Russia’s Stealth Fighter Could Match U.S. Jets, Analyst Says

[titanic3]

A triangle, well an arrow head is the optimal shape from the frontal aspect, it's just not commodious to anything else but that.

Try to look at the shape of a YF-23 say, and try to 'ray trace' a vector onto parts of the shape. Your three options are absorb, pass through or reflect. If you must reflect then you want to reflect in a different direction from the arrival, regardless of the presentation to the source. If you can reflect into other parts of the object, and then absorb, then double win.

Look at the T-50, the only non-stealthy bit is the motors. But they've chosen not to go extreme on the stealth and take 3d thrust vectoring instead.

Cool, I get it now. Thank you. 

The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking  systems means that even an F22 can be picked up  with it . If the  enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS)  . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and  AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)

But Russia will never match the U.S. production capabilities, they may only produce 100 while we have 300. The rest will be older gen fighters. They'll still lose in a hypothetical war regardless. Right now anyway.

[pervert]

BVR is this not what happened the Phantom? IE the death of the dogfight?  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related

[Rino]

BS.  No effin way.

They aint matchin nuthin we got unless is built by us or stolen from us.

     Not true, their egress systems work better than ours...because they HAVE to.   

[B3YT]

[quote ]

But Russia will never match the U.S. production capabilities, they may only produce 100 while we have 300. The rest will be older gen fighters. They'll still lose in a hypothetical war regardless. Right now anyway.

[/quote]

TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb  and turn the F22  the Mig 29  would be not quite as good  . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's  due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle  as long as the nose was pointing the right way . 

OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but  it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's 

[Ack-Ack]

TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb  and turn the F22  the Mig 29  would be not quite as good  . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's  due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle  as long as the nose was pointing the right way . 

OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but  it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's 

You should search for eagl's posts on the capabilities of the F-22 compared to the Russian stuff, very enlightening.

ack-ack

[Rino]

     I've been reading this chicken little kind of stuff for decades.  Just have a tough time buying all the theoretical claims until
they are actually proven.

[Rino]

The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking  systems means that even an F22 can be picked up  with it . If the  enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS)  . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and  AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)

     If you never get into short range, how much good will the IR tracking and heatseeker do you?  Also if the F-22 is coming from behind,
will that IR system pick it up?

[titanic3]

    If you never get into short range, how much good will the IR tracking and heatseeker do you?  Also if the F-22 is coming from behind,
will that IR system pick it up?

TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb  and turn the F22  the Mig 29  would be not quite as good  . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's  due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle  as long as the nose was pointing the right way . 

OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but  it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's 

Like Rino said, by the time the older gen Russian fighters got into visual range, half of them would be gone. Once they start dogfighting, I suppose you're right about the Russians having better maneuverability and will manage to bring down some U.S. fighters. But will eventually be overwhelmed by the more numerous U.S. planes. Now of course I understand this is all hypothetical and anything can happen, but on paper, that's what going to happen most likely.

I'm honestly more interested in the "What if the Cold War turned hot" scenario with 1970s planes on both sides. Russian planes would've decimated U.S. planes in a straight up dogfight back then, IMO.

[B3YT]

The Russian IR suites have a 70KM range for detection and 25KM for lock on for missile guidance .The agility of fighters such as Su-27 , 33 family would make  missile hits quite improbable  , if i remember correctly the F22 is supposedly have missiles that lock onto the radar of the target craft  so if enemy fighters turn off their own radars and use ground base controllers then The F22 is going to have trouble getting a lock with out using an active radar  .   The biggest draw back to stealth as shown by RAF  sam crews is that if you use weather radars you can look for holes in your weather  and spot  stealth aircraft .

This was done to the B2 spirit  flying over the UK to go to an air-show in europe .  They tracked it across the UK using super high resolution weather radar from the ground . They knew it's  height and speed . OK so no ability to lock on but then you just send in your interceptors to visually ID and knock out . 

When you look at numbers I think Russia still has the upper hand , not so much numerical way but in the unwilling nature of western governments to enrage citizens in "needless " deaths of service men .  Where as Russian mentality is to protect the Motherland at all costs , damn the popularity ratings . 

All in all yes the US would win but damn it would be a close call . 

   

[Mace2004]

Stealth aircraft such as the B2 deploy radar reflectors/repeaters when operating in controlled airspace for safety reasons.  The fact that a radar tracked them under such a condition is irrelevant.  As for IR, stealth is much more than just reduced radar reflectivity.  The correct term for stealth is reduced signature which equates to lower radar, IR, visibility and even noise.  This is one of the reasons that supercruise is significant.  The F-22 can cruise supersonically without the use of afterburners and their extremely large heat signatures.  Also, the Russians aren't the only ones that have IR sensors.  We had the IRSTS in the F-14D and it was far from the magic system some people imagine and are far from reliable based on a tremendous number of atmospheric and target variables.  Also, even if you can target an IR signature at long range with a missile the fact that you don't know it's range makes it a complete crap shoot.  Also, long wave length ground based radars do not provide targeting quality data, that's why fighters and air defense systems always have their own higher frequency tracking and guidance radars.  Another "also" to consider is that these ground based radars are going to be first things targeted in a war.  They will not last long enough to matter.  As for just shutting down your own radar the first consideration is you're blind.  Secondly, while an F22's missile may be able to track a radar that's only one of their guidance modes so, if you're the F22 you've got some guy who shuts down his radar so can't see you coming while you're tracking him on your own radar and firing missiles with perfect SA.  Hummm, who do you think wins?

[B3YT]

.  Secondly, while an F22's missile may be able to track a radar that's only one of their guidance modes so, if you're the F22 you've got some guy who shuts down his radar so can't see you coming while you're tracking him on your own radar and firing missiles with perfect SA.  Hummm, who do you think wins?

erm the guy with  RWR .......... he will know your tracking him .  F22 relay heavily on AWACS for data  so take out AWACS and every one is in the same boat   Stealth  just means you end up in guns only combat where the the F22 is not the greatest .   Factor in ECR's ,  flares ect  gun on gun is pretty much only option left to both pilots.   air to air missile hits from both sides are not going to be very likely.   as with most countries (UK included with the euro fighter) there is plenty of chest thumping  without thinking of what the other guys are bringing to the party or how they are planning on getting round issues.   

[Mace2004]

erm the guy with  RWR .......... he will know your tracking him .  F22 relay heavily on AWACS for data  so take out AWACS and every one is in the same boat   Stealth  just means you end up in guns only combat where the the F22 is not the greatest .   Factor in ECR's ,  flares ect  gun on gun is pretty much only option left to both pilots.   air to air missile hits from both sides are not going to be very likely.   as with most countries (UK included with the euro fighter) there is plenty of chest thumping  without thinking of what the other guys are bringing to the party or how they are planning on getting round issues.   

Almost none of that is correct.  Air-to-air radars operating in search and Track While Scan modes are virtually undetectable in typical RWR and modern US radar missiles can easily be fired in TWS.  Fighter RWR typically react to single-target-track where the fighter's radar fires a continuous beam of energy at it but, as I said, modern US radar missile are perfectly effective when fired from a scanning mode.  The missile will typically go continuous active at end game but by then it's far to late for a fighter to react.  Also, modern missiles can pull more than 30G while manned aircraft can do at best 10G.  An NME fighter at 10G can't really outmaneuver a missile pulling 30.  At best he can hope to defeat the missile fusing which is extremely difficult.  As for taking out AWACS, best of luck to you.  It's one thing to fire HARM missiles at fixed ground sites and a completely different thing trying to take out an aircraft like an AWACS which is not only pretty far away but is mobile and also protected by those very F-22's you're dismissing.

You're also missing one of the key reasons for fighter stealth.  We tend to think about the hype that the airplane is "invisible" but that's not the complete, nor necessarily accurate, story.  Maximizing stealth impacts other aircraft attributes such as maneuverability.  Perhaps you've heard that all aircraft are a series of compromises.  You want to fly this far, the airplane has to be this big.  You want the best turn performance, the wing and control surfaces need to be like this.  You want top speeds the engines need to be like this.  The same is true for stealth.  The F22 (and any stealth fighter) compromises its stealthiness in favor of things like maneuverability and speed, otherwise, they'd all look like the B2 and they obviously don't. 

The more important part of stealth isn't straight "invisibility" but that the lower signatures reduce the range at which the aircraft can be detected and weapons can be employed it.  Take this scenario, two fighters close on each other.  One sees the other at 40NM while the other cannot see the other until 20NM.  The aircraft that can see first without being seen has a huge tactical advantage ranging from the ability to launch missiles at ranges where the other aircraft doesn't even know there's a threat (and ending the fight right there) to setting up the intercept to arrive at an offensive advantage.  Other offensive advantages range from being able to disengage if the tactical situation is bad (you're outnumbered), recognizing the NME tactics being employed (lead arounds, drags, pincer, etc.), or even the ability to maneuver outside of the other fighter's radar coverage to arrive on the NME fighter's six completely unobserved.  All of that can happen based not on invisibility but simply on seeing the other guy before he can see you and the Russian fighters you mentioned, while being maneuverable will be at a huge disadvantage.  Another thing about "supermaneuverability."  Ask yourself how you feel when you see a guy in AH at the very top of his climb just hanging there.  Pretty good, right?  Well, a lot of this "supermaneuverability" is exactly the same, the guy is essentially stalled and is hanging there.  Great for a 1v1 but death in a multi-bogey environment.  I'd love to go up against a Russian fighter pirouetting around at zero airspeed.  Point my AIM-9X at him with my helmet mounted sight and pull the trigger.  That's one dead Ruskie.

When (or more correctly IF) the Russians can actually produce their stealth fighter then lots will depend on how good of a plane it actually is.  It, like the F-22, will be a series of compromises. We have a tremendous advantage in lead time and experience with stealth so the chances that the airplane is half as good as the F-22 are pretty low but even if it's as good then lots will depend on tactics and the supporting infrastructure to build, deploy and maintain these hugely expensive weapons.

[Gman]

I always love it when somebody that is ill informed, or one of the 'Russian A/C are super l33t' types come on here and and start spouting things as if they are gospel.  I immediately subscribe to the thread, and await the entrance of either Mace or Eagl.  Watching somebody argue with two of the best fighter pilots in the world always is good for some out loud laughs.  The wife thinks I've gone nuts during these threads, as they have me talking out loud quite often.

One of my best friends from high school, Maj Jason Paquin is a 2000 hour Hornet Pilot here in Canada, and graduated that Empire Test pilot school in the UK where he flew all kinds of Nato fighters, and I think the only modern one he hasn't flown is the F14, due to it retiring.  Reading Mace's posts is like listening to him talk.

I was about to jump in about the "no escape zone" of modern NATO missiles, but I think Mace covered it in the above thread far better than I obviously ever could.  I will state that if you think that the 95% and higher hit rates from the Aim120 and Aim9 missiles are false, there are a whole bunch of dead Iraqi, Serbian, etc pilots that would argue the point, if they were breathing.  Once the target is inside of this envelope, the chances of evading it are pretty much ZERO.  Unless the fuzing system completely fails, and the round is a dud, that plane is going to be killed, plain and simple.  Even the vaunted Su35 etc with all the flippidy do stuff can never pull enough G, or fly fast enough to escape an Amraam or AIM9m-x once it is inside the no escape envelope.  It is physically and mathematically very improbable, and comes down to something failing on the missile, such as the guidance system, warhead, etc.  At least this is how I understand the no escape zone.  

Now, have the Russians and Chinese made strides in the last ten years.  Of course they have.  Mainly from stolen information from the look of their aircraft and the word on every defense site on the planet.  Have they caught up in terms of technology - no.  And more importantly, have their pilots become better than ours?  That'll be the day.  Of course, China can someday spend enough money to get its pilots the same hours in the air as the USAF/Nato.  Even when this day comes, they will have about 30 years of catch up to play to come close to our side's understanding of air combat.

As for the the 70's Cold War match up, why not look at what the Israeli's did with American and Nato equipment and training to the Warsaw Pact's aircraft and training.  You have several wars to choose from, from 67, 73, to the late 70's early 80's.  I believe the score is something like 20 to 1 or higher as far as air to air combat goes, and even higher if you count the WP aircraft destroyed on the ground.  Why would USAF pilots fare any worse vs Soviet pilots in these same plane?  Even in Vietnam, towards the end of the war when all of the crazy engagement restrictions were removed, and the F4's could engage beyond visual range at last, look what happened to the Mig21/19/17's then by comparison to the earlier part of that war.  

A question for Mace:  Do you believe it is worthwhile for the Navy/USAF/Nato to still look at building generation 5/6 type aircraft that aren't focused as much on Stealth, but more on payload, range, maneuverability etc?   A plane like the F14/F15/F111 on steroids is what I mean.  A really amazing AESA radar, a huge loadout of 12 or more A2A missiles, or an attack variant with about a dozen very useable hardpoints that has huge range.  With all of the Stealthy long range missiles coming into service, and not to mention the drones, why even bother with "Stealth" platforms that are manned.  Why not build fighters that focus on the other parts of the puzzle like I said, and save a pile of money and build something that sensors and stealth not withstanding is unbeatable in the sky.  Now that the Typhoon, Rafale, F35, F22 etc are all here, there doesn't seem to be much coming down the pipe other than a bunch of talk about generation 6 fighters that are super stealthy, and have all the compromises and huge maintenance/deployment expenses like you mentioned.

[kilo2]

I always love it when somebody that is ill informed, or one of the 'Russian A/C are super l33t' types come on here and and start spouting things as if they are gospel.  I immediately subscribe to the thread, and await the entrance of either Mace or Eagl.  Watching somebody argue with two of the best fighter pilots in the world always is good for some out loud laughs.  The wife thinks I've gone nuts during these threads, as they have me talking out loud quite often.

One of my best friends from high school, Maj Jason Paquin is a 2000 hour Hornet Pilot here in Canada, and graduated that Empire Test pilot school in the UK where he flew all kinds of Nato fighters, and I think the only modern one he hasn't flown is the F14, due to it retiring.  Reading Mace's posts is like listening to him talk.

I was about to jump in about the "no escape zone" of modern NATO missiles, but I think Mace covered it in the above thread far better than I obviously ever could.  I will state that if you think that the 95% and higher hit rates from the Aim120 and Aim9 missiles are false, there are a whole bunch of dead Iraqi, Serbian, etc pilots that would argue the point, if they were breathing.  Once the target is inside of this envelope, the chances of evading it are pretty much ZERO.  Unless the fuzing system completely fails, and the round is a dud, that plane is going to be killed, plain and simple.  Even the vaunted Su35 etc with all the flippidy do stuff can never pull enough G, or fly fast enough to escape an Amraam or AIM9m-x once it is inside the no escape envelope.  It is physically and mathematically very improbable, and comes down to something failing on the missile, such as the guidance system, warhead, etc.  At least this is how I understand the no escape zone.  

Now, have the Russians and Chinese made strides in the last ten years.  Of course they have.  Mainly from stolen information from the look of their aircraft and the word on every defense site on the planet.  Have they caught up in terms of technology - no.  And more importantly, have their pilots become better than ours?  That'll be the day.  Of course, China can someday spend enough money to get its pilots the same hours in the air as the USAF/Nato.  Even when this day comes, they will have about 30 years of catch up to play to come close to our side's understanding of air combat.

As for the the 70's Cold War match up, why not look at what the Israeli's did with American and Nato equipment and training to the Warsaw Pact's aircraft and training.  You have several wars to choose from, from 67, 73, to the late 70's early 80's.  I believe the score is something like 20 to 1 or higher as far as air to air combat goes, and even higher if you count the WP aircraft destroyed on the ground.  Why would USAF pilots fare any worse vs Soviet pilots in these same plane?  Even in Vietnam, towards the end of the war when all of the crazy engagement restrictions were removed, and the F4's could engage beyond visual range at last, look what happened to the Mig21/19/17's then by comparison to the earlier part of that war.  

A question for Mace:  Do you believe it is worthwhile for the Navy/USAF/Nato to still look at building generation 5/6 type aircraft that aren't focused as much on Stealth, but more on payload, range, maneuverability etc?   A plane like the F14/F15/F111 on steroids is what I mean.  A really amazing AESA radar, a huge loadout of 12 or more A2A missiles, or an attack variant with about a dozen very useable hardpoints that has huge range.  With all of the Stealthy long range missiles coming into service, and not to mention the drones, why even bother with "Stealth" platforms that are manned.  Why not build fighters that focus on the other parts of the puzzle like I said, and save a pile of money and build something that sensors and stealth not withstanding is unbeatable in the sky.  Now that the Typhoon, Rafale, F35, F22 etc are all here, there doesn't seem to be much coming down the pipe other than a bunch of talk about generation 6 fighters that are super stealthy, and have all the compromises and huge maintenance/deployment expenses like you mentioned.

You should know Russian equipment is always and has always been far superior in both quality and effectiveness.

[Mace2004]

You should know Russian equipment is always and has always been far superior in both quality and effectiveness.

Chuckle