...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

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 c

what is behind the lack of rear-facing defenses/missles, etc.  or not even rear facing but, well...why would we limit our most advanced planes to have to point the nose in the direction of our intended target?

As far as I know, no one has been able so far to solve the aerodynamic problems with launching missiles in a direction significantly off the aircraft's velocity axis.  Missiles launched to the rear are not sufficiently stable enough in the initial portion of their flight to remain in controlled flight.

It's true that most aircraft still have to point in the general direction of the target.  In general this is because of the need for some sensor on the launch aircraft (virtually always the airborne intercept radar) to track the target and pass information to the missile or otherwise enable the missile to track and hit the target.  These sensors have a limited field-of-view, and thus only cover a sector to the front of the launch aircraft (although the F-35 is changing that to some degree).  However, there are advances in High-angle Off-Boresight sighting systems and missiles that do/will allow the engagement envelope to be extended far to the sides and even to the rear.  This includes things like Helmet Mounted Sights, missiles with extremely wide gimbal limits to their seekers to allow a lock on to targets well to the side/above/below the launch aircraft, and missiles with a datalink capability that allows the launch aircraft to launch a missile without first achieving a lock-on to the target, and then to send updates to the missile in flight so it can achieve a Lock On After Launch.

Gee, I'd like to see some detailing of the craft's belly, of the intakes for instance, and where these bays would go.  I'd also like to see a valid treatment of the tail, which this isn't.  And I believe it is expected that Meteor, AIM-120-NEXT, JDRADM will wipe the thick-lipped smirks off some faces at Vympel.

 

OTOH, I do believe that air forces should be looking at countermissile technology.  Unless the US solution is DEW, we certainly should be working on it... at least it would seem to pay off in facing the S-X00 threat; a missile the size of a house should be easily acquired and not too hard to engage - after all you know where it's going! ;>

1. Part of the reason is that you can dodge more easily turning into the pirsuit than by trying to rin from it. If you just run, then it just corrects lead and run s you down, if it has the energy.  If it doesn't then why worry about a dodge or shoot at it>

 

2. Another part of the reason, is that missile versus missile in a four body problem is tough enough in head on pass or stern chase. Suppose you want to shoot at a chase missile while you run from it? Not efficient: its easier and more successful to run the chase missile out of potential energy or to use countermeasures either physical or electronic to decoy it away.

 

3. You also have load to consider. How much mass do you give over to a defensive missile system? The more you point weaponry backwards at an enemy, the less you have for OFFENSE. The whole purpose of a fighter is OFFENSE.   

 

4. The launch of a missile into a jet plume, others mentioned. If you use IR defensive missiles which the Russians tried, it doesn't work to well as the seekers fry. Even the radar homers didn't like the heat wash, not to mention that the missiles fell out of control from the plume's turbulence.

 

 

. 

The Wiki article that I used as a reference has some pics of the technology demonstrators, and some shots of a mostly-completed prototype.  Granted, it's Wikipedia, but the article had some solid links, so it may not have fallen to fanboyitis.