F-22 debate open

[tflash]

Maybe not really a topic for a Russian forum, but we only discuss public sources from a theoretical POV. Sprey (F-16, A-10) again lashes out at F-22 and pleads for a real dedicated lightweight fighter.

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/32178/f-22-destroyed-on-the-tarmac

 

Let's debate. I'm for this idea, I know that on the contrary GG is claiming that "heavier is better" and that many prefer multi-role aircraft like F-35.

 

Sprey, an influential fighter maffia man that is no stranger to the F-16 and A-10A projects, strongly defends the one mission - one plane concept and the idea that lighter is better.

 

I think anyone who loves the Su-25T will agree: yes to the dedicated aircaft concept, no to the Su-25T overweight!

 

In fact Sprey wants lower-tech aircraft that can be produced in much, much larger numbers. I tend to agree: China has proven it can spit out the J-10 like we produce potatoes, this makes the plane a very real strategic reality. They have 300+ now, just for starters! In a real war they would be producing them like we built bombers in WWII.

 

Anyway, the fighter debate is on, whether we participate or not!

[RedTiger]

That article was a crock of crap that made no sense whatsoever. So much, so wrong. GGTharos might come in here and fully pick it apart, but I can't because I'm confused. I'll try my best.

 

They spent all that time discussing how the SAC-minded guys were all a bunch of idiots (WE GET IT ALREADY! ENOUGH!) to argue...uh...what was their point again? It sounds like they're saying that history proves strategic bombing doesn't work well...so lets scrap the F-22 and F-35. What? :huh: That's just plain non-sequitur.

 

I'm guessing what they're trying to say is that what the USAF status quo wants doesn't work (which isn't always true) and history is repeating itself with the F-22 and the F-35. To prove this, they cite a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the type of missions that the F-22 and F-35 would fly. Their argument is...arguable...but their supporting information stinks.

 

The part about how the out-numbered Sabres flown by pilots with superior training achieved a 10:1 kill ratio basically contradicts everything they say in the rest of the article. Also contradictory, the F-22 is just a much, much further refined and advanced piece of hardware of the concept already established as being dominant in the "unwanted' F-15.

 

Oh and:

 

A super-maneuverable new air-to-air dogfighter with all–passive electronics, far smaller with far higher maneuvering performance than the best of the F-16s and thus able to outfight the F-22 or any other advanced fighter in the world. (Emitting no radio/radar signals whatsoever, this new fighter will obsolete the F-22’s electronics, defeat any enemy fighter’s passive warning/identification-friend-or-foe system, and render useless the enemy’s radar-homing missiles which rely on seeking our fighter radars.)

 

lol wut

 

Yeah, that's how the Aim-120 works alright. It relies on seeking out the bandit's radar...just like a HARM! :D Obsolete the F-22's electronics? What about AWACS and GCI? You gonna hide from them too with your passive electronics? Why sabotage your argument with BS that isn't even true? Are they hoping that a bunch of politicians who don't know any better will just nod and agree?

 

These four aircraft are eminently practical designs, each based on existing engines and requiring no technological breakthroughs. We have done the necessary conceptual design work to establish the size, performance and cost of each–and we have priced out the effectiveness-based program that acquires all four of these planes.

 

Good thing the Russians, Chinese, Indians, EU, and the rest of the world are not interested in exploiting any technological breakthroughs!

 

...oh wait.

 

I think the authors of that article are certifiably insane.

Edited September 9, 2009 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

There's no aircraft that he's going to get to be lighter, stealthier, and with a better sensor package.

 

Finally, an LWF is great is you want a lot of cheap little things that don't need to go far but can get in the air quickly and shoot things up or spring traps, and enjoys at least some form of weapon/system parity. Congratulations, you have yourself a MiG-29 - or F-16.

 

The F-22 is a heavyweight, fast, reasonably long ranged one-aircraft invader. It can work with GCI and AWACS, and indeed it does best with such, but it brings a network with it anyway and can do without them. It brings the best in avionics and weapons, capable of hitting all sorts of targets without even being detected. This is an insane aircraft meant to do one thing and one thing only: Take the fight to the enemy and own his sky. I'd like to see an LWF even try to do that.

 

Of course, if your opposition is still flying MiG-21's, sure, make yourself an F-26 if it makes you happier. Or a stealth F-16 with thrust vectoring - or whatever.

 

If you want to take the fight to someone else though? You need a biggest, baddest fighter on the block.

 

As for the 'lower tech' LWF? Dumbest idea ever. Throw 4 F-15C's at 20 MiG-21's and guess who'll win? No, it won't be the MiG-21's. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the performance, and they don't have the legs to keep up either. They would have to work extremely hard and the F-15's would have to be pretty limited in where they can go for those MiGs to be successful. This is why some people are mounting spiffy new radars and avionics and R-77's on their MiGs. ;)

 

You need to have -some- parity, otherwise a potent opponent will just overfly you and laugh at you as he spits in your eye with a 2000lbs JDAM or two.

Edited September 9, 2009 by GGTharos

[Rhen]

With all due respect to Mr. Sprey and Col Dilger, they should've thought out of their 1960-70s box they're thinking within. Their logic is quite uncoordinated. First they extol the virtues of air-to-air fighter aircraft to protect bombers (WW2). Then they want to kill the F-22 because there's no need for its use in the current conflicts. They don't even mention the fact that being able to prevent the enemy from flying over the battlefield allows your troops to operate without the necessity of expending resources to protect yourself from an air threat. They also get upset with all the money spent on the SAC nuclear detterent/manned bomber programs, which left the TAF with little in the way of true fighter aircraft and the gravitas to change the focus from waves of ingressing bombers without/with minimal fighter protection.

 

You must remember that missile technology on both sides was minimal, especially putting nuclear bombs on missiles and launching them with accuracy against hardened targets. Long-ranged bombers were the logical way to go; and going 5,000nm to bomb a target isn't a job for a small fighter. So, that's where the money went.

 

Then we get to the Korean Conflight. They argue, and rightly so, that close air support was lacking because of the emphasis on the intercontinental bomber fleet. They also argue that there was little in the way of FAC. That's also true.

 

What they fail to mention, in only passing, is that allied efforts rely on air superiority established over the battlefield before these small ground attack and FAC aircraft can hope to survive and complete their mission.

 

Then we get to the Vietnam Conflict. They mention that the thud, and super sabre were marginally equipped aircraft for their taskings in this conflict. How true. They were quite vulnerable to the more maneuverable and gun equipped MiGs and the fledgeling IADS systems. If only we were smart enough to develop highly maneuverable aircraft that can use energy well.

 

Well, thankfully Mr. Sprey, along with Boyd did just that. The F-15, F-16 were instrumental in keeping air superiority in all conflicts after Vietnam. This is the key. I'll restate the key. NO GROUND FORCES HAVE BEEN LOST TO AIR ATTACK SINCE THE KOREAN WAR BECAUSE OF AIR SUPERIORITY. Now that record may be under threat.

 

Then these gentlemen fail to recognize the single reason why the Gulf Wars and Allied Force were so successful. Despite a well-coordinated IADS, we were able to hit strategic and tactical targets, dismantling their C3I, as well as their air defenses, and maintain air superiority. They may not think this is much, but it allowed ground forces to advance without harassment from the enemy's air forces. This is key to advancing ground forces. Ground forces can then act with impunity and call in airstrikes without worrying about those precious A-10s getting shot down by the enemy's superior fighter aircraft.

 

In an environment where we have not established air superiority, the life expectancy of an A-10 is less than 30min (give or take a lot of minutes depending on the area of operations). Does that surprise you? Without establishing air superiority, you can't operate your ground forces effectively (without suffering massive losses), which are necessary to hold vital tactical and strategic objectives, or your CAS. How can you worry about hitting those bad guys 200ft from friendlies in your hog, when you're worried about being jumped by a fishbed or fulcrum?

 

What's worse is what they prescribe as the answer. Kill the F-22 and F-35 and do the following:

 

* A new close support aircraft smaller, more survivable, and more lethal than the A-10, one that is affordable in vastly larger numbers. (The Air Force plans to use small numbers of the unmaneuverable, highly vulnerable and ineffective F-35, at $150 million each, for this mission.)

 

Well that would be a UAV, now wouldn't it. Make more reapers. Yeah, that's the ticket.... But remember the Georgian UAV downed by Russia? They're all easy kills when there's no air superiority. They can't operate without air superiority.

 

* A forward controller spotter plane dramatically more survivable, longer-loitering and far lower cost in than a helicopter, able to land next to the tents of the supported troops. (The Air Force suffers from the delusion that close support can be called in using drones, satellites, and other “high tech” sensors, contrary to the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.)

 

Global hawk aircraft are able to loiter far longer than any "spotter plane" developed to do what these two chucklecraniums think is needed. The army already have small UAVs that can be hand-launched as well as catapult launched that fill niche areas not able to be filled by the Global Hawk. Let's just build more recce UAVs. Oh, btw, you've established air superiority over the battlefield, right? Otherwise, we've got a bunch of smoking holes where these so-called "spotter planes" were.

 

* A small, affordable dirt strip airlifter to meet the real emergency needs of beleaguered battalions in the boonies. (The Air Force always short-changes this in-the-mud prop mission in favor of large jet transports.)

 

Yeah, we got that in the C-130 and C-27. But you must remember, the USAF builds large jet transports because the ARMY tasks the USAF to provide airlift for those pesky & heavy Abrams, Bradley, and SAM batteries (Patriot, etc.) and other heavy armor. You can't have it both ways. You need the ability to airlift large quantities and weights of troops, armor, artillery, vehicles, helicopters, etc. This can only be done by a large jet transport. Oh, yeah. Got air superiority? Or are you going to put slammers on those C-27s?

 

* A super-maneuverable new air-to-air dogfighter with all–passive electronics, far smaller with far higher maneuvering performance than the best of the F-16s and thus able to outfight the F-22 or any other advanced fighter in the world. (Emitting no radio/radar signals whatsoever, this new fighter will obsolete the F-22’s electronics, defeat any enemy fighter’s passive warning/identification-friend-or-foe system, and render useless the enemy’s radar-homing missiles which rely on seeking our fighter radars.)

 

Oh, this is rich. They must've forgot to add the heavily armored and stealty tanker aircraft that will have to accompany them everywhere to give them enough fuel to actually fly somewhere to do something to someone. How will a fighter smaller than an F-16 be able to get anywhere to do anything without carrying the gas they need to get anywhere. You've got to build a whole lot of these stealthy tanker aircraft if you're going to build massive numbers of these small fighters. Passive everything. Hmm. Interesting. This would be a great time for the US to pull out all that alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash we've been sitting on for all these years. Well, then they need to put massive amounts of ELINT aircraft in the air to act as their sensors. These, let's call them "sensor aircraft" (Rivet Joint, JSTARS, E3) would need to be able to suck up the electrons from all the enemies aircraft and threats to provide to these small, highly maneuverable aircraft that they envision, a picture of the battlefield. Oh yeah, if they don't emit, then they better have a pretty damned good way of IFFing, otherwise there's gonna be a hell of a lot of fratricide if the sensor aircraft can't ID one of them. Finally, I didn't know there was a missile out there that homed in on fighter radars? I always thought they homed in on the reflected radar energy from the aircraft that launched them (SARH) or the missile's reflected radar energy (ARH). Hmm. Very interesting. Wrongheaded, but very interesting.

 

Now, all these aircraft that Sprey and Dilger want require pilots, even the UAVs have human pilots. Pilot's aren't cheap. They require training, experience, and salaries. Training and flying put a massive price tag on all aircraft. Flying these aircraft means we need to maintain them. This requires technicians to fix the systems, which are another cost. Then there's the sensor aircraft and the tankers. We're getting into real money now. When you look at all the logistics of their plan, the cost may compare with the cost of phasing out vipers for the lightning2 and building 381 Raptors.

 

The F-22 is all about establishing air superiority on a massive scale. It can dominate threats in the air as well as provide all-aspect stealth while dismantling the enemy IADS and C3I. It has great range and can get there quickly and efficently with minimal elint support. The F-35 can't provide this capability. The F-35 is designed to concentrate on it's air-to-ground mission while the F-22 protects it's ingress and, especially, it's egress. To remove this capability is to remove the ability of the US to meet current and future threats. The F-15 was able to meet the current threats for its time (1970s) and 40 years into its future. Now this 1970s aircraft is no longer able to fully meet these abilities.

 

We need to be able to establish air superiority over the battlefield against current and future threats. I don't see Mr. Sprey and Dilger's prescription fitting the bill.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Rhen

[Kuky]

To me it looks most these discussions are about money... the US spends a lot of money on war hardware (and having been in quite a few conflicts large costs are never ending) and they want to change this.

[topol-m]

As for the 'lower tech' LWF? Dumbest idea ever. Throw 4 F-15C's at 20 MiG-21's and guess who'll win? No, it won't be the MiG-21's. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the performance, and they don't have the legs to keep up either. They would have to work extremely hard and the F-15's would have to be pretty limited in where they can go for those MiGs to be successful. This is why some people are mounting spiffy new radars and avionics and R-77's on their MiGs. ;)

 

That`s true when we are talking about very low tech vs very high tech. What happens if the enemy is able to produce large numbers of 5th gen stealth fighters too? Well in the close future not as advanced as F-22 in terms of avionics but with similar speed, RCS, weapons, etc. What about 2 F-22s vs 10 J-10s + 6 J-XX for instance :D

Edited September 9, 2009 by topol-m

[Boberro]

That`s true when we are talking about very low tech vs very high tech. What happens if the enemy is able to produce large numbers of 5th gen stealth fighters too? Well in the close future not as advanced as F-22 in terms of avionics but with similar speed, RCS, weapons, etc. What about 2 F-22s vs 10 J-10s + 6 J-XX for instance :D

 

I agree, after some factors are met the quantity defeat quality and it is not bad idea at all.

[muamshai]

I wish they could do something about shortage of helis in battlefield, instead of investing on power toys...

[Vault]

I think the F-22's main tactical advantage of LO is far from future proof. If Russia or any other adversary is able to build a 5th gen LO fighter that has roughly the same RCS as the F-22 but at a fraction of the cost that would spell trouble for the F-22, considering 80% of the Raptor's LO technology is in the shaping, all an adversary 5th gen designer has to do is copy the F-22's shape without incurring the R&D costs.

 

If X band radar is ineffective against the F-22 then that will also apply for the F-22 against a similar 5th gen LO design with roughly the same RCS, a cheaper 5th gen LO aircraft could force the F-22 into a WVR fight which is risky business for a 1billion dollar fighter especially if the adversary has a cheaper 5th gen LO fighter with superior numbers, even if the F-22 is superior in technology, the battleground has proved far more often than not that numbers always diminish technology, the ME262 was a perfect example of this nothing the Allies had could touch the 262 in a 1 vs 1 scenario but the 262 still got its ass kicked.

[L4key]

You chaps could buy some of our lovely 1990 spec Typhoons... :lol:

[X-man]

The US have more F-22 then China has J-10. I fail to see the single F-22 face 10 J-10 + 6 JXX in a scenario. :) If china would suddenly go to war and mass produce J-10 and J-XX (yeah, right...), Im sure the US can follow.

 

I would go "heavier is better" any day of the week for the air superiority mission. You can have more fuel, larger (better) sensor-stuff, more payload etc.

 

And regarding the passive sensors on the LWF; what if the enemy decides to go passive as well :megalol:

[topol-m]

As GGTharos once said joking, when similar stealth and ECM/ECCM equiped adversaries face each other they will have to open the canopies and shoot each other with hand guns :laugh:

[Wilde]

To me it looks most these discussions are about money... the US spends a lot of money on war hardware (and having been in quite a few conflicts large costs are never ending) and they want to change this.

 

That's how I get them too. In previous articles the fighter mafia was more spot on though. I see those LockMart programs as a huge waste of tax money, because they sign only to promises without seeing the bill. That's really bad business behavior.

 

By the way, I agree with the "one mission one aircraft" idea. But the other one, "lighter is better", is just plain stupid.

[joey45]

You chaps could buy some of our lovely 1990 spec Typhoons... :lol:

 

I saw the prototype when I was young....... say 10 y.o. , im now 28...:)

[Vekkinho]

Like X-man said and most of us know 1 blue vs 10 red is the Cold War era scenario can be considered thing of the past cause I see no potential enemy or enemies that might assemble a fleet of 1800+ aircraft overnight be it a Il-28, MiG-15 or super duper Su-35!

 

AFAIK, things have changed since '70s in Blue favor! Quantitiy and quality are both on blue side!

[GGTharos]

I think the F-22's main tactical advantage of LO is far from future proof. If Russia or any other adversary is able to build a 5th gen LO fighter that has roughly the same RCS as the F-22 but at a fraction of the cost that would spell trouble for the F-22, considering 80% of the Raptor's LO technology is in the shaping, all an adversary 5th gen designer has to do is copy the F-22's shape without incurring the R&D costs.

 

And how are they going to accomplish that? R&D costs weren't just for stealth - heck, building a testable airframe probably cost them less than most people think. Probably.

Russia has consistently proven one, and one thing only with their 'cheap' exports: You get what you pay for.

Russia is indeed playing the game smartly right now: They don't really have the money to catch up to the US, so they're leaving their air force relatively un-equipped or under-equipped save for a couple squadrons of Su-35's, and instead they are saving up and waiting for the PAK-FA so they can skip all the fluff and get the latest and greatest.

They aren't doing this because the PAK-FA is cheap. They're doing this because they don't have the money to upgrade their entire fleet like the US does.

 

If X band radar is ineffective against the F-22 then that will also apply for the F-22 against a similar 5th gen LO design with roughly the same RCS, a cheaper 5th gen LO aircraft could force the F-22 into a WVR fight which is risky business for a 1billion dollar fighter especially if the adversary has a cheaper 5th gen LO fighter with superior numbers, even if the F-22 is superior in technology, the battleground has proved far more often than not that numbers always diminish technology, the ME262 was a perfect example of this nothing the Allies had could touch the 262 in a 1 vs 1 scenario but the 262 still got its ass kicked.

 

Funny thing; while the F-22 is quite expensive given the economy as it is, F-22's aren't standing still. Production is stopped, but the aircraft are being 'played with', just like F-15's and F-16's.

Various CM dispenser kits are rotated in and out, there are software changes to the radar and other components, AESA components can be rotated out without you ever knowing; F-22's with small but un-explained hull apertures/modifications have been sighted, as well as F-22's with JHMCS.

 

You see, HAVING a stealth fighter lets you get to the anti-stealth fighter tactics and weapons development FIRST.

 

While we're at this though, ;et's sidetrack a little. What's happening now since the F-22 production is gone?

 

We'll be getting F-35's. Lots and lots and lots of F-35's. These babies aren't standing still either. They can't do the air to air work than the F-22 can, but on the other hand, they have good performance anyway, good stealth, and hey, they can shoot AMRAAMs and AIM-9X's - and whatever else you wanna stick on them.

 

So now, what about the PAK-FA? The PAK-FA, it has been said, is meant to compete with the F-35 ... not the F-22.

F-22's aren't being sold to anyone, and production is over. Russia has decided that instead of going for cold-war style competition, they are going for market competition with this one.

[GGTharos]

The idea was to overwhelm the opposition with both quality and quantity. Quality means they lose 4-6 fighters for every one you'll lose (this is essentially the exchange ratio for a Su-27 vs F-15C's in the mid to late 90's, nevermind the MiG) and when they lose those fighters, you still have a bunch left over, giving you time to do nasty things to their IADS and bomb their aircraft factories before they manage to resupply the enemy air force.

 

Like X-man said and most of us know 1 blue vs 10 red is the Cold War era scenario can be considered thing of the past cause I see no potential enemy or enemies that might assemble a fleet of 1800+ aircraft overnight be it a Il-28, MiG-15 or super duper Su-35!

 

AFAIK, things have changed since '70s in Blue favor! Quantitiy and quality are both on blue side!

[RedTiger]

I re-read that article again. I still think they're nuts. How they think that their ideas are actually beneficial is beyond me, especially when all their supporting information make so little sense. I know that Mr. Sprey is an intelligent guy, but I'm at a loss to figure out why he thinks that idea would be beneficial circa 2010.

[DarkWanderer]

The PAK-FA, it has been said, is meant to compete with the F-35 ... not the F-22.

I think, it was meant that it will compete economically, as they won't be "not for sell" like F-22's. It is a heavy air superiority supermaneuverable fighter, not light multi-functional.

[Vekkinho]

The idea was to overwhelm the opposition with both quality and quantity. Quality means they lose 4-6 fighters for every one you'll lose (this is essentially the exchange ratio for a Su-27 vs F-15C's in the mid to late 90's, nevermind the MiG) and when they lose those fighters, you still have a bunch left over, giving you time to do nasty things to their IADS and bomb their aircraft factories before they manage to resupply the enemy air force.

 

 

And AFAIK goal is achieved, there's more EF2K, Rafales, F-22s and F-35 in use than their counteparts Su-35, MiG-35 worldwide! And those Blue fighters are more advanced and capable than modern day Flankers and MiGs!

[topol-m]

And AFAIK goal is achieved, there's more EF2K, Rafales, F-22s and F-35 in use than their counteparts Su-35, MiG-35 worldwide! And those Blue fighters are more advanced and capable than modern day Flankers and MiGs!

 

Ahm is there a strategy plan to produce more EF-2000s and Rafales than there are Su-35s and Mig-35 that i don`t know about? ;)

[-Bazong-]

I have nothing to add really but it's very interesting to read as you guys discuss!! :thumbup:

 

The US have more F-22 then China has J-10. I fail to see the single F-22 face 10 J-10 + 6 JXX in a scenario. :) If china would suddenly go to war and mass produce J-10 and J-XX (yeah, right...), Im sure the US can follow.

 

I would go "heavier is better" any day of the week for the air superiority mission. You can have more fuel, larger (better) sensor-stuff, more payload etc.

 

And regarding the passive sensors on the LWF; what if the enemy decides to go passive as well :megalol:

 

I would'nt be so sure the US could follow economically; Say in a US vs. China(+allies) scenario. It would'nt likely be a war where US soil is threatened I thinks and so public support for such a war might not be that high (probably), raising enough funds to keep up a war over seas with an economically strong opponent would be hard these days or in the near future for the US I believe.

[GGTharos]

Check F-35 weight ... might be 'light' compared to an F-22, but it weighs in the same as an F-15C ... anyway, perhaps you're right, it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the PAK-FA project.

To me it seems like buyers want multi-role, not air superiority ... Russia may have other plans though :)

 

I think, it was meant that it will compete economically, as they won't be "not for sell" like F-22's. It is a heavy air superiority supermaneuverable fighter, not light multi-functional.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Every day, our government loses one F-22 in paying for the country's debt interest alone. So, unless we stop building weapon systems we don't need now, in the future, we will not be able to build weapon systems we will need.

 

We need F-22's now, but in very small quantities. We need it not because we can find any use of it (Taliban doesn't have any F-22's right). But to maintain technological edge.

[Vault]

And how are they going to accomplish that? R&D costs weren't just for stealth - heck, building a testable airframe probably cost them less than most people think. Probably.

Russia has consistently proven one, and one thing only with their 'cheap' exports: You get what you pay for.

Russia is indeed playing the game smartly right now: They don't really have the money to catch up to the US, so they're leaving their air force relatively un-equipped or under-equipped save for a couple squadrons of Su-35's, and instead they are saving up and waiting for the PAK-FA so they can skip all the fluff and get the latest and greatest.

They aren't doing this because the PAK-FA is cheap. They're doing this because they don't have the money to upgrade their entire fleet like the US does.

Yes there playing a clever game, a game that's clever and very efficient, I'm 99% sure the PAK-FA will be very similar in shape to the Raptor albeit I could easily be wrong, time will tell, if it is of similar shape I expect RCS performance of the PAK-FA to be very similar to that of a Raptor. Will this force the Raptor out of BVR and into the WVR arena?, sheesh I really hope not cause that's one time consuming and expensive bird to build.

Funny thing; while the F-22 is quite expensive given the economy as it is, F-22's aren't standing still. Production is stopped, but the aircraft are being 'played with', just like F-15's and F-16's.

Various CM dispenser kits are rotated in and out, there are software changes to the radar and other components, AESA components can be rotated out without you ever knowing; F-22's with small but un-explained hull apertures/modifications have been sighted, as well as F-22's with JHMCS.

You see, HAVING a stealth fighter lets you get to the anti-stealth fighter tactics and weapons development FIRST.

While we're at this though, ;et's sidetrack a little. What's happening now since the F-22 production is gone?

We'll be getting F-35's. Lots and lots and lots of F-35's. These babies aren't standing still either. They can't do the air to air work than the F-22 can, but on the other hand, they have good performance anyway, good stealth, and hey, they can shoot AMRAAMs and AIM-9X's - and whatever else you wanna stick on them.

So now, what about the PAK-FA? The PAK-FA, it has been said, is meant to compete with the F-35 ... not the F-22.

F-22's aren't being sold to anyone, and production is over. Russia has decided that instead of going for cold-war style competition, they are going for market competition with this one.

Now you're talking about anti-stealth tactics!, I've watched you state many many times that X band, VHF, UHF and optics are ineffective against stealth technology so what anti stealth weapons are you talking about? GG the F-35 is a great aircraft with great sensors but to me it's the kingpin of the "jack of all trades master of none" aircraft, I'd be very surprised if the PAK-FA was designed to counter the JSF. I think the PAK-FA will be a very economical and tactical solution in numbers for any Airforce that wants to defend itself against the F-22, c'mon do you really think Russia will let the US fly around with aircraft that give the US impunity in air?. Gain air superiority and you stand a good chance of winning the war, Russia isn't going to let that happen, if the PAK-FA can force the F-22 into a WVR fight that will spell trouble for the F-22... period. The battelfield has proved this many many times. Numbers diminish technology.