Russian air force goes stealth

[Skybird]

Their planned rival for the F-22 has flown for the first time. It looks like a Raptor in that video.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8486812.stm


The "fifth generation" jet is designed to be invisible to radar. Russia's air force hopes to acquire it in 2015.
The new jet has been developed in partnership with India. It is seen as a significant milestone in Russia's efforts to modernise its Soviet-era military hardware.
Sukhoi's director Mikhail Pogosyan said he was convinced that the project would "excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening of the defence power of the Russian and Indian air forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market".
The company says the jet's stealth features considerably enhance its combat effectiveness in all weathers.
Its features include: all-weather capability, ability to use a take-off strip of just 300-400 metres, capacity for sustained supersonic flight including repeated in-flight refuelling, advanced avionics, simultaneous attacks on air and ground targets.

Do not underestimate this thing just because it is "build in Russia". the Russians have a history of seeing a new American airframe, then starting to think how to counter it, then presenting a design meant to neutralise the American fighter - and having a plane then that at least is en par with the threat it should counter, if not surpasses it (think of the Su-27/33 and the F-15). Also, avionic-wise the gap between West and East is no longer as big as it once has been. And armament-wise the Russian fighters are simply superior to American fighters - since long.

If they manage to build this thing at considerably lower price levels than the F-22 costs, then the round goes to them. So much for overcoming them by a new arms-race. It probably would cost us more than them - with us in general and america in special failing to squeeze the wanted military superiority out of our much bigger financial investements. And an air-combat environment where the already low-in numbers F-22 gets challenged by the T-50 being stationed in several customer nations of the Russians, would put the bang-for-the-money calculation for the hilarious costs of the F-22 program into serious question. For this, the Russians would not even need to reach equal level in military quality with the Americans. All they would need is to shift the loss-ratio so much in their favour that the costs of war with a russian-equipped force becomes unbearable for the US state and unacceptable for the American public. It's much like what NATO calculated in case of a hot war with the USSR: probably not being able to beat the Russians, but to make advancing into Western Europe so costly for them that they think twice before trying it.

[Oberon]

Ah, the PAK FA finally takes flight, good to see the final design after ages of speculation, very much influenced by the Raptor I'd say but like you say Skybird, that's nothing new and they have a habit of advancing along those technological lines whilst aiming to counteract western tech. Kontakt-5 comes to mind. :hmmm:
Furthermore, as Skybird also says, if this aircraft can perform anywhere near like the F-22 at a fraction of the cost then the F-22 will be facing dozens of these things across the Russian export zone. Which includes Iran IIRC.

[Raptor1]

Ah, been wondering how the PAK FA will end up looking like for a while, though I can't decide if that thing is ugly, beautiful or both at the same time.

[XabbaRus]

Looks good.

No canards. Wonder how weapons will be carried.

It was a Russian mathematician who worked out the formulas for stealth shaping.

[Skybird]

Found this comparison, but cannot say to what degree the painting is representative for the real thing.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2092/pakfat50c.jpg (http://img63.imageshack.us/i/pakfat50c.jpg/)

From:
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2008/09/09/pak-fat-50-concepcoes/

with reference to:
www.paralay.com (http://www.paralay.com)

Don't understand both languages...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!

[Raptor1]

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!

I fail to see where you draw the conclusion that Skybird implies some kind of opinion on such matters in this thread...

[Skybird]

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!
... ????

[Rhodes]

Ah, the good old russian skill!

[Schroeder]

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!
If there is one guy here who doesn't like the Mullah regime it's Skybird.;)

[Skybird]

If you look at that video at time index 8-10 seconds, you see it top-down silhouette like in the sketch I posted. The sketch meets the real plane pretty closely, only the front part of the wings, over the air inlets, are too slim in the sketch, but seem to be more "robust" in reality, and closer modelled to the design of the F-22.

[Oberon]

I fail to see where you draw the conclusion that Skybird implies some kind of opinion on such matters in this thread...

I agree, something tells me that the notion of the PAK-FA superseding the F-22 will not go down well in certain circles of this forum :03: However, it's not a given, although as has already been said, things should not be automatically discounted just because they were made in Russia. Certainly, one of the primary factors in this comparison is how much bang you will get for your buck. If the PAK-FA is the cheap F-22, then you're going to see it becoming popular in the export market, and Russia will make a killing from it. Meanwhile, the F-22, whilst being a fantastic piece of kit, will not be exported, and will not be built to its full potential because the US cannot afford it.
More importantly, perhaps, is the performance of the PAK-FA in relation to the F-35, because that is, for all intents and purposes, the export version of the F-22, if the PAK-FA can outperform the F-35, be sold at a lower cost than the F-35 and have a lower maintenance cost than the F-35, then the Russians are going to make a killing.
However, until these facts are known, I will not stray either side of the fence. :03:

[Skybird]

Well, what the Russian jet is missing is thrust vectoring, and Times Online just reported that it uses pretty old engine types. On the other hand it has twice the range of the F-22. But you do not want to use such an expensive and precious jet in close combat, if possible, when eye contact would neutralise most of the advantage from being undetected on radar. And here, the superior Russian AAM with their greater range, high sensor sensibility and high agility, may be more than adequate for compensating an eventual weakness in airplane agility, compared to the thrust-vectoring F-22. but since the Mig-29 and Su-27 we have seen that lacking agility of russian fighters is a relative term anyway. I would not be surprised if the airframe geometry nevertheless makes this plane more agile in dogfighting than one may assume when noting the lacking thrust vectoring.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, what the Russian jet is missing is thrust vectoring, and Times Online just reported that it uses pretty old engine types.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised, since it'll be darn unlikely that the Russians will make a stealth fighter and use an old engine and even less likely they'll admit it, but when I read it was Golts who said that, I'm like "Oh". While the Russian military has problems, this fella is such a chunk of ice when it comes to the Russian military if anybody should be disappear into a gulag for criticizing the State he'll have to qualify. See also this thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1176036) for what I have to say about him.

Criticism generally is a good thing but with such "helpful" critics like him, the Russian military might well be better off it his lot were collectively shipped to Siberia.

To be fair, there is apparently a school in Russian aviation, even in the VVS. that figures that thrust vectoring is not worth the expense considering the limitations in Russian pilot quality (due to relative lack of flying hours). But I don't see how they would pass up supercruise.

[Oberon]

Hmmm, this is true, rather odd that they would choose to omit thrust vectoring when they've already put it in the MiG-29OVT, however this is most likely a ploy to reduce operating expenses. Like you say, in gunzo combat the element of stealth is useless, although maneuverablity is king, so close up gunzo, the Raptor would probably pwn the PAK-FA. Long range though, well I guess a lot of that is down to the cross section of the aircraft and the missile range and sensitivity which, like you say, the Russians do do a good job.
By the way, has any more information come to light about the claim the Russians made about the aircraft having an 'artificial intellect'? :hmmm:

Oh, and another thing that made me chuckle, the NATO reporting name....Firefox.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/MiG-31_Firefox.jpg

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

By the way, has any more information come to light about the claim the Russians made about the aircraft having an 'artificial intellect'? :hmmm:

As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about it, I see no reason why not. Supposedly artificial intelligence is used even in the Su-34, and the Russians have always had an interest in trying to reduce as many decisions as possible into calculations and norms that are then more suitable for automation, while the West tends to believe military thinking is an art and can't be and shouldn't be "reduced" to a science.

[Oberon]

As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about it, I see no reason why not. Supposedly artificial intelligence is used even in the Su-34, and the Russians have always had an interest in trying to reduce as many decisions as possible into calculations and norms that are then more suitable for automation, while the West tends to believe military thinking is an art and can't be and shouldn't be "reduced" to a science.

Oh, indeed, you only have to look at the Alfa at their early attempts to reduce workload through automation and computers. I was just wondering what kind of things this AI would do?

[XabbaRus]

I think they used old engines as the new ones aren't ready. Nothing new in that.

But hey that doesn't stop Golts letting it get in the way of a story criticising the Russian airforce and equipment.

[Dowly]

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!

Dont worry, there's no risk of US getting it's arse kicked. You know, they only seek easy fights and boast at the rest of the world "Look mom! Look dad! I can wipe my own arse!". US is in it's teenage years and acts like one, bullies those who cant do nothing about it and then brags about it. The rest of the world is living their 50's already, watch US go and think to themselves "Ow the youth of today..." :DL

[Skybird]

The rest of the world is living their 50's already, watch US go and think to themselves "Ow the youth of today..." :DL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU02tyBAp4A

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

[Task Force]

Aaahhh... Nice plane russia, I think it looks better than the american thing...:up: Ive always thought the russian stuff looked abit better than the american...:yep:

[Skybird]

I think they used old engines as the new ones aren't ready.

That's what I thought at first, too, when reading about the old engines, but I found no confirmation for that. I also wonder whether a flight test like this makes sense if later thrust vectoring is planned anyway. It would be a "start from scratch" again. This early demonstration maybe just a PR stunt, then, to please their Indian (and also Brasilian?) partners. A website I had, mentioned Brasil, too.

[Onkel Neal]

:haha: Ha ha, they're only 30 years behind us now.

[longam]

Going to bet they still have cable flight controls........

[Sea Demon]

First look at it, it looks kind of pretty. However I see many problems with it if they're trying to achieve something like F-22/F-35.

* Too many exposed rivets are present in the airframe. This tends to reduce any hull form stealth in a big way. Also, there are no saw shaped patterns, nor does there seem to be much apparent shaping techniques utilized to break up radar emissions. Airframe has a couple of other things sticking out.

* Cockpit has a large metal frame on top. That's going to reflect radar energy. In addition to the fact that no radar absorbing material (F-22 uses gold) is placed on the cockpit canopy.

*Air intakes are large and uncanted. From a 30-120 aspect or so, any enemy fighter that shines its radar at the Pak Fa will see a nice radar reflection. (F-22 cants this angle downward - resulting in enemy aircrafts radar reflecting towards ground or away from the enemy fighters radar receiver regardless of F-22 angle of bank).

*There is no denying looking at these pictures that the rear of the aircraft is huge, resulting in a large cross section. This Pak-FA is absolutely unstealthy from the rear.

*With the size of the engines to the section of airframe fitting them, there doesn't seem to be alot of space for weapons. Unless there will be a compromise to use racks on the wings, which will of course further degrade any attempts at stealth design.

Assuming the fraction of money available to the Russians (compared to USAF) to propagate the design, modify it, and export it against F-35, just how many do you think will ever be produced? I doubt there will be many in the near term. I don't discount that this aircraft has been a step forward for Sukhoi. But looking at it as a whole, it's no F-22 or F-35.

[goldorak]

*With the size of the engines to the section of airframe fitting them, there doesn't seem to be alot of space for weapons. Unless there will be a compromise to use racks on the wings, which will of course further degrade any attempts at stealth design.


There is space enough to carry what seems like 7 missiles inside its weapons bay, plus eventually another 6 missiles carried externally. Thats more than enough for AA combat. Heck even american jets don't carry 7 Air to Air missiles. The F-14 Tomcat used to carry at most 6 Phoenix missiles (and these were the longest range AA missiles of the day).
7 internally carried long range AA missiles are going to ruin the day of any F-22 IF the sensors are up to the job.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pak-fa-t-50-e.jpg
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pak-fa-t-50-h.jpg

[XabbaRus]

First look at it, it looks kind of pretty. However I see many problems with it if they're trying to achieve something like F-22/F-35.

* Too many exposed rivets are present in the airframe. This tends to reduce any hull form stealth in a big way. Also, there are no saw shaped patterns, nor does there seem to be much apparent shaping techniques utilized to break up radar emissions. Airframe has a couple of other things sticking out.

* Cockpit has a large metal frame on top. That's going to reflect radar energy. In addition to the fact that no radar absorbing material (F-22 uses gold) is placed on the cockpit canopy.

*Air intakes are large and uncanted. From a 30-120 aspect or so, any enemy fighter that shines its radar at the Pak Fa will see a nice radar reflection. (F-22 cants this angle downward - resulting in enemy aircrafts radar reflecting towards ground or away from the enemy fighters radar receiver regardless of F-22 angle of bank).

*There is no denying looking at these pictures that the rear of the aircraft is huge, resulting in a large cross section. This Pak-FA is absolutely unstealthy from the rear.

*With the size of the engines to the section of airframe fitting them, there doesn't seem to be alot of space for weapons. Unless there will be a compromise to use racks on the wings, which will of course further degrade any attempts at stealth design.

Assuming the fraction of money available to the Russians (compared to USAF) to propagate the design, modify it, and export it against F-35, just how many do you think will ever be produced? I doubt there will be many in the near term. I don't discount that this aircraft has been a step forward for Sukhoi. But looking at it as a whole, it's no F-22 or F-35.

I think you need to remember this is a first flight and second it is the prototype. The canopy is going to be replaced by a one piece job.

Secondly we don't know what arrangement is in the intakes to hide the fans.

Thirdly if you see watch the video of take off and the stills you can clearly see two weapons bays between the engines. The keypublishing forums have an interesting thread on it.

As for the engines apparently they are thrust vectoring. An interesting thing is the LERXs can move so it is still designed with super maneuverability in mind.

AS for the rivets, You look at preproduction F-22s and F-35s before the paint is applied you can see the rivets. They are then covered up with RAM paint.

Longjam - The Russians have been using FBW for decades now.

[Skybird]

As for the engines apparently they are thrust vectoring. An interesting thing is the LERXs can move so it is still designed with super maneuverability in mind.

Sure? I see nothing nowhere indicating that. But maybe I just don'T know where to look for what.


On the armament, I read 2x (!) 30mm cannons, 10 internal hardpoints (!!!), plus optional 2x4 external. That is amazing, considering the bigger fuel store needed if the plane really has twice the range of an F-22. For a stealth fighter, of course forget the external hardpoints to be loaded with weapons.

I wonder if this plane really is as stealthy as the F-22, or if maybe it is only significantly lowered in radar signature, like the Typhoon.

[Skybird]

:haha: Ha ha, they're only 30 years behind us now.You may want to discuss that with some of their air-air-missiles. Some of them I'd pick over AMRAAMs or Sidewinders any day. Or their anti-tank-missiles. Tank-protection. And some more.

In the wars of the past 20 years, american forces never have faced Russian first line equipment in Russian production standard, only B- and C-grade equipment that was old and was produced for export and maintained and operated by personnel often of "sub-optimal" training.

Modern western equipment is better than 20-30 year old Russian equipment, yes. Big surprise! ;)

On a modern-versus-modern comparison, again I say they do not need to reach total equality with american standards. If they shift the kill ratios so much against american acceptance levels so that a conflict becomes too costly for the US, they have achieved their mission. And I think they definitely have the ablity to cripple a carrier battle group, or to break up an armoured land attack. and when it comes down to close combat in boots and with rifles - well, then everybody is equal amongst equals again.

[XabbaRus]

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1526255&postcount=39

Wow there seems to be a lot of rivets on the F-35 don't you think?

[Sea Demon]

I think you need to remember this is a first flight and second it is the prototype. The canopy is going to be replaced by a one piece job.

Secondly we don't know what arrangement is in the intakes to hide the fans.

Thirdly if you see watch the video of take off and the stills you can clearly see two weapons bays between the engines. The keypublishing forums have an interesting thread on it.

As for the engines apparently they are thrust vectoring. An interesting thing is the LERXs can move so it is still designed with super maneuverability in mind.

AS for the rivets, You look at preproduction F-22s and F-35s before the paint is applied you can see the rivets. They are then covered up with RAM paint.

Longjam - The Russians have been using FBW for decades now.

The F-22 and F-35 prototypes were a more complete engineering model prior to base production than this PAK-FA example. The production model F-22 had very little to no serious rework of canopy or airframe. A shift in cockpit location was the major one. But that had nothing to do with stealth issues. What you're saying is that they will need significant engineering rework to get it into a state suitable for production. I don't think you understood what I meant by the riveting. I am no expert in airframe manufacturing, yet I see a difference. I alluded to the amount of exposed rivets. Which some panels on this new Russian machine appear to be double riveted in a number of places. It's my opinion based on observation. Take it or leave it. Yet that is still a minor consideration in looking at the whole thing. Other things there are simply undeniable.

The rear of the aircraft is humongous and will light up like a bonfire to any radar scanning it's direction. Just by looking at it from a rear aspect and current side view, it's not stealth in any appreciable way in comparison with F-22/F-35. Take a look at the underside view (inflight) as well. And a few things that stick out near the cockpit. I do acknowledge this can change, but the pre-production variant here gives no hint of it. Changing the engines out? Reworking the intakes? Redesigning this canopy (which shows a hint of bad rearward visibility as well)? Reworking exposed antennas? That's only a start.

I also discount the amount of space in the airframe due to the size of the engine bays. I don't see alot of space for anything there. Unless you start eliminating fuel space in the internal fuselage, there may be issues there as well, or a compromise in the amount of internal carriage. I simply don't buy the figures Skybird and others here give with the fitting of 6 or more missiles in internal bays. Anybody can see there is not alot of space available. At any rate, there has to be some compromises made due to the choices I see here. This jet does not look to be a direct competitor to F-22 other than an attempt at outside apopearance. And there is more to stealth design than simple shaping. These elements which I'm not convinced Russia has learned. This variant so far looks like a means to keep up with F-35, Typhoon, and other comparable Western 4th-5th generation fighters. As it looks now, It's not going to touch F-22.

:haha: they're only 30 years behind us now.

Consider this. The F-22 began design phase in the early 80's. The RFP went out in 1986 for a prototype. First flight of the prototypes flew in the late 80's. And the current production model of F-22 currently has uncontested primacy in the Air Dominance role. Russia has built this PAK-FA prototype, and first flew it in early 2010. And there appears to be a number of compromises made in design or reworks to be done to correct major engineering deficiencies. China's J-XX is still nowhere to be seen. My bet is F-35 will be fielded in numbers and upgraded prior to Russia getting their new aircraft in service to their liking and in numbers of significance.

[Task Force]

In the end, If america and russia were to go to war, which I doubt will happen anytime soon. I believe it will be like WW2... they would shoot 1 russian tank and 9 or 10 would show up...:yep: Even tho it may not be the same quality, they will be able to make more, and overwelm you...

ex, german tigers, against russian t 34s... tigers, better tank, but in the end overwelmed by the quickly made russian ones...

[Snestorm]

In the end, If america and russia were to go to war, which I doubt will happen anytime soon. I believe it will be like WW2... they would shoot 1 russian tank and 9 or 10 would show up...:yep: Even tho it may not be the same quality, they will be able to make more, and overwelm you...

ex, german tigers, against russian t 34s... tigers, better tank, but in the end overwelmed by the quickly made russian ones...

Actualy the late T-34 was the better tank.
The only advantage the germans held in the end was better crews and leadership.

It was the american Sherman that was the battlefield weekling, and used high numbers to offset low quality. Their crews referred to them as ronson lighters.

[Task Force]

well... I was thinking rong... but yea, the sherman was a good example...

[Skybird]

Actualy the late T-34 was the better tank.


I apologize but I have to disagree. when the T-34 appeared, it was a design balancing better than any german tank of that time firepower, (sloped) armour and mobility. But the German engineers countered that, by adding modifications to the Tigers in 1942 and 43, improving them, and inventing the Panther, which usually is seen as the best tank design of the war. The improved Tigers and the Panther were superior to the T-34. It's just that like the Shermans the T-34 were send into battle in very huge numbers. However, the German replies to the T-34 reslted in much heavier tanks. One could say, and maybe you meant that, that the T-34 with 37 tons indeed was the best tank in it's weight/size class. The Tigers were almost twice as heavy as the T-34, the Tiger I had 57 tons, the Tiger II ("Kingtiger") was even heavier than the MBTs of the modern present (66+ tons). For comparison: The German Leopard-2A6 in various configurations weighs 58-62 tons, the M1 Abrams is in the same realm, the Challenger II also has 62 tons, the T-80/T-90 around 47 tons, and the Leclerc 56 tons.

The Sherman had around 31 tons, and was even smaller than the T-34

During the American advance at the Western front, for some time there was an order that said that American tanks (Shermans) should not engage with German tanks (major fear were the Tigers) as long as they would not have a numerical superiority of 7:1, or even 8:1.

[Oberon]

The only tank capable of going toe to toe affectively with the later Tigers on the Western Front IIRC was the Firefly.

Anyway, I wouldn't count the Russians out on numbers alone TF, I thought like you did when I considered the 1985 Cold War gone hot scenario, and then I stumbled across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr) and the US Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army). The Germans tested the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_tank), and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium) penetrators of M829 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829) APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.

This spurred the US on to create the M829A2 and A3, but the Russians have countered with Relikt and Kaktus. So they know their stuff alright, they just have had problems building it because of finances and the gap in quality manufacturing which sprung up during the Cold War due to the way the two different systems in the East and West were set up. However, with the fall of the Iron Curtain, Russia has copied the west in some areas and with the price of oil shooting up recently, it has capitalised on this and its ability to sell anything to the highest bidder and has created quite the funds for itself, which it can now pump into the arms factories, thus the recent increase in speed in which new Russian machines are appearing as opposed to the 1990s where just about everything was canceled or mothballed.

[Skybird]

The Firefly basically was a sherman with a tougher gun. That gave it the punch to compete with the Tiger over the distance, but the weak armour remained. It remained to be more vulnerable than the Tiger.

I did not wish to express that I am counting russian strength only on numbers. In a way that might have been true for WWII, but I do not think like that for the modern era, say since the T-72 appeared. The T-72 was a farsome enemy when it came out, which really put the Leopard-1A5s reptuation of being the best-balanced tank until the´n into serious question. The T-.72 was the argument why the M1 and Leo-2 were indeed needed, and very much so - the Leo-1 probably could not have held it's ground versus the T-72s. With the new german and american tanks the qulyity superioreity of Wetsern tanks was secured again, but as you already indicate, the Russians tiem and again thougt out solutions to improve their designs to let the gap not become too great, or even neutralise any Western lead in some fields. Kontakt-5 being the most famous example, maybe.

However, Russian tanks remained to have problems and unreliabilities, the many stories about the autoloaders, for example. To what degree in a huge tank war these would have negatively influence the outcome of the war for them, or not, we will never know. All we can say is that it would have been a very reasonably expecation that any tank war in the late 80s or 90s between Russia's frontline divisions, and NATO, would have been extremely costly for NATO nevertheless.

A factor that remains and should not be underestmated, is the better training and command-communication structure on Western side. However, this only compensates for numerical inferiority to this or that degree. Beyond that, you can be as well-trained and technically superior as you want - you get eaten up. In the 8ß0s, this maybe would have been even more true for the comparison of air forces. auite some NATO fighter pilots expressed doubt that their training and technological advantages wpould have been able to compensate fpor their numerical inferiority to WP air forces, if the Soviets would have launched an all-out onslaught. For Russians, war is a sober science, they lerned that in WWII, they have expressed and fixed numerical relations needed to secure destruction of the enemy in formula-style, and in this are more dogmatic than Western armies. This kind of "automatisation" of big army behaviour may be less flexible than the wetsern doctrines, but it makes sure that once their show got rolling, it rolls on and on and may prove to be difficult to be stopped. At least that was the idea behind it.

A costly way to fight wars. But if it necessarily is the unsuccessful way to fight wars, is something different.

[Oberon]

There are so many factors to take into consideration in a potential 85 conflict in West Germany, the success of REFORGER for one, the defence of the GIUK gap in the prevention of USSR SSNs and SSGNs infiltrating the convoy routes, the success in the defence of these convoy routes. The ability of NATO forces to gain and keep air superiority over the front lines, the success rate of strike missions against advancing Soviet columns using conventional or stealth aircraft, the success rate of Soviet strike missions against forward airfields. The operational co-ordination of both NATO and Soviet forces, the ability to adapt, the usage of chemical and biological weapons in area denial.

However, the Soviets, from documents which have come to light after the fall of the Iron Curtain, seemed to change their attitude sometime in the mid eighties, probably post-Andropov or post-Chernenko, to a defensive stance and never really held any high hopes for initiating offensives themselves. Should they decide to do so, however, their 'Seven days to the River Rhine' operational plan makes for grim reading.

http://joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2005/11/ussr_wwiii_map.jpg

Anyway, I'm dragging the thread off topic here in my fascination with information on the war that (thank god, MAD and careful politicians) never was.

[Happy Times]

First look at it, it looks kind of pretty. However I see many problems with it if they're trying to achieve something like F-22/F-35.

* Too many exposed rivets are present in the airframe. This tends to reduce any hull form stealth in a big way. Also, there are no saw shaped patterns, nor does there seem to be much apparent shaping techniques utilized to break up radar emissions. Airframe has a couple of other things sticking out.

* Cockpit has a large metal frame on top. That's going to reflect radar energy. In addition to the fact that no radar absorbing material (F-22 uses gold) is placed on the cockpit canopy.

*Air intakes are large and uncanted. From a 30-120 aspect or so, any enemy fighter that shines its radar at the Pak Fa will see a nice radar reflection. (F-22 cants this angle downward - resulting in enemy aircrafts radar reflecting towards ground or away from the enemy fighters radar receiver regardless of F-22 angle of bank).

*There is no denying looking at these pictures that the rear of the aircraft is huge, resulting in a large cross section. This Pak-FA is absolutely unstealthy from the rear.

*With the size of the engines to the section of airframe fitting them, there doesn't seem to be alot of space for weapons. Unless there will be a compromise to use racks on the wings, which will of course further degrade any attempts at stealth design.

Assuming the fraction of money available to the Russians (compared to USAF) to propagate the design, modify it, and export it against F-35, just how many do you think will ever be produced? I doubt there will be many in the near term. I don't discount that this aircraft has been a step forward for Sukhoi. But looking at it as a whole, it's no F-22 or F-35.

It was published for export dollars, they have some arms deals brewing and the hype helps. Good observations, nothing suprising tough.

[Happy Times]

You may want to discuss that with some of their air-air-missiles. Some of them I'd pick over AMRAAMs or Sidewinders any day. Or their anti-tank-missiles. Tank-protection. And some more.

In the wars of the past 20 years, american forces never have faced Russian first line equipment in Russian production standard, only B- and C-grade equipment that was old and was produced for export and maintained and operated by personnel often of "sub-optimal" training.

Modern western equipment is better than 20-30 year old Russian equipment, yes. Big surprise! ;)

On a modern-versus-modern comparison, again I say they do not need to reach total equality with american standards. If they shift the kill ratios so much against american acceptance levels so that a conflict becomes too costly for the US, they have achieved their mission. And I think they definitely have the ablity to cripple a carrier battle group, or to break up an armoured land attack. and when it comes down to close combat in boots and with rifles - well, then everybody is equal amongst equals again.

With what? Nuclear weapons?

The old equipment isnt the real "problem".

Its their doctrines,tactics and training that makes their abilities for succsesful operations very weak.

[Oberon]

Some pics I've stumbled across:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/3757/03b0507c61cd.jpg

http://sukhoi.org/img/content/news/IMG_9631.jpg

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/18457d1264771833-pak-fa-news-201001291030avisnapshot.jpg

Comparison Shots
(not to scale)


http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/18496d1264885474-pak-fa-news-b30c65679182.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/WAB%20Stuff/image002-600x450.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/WAB%20Stuff/Aero16G14.jpg

[Snestorm]

@Skybird
The original comparison here was of the T34 and the Tiger.

I still hold that the late model T34s were better than the late (King) Tiger.
With only a 700 HP gasoline engine The King Tiger was underpowered, and subject to bogging down. Although unsurpassed as a dug in defensive weapon platform, it lacked the mobility needed to go on the attack. The T34 not only had a 5-Speed Transmisssion, but also a diesel motor.

It is The Panther, and not his heavier big brother The Tiger, that I rate as the war's best overall tank.

As for post-war tanks, The Leopard is my favorite.

[Raptor1]

Both the Tiger and the King Tiger also suffered from mechanical problems which the T-34 was not prone to as much (At least not by the time they showed up), making them much harder to deploy effectively on the field.

Though one might better compare the Tiger and King Tiger to the KV-1/KV-85 and IS-2, while the Panther is much more comparable to the T-34.

I think I made up my mind, the Sukhoi looks better than the F-22...

[Skybird]

@Skybird
The original comparison here was of the T34 and the Tiger.

I still hold that the late model T34s were better than the late (King) Tiger.

Maybe, if you favour mobility over armour and firepower, But imo overall balance of these three factors decides the value of a tank not in a single situation, but the diversity of battles it has to fight over a long lasting war. And here I favour the improved Tiger-I over the T-34. The Kingtiger was not produced in so high numbers that it had any chance to really make a difference, many also say that it came to late (like quite some innovations of German weapon engineers).

It is The Panther, and not his heavier big brother The Tiger, that I rate as the war's best overall tank.

I agree on your rating of the Panther, but you really must differ between the tiger I and -II ("KingTiger"). Panther combined a higher firepower than the Tiger-I, with better mobility and reliability than the Kingtiger. However, in a truly defensive position, the Tiger-I maybe still was better, because of it's thicker armour.

As for post-war tanks, The Leopard is my favorite.
Again I agree, quite some people would agree. However, the Leo-2A6, the Challenger-II, the M1A2 and higher, and probably also the Leclerc all play pretty much in the same performance league. Especially the American and German tanks share a lot of performance characteristics, but the Leo is better suited for defensive doctrine (different armour focus, more economic Diesel engine instead of gas turbine). But in internal handling and ergonomy of the stations the Leopard often is said to be better than the Abrams. Aiming and firing also is lacking some working steps in the German tank that are present in the American tank. I would not count out the Merkava-IV and T-90, though. Truth is, within specific range limits each of these tanks has overkill capacity against any of the other tanks. So no matter what tank you sit in, tactic still decides much of the battle.

[Snestorm]

@Skybird
Your last post was a meeting of the minds.
I agree.