Nice to meet you, I'm Darkpr0. You'll probably find out soon that I love Russian aircraft
. I might randomly ask how you say something in
Russian for no reason, it's mostly because I'm a great fan of the Russian language.
If to say about Su-35 - its something like "unnecessary" plane in Russian Air Force. Of course, Su-35 are really awesome fighter, and serious
possible opponent to most of NATO fighters, but its not that fighter what Russian pilots wants to have. Everybody waits here for "this new
In my mind, the Su-35 901-series is to PAK-FA what the F-18 E/F Super Hornets are to F-35. They're a stopgap with new technology until the new toy
comes out. And to be honest, the Su-35 is not really an "unnecessary" aircraft. The mass of hardware (which isn't getting any younger) in the RuAF
is pretty darned old. While PAK-FA is put through testing and modification until production, there's still going to be a gap. It would seem wise,
then, to have a tried-and-true airframe with a lot of new guts inside to play with until the new Monster can get off the ground.
Besides, I doubt Sukhoi wants to see Mikoyan come out with a 4++ generation aircraft and have no Flanker response.
Soviet Union built this "absolute agressor" in the end of 1980th - it was MiG-31, but (thanks God, at last!) commies was kicked and MiG-31 becamed
another unnecessary plane too. Of course, its really outstanding interceptor, nobody untill now didnt created nothing like it, but in modern Russian
Air Force it has no place.
Interesting thought. This is one that has always ground the millstones in my head, and I've not quite agreed with. If Russia has a defensive
strategy, let us consider the following: If someone does not like Russia, and deploys airborne weapons against her, I'd say that the first plan of
action would be to intercept
them. Possibly with something large, fast, and nasty. Do we know any aircraft like that? I'd say that it makes an
excellent compliment to Russia's already impressive (and I'm tempted to say superior) ground-air defense strategy. If there's a hole in that
strategy, a fast aircraft might be a good idea to fill the gap as they move through it. Anyway, enough of my rants. I've probably misconstrued the
idea of "Interception" altogether.
I'm alfraid - but russian fighter of 5th generation will be "new MiG-31", but it will be "invisible" (i suspect minimum RCS as 0.0005m2 (meters
quadrant), and much more fast than F-22. I really dont know why hell Russia need plane like this.
It certainly doesn't need a new Foxhound, but I don't think it's looking for one. The stats say, however, a bunch of things that point to more of
the Flanker idea, big, and multirole leaning toward air superiority. If you won't mind committing the Cardinal Sin of looking on Wikipedia, it's
actually got a pretty fair section on PAK-FA, as well as a chart of intended features.
I'm going to try a bit of logic out of the information just in my head here. I believe that PAK-FA will feature engines that produce about 16 tons
worth of thrust (first engines will be the Saturn 117S, and I don't know what the next engines are). This definitely puts it in the class of a heavy
fighter, unless they intend to pull an F-35 and put a single, huge engine in it. But considering that it is being built upon work in the Mikoyan 1.44
and Sukhoi Su-47, I'd say it's going to feature two engines as the above do. So this thing's going to be a heavy-class fighter. It's also slated,
I believe, to have full 3D thrust vectoring, which rather puts an interceptor in an odd position as a consideration. Why would an interceptor need 3D
TVC? Anyway, with a bit of logic you can see, I think I can safely say you needn't worry about seeing a new MiG-31 out of PAK-FA.
It's only a problem for people who don't want to see Flankers go. People like me.
If to say about JSF F-35 - we dont need to do a much to "answer" on this plane. Its really funny story for all russians, but all engine-power
structure of F-35 was copied from russian seal fighter Yak-141 (Yak-43, Yak-41).
I wouldn't say "copied", but I think we can say it was looked at