Future Weapon Technology

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor at the Farnborough air show (dated 17 July 2008):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7510364.stm

Note the:

• World-class pitch axis flight direction change (turn) @ playback point 4:28-to-4:32.
• Engines exhaust soot.

Versus the F-18 Hornet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7512732.stm

Now compare all of those to Sukhoi Su-30, 35, 37 (NATO designation: Flanker) Series:

And here (narrative w/sound):

With the additional concerned/doubts remaining regarding F-22 lack of helmet-sighting (which Flanker has) with the added complexities involved due to weapon-bay doors;

Now underscores these facts:

• The immense closure rates of jet combat (attacker vs defender).
• BVR hit probabilities of only up to ~50% (on all sides) per/engagement; regardless of number(s) of total aircraft involved.
• The greatly increased criticality of nose-pointing for Raptor (for which Flanker is superior) due to no helmet-sighting.
• Flanker ability to employ its gun (in dogfight) and IR medium range missiles (BVR) using IRST, without needing its radar.

So the question might be; can F-22 Raptor change flight direction at a faster rate than Flanker can nose point? Based on video this answer is self evident.

The designers of all these aircraft require that they have defensive chaff/flare systems.

Why?

Additional F-22 concerns:

* Primary AIM-120 weapon @ ~ 340 lbs w/medium-class rocket-motor burn-time(s).
* AGP-77 mid-course updates transmission, (1-2 second data-burst pulse) detection by defender; Data-pulse required by AIM-120 from AGP-77 for engagements at range.
* F-22 contrail generation over ~24000ft of aircraft/primary weapon, and contrail RCS similar to SR-71.
* IFF interrogation transmissions.
* F22 flyaway Costs.

The Flanker easily may go down (in history) as the most significant combat aircraft since the Spitfire.