    Then we will measure ourselves.
  19. X Y Z
    X Y Z 16 September 2015 09: 25 New
    0
    But if the US Air Force’s belief in stealth is wrong, PAK FA will have advantages.


    Crackling, promotional article. We have already read something similar in the past about Abrams, M-16, etc. Only the paragraph above deserves attention. More than once they wrote about this earnest American faith in stealth, as some kind of the highest and most significant quality of a modern fighter. But it was immediately explained that stealth is a very relative and unreliable concept, especially when using modern detection tools. Here is a heretical little thought wandering around the author - are we doing everything right and will the fighting qualities of the Russian fighter prove to be more significant than the qualities of the American "miracle".
  20. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 September 2015 09: 28 New
    +1
    There is no serial airplane yet, but people are already comparing.
  21. Mera joota
    Mera joota 16 September 2015 10: 14 New
    0
    Damn, this blogger Dave Majumdar registered for VO or something ... He is not an official of the Ministry of Defense, nor a representative of the military-industrial complex, he is just one of the millions of balabol that live on the network ...
    Come on, I’d write something clever ...
  22. NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 September 2015 12: 11 New
    +3
    Excuse me, does the author know the real performance characteristics of the PAK FA and the Raptor? What kind of comparisons does he write about some characteristics of the fighters ... did our Defense Ministry and the Pentagon report all the performance characteristics of these aircraft?
  23. rustemkm
    rustemkm 16 September 2015 12: 49 New
    0
    The article is complete bullshit! How many have compared this F-22 and many experts, including Western ones, wrote that even the good old MIG-29 will be able to give this F-22, not to mention the SU-30, 35, and even more so the PAK FA!
  24. Thomas
    Thomas 16 September 2015 13: 13 New
    0
    How similar articles already tortured! Every two or three weeks, something similar is sure to appear on some resource. T-50 vs F-22, SU-35 vs F-35, Armata vs Leopard, etc. etc.
    For all the money spent on the creation and publication of such articles, one could already buy a copy of each of the aircraft (tanks, submarines, etc. - select the one you need) and in real air (ground, underwater, etc.) combat determine the winner.
  25. lopvlad
    lopvlad 16 September 2015 13: 15 New
    0
    About PAK FA so far known data that only allow us to judge him as a cargo plane of low visibility. To build on this data his fabrications about PAK FA as a combat vehicle is at least silly.
  26. _my opinion
    _my opinion 16 September 2015 14: 32 New
    0
    TTX to compare, of course it is necessary, only one TTX is not enough, we must remember about the pilot ... a lot depends on his training, knowledge, skills, fighting spirit, ingenuity ...
  27. ASG7
    ASG7 16 September 2015 14: 42 New
    +2
    Kindergarten. Tell me in the cold minus 40, who is the first to freeze, the one with biceps of 40 cm or who has 35 cm? tongue
  28. Russian_German
    Russian_German 16 September 2015 16: 07 New
    0
    Uncle Sam always repeats
    Our Russians will win
    The Russian smirked softly
    moved into the face, 3.14ndos blown away.
    Annoying neighbor
    Here is our answer to you.
  29. jekasimf
    jekasimf 16 September 2015 16: 08 New
    +1
    Lord.
    And why doesn’t anyone remember that after launching a rocket (air-to-air), any of the most invisible underwaffles will unmask themselves by 100%, because you need to open the hatch and launch a rocket, which certainly is not a stealth, including in the IR range. And that means that his opponent also has time to make a maneuver to leave, including.
    And why doesn’t anyone say that stealth really works only if the aircraft’s own radar does not work on radiation? Which means that if the F 22 were really able to detect the enemy earlier, they should fly in the backlight from another radar. For example, AWACS. What is very dangerous for AWACS, given the seriousness of the enemy, and the field from AWACS itself will clearly “highlight” the 22 from a very unfavorable angle. Where is it not so stealth?
    Correct me if I am wrong.
  30. SIMM
    SIMM 16 September 2015 19: 23 New
    0
    If we analyze the statements of all these "experts", we can conclude that the PAK FA will be TWO HEADS better in all respects. None of their crafts, even the 22nd, even the 35th, is not even a competitor to the Su-35, which is far from the 5th generation.
    And note that none of the “experts” mentioned even once about the electronic warfare systems that we have ... say, an order of magnitude better is to give a compliment, they will simply turn these already mediocre crafts into harmless "radio-controlled helicopters". ..
    1. jekasimf
      jekasimf 16 September 2015 19: 49 New
      0
      EW means on a stealth fighter .. Hmm. I don’t know how effective they are against an air-to-air missile homing missile. But such an emitter will shine on radar screens from a distance. Because the effective range of EW means is much smaller than distance to detect their radiation.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 16 September 2015 20: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: jekasimf
        .Hm. I don’t know how effective they are against the infrared air-to-air missile homing head.

        For this, the PAK FA has the Himalayas system and God knows what you are not, whoever would know.
        1. jekasimf
          jekasimf 16 September 2015 20: 54 New
          0
          As far as I understand, of the available sources, of course, the Himalayas are a means of suppressing electronic means of detection and guidance. But if the rocket is launched, can the Himalayas suppress the infrared guidance head, I doubt it.
          Such a system is good for covering attack aircraft and bombers, which work on radar emitters and other purposes.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 16 September 2015 21: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: jekasimf
            As far as I understand, of the available sources, of course, the Himalayas are a means of suppressing electronic means of detection and guidance. But if the rocket is launched, can the Himalayas suppress the infrared guidance head, I doubt it.
            Such a system is good for covering attack aircraft and bombers, which work on radar emitters and other purposes.

            The Himalayas, by my principle, as far as I understand, are a more advanced system than the Khibiny, but the functionality is about the same, but with a large set of options ... and the Khibiny is capable of setting phantom targets, confusing the missile and guidance systems ...
  31. afrikanez
    afrikanez 16 September 2015 21: 17 New
    +1
    There is nothing like leather! And how Americans can boast, perhaps the whole world knows. So, I think this article simply does not deserve special attention. Another nonsense from "partners" laughing
  32. CRASH
    CRASH 18 September 2015 18: 53 New
    0
    On electronics, ours didn’t stand close with the raptor, LCD displays didn’t count, on f22 a system of virtual (not to be confused with artificial) intelligence was implemented, and later this helmet of virtual reality will be still, science fiction is short, I don’t know how our people can answer , processor with 4 cores?