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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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-..._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.

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

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.

Some pics I've stumbled across:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/3...b0507c61cd.jpg

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

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...visnapshot.jpg

Comparison Shots
(not to scale)


http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/att...0c65679182.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/k...02-600x450.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/k.../Aero16G14.jpg

@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.

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...

.

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).

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.

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.

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