The Russians have two stealth aircraft designs in the current development pipeline, intended to be deployed operationally between 2010 and 2020. The Chinese are claimed to be working on a stealthy follow-up to the J-10 Sinocanard fighter and have displayed models of supersonic stealthy unmanned vehicle designs.
Wrong. PAK-FA won't even fly before 2010. This is admitted by the Russians and explains why NO-ONE has even seen a pre-production TEST model ala X-35, let alone production representative test aircraft.
Arguing they will deploy 2x "stealths" operationally before 2020 requires the smoking of a large amount of illicit substances. A circumstance I believe APA indulge in frequently before conducting their so-called "analysis".
The second of these designs is the PAK-FA - Future Aviation System For Tactical Aviation), a multirole tactical fighter intended to compete in the air with the F-22A Raptor and in the marketplace with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The PAK-FA will replace the Russian Sukhoi Flanker series as the primary fighter in the Russian Air Force and will become the principal export fighter for Russia’s booming defence industry.
Will do this and won't do that. Must be easy to criticise when one has such an accurate crystal ball.
Seeing as they obviously do, perhaps they could simply lend it to defence, because they regularly criticise defence for espousing IT'S ideas for the future as being "crystal ball gazing" and being "too distant" to make specific judgements.
I guess Defence simply doesn't have access to the range of open source literature that the APA nutjobs have...
The prototype of the PAK-FA was intended to fly in 2008 but has been delayed to this year so, to date, no useful imagery of this design exists.
It can't fly so they can't even take a photo of the prototype to show the world they are actually serious? I know Russia's got a tight budget, but arguing they can't even take a photo and email it around the world?
Come on...
The Russians have made numerous public statements which do provide some indication of what the design aims for this aircraft are: it is intended to be stealthy, highly agile to prevail in close air combat, it is intended to be fitted with an evolution of the 20 kiloWatt class NIIP N035 Irbis E phased array radar and to be powered by a pair of 35,000 lbf class supersonic cruise turbofan engines.
On paper, these cardinal parameters put the PAK-FA in the class of the F-22A Raptor.
I'm building an F-22 Raptor beating VLO fighter too. It's going to have more stealth, will be more agile then any current fighter. It's going to have a 40 kiloWatt class radar and will be powered by a pair of 50,000lbf class supersonic cruise turbofan engines.
I was going to test fly it this year, but I've had to delay it a bit, so therefore I obviously can't show you any photographs of it...
I'm going to sell it to the RAAF for $20m each too.
The first question any observer will properly ask is whether the Russians have the basic technology to design, develop, test and produce a credible state-of-the-art stealth fighter. The key technologies required for this include shaping design techniques, absorbent material and coating techniques, digital flight control technology, rectangular engine nozzle technology, engine hot end technology, and Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) digital radar and networking technology.
These are "basic" technologies?
I wonder what he considers "advanced"?
Shaping techniques are the most important prerequisite technology for stealth design - their purpose is to scatter radar waves illuminating an aircraft away from the threat radar. Good examples of smart shaping design include the F-117A, B-2A, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, as well as the proposed FB-22A. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine nozzle and lower fuselage areas are examples of especially poor shaping design.
Plenty of radars look straight up in the air, like a search light aimed vertically, don't they?
If the F-35's engine nozzle is a poor shaping design. What does that say for the SU-35? Oh that's right, it's invincible. Except for the F-22. And the un-photographable PAK-FA and the J-XX...
Effective shaping techniques permit an aircraft to be built with a 100 to 1,000 fold lower radar signature compared to a conventional design of similar size.
Just like the advantage the F-35 shares over the SU-XX...
Hang on, I thought that wasn't important earlier?
The two principal tools required to perform proper rigorous shaping design are computer based simulation tools, typically based on physical optics, diffraction and surface travelling wave mathematical modelling and measurement tools and test range facilities to verify that shapes designed on a computer actually work as intended.
The USA has 7 publicly known out-door radar cross section testing facilities.
Russia has how many?
With commodity desktop computers now outperforming the supercomputer technology used by US defence contractors during the 1970s and 1980s, and Russia’s surplus of high quality PhD graduates in mathematics, physics and electrical engineering, the ability of Russian industry to produce a good stealth shaping design is limited only by the investment made in personnel, measurement tools and test ranges. As the SKAT UCAV mockup shows, current Russian design technique is converging with US design technique.
And how much coin exactly does Russia have to make these investments?
What is often forgotten in the West is that Russian designers have a long history of cherry-picking the best ideas from extant Western designs, incrementally improving them, and fusing them together to produce an end product that outperforms its Western predecessors. Classic examples include the AS-4 and AS-6 supersonic cruise missiles, improving on the British Blue Steel or the Sukhoi Flanker, which fused key ideas from the US F-14, F-15 and F-16 fighters to produce an original new design outperforming all three US fighters.
Picking last seasons race-car is always a sure-fire path to success...
With a wealth of imagery available detailing the US F-117A, B-2A, A-12A, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, the Russians have a defacto library of sound and well proven ideas to work with. There is no need for Russian industry to reinvent the wheel, as US engineers have paved the way with a wealth of creative thinking.
I know. How do you think I'm designing mine? With all that pathfinding already achieved by the USA, there's no hope that they could continue to advance, is there?
Driving the signature of a stealth aircraft down further, into the size of tennis balls, golfballs and marbles, is done by the application of radar absorbent structures, material coatings and low signature seals, fasteners, antennas and other detail components.
F-22 equals a marble.
F-35 equals a golf ball.
F/A-18E/F equals a tennis ball.
SU-35 equals a beach ball.
This statement doesn't quite seem to add up...
Russian industry has a long history of creative and original developments in coating technologies and materials science. Recent disclosures include a coating which reduced the radar signature of the engine inlet tunnels in the Su-35BM Flanker by a factor of 30 in the centimetre radar band. Other technologies the Russians have developed include multilayer laminates which rotate the polarisation of surface travelling waves to suppress trailing edge reflections.
Lovely.
Now the SU-35 only appears to be 2/3rds the size of a barn on radar...
The Russians mastered digital flight control technology during the 1990s and have been using it in the supermanoeuvrable Su-30MKI/MKM, Su-35BM and MiG-35 designs, to an advantage. There is now sufficient maturity in this technology to make a highly manoeuvrable stealth fighter, not unlike the F-22A.
Excellent. No doubt next-generation Russian fighters will be out-turning 60G AtA missiles too...
The technology of rectangular exhaust nozzles used in all proper US stealth designs to control radar and infrared signatures is also well within the reach of Russian industry, which tested a rectangular thrust vectoring nozzle during the early 1990s.
Proper US stealth designs?
Can someone please point out the rectangular exhaust nozzle used on this "proper" stealth design?
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=245.0;attach=3682;image
In terms of engine technology, the Russians built the Al-41F supercruise engine during the 1990s and since then migrated its hot end technology into the Al-31F-117S for use in the Su-35BM. A 35,000 lbf class supercruise engine for the PAK-FA is therefore a non-issue.
Nope. But building one that can last more than a few minutes is...
In radar, the choice of mature Russian hybrid phased array technology for the PAK-FA over immature active array technology is a short term measure. It took US radar designers a decade to transition from the quad module technology used now in Phazotron’s Zhuk-AE to current single channel module technology. By 2020, probably sooner, the Russians will have mastered this, emulating US designs. That technology will permit the addition of the wideband frequency hopping techniques and stealthy antenna arrays which characterise current US Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) AESA radars and top end data links.
So in 11 years time, the Russians will have caught up (another definite pronouncement) to where the US is NOW?
Why does that seem to contradict earlier statements about Russia's magnificent technology?
There can be no doubt that the Russians possess all of the basic technologies required to design an F-22 class supercruising and agile stealth fighter - the basic aerodynamic, shaping and propulsion design of the F-22 was performed over a decade ago.
At a cost of more than USD$60 Billion dollars.
Replicating it, ain't going to be easy.
When the PAK-FA is unveiled later this year we will see exactly how effective Sukhoi’s design engineers have been in fusing these technologies together to produce a new design. We can be confident that the design will be an effective supercruiser and it will be highly agile. The only uncertainty at this stage is in how stealthy it will be.
Hang on, I thought earlier it can't be photographed unless it can fly?
Seems to be contradictory once more...
How stealthy does the PAK-FA need to be to defeat US legacy fighters? A radar cross section of only -20 dBSM would deny early Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile shots using the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM to all current and planned US fighters. Doing any better, like -30 dBSM or -40 dBSM, simply increases the level of difficulty in prosecuting long-range missile attacks.
The consequence of this is that missile combat will be compressed into shorter distances and shorter timelines, putting a premium on the stealth, supersonic persistence and close combat agility of US fighters. A larger portion of engagements will be at visual range and most BVR engagements will end up taking place inside 30 nautical miles.
Tallyho! The Biggles brigade will lead the way...
US missiles, radars, EW, sensors will not improve before 2020, I presume?
God those American's are stupid! If only you'd all listen to Carlo Kopp. You could build on his mobile phone expertise and jointly develop this!
http://www.ausairpower.net/000-CSIRS-Concept-MKopp-83-3RCS.jpg
The ultimate VLO fighter, bomber all in one Russki beater...
Only the F-22A Raptor is viable in an air combat environment where the PAK-FA is deployed, and the F-22A will not provide a 144:0 kill ratio against the PAK-FA.
Again, very definite statement there. So non-VO Russian fighters are viable in an air environment dominated by US Stealths, but the reverse is not true?
Makes one wonder why the Russians are going to all the trouble of building a stealth, if their current designs are so superior?
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter struggles to survive against the conventional Su-35BM Flanker, with only its -30 dBSM class front sector stealth keeping it alive in some BVR combat situations. Against even a -20 dBSM class PAK-FA, the F-35 falls within the survivability black hole into which US legacy fighters such as the F-16C/E, F-15C/E and F/A-18A-F have already fallen.
Hmm. I'm pretty sure earlier, it was a case of "any LO is better than none".
Now a few paragraphs later, the -30 dBSM F-35 "falls within the survivability black hole".
Again, hypocritical, or deliberately misleading?
Americans need to start thinking about which strategic niche they wish to occupy in 2020. The stealth monopoly cannot last forever and the US must now confront the prospect of a future in which the asymmetric advantage of US stealth is no longer absolute, but rather incremental.
God those American's are stupid. Imagine the idiocy involved in planning their hegemony around the merits of an individual fighter aircraft compared to another individual fighter aircraft, without assessing the sum of the whole?
There is a big difference, operationally and strategically, in using stealthy jets against opponents who have none, versus using stealthy jets against opponents who also use stealthy jets.
Based on Carlo's extensive operational experience and knowledge of combat involving stealth jet v stealth jet of course...
Well, that's the end of whatever credibility they ever had...
How can people read this crap, and ACTUALLY think it offers any insight into modern air combat whatsoever?
