Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspective?

paintgun

Senior Member
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

this is actually a very interesting topic
Vietnam flankers and VPLAAF vis a vis the PLAAF dynamics
Philippines strategy to deter PLAAF airpower
Indonesian and Malaysian Flankers

there are so many other interesting angle to this discussion other than comparing platforms dejavus all over again
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

this is actually a very interesting topic
Vietnam flankers and VPLAAF vis a vis the PLAAF dynamics
Philippines strategy to deter PLAAF airpower
Indonesian and Malaysian Flankers

there are so many other interesting angle to this discussion other than comparing platforms dejavus all over again

what you are saying is true but is obvious to any one that China has the second more powerful air force after the US in the pacific, discounting Russia of course.


Why Japan more or less is even with China but it is part of the US allies.

Flanker fighters brought to china parity with the Japanese and US F-15s, and J-10 too with F-16.


So today all nations are trying to regain superiority over China, US did it with F-22, Japan will do with F-35, and vietnam potentially could do it with PAKFA or Su-35BM
 

Lion

Senior Member
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

You need to follow this link.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What? I see nothing related to my question... U quote wrongly , is it? F-15 is soviet? Is it first time I heard of? And ASAT become ABM?
 

NikeX

Banned Idiot
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

I guess it sailed completely over your head.
 

montyp165

Junior Member
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

what you are saying is true but is obvious to any one that China has the second more powerful air force after the US in the pacific, discounting Russia of course.


Why Japan more or less is even with China but it is part of the US allies.

Flanker fighters brought to china parity with the Japanese and US F-15s, and J-10 too with F-16.


So today all nations are trying to regain superiority over China, US did it with F-22, Japan will do with F-35, and vietnam potentially could do it with PAKFA or Su-35BM

Still, the PLAAF would probably field the J-20 before Japan even gets its first F-35s and will have more of them than Vietnam could ever hope to have of Su-35s, and this doesn't even include the greater rate of C4ISR improvements that the PLAAF is incorporating into their command systems. If anything the PLA most necessarily needs to focus on countering US forces, everything else will fall into place by default concurrently.
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Still, the PLAAF would probably field the J-20 before Japan even gets its first F-35s and will have more of them than Vietnam could ever hope to have of Su-35s, and this doesn't even include the greater rate of C4ISR improvements that the PLAAF is incorporating into their command systems. If anything the PLA most necessarily needs to focus on countering US forces, everything else will fall into place by default concurrently.
to be honest i do not know the future, but i doubt the F-35 will be deployed after J-20 in the japanese colors, F-3 maybe a few years behind F-3, but, F-35 do not think so, it is in a more advance stage of development than J-20
[video=youtube;nghwyrjgwNI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nghwyrjgwNI&feature=related[/video]
 
Last edited:
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

It's pretty clear that the Sukhoi Flanker derivates in the service of many Asian countries, especially PRC, far outclass all enemy fighters except for the few F22. The Australian blog
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has extensively written on the topic. While I consider them too F-22-centric, their assessment of the aerial situation and capabilities seems quite correct to me.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
brings the current advantage of the numerous PRC Flankers vs the few US F22, JSF and discounting legacy fighters to the conclusion of US loss of air supremavy in the PACRIM. Thus China is currentyl very safe and will be even safer in the future with the J-20 when her potential enemies opt for the JSF (some Chinese netizens complained about powerful potential enemy fighter-bombers too close to their bedsteads, I hope they can sleep better now).
So there appear several obvious questions to me:
Why is the moderately stealthy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
not a business success?
Why doesn't the JSF get F-22nized to become a more air combat capable version? There seem superficially enough common design features to allow for these steps.
Why is South Korea the only country with some potential military clash (North Korean logistics would collapse early on in any fighting) in the PACRIM that briefly had a PAK FA acquisition idea that came to no fruition?
India's PAK FA derivate, HAL FGFA, seems the most sensible thing to bolster their defenses with the money they have. Why don't others follow, like Australia that is almost as unlikely to clash with India and Russia as it is to clash with Spain (Canberra-class) and faces numerous Flankers in their volatile north.
And from my European German perspective, I think the Eurofighter might be a not so good idea now. But it seems they learned from Russian design philosophy and are upgrading this thing with thrust vectoring, STOL, carrier capability and hopefully some real stealth concept that goes beyond the current coating effect. Having this "cheap" aircraft at the moment has a lot to do with the peace dividend for other other projects because in Europe we are a conflict backwater right now with might and mayhem concentrating somewhere else. But there's always hope because EADS and UAC (the manufacturer of all Russian aircrafts) swapped stocks.

For a very strange reason the Shanghai Cooperation technocomplexes, associates and allies seems to take a fighter and ranged fighter-bomber lead over the old NATO technocomplexes and associates that seem willing to cease that ground. This is unlike the Warsaw Pact time, because there's no deadly dual conflict, but it seems that there are two major technocomplexes competing with each other and I don't quite understand why the US, that has always been top dog, lets things slump that way while sinking money into a JSF that can't accomplish the mission or is way overbred for the environment where it can do something. Any ideas what's going on or is it the usual that missile trucks are just enough because we know where you are through our super-surveillance systems?

I think you are underestimating the capabilities of late model F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s by a lot. These are all very competent aircraft that can match the likes of most of the latest Mig-29 and Su-27 derivatives. I believe that is the main reason why US allies in the Pacific rim (who have the money) are waiting to spend it on the F-35 (F-22 if only the US would export it) instead of spending it on other planes, which to them would be marginal improvements to current capabilities.
 

montyp165

Junior Member
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

to be honest i do not know the future, but i doubt the F-35 will be deployed after J-20 in the japanese colors, F-3 maybe a few years behind F-3, but, F-35 do not think so, it is in a more advance stage of development than J-20

Seeing that the J-20 is still in development, it also makes it easier to incorporate improvements comparable to the F-35s abilities compared to even the F-22 airframe.
 

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

If F-22 turns and its wings are facing the radar on a bottom view it is very visible, why? simple the flat wings and underbelly send straight to the radar a huge signature, the F-22 is only stealthy from some angles, therefore they need mission planning.

F-35 and T-50 have rounded surfaces to streamline and reduce drag and the tailbooms give a surface alignment to reduce RCS signature.

In fact F-22 is not flat, at the end of the aircraft, the aft part, is not flat at all.
No, you're just flat out wrong about this whole thing. The reason the F-22 and J-20 have very smooth underbellies is that ONLY from DIRECTLY underneath the aircraft will a radar reflect any significant return. This can't be helped anyway because of the wings. This makes it much easier for maneuvering and mission planning because there are very few angles which you cannot turn wrt an enemy radar that will potentially be in range to pick you up. The problem with the T-50 is that there are just too many angles where a turn or bank will expose enough surface for an enemy radar to pick. Also, a curved surface, especially the ones beneath the T-50, presents a constant radar return to an enemy radar, even if smaller compared to a straight edge. And if you look closely some of the underbelly surfaces aren't actually even fully curved, they are a combination of curved and straight-edged, and not parallel with either the underbelly itself or the angle of the pseudo-diamond shaped forward fuselage. This presents numerous opportunities during maneuvering for an enemy radar that would otherwise be out of range, to pick up a decent radar return.
 

stardave

Junior Member
Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

No, you're just flat out wrong about this whole thing. The reason the F-22 and J-20 have very smooth underbellies is that ONLY from DIRECTLY underneath the aircraft will a radar reflect any significant return. This can't be helped anyway because of the wings. This makes it much easier for maneuvering and mission planning because there are very few angles which you cannot turn wrt an enemy radar that will potentially be in range to pick you up. The problem with the T-50 is that there are just too many angles where a turn or bank will expose enough surface for an enemy radar to pick. Also, a curved surface, especially the ones beneath the T-50, presents a constant radar return to an enemy radar, even if smaller compared to a straight edge. And if you look closely some of the underbelly surfaces aren't actually even fully curved, they are a combination of curved and straight-edged, and not parallel with either the underbelly itself or the angle of the pseudo-diamond shaped forward fuselage. This presents numerous opportunities during maneuvering for an enemy radar that would otherwise be out of range, to pick up a decent radar return.

Thank you, that is what I am trying to say, but it seems Mig-29 insist that somehow there are other magical surfaces of T-50 combined with paint, which cancels out the 2 huge exposed air duck and gap between the engines at the bottom side of the plane.
 
Top