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

[Stellaris]

@Hazard - you're right, the MiG-25 in particular had a tube-based radar, which could handle far higher power than same-era solid state gear, which gave it the ability to burn through jamming at tremendous range (it put out 250Kw peak power IIRC) - and is EMP immune.  One of the advantages T-50 has is its large radome combined with the recent availablity of gallium nitride transistors in the transmit/receive modules.  The details (obviously) aren't out, but reasonable power/density/area assumptions give it a lot more heft that the F-22s APG-77.  Also, the Russians have long experience with combined L/X band systems (at least as far back as Mig-31), and stealth doesn't work well against L band (L band, however doesn't localize as well as X band does).  T-50 has this too.

Again, not to say which plane is "better".  I haven't flown either one.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

The f-22 doesn't need to dog fight, you cannot best a aim9-x sidewinder,ever. so keep doin' those mid air loops that drop your airspeed to that of a car(i know its cool for air shows, but in combat your a dead man) after that,then wonder why someone was able to shove a missile or even cannon up your tail pipe.  PLEASE also understand i was flying the f22 in jane's atf the better part of what 15+ years ago or more? (BY FAR A NEW PLANE WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?) And as far as thrust vectoring, you're way off, look at the x-31. Then understand how simple the f22's thrust vectoring is when it compares to fighters made in under the past 10 years.

I don't have the link right now, but ill show you something that is manned, doesn't use wings and can defy 86% of the earths gravitational field, and yes,that also includes a decrease of the same % to the humans gravity inside. "Tr-3B"


:Edit:

The first thrust vectoring nasa pioneered in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhonVYFIiP0


So suck that down Su lover.

[Rob52240]

I remember that x-plane.

Now back up your statement while explaining why the F-22 still has a gun.

The Terminator would have the advantage in a gunfight.  We can debate missiles all you want but it is a boring subject compared to actual dogfighting.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. 


 

[Rob52240]

The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. 


 

Circular reasoning is not the same as actual reasoning.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

It has a gun for when the range is too close to use a missile.

[Stellaris]

My dad can beat up your dad!

[Hazard69]

The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. 


 

Not sure here, but wasn't the F-4 Phantom put into operations without a gun, since they carried the brand new shiny sparrows and would never have to ever dogfight a MIG again ?   (huh? where'd the good old sarcastic roll-eyes smiley go?).

I agree the AIM-9X is way better than the dear old semi-active AIM-7, but still the same point holds true. Never say never.

[TWC_boss]

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)

"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)"

The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.

Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.

Just my opinon
With Best Regards



   

[icepac]

The problem with the latest technology russian planes is that there are usually only 1 or 2 made.

[B3YT]

"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)"

The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.

Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.

Just my opinon
With Best Regards



   

Your pretty much right there . I think all sides get to complacent with technology . Every one whole relies to much on having the latest and greatest will fall short  when things don't go quite to plan . The "enemy" always adapts  especially when they are behind . Russia , China  knew they had to fight stealth and I would imagine they would find a way around the issues  to almost nullify it . If it was the US that didn't have stealth  do you think your military wouldn't have worked out a plan to counter it .

[TWC_boss]

Your pretty much right there . I think all sides get to complacent with technology . Every one whole relies to much on having the latest and greatest will fall short  when things don't go quite to plan . The "enemy" always adapts  especially when they are behind . Russia , China  knew they had to fight stealth and I would imagine they would find a way around the issues  to almost nullify it . If it was the US that didn't have stealth  do you think your military wouldn't have worked out a plan to counter it .

Yes the USA would move to develop or counter stealth technology. Stealth today is like radar back in the mid to late 20's mid 30's to Russia and China, and Russia has been working on a counter measure (Germany first developed 1928, if my history serves me right) I believe the next test/development will be in stealth missile technology and mobile SAM systems, (which the Soviets have more of then anybody) the ability to make your mobile launch system "invisable", turning it on and not emitting a signal.

Good conversation piece

With Best Regards
   

[B3YT]

it's the british cynic in me but to see chest thumping "F-22 fricking awesome clear the skis never get shot down " bull it just winds me up. All major battles and conflicts are lost because they don't credit the enemy. Look at the failure that was the first 8th air-force raids as they thought the B17 would "clear the skis of enemy fighters" . Did it hell . Same can be applied to British failures . Just because it was top of the line  in your arsenal doesn't mean some low tech guy can't beat it . It seems the majority of US citizens and UK too are to impressed with shiny new things . I think Stealth from the start is a dead end road , there is to much to go wrong that could cripple your advantage over your enemy.  It takes just one development  and your war plan is undone. 

The RAF found this in BoB old fighter tactics and formations no longer worked as the enemy didn't play to your strengths.

[mike8318]

"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)"

The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.

Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.

Just my opinon
With Best Regards

No Sabres in Nam. Sorry

   

[B3YT]

F100 super Sabre.