Over the last several years it has become quite clear that the Russian military has been doing all it can to modernize--and fast. 

While it might not be producing tons of military equipment, nor is all of it on par with the latest and greatest the United States has in its arsenal, Moscow has made big strides to shake of its post-Soviet Union defense decline.

And it has some impressive results to show for its efforts. 

Russia has worked hard to embrace 5th generation fighter jets, 4th generation ++ aircraft and tanks that are close to the latest and greatest American and European models in terms of performance. 

But just how good are they? What could they really do on the battlefield?

To help answer some of these questions, we have combined several different articles into this post. The first, by Sebastien Roblin, looks at the much discussed PAK-FA, and how it would perform against the American F-22. Next we have another piece, also by Sebastien Roblin, discussing the Su-35. Rounding out the post is Kyle Mizokami, looking at the progression of the Armata T-14 tank. Let the debate begin! 

***

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Entering the ring today are the two ultimate stealth fighters of the day, the F-22 Raptor and the PAK FA T-50. The former has already completed its production run (or has it?), the latter will soon begin hatching from its industrial nest (or will it?)

Today we’ll consider which would have the upper-hand at various engagement ranges—blows long and short, all are permitted! And just to keep the audiences on its toes, we’ll examine the battle in backwards order, like in that one Seinfeld episode.

Within Visual Range—Bringing Invisible Swordsmen To a Gunfight?

Missile technology has long promised to make air combat about slinging missiles over distances well over 100 or even 200 kilometers. But if both aircraft use stealth technology, the range at which they can accurately target each other with radar-guided weapons is drastically shortened. Which in theory could bring back more close-range dogfights.

Let’s first acknowledge that the F-22 and T-50 share many excellent characteristics: both can supercruise (go supersonic without using afterburners) at over one and a half times the speed of sound—the Raptor faster than the PAK FA at Mach 1.8 compared to Mach 1.6. Both can operate at up to 65,000 feet high, higher than the new F-35 Lightning.

So who ends up on top if the two discrete aircraft end up neck and neck in a Within-Visual-Range (WVR) dance of death?

The F-22 Raptor is the most maneuverable fighter the U.S. has ever made.

The PAK FA is even more maneuverable.

The PAK FA uses three-dimensional thrust-vector jets—its engine nozzles can literally tilt independently in any direction to assist it in executing maneuvers. The jets assist it in yaws as well as changing pitch, and permit very high angles of attack—that is, when the nose of the plane is pointed in a different direction than the vector of the plane.

The Raptor uses two-dimensional vector-thrust jets which can only go up and down in unison, affecting pitch only. This is still quite awesome—the Raptor is the only U.S. fighter that is supermaneuverable. But it’s not the equal of the PAK FA’s agility.

What does maneuverability let you do in fighter combat? It can help the plane dodge missiles (useful in any scenario) and position itself in advantageous firing position for WVR combat. However, the most extreme maneuvers also cost a lot of a plane’s energy—and U.S. doctrine has always favored remaining in a high-energy state, and the F-22 appears like it bleeds energy more slowly than its Russian counterpart.

On to weapons! Although the F-22 has a reduced heat signature, the bottom line is that in WVR combat, stealth fighters are still vulnerable to infrared guided missiles. Both aircraft can carry two.

For a long time, Russian aircraft had the advantage of superior short-range R-73 heat-seeking missiles that could be targeted via helmet-mounted sights: the pilot just had to look at an enemy plane to shoot at it. Importantly, the plane did not even have to be pointed at the target.

However, the United States finally deployed its own equivalent of the R-73, the AIM-9X, in 2004, and F-22s are finally planned to have the capability to use AIM-9Xs by 2017. Helmet-mounted sights should come in 2020.

By the time PAK FAs are in operational units, the two planes will have roughly equivalent short-range missile capabilities.

The Verdict: Slight edge to PAK FA. Both aircraft are highly capable dogfighters—but the PAK FA looks like it’s the more agile of the two.

Here’s the thing about WVR combat, though. You only get to do it if you survive the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) encounter first…

Beyond Visual Range—Keeping Your Butt Off the Radar

Let’s immediately address the elephant in the room (or rather, aerospace):

The F-22 is a very stealthy fighter believed to have a radar cross-section of just .0001 meters.

The PAK-FA is a stealthy fighter with a claimed cross-section as low as 0.1 meters…from the front.

The PAK-FA patent claims a maximum of cross-section of 1 meter… those cool three-dimensional thrust vector nozzles in the back have a way of calling attention to themselves.

This may not be a tremendous limitation if the PAK-FA fights defensive engagements in which its opponents are at the edge of their radar net.

However, it’s far less ideal for a penetrating deeply into hostile radar coverage. That may be of less concern for Russia—but it does mean that the PAK-FA will remain more detectable than the F-22 in a variety of situations.

In other BVR capabilities, the two designs are more evenly matched.

The F-22 and the PAK-FA both have Active Electronically Scanned Array radars—or rather, once the N036 Byelka AESA radar completes its development. AESA radars are stealthier, are more resistant to jamming, and boast higher fidelity. The F-22 and PAK FA will be able to detect each other as they close within fifty kilometers—though which one first is a subject of debate.

The T-50 does boast a modern Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system with a maximum fifty-kilometer detection range. The F-22 currently has none, though it is slated to receive one by 2020. However, the F-22’s engines nozzles are designed to reduce heat signature, diminishing detection range, while the PAK-FA’s engines are indiscrete. So, it’s less than obvious who will detect who first, given that the PAK FA may be radar observable within that range.

In any event, the IRST does not offer the means to target other aircraft, it merely gives an idea of their general position.

The T-50 also has its own L-Band radars in the wings which theoretically would be effective in determining the general position of stealth fighters. However, their range is fairly limited and they are not precise enough to lock on weapons. Unlike the IRST, they have the disadvantage of making the T-50 highly observable on radar when activated.

If U.S. Air Force exercises pitting Raptors against F-15s and F-16s are anything to go by, long-range missiles will ravage Fourth Generation fighters at distances at which they have little to no ability to detect and shoot back at stealth fighters. But when two stealth fighters clash, the maximum applicable range will be much shorter

Both planes carry deadly long-range radar-guided missiles of comparable effectiveness. Russia has its cutting-edge K-77M missiles with a reported range of two hundred kilometers and the United States has the AIM-120D Scorpion with a range of one hundred sixty. (The greater range of the K-77M may be an advantage, but not against a low-observable stealth fighter.) Superior ramjet-powered missiles, such as the Meteor and PL-15, are already being fielded, though it is not clear if either the F-22 or PAK FA will receive them.

The F-22 can carry six AIM-120s in its internal bays, whereas the PAK-FA is limited to four. This does give it a modest edge, as future aerial clashes are likely to involve a lot of missiles flying back and forth, and likely more than one will be launched to ensure a kill.

Many experts are skeptical that the PAK FA boasts fifth-generation avionics and networking technology used in the latest U.S. fighters. Intriguingly, networking with a sufficiently powerful low-band AESA radar, such as that on an E-2D AWACs plane, might allow radar-guided missiles to target stealth fighters! However, F-22 datalinks are also outdated and have only recently been slated for upgrade.

Operationally, F-22s will work in concert with an extensive network of supporting sensors and electronic warfare platforms, both at sea and in the air. There is even talk of using stealth fighters to cue potential targets to be hit by super long-range missiles launched from B-52 “arsenal planes.”

In contrast, Russian analysts insist that ground-based low-bandwidth radars and long-range surface-to-air missiles such as the S-400 are a sure solution against stealth fighters. These tie the T-50 to operate closer to ground-based positions, which may be acceptable given Russia’s security posture.

Verdict: Edge for F-22. History shows that the side that shoots first in vehicular combat usually wins, and the stealthier F-22 seems more likely to do so—though their capabilities may be more even in a head-on approach.

Industrial Performance: 

“What is this?” I hear you cry. “How dare I despoil the purity of this noble duel of falcons with vulgar commercial gossip?”

The reason is very simple. The PAK-FA will only prove a significant opponent to the F-22 if it is produced in meaningful numbers.

Which is to say: more than the twelve which are currently on order for delivery by 2020.

It’s not as if the F-22 is particularly numerous—at 178 operational aircraft, a somewhat slender-thread on which to rest the United States’ hopes for air superiority in the next twenty years.

However, because the PAK-FA and Raptor are close enough in capability, a small number of T-50s will not suffice to radically challenge the Raptor’s reign—or even the F-35’s.

So why has the PAK-FA order been so radically downsized? It’s because it’s proving extremely difficult to deliver on all the design specifications, particularly the engines. The development costs keep on mounting, while the Russian economy has been in a recession for the last few years, decreasing the appetite for such an expensive offering.

This leads to another important caveat regarding the T-50: many of its capabilities are planned-for rather than extant. The AESA radar is still undergoing testing. The current crop of PAK FAs is equipped AL-41F1 turbofans which are fuel inefficient and produce insufficient thrust, so the plan is to replace them with superior Izdeliye 30 turbofans once they finish development—which may take as long as 2027.

In short, the PAK FA is a work in progress, its final capabilities unclear. And it’s very expensive work, leaving large question marks on how many will actually be produced.

This leads to another major issue: India, an investor in the PAK FA program, is complaining quite publically about cost and quality issues in the program; quality-control failings such as misaligned fittings may potentially increase the PAK FA’s radar cross-section. Indian FGFAs would potentially be more sophisticated than the Russian versions—but if India withdraws its order for over hundred aircraft, that project may prove even more difficult to finance.

Nonetheless, Russia’s defense policies and economic fortunes may well change in the future and additional orders will likely be forthcoming one day as more of the stealth fighter’s systems are refined. It’s hard to imagine the project ending with just twelve produced after so much money was put into it.

For the time being, however, the evidence suggests that only a small quantity of PAK FAs will enter Russian service this decade—too few to alter the balance of air power in the near term.

Verdict: As the quote goes, “Quantity has a quality all of its own.”

***

The Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E is the top Russian air-superiority fighter in service today, and represents the pinnacle of fourth-generation jet fighter design. It will remain so until Russia succeeds in bringing its fifth-generation PAK-FA stealth fighter into production.

Distinguished by its unrivaled maneuverability, most of the Su-35’s electronics and weapons capabilities have caught up with those of Western equivalents, like the F-15 Eagle. But while it may be a deadly adversary to F-15s, Eurofighters and Rafales, the big question mark remains how effectively it can contend with fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35.

History

The Su-35 is an evolution of the Su-27 Flanker, a late Cold War design intended to match the F-15 in concept: a heavy twin-engine multirole fighter combining excellent speed and weapons loadout with dogfighting agility.

An Su-27 stunned the audience of the Paris Air Show in 1989 when it demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra, a maneuver in which the fighter rears its nose up to 120-degree vertical—but continues to soar forward along the plane’s original attitude.

Widely exported, the Flanker has yet to clash with Western fighters, but did see air-to-air combat in Ethiopian service during a border war with Eritrea, scoring four kills against MiG-29s for no loss. It has also been employed on ground attack missions.

The development history of the Su-35 is a bit complicated. An upgraded Flanker with canards (additional small wings on the forward fuselage) called the Su-35 first appeared way back in 1989, but is not the same plane as the current model; only fifteen were produced. Another upgraded Flanker, the two-seat Su-30, has been produced in significant quantities, and its variants exported to nearly a dozen countries.

The current model in question, without canards, is properly called the Su-35S and is the most advanced type of the Flanker family. It began development in 2003 under the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO), a subcontractor of Sukhoi. The first prototypes rolled out in 2007 and production began in 2009.

Airframe and Engines

The Flanker family of aircraft is supermaneuverable—meaning it is engineered to perform controlled maneuvers that are impossible through regular aerodynamic mechanisms. In the Su-35, this is in part achieved through use of thrust-vectoring engines: the nozzles of its Saturn AL-41F1S turbofans can independently point in different directions in flight to assist the aircraft in rolling and yawing. Only one operational Western fighter, the F-22 Raptor, has similar technology.

This also allows the Su-35 to achieve very high angles-of-attack—in other words, the plane can be moving in one direction while its nose is pointed in another. A high angle of attack allows an aircraft to more easily train its weapons on an evading target and execute tight maneuvers.

This video of a Su-35 at the 2013 Paris Air Show demonstrates its remarkable maneuverability.

 

Highlights at 1:30, 3:43, 4:07 and 5:15.

Such maneuvers may be useful for evading missiles or dogfighting at close ranges—though they leave any aircraft in a low-energy state.

The Flanker-E can achieve a maximum speed of Mach 2.25 at high altitude (equal to the F-22 and faster than the F-35 or F-16) and has excellent acceleration. However, contrary to initial reports, it appears it may not be able to supercruise—perform sustained supersonic flight without using afterburners—while loaded for combat. Its service ceiling is sixty thousand feet, on par with F-15s and F-22s, and ten thousand feet higher than Super Hornets, Rafales and F-35s.

The Su-35 has expanded fuel capacity, giving it a range of 2,200 miles on internal fuel, or 2,800 miles with two external fuel tanks. Both the lighter titanium airframe and the engines have significantly longer life expectancies than their predecessors, at six thousand and 4,500 flight hours, respectively. (For comparison, the F-22 and F-35 are rated at eight thousand hours).

The Flanker airframe is not particularly stealthy. However, adjustments to the engine inlets and canopy, and the use of radar-absorbent material, supposedly halve the Su-35’s radar cross-section; one article claims it may be down to between one and three meters. This could reduce the range it can be detected and targeted, but the Su-35 is still not a “stealth fighter.”

Weaponry

The Su-35 has twelve to fourteen weapons hardpoints, giving it an excellent loadout compared to the eight hardpoints on the F-15C and F-22, or the four internally stowed missiles on the F-35.

At long range, the Su-35 can use K-77M radar-guided missiles (known by NATO as the AA-12 Adder), which are claimed to have range of over 120 miles.

For shorter-range engagements, the R-74 (NATO designation: AA-11 Archer) infrared-guided missile is capable of targeting “off boresight”—simply by looking through a helmet-mounted optical sight, the pilot can target an enemy plane up sixty degrees away from where his plane is pointed. The R-74 has a range of over twenty-five miles, and also uses thrust-vectoring technology.

The medium-range R-27 missile and the extra long-range R-37 (aka the AA-13 Arrow, for use against AWACs, EW and tanker aircraft) complete the Su-35’s air-to-air missile selection.

Additionally, the Su-35 is armed with a thirty-millimeter cannon with 150 rounds for strafing or dogfighting.

The Flanker-E can also carry up to seventeen thousand pounds of air-to-ground munitions. Historically, Russia has made only limited use of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) compared to Western air forces. However, the capability for large-scale use of such weapons is there, if doctrine and munition stocks accommodate it.

Sensors and Avionics

The Su-35’s most critical improvements over its predecessors may be in hardware. It is equipped with a powerful L175M Khibiny electronic countermeasure system intended to distort radar waves and misdirect hostile missiles. This could significantly degrade attempts to target and hit the Flanker-E.

The Su-35’s IRBIS-E passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar is hoped to provide better performance against stealth aircraft. It is claimed to able to track up to thirty airborne targets with a Radar-cross section of three meters up to 250 miles away—and targets with cross-sections as small 0.1 meters over fifty miles away. However, PESA radars are easier to detect and to jam than the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars now used by Western fighters. The IRBIS also has an air-to ground mode that can designate up to four surface targets at time for PGMs.

Supplementing the radar is an OLS-35 targeting system that includes an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system said to have a fifty-mile range—potentially a significant threat to stealth fighters.

More mundane but vital systems—such as pilot multi-function displays and fly-by-wire avionics—have also been significantly updated.

Operational Units and Future Customers

Currently, the Russian Air Force operates only forty-eight Su-35s. Another fifty were ordered in January 2016, and will be produced at a rate of ten per year. Four Su-35s were deployed to Syria this January after a Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16. Prominently armed with air-to-air missiles, the Su-35s were intended to send a message that the Russians could pose an aerial threat if attacked.

China has ordered twenty-four Su-35s at a cost of $2 billion, but is thought unlikely to purchase more. Beijing’s interest is believed to lie mostly in copying the Su-35’s thrust-vector engines for use in its own designs. The Chinese PLAAF already operates the Shenyang J-11, a copy of the Su-27.

Attempts to market the Su-35 abroad, especially to India and Brazil, have mostly foundered. Recently, however, Indonesia has indicated it wishes to purchase eight this year, though the contract signing has been repeatedly delayed. Algeria is reportedly considering acquiring ten for $900 million. Egypt, Venezuela and Vietnam are also potential customers.

Cost estimates for the Su-35 have run between $40 million and $65 million; however, the exports contracts have been at prices above $80 million per unit.

Against the Fifth Generation

The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35?

The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles.

The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place?

As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes. Keep in mind, however, that the former two technologies are imprecise and can’t be used to target weapons in most cases.

Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements.

The Su-35 may be the best jet-age dogfighter ever made and a capable missile delivery platform—but whether that will suffice for an air-superiority fighter in the era of stealth technology remains to be seen.

***

Tanks are immensely important to a land power like Russia. Tanks were what allowed the Red Army to counterattack in World War II, forcing back Germany and her allies all the way back to Berlin. Tanks guarded against the forces of reactionary imperialism during the Cold War, and in the post–Cold War era have formed the backbone of Russia's conventional defenses.

Earlier this month Russian news announced the first deliveries of the T-14 Armata tank, straight from manufacturer Uralvagonzavo’s factory. Armata is exactly what Russia needs: a fresh, new design with room to grow over the next several decades. According to RT, more than one hundred T-14s have been ordered. That’s enough to fill out a tank regiment or brigade, plus spares. Another 2,200 are to follow, enough for seven tank divisions.

The West will be dealing with this tank for decades to come. One year after introduction, what do we know about it?

The basic statistics: Armata is thirty-five feet long, weighs fifty tons and has a maximum road speed of fifty miles an hour. It has a crew of three, with the turret completely unmanned. The tank has a 125-millimeter main gun, 12.7-millimeter heavy machine gun and 7.62-millimeter hull coaxial machine gun.

Like any tank, Armata is a combination of protection, firepower and mobility. The armor is a composite incorporating a new steel alloy known as 44C-SV-W, developed by the JSC Institute of Steel—also known as the NII Stali Institute for Protection—in Moscow. The new steel, made via electroslag melting, is apparently lighter than traditional steel, shaving “hundreds of kilograms” off the vehicle weight.

Weighing just fifty tons, the implication is that Armata deliberately has less armor than tanks such as the Abrams and Challenger II, both of which weigh around seventy tons. This is likely due to Russia’s confidence in its active and passive tank protection systems. Moscow’s new tank is equipped with the Afganit active protection system, which uses a combination of sensors and kinetic energy projectiles to knock down incoming rocket propelled grenades, antitank missiles, and subcaliber projectiles. The tank also features an anti-detection aerosol disperser, a new explosive reactive armor nicknamed “Malachite,” slat armor covering the engine spaces and even an electronic countermine system to prevent antitank mines from detonating.

Another protective measure the crew will appreciate: like the Abrams, main gun ammunition is stored separately away from the crew. This means Armata crews will likely avoid the fate of many Syrian T-72 crews that have met their end after a HEAT warhead detonated their onboard ammunition supply.

T-14 armament is currently the 2A82 125-millimeter smoothbore gun, an improvement on the T-90’s 2A46M gun and according to the Russian Armed Forces 17 percent more powerful than the NATO-standard Rheinmetall 120-millimeter gun. A new armor-piercing, fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) kinetic-energy antitank round called Vacuum-1 is being developed. Vacuum-1 is rumored to be able to penetrate one thousand millimeters of rolled homogenous steel armor at two kilometers. For long distance targets at ranges of up to eight kilometers, the Armata will have the 3UBK21 Sprinter anti-tank missile. The autoloader is reportedly capable of firing ten rounds per minute.

According to Russian state media, the Armata will eventually be upgraded to a 152-millimeter gun. This is a similar tack to that the U.S. Army took with the M1 Abrams, which was originally armed with the 105-millimeter L7 gun and later produced with the 120-millimeter Rheinmetall M256.

Originally, U.S. Army observers stated that Armata would be powered by the Chelyabinsk A-85-3A X-diesel engine capable of producing up to 1,500 horsepower. Currently output however is downrated at 1,350 horsepower, and Uralvagonzavod’s director, Oleg Sienko, seems to hedge on the original 1,500 horsepower specification, telling RT, “Upgrading the engine is planned for the future, but we believe that the more you force the engine, the fewer are its resources.” As it stands, Armata has a horsepower-to-weight ratio of 27 to 1—decent by modern standards—but a weight of sixty-five tons will drop that down to a lackluster 20 to 1.

Uralvagonzavod also claims that Armatas will eventually sport their own flying drones for scouting and target acquisition, although it remains to be seen which of the three-man crew would receive the added workload. If that isn’t enough, it also claims the T-14 will eventually go completely unmanned.

As described by the Russian press Armata is a genuine supertank, equipped with the absolute latest devices. Whether any of this information is genuine, rumor or propaganda, one thing is for sure—it all points to a direction in tank development Moscow wants to pursue. It may take Armata just a few years to get there, or a few decades, but given the continuing importance of tanks on the modern battlefield, few can doubt it will actually someday happen.