OMG, thanks for the laugh-riot!  Apparently the Russian Popular Mechanics is even more fanciful than the original American magazine.

 

American amateurs may laugh but Russia is 5 to 10 years backward USA in technology (10 years for electronic mainly due to restriction on ITAR components and restriction of Wassenaar list) while F22 use a technology from nineties except the radar and RWR/.ESM mesurement suit which use post yr 2000 components.(France and UK are late behind USA between 2 and 7 years in average depending technology fields - 2 to 5 years average late in electronic - according to French and UK Mod public reports.)

 

Which means clearly that Russians can field a plane corresponding of a delivery of a similar US plane in 2010 for the airframe and 2005 for the electronic.

So it should be as advanced as initial F22 but maybe lighter.

However I doubt that Russian will have an internal bay bigger than the F35 bay or even the F22 main bay.

Internal bay cost a lot in performance and weight.

I don't think they would handle more than 8 missiles internally even for a new compact missile.

 

Internal bay cost a lot in performance and weight.

I mean you have to get a bigger and more powerful aircraft to compensate for the internal bay impact in weight and increase of frontal drag (since it occupies a good volume in airframe).

Good luck for the Russians.

80 millions $ is a lot considering Russian manpower is 3 to 5 time less expansive than in EU or USA.However it will be probably an export price or a program price.

I've got to admit it's a good looking fighter (and incidentally, looks quite a bit like the KFX...hmmm).  The question is, can and will the Russians build it?  I've been hearing about PAK-FA since about 1998.  Here we are, a decade later, and all we're seeing is awesome-looking artwork.  No mockups (that I know of, admittedly), no prototypes, no flying examples.  And who's going to build it--MiG or Sukhoi? 

 

I have no doubt that if the Russians put their mind to it and they have the money, they can turn out a damn fine fighter.  The question I have is, when does this become real and when does it stop being a really long leg-pull? 

 

 

 

They will not get a 5th gen. fighter until at least 2020, and it will not be as good in A2A as the F-22, or as good as the F-35 in A2G. Just look at the SU-34 and 35. Those planes were spouse to come out during the early 90's and after two decades there are only handful of them. They would of been top of the line in the 90's, but they came out to late and still are not in mass production.

 

I do agree with you about the money part. I have always said if the Russians had money they would be right there with the US in fighter tech.

It's real?  Hmm.

 

 

Hmm again.

 

 

And lastly, hmm some more:

 

On 20 August 2009, Russian Air Force Chief Alexander Zelin said that there were problems with the engines and research was continuing.

...I find it curious that all the renders of the PAK-FA we see always display it with circular nozzles.

I'm well aware that the US has for several years into the early F-22 program been depicting many conceptual drawing  re-doctored with 2-D vectoring nozzles replacing all the previous conceptual drawings with "standard' round nozzles, once the benefits (IR suppressive abilities, thrust vectoring in the vertical) of 2-D nozzles became the choice to have for any future ATF (F-22 program's initial moniker).

 

Seems though that with the advent of the thrust vectoring nozzles the Russians have developed for the Flanker series and recently migrated into the latest developmental Fulcrums, it's still interesting that the Russians have still opted for circular vectoring nozzles rather than the US approach of flatter-profile 2-D shapes.

 

Could it be that the Russians have further mastered TVC control of a manned aircraft to the point their vectoring engines are no longer 2-D (up and down like in the first Flankewrs which featured them), but more 3-D, not unlike the axis-symetric vectoring engine of the USAF's F-16 AVEN program?

With a 3-D TVC ability (yaw as well as pitch), that could lead to serious advantage in WVR dogfights (even with HOBS AAMs,...missiles generally run out faster than gun ammo).

 

Another thing to draw in part from that: notice the depicted PAK-FA's vertical (canted) tail fins are considerably smaller than earlier generation aircraft (Flanker, Fulcrum, etc).

In part, a stealth requirement, I realize that.

But also needs to be taken into consideration: flight stability with such small control surfaces obviously hints to a much more capable flight control software,

as well as the possibility to include a considerably-capable FADEC system for 2 as-yet-unknown engines which feature 3-D vectoring nozzles that can also be utilized to maintain effective flight control.

 

This leads to something else to cosider: a flight control software program that the US once referred to as "Control Configured Vehicle", wherein an aircraft with damaged control surfaced (affecting trim and flight profile) can rapidly adsapt to the damage and continue to fly effectively.

 

Seeing as this Russian aircraft, if/when it ever takes flight (as a production system) is going to be technologically nuilt in an age where electronics, servos, and sensors can be built superior gto what's in the current F-22 Raptors,

I for one certainly believe the PAK-FA will have some advantages over the F-22 that, as has been discussed numerous times, will be prohibitively expensive to upgrade (and we are indeed foolish if we think it will never need so).

 

Considering the US was indeed surprised when that fellow defected to Japan in the MiG-25 all those years ago,

and that MiG-15s gave us some run for the money in Korea as well as the handling we got by Russian designs during the Viet Nam conflict, as well as the fact that the USAF designed the F-22 to counter what became the MiG-29 and Su-27 families in Russian that they built to counter the US Teen series,

the fact that the PAK-FA is/might be being built of a technology generation newer than the hardware in the F-22, does indeed suggest we (US) are foolish to believe that we will somehow never again be superceded by Russian equipment in any given avenue.

 

Capability doesn't stand still. The weapon-counrerweapon cycle of growth may slow down at times, but never fully stops.

There again though, it's getting to the point the US may be just be pricing itself out of the ability to even afford to equip a capable military.

We cannot see the future well enough to know (or not) that never again will Russian, or anyone else (yes, china) won't for a time get even a slight upper hand on us.

Hopefully it'll never come dowb to a shooting war and loss of life to prove it once and for all.

But such things are indeed what's needed to quell the naysayers.

 

Theory alone (in US superiority) is never a solution for success.

Too often, it takes field experience, experience that reveals those unforeseen variables we didn't anticipate (like the considerable Russian involvement against us during Korea and Viet Nam).

 Look at how many years later now in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that it isn't always technical superiority that's a deciding factor.

Even man-to-man firefights have shown us that those with the superior assets (small arms firepower) can win a scenario even when the other side supposedly has some considerably massive technical superiority in a ton of other fields that we thought (wrongly so) would always guarantee us victory.

 

This PAK FA's only rivals aren't going to be just F-22s and F-35s.

And even though we seem to like to discredit Russian capabilty, we have before gone against it and suffered because we underestimated their capabilities.

We're foolish to assume any production PAK-FAs are going to be some POS that can't even stand up to earlier-generation F-16s and Hornet, but that almost certainly seems to be the subtle, unsung general concensus of a lot of America-above-all posters around here.

 

Our supposedly superior ideals of combined ops has yet to give us the total victory over bands of insurgents armed with supposedly inferior weapons of generations earlier technology, so just how exactly do we expect such notions to be able to defeat, in some rapid theoretical 21st century blitz, a standing army (and air force and navy) of a well-equipped and trained military with more technically-capable hardware?

 

Someone somewhere is obviously disconnected from reality.

 

And surpringly, it isn't me.

...I find it curious that all the renders of the PAK-FA we see always display it with circular nozzles.

I'm well aware that the US has for several years into the early F-22 program been depicting many conceptual drawing  re-doctored with 2-D vectoring nozzles replacing all the previous conceptual drawings with "standard' round nozzles, once the benefits (IR suppressive abilities, thrust vectoring in the vertical) of 2-D nozzles became the choice to have for any future ATF (F-22 program's initial moniker).

 

Seems though that with the advent of the thrust vectoring nozzles the Russians have developed for the Flanker series and recently migrated into the latest developmental Fulcrums, it's still interesting that the Russians have still opted for circular vectoring nozzles rather than the US approach of flatter-profile 2-D shapes.

 

Could it be that the Russians have further mastered TVC control of a manned aircraft to the point their vectoring engines are no longer 2-D (up and down like in the first Flankewrs which featured them), but more 3-D, not unlike the axis-symetric vectoring engine of the USAF's F-16 AVEN program?

With a 3-D TVC ability (yaw as well as pitch), that could lead to serious advantage in WVR dogfights (even with HOBS AAMs,...missiles generally run out faster than gun ammo).

 

Another thing to draw in part from that: notice the depicted PAK-FA's vertical (canted) tail fins are considerably smaller than earlier generation aircraft (Flanker, Fulcrum, etc).

In part, a stealth requirement, I realize that.

But also needs to be taken into consideration: flight stability with such small control surfaces obviously hints to a much more capable flight control software,

as well as the possibility to include a considerably-capable FADEC system for 2 as-yet-unknown engines which feature 3-D vectoring nozzles that can also be utilized to maintain effective flight control.

 

This leads to something else to cosider: a flight control software program that the US once referred to as "Control Configured Vehicle", wherein an aircraft with damaged control surfaced (affecting trim and flight profile) can rapidly adsapt to the damage and continue to fly effectively.

 

Seeing as this Russian aircraft, if/when it ever takes flight (as a production system) is going to be technologically nuilt in an age where electronics, servos, and sensors can be built superior gto what's in the current F-22 Raptors,

I for one certainly believe the PAK-FA will have some advantages over the F-22 that, as has been discussed numerous times, will be prohibitively expensive to upgrade (and we are indeed foolish if we think it will never need so).

 

Considering the US was indeed surprised when that fellow defected to Japan in the MiG-25 all those years ago,

and that MiG-15s gave us some run for the money in Korea as well as the handling we got by Russian designs during the Viet Nam conflict, as well as the fact that the USAF designed the F-22 to counter what became the MiG-29 and Su-27 families in Russian that they built to counter the US Teen series,

the fact that the PAK-FA is/might be being built of a technology generation newer than the hardware in the F-22, does indeed suggest we (US) are foolish to believe that we will somehow never again be superceded by Russian equipment in any given avenue.

 

Capability doesn't stand still. The weapon-counrerweapon cycle of growth may slow down at times, but never fully stops.

There again though, it's getting to the point the US may be just be pricing itself out of the ability to even afford to equip a capable military.

We cannot see the future well enough to know (or not) that never again will Russian, or anyone else (yes, china) won't for a time get even a slight upper hand on us.

Hopefully it'll never come dowb to a shooting war and loss of life to prove it once and for all.

But such things are indeed what's needed to quell the naysayers.

 

Theory alone (in US superiority) is never a solution for success.

Too often, it takes field experience, experience that reveals those unforeseen variables we didn't anticipate (like the considerable Russian involvement against us during Korea and Viet Nam).

 Look at how many years later now in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that it isn't always technical superiority that's a deciding factor.

Even man-to-man firefights have shown us that those with the superior assets (small arms firepower) can win a scenario even when the other side supposedly has some considerably massive technical superiority in a ton of other fields that we thought (wrongly so) would always guarantee us victory.

 

This PAK FA's only rivals aren't going to be just F-22s and F-35s.

And even though we seem to like to discredit Russian capabilty, we have before gone against it and suffered because we underestimated their capabilities.

We're foolish to assume any production PAK-FAs are going to be some POS that can't even stand up to earlier-generation F-16s and Hornet, but that almost certainly seems to be the subtle, unsung general concensus of a lot of America-above-all posters around here.

 

Our supposedly superior ideals of combined ops has yet to give us the total victory over bands of insurgents armed with supposedly inferior weapons of generations earlier technology, so just how exactly do we expect such notions to be able to defeat, in some rapid theoretical 21st century blitz, a standing army (and air force and navy) of a well-equipped and trained military with more technically-capable hardware?

 

Someone somewhere is obviously disconnected from reality.

 

And surprisingly, it isn't me.

I think this is just a pretty picture for an article and not an actual design.

 

As for pretty pictures, I wouldn't mind seeing what a stealth version of the A4 skyhawk would look like.

 

 

....
The point is specifications of the plane, its engines, radar capability, appearance are secret and i highly doubt any reliable info on these things can be found anywhere in internet/open press.



Its like with Object 195 - it's prototype (the last series, that are practically pre-production) already making state tests (again, _rumors_), but still no1 knows what is it looks like.



Also, it was rumored (again - rumored) that there's more concentration on radar and overall capabilities of the plane (including cost, btw - RuAF doesnt need uber plane at cost of 120+ millions each), and no intention to make it as stealthy as F-22, although stealth technologies will be used alot.

Here's another thing to consider: built-in anti-missile capability.

 

We already know that the US-designed RIM-116 RAM, smaller than an AIM-9 Sidewinder, has been designed to tackle inbound missiles (and is fired from a constant-diameter tube and equipped with retracted control surfaces).

Seeing as an inbound air-to-air missile does not want to expend precious energy eveading countermeasures to reach its intended target (which most certainly will also be maneuvering),

then with enough power behind the radars and processing capability in the avionics/flight computers,

maybe we need to consider that a future aircraft capability could well be some kind of smallish (RAM-sized) anti-missile armament that can allow it to take out a good many of the AAMs its opponent fired at it.

 

Sure, it sounds all "Robotech-y" (for those of you who've seen the Macross movies and those mini missiles that attack the enemy's inbound missiles), but seeing as we are currently in the process of developing C-RAM systems (Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) with maneuverable projectiles with body diameters down in the 50mm/2inch size, a future anti-missile system more than chaff/flare countermeasures is a potential possibility.

 

Being a generation or two in technology ahead of the closest US design (even if we believe Russian technology is currently a generation or two behind our own right now), this might be an avenue we should consider the Russians might pursue: they've already adopted helmet-mounted cueing systems before western air forces (when MiG-29 and Su-27 first made their public appearance),

have invested more efforts in the feasibility of rearward-firing missiles (the best US attempts so far, that we're aware of, was the movie "Firefox",...(yes, that was humor)),

had the first PESA radar installed as standard kit in a production aircraft (MiG-31),

and certainly have created many very capable airframe and engine designs.

We're stupid to think that in the future, the Russian are only ever going to think reactively to threats its adversaries already possess (a disappointing US characteristic too often seen), rather than thinking forward as to what might technology allow sooner that isn't here yet but certainly could be by the time the second or third production Block is underway (might as well consider that no one, regardless of technology, is going to create a from-the-ground-up completely new aircraft design and have its first production batches to the first field units in less than 10 years).

 

We also hear a lot of talk (both factual and hype) about concerns of the latest Russian air defense systems and their potential anti-stealth abilities (S-400, S-500, etc),

yet US air defense designs we never really hear much of any investment being incorporated into the designs to defeat possible future (near-term and long-term) low-observable threats.

Sure, maybe when this PAK-FA reaches production and export status, the US F-35 production will be winding down near its end (still soldiering on in new-build low batches like F-15s and F-16s) and the US will have its next design in the works.

Count on it that more nations of that day and age will have more lower-observable systems in their militaries, also.

 

When every ally of each other possess low observable aircraft and the counter is their adversaries' air defense assets that can see thru the low observable characteristics to find their targets,...it's just an endless weapon/counterweapon cycle.

The Russians aren't going to just give up and quit the aircraft and air defense business just because the F-22 and F-35 are viewed as some sort of 21st century wonder weapons that can never be effectively countered.

Technology and tactics will prevail, and the development cycle will continue.

Even all the ideas that people come up with in the realm of science fiction, there is always the weapon-counterweapon struggle continuing on.

Why would it stop now, just because some people believe the Russians (and chinese and others) are never going to catch up to the uber-techno-sophistication of the US and its allies?