So, I was having a cheeky toilet break and figured I'd productively read the news. One of the articles I came across was basically an attempt at roasting the Russian/Indian PAK FA.
The claim was that is wasn't a "5th Generation fighter" because it possessed the same technology found in the SU-35, it doesn't have fused data linking and its engines weren't up to scratch (they weren't "5th generation engines").
Normally I let this rubbish pass over my head, but it's becoming increasingly common and more importantly, it's filling people's (often aviation expert wannabes) with propaganda that paints a picture that's as clear as a stick figure interpretation of the Mona Lisa.
Firstly, the PAK FA is a prototype, it's not a fully fledged F-35 or F-22, so data linking technology wouldn't personally be on the list for such a craft. In fact, from a financial stand point it would be sensible to include it in a later production variant in order spread the costs more effectively. Instead of blowing it all in one go and wondering why the project is so expensive.
Moving on, the article failed to mention that the SU-35 is listed as a "4++ generation fighter" due to the fact it incorporates "5th generation" electronics. As for the engines, the PAK FA is set to obtain "5th generation" engines once they're available, although the last time I checked they were still under development and in the testing phase.
Throughout this rant you'll probably notice that the "generation" stuff is in quotes. Mainly because there is no set in stone specifications that a "5th generation" aircraft has to fulfil. Sure, stealth and a dash of fancy electronics seems to satisfy most people. But saying it isn't "5th generation" because it doesn't have fused data linking is a bit of an odd one... Mainly because your dethroning the F-22 of its "5th Generation" status... Which is stupid... Well, it has "sensor fusion", but I suspect there's a difference between the two.
What's a little bit less stupid, but still stupid is saying that it has to have supercruise (Mach 1+ without afterburner), because in saying that you'd be partly dethroning the F-35 from its "5th Generation" status, because it's supercruise is apparently limited to 150 miles because the engine wasn't designed to supercruise. High manoeuvrability is also on the list... but then you really are (from some reports) dethroning the F-35.
So with all the above in mind. What is a "5th Generation aircraft"?
Well, apparently, given the above, it simply means fancy electronics and stealth... That's literally it. Even Lockheed Martin has had to change how it "defines" "5th generation" with the introduction of the F-35 (lacking full supercruise capability)... Although it's still adamant that the F-35 has "extreme performance"... Which is probably true if you discount it's seemingly potato-like handling characteristics.
So is the PAK FA a 5th Generation aircraft?
Yes... it is... kind of...
Truth be told, it's more of a marketing buzzword than something that can actually be defined. And the true performance of such aircraft is something that's pointless to discuss. But that is an informative post for another day.
Yours faithfully,
Squirrel
(an aviation expert wannabe)
@BRuthless Sounds like it. Although, like I say, they seem to have fixed this problem on the F-35. There are certainly no reports on the PAK FA T-50 for anything similar, so I wonder if they've adopted a similar method from the F-35.
@Squirrel The stealth coating also melts due to the high amount of drag at high speeds. It adds a lot to the maintenance cost.
@BRuthless The problem with the F-22 is that it's very expensive to maintain which is why they cancelled the program. The maintenance hours per hour of flight are pretty long. The F-22 should have some kind of upgrade, a better passive sensor suit would be a nice addition. One thing that does put me off the F-22 is that its stealth coating apparently fails in the rain. The F-35's stealth coating seems to be a bit better for such weather conditions though.
One comparison between American planes and Russian planes which I think stands true is that America tends to build their planes like finely tuned pocket watches, a lot of fancy tech goes into them. On the flip side, Russians build them like tanks, capable of withstanding a war environment for long periods of time. It's interesting to see how this philosophy translates into the aircraft design.
Well, if you looked at it like that, the F-22 would also be a 4++ generation fighter, as it was designed in the 90's and completely relies on 90's tech. It can't even carry the new AIM-9X Sidewinders, while even older planes like the F/A-18 and F-16 can, just like the F-35. Experts (who actually have to do with the F-22 in their job) say that it needs a modernization program as soon as possible to remain useful. Most people don't care about that.
Agreed. 5th Generation should actually consist of 5th Generation tech. Come on, Russia. Pull your crap together!!
@scottishjocks Thank you. Personally, I think in terms of design, the B-52 is a bit dated, but it does it's job and more importantly it does it well, much like the A-10. If I had to pick an aircraft that looked timeless, then I'd probably have to pick the YF-23:
@ShatterFox Nationalism makes us all as bad as each other.
Russia is biased, like Warthundr :D
@Skua Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have a bad habit of getting myself into arguments on the internet with ill-informed people about what the best plane in the world is. More often than not it's someone saying (for example) American aircraft are always better than [insert other countries plane here]. Speaking to them, you'd think that everyone copied them and that America was the inventor of modern aviation. The thing is, everybody copies everybody. The F-35's blueprints for the VTOL system for example was bought from Yakovlev and of course the X-32's VTOL system was borrowed from the Harrier.
I could literally write a whole new thread on this, but like I say, I'm leaving it for another time... AKA, when I next get triggered XD
Using the whole "generations" thing as if it's some kind of hard rule is nonsense anyway. Different planes will be good at different things. The Eurofighter Typhoon is referred to as another "4+" generation aircraft, because it's not stealthy in the slightest, and is generally much simpler than the Raptor. Does this make it a lesser plane? No, it's a different plane. The Raptor is built for BVR combat and stealth, the Typhoon for WVR combat and agility. Each aircraft beats the other in their preferred roles.
I think we can all agree that the T-50 is looking to be an impressive bit of technology, but that shouldn't have to be seen as it being better or worse than the Raptor, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, J-20 etc. I just hope we never need to actually find out for real.