Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Putin boasts new jet fighter better than U.S. plane

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Russians have some very impressive aircraft. That goes without saying but...

To simply say it's better is foolish, Pilots training and experience is the most valuable factor. The US pilots by comparison have had much more air combat experience.




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by spy66
 


I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Russians have some very impressive aircraft. That goes without saying but...

To simply say it's better is foolish, Pilots training and experience is the most valuable factor. The US pilots by comparison have had much more air combat experience.


I have never said they have better jets. I said that they have jets that now can match the US air force in air supremacy.

And i have said that it is foolish to think the Raptor can handle the PAK FA with ease. Because that is the general public opinion of an American. That the F-22 will own the new Russian PAK FA.

If the US have better trained pilots is based on nothing but assumptions. That fact is yet to be proven in a battle. And don't bring up old history because that was yesterdays news.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 


Also the F-35 is building "purpose versions" such as VTOL for the Marines and Navy. It is also going to replace the Warthogs as ground support superiority F/B. Different versions for various roles. This F/B does not cruise at mach 1 like the F-22.

The F-22 is a kick-*ss air superiority fighter with vectored thrust. The rooski's used VT in their last fighter produced so not sure is ours is better. Does anyone know if our fly-by-wire systems are better than theirs?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
When Putin is talking about his new fighter I understand he will not say they are not as good as the american fighters.

But then again how could he know.....? Are the specifics of the latest american fighter planes not top secret?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


I am not disputing Soviet types successfully engaged US types in the Vietnam War, but in air to air combat Soviet types were bettered.

If were stick to modern types and conflicts (I originally said 30 to 40 years) we see that Soviet aircraft have not had a happy time when against Western type.

Look Sadchild01, we are going around in circles with this. The facts are plain to see. I have previously said that the Soviets / Russians build good kit, but it has never really worked out when pitted against western equipment. Unless you have evidence to the contrary can I suggest we move on and agree to disagree.

To topic. I mentioned earlier about the leap to UCAVs by the west. I personally think that the US and Europe will not develop and field a new manned fighter. There are various test designs out there and you don’t need to speculate very much to see that unencumbered by the constraints of a human these aircraft will change aerial warfare for good.

Regards



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
When Putin is talking about his new fighter I understand he will not say they are not as good as the american fighters.

But then again how could he know.....? Are the specifics of the latest american fighter planes not top secret?



Good question. That also makes our verdict on the matter even less objective. Because i bet Putin knows more facts about the comparison between the F-22 and the PAK FA than we do.

If Putin is telling the truth about the matter is a totally different scenario that we never would know the facts about. Because its all Top Secret.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Good question. That also makes our verdict on the matter even less objective. Because i bet Putin knows more facts about the comparison between the F-22 and the PAK FA than we do.

If Putin is telling the truth about the matter is a totally different scenario that we never would know the facts about. Because its all Top Secret.



Russia needs money, they are selling this jet abroad. What do you expect him to say? It's mediocre?

Come on, he is playing it up simply to drive potential foreign sales.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sadchild01
and you Obamatrons continue pissing them off and soon they may attempt to leave the union



Assume much?
I'm a "Obamatron"?


Thanks, I needed the laugh.
Sheesh


[edit on 20-6-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 





Sukhoi has said the plane should be ready for use in 2015.


Quote was from OP's link. I would expect Russia's new plane to be comparable with what, a fighter introduced nearly two decades prior?
It better be comparable



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by spy66
Good question. That also makes our verdict on the matter even less objective. Because i bet Putin knows more facts about the comparison between the F-22 and the PAK FA than we do.

If Putin is telling the truth about the matter is a totally different scenario that we never would know the facts about. Because its all Top Secret.



Russia needs money, they are selling this jet abroad. What do you expect him to say? It's mediocre?

Come on, he is playing it up simply to drive potential foreign sales.


Yeah that is true, no one would spend this much money and say that the PAK FA is useless.

The Russians are building the PAK FA to match the F-22 in some aspects of aerial combat. But there is no way anyone of us can confirm this at this stage in development. We dont have the inside spec on what this thing is good for, or which version we are looking at. This might just be the export version of the PAK FA. And not the real Russian version to come.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Only he forgot to mention that it does not exist yet. It is only being developed, as opposed to US jet been operational for years.


Putin is the leader of the Russian Federation, I think I will trust his assessment of his weapons' capability over most ordinary people's opinions.

Seriously, this thing has plasma stealth injectors which is basically a next generation stealth technology that the US boldly claimed as a myth for many years. I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to produce a new generation fighter that would be inferior to its older US counterpart. For examples look at the Sukhoi 27 series vs their F-15 counterparts; Flankers are pretty sleek for an era of boxy jet fighters.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by henriquefd
 




Putin boasts new jet fighter better than U.S. plane


And I am sure Putin was drinking vodka when he was playing with his set of toy planes, and pretending that Russia won the cold war era.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Sheesh, it seems that amateur hour has invaded the Aviation forum


The plane is impressive and no doubt will share the super muneuverability so aply displayed by the Su-27 et al.

As with most Soviet / Russian fighters, it will be interesting to see what its combat radius is. As will how stealthy the airframe is (as far as those of us WITHOUT a security clearance will know) in comparison to the F-22A

If the new PAK-FA is close to the Raptor (-30 to -40 dbs) it will make for an interesting dog fight



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Putin is the leader of the Russian Federation, I think I will trust his assessment of his weapons' capability over most ordinary people's opinions.


Yes, but do not forget that he is also a saleman. You dont interest potiential buys for any product by claiming yours in inferior to the competition.

Since the airframe is just in test, I tend to think its more bluster than fact at this point.

Will the airframe be an impressive one? No doubt, but its a bit premature eh?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


There are two ways to generate a sustained plasma field in the open atmosphere - to move really, really fast; or to (in order to create a plasma field around something the size of this aircraft) consume several megawatts of power.

The only thing I would worry about using plasma-stealth (until we find much more efficient ways of creating plasma and containing it within an open atmosphere) would be something like a battleship or aircraft carrier with a few dedicated nuclear reactors to the task of generating and maintaining that plasma field.

However, previous experiments with plasma have demonstrated that they tend to emit more EM than they absorb or deflect in some mystical way. So, perhaps in theory you could use plasma to stealth an aircraft from radar, but a modified HOJ or passive station would be able to pick you out.

You'd also light up on IR - standing out even against the sun.

The other problem is Over-the-Horizon early warning radars, their lower frequencies don't interact with plasmas too well. Making such retroactive plasmas that could counter such a broad range of detection methods is rather impractical with all known technology, and would see more practical employment in space as a shield against radiation and as a method of containing atmospheres (in combat, this would make a hull breech a problem that can be addressed later). But, I digress from the main topic, here.

While the Russians have their own technological triumphs, I doubt they have plasma-stealth on an aircraft. It would simply not be all that great of a stealth mechanism, spare for aerospace applications. Not to mention it's simply impractical with known technology (and while I know someone will argue Area 51 and aliens and that military technology is decades ahead of civilian technology - but, that is a relative misnomer).

Look at the aircraft for what it is. As far as aerodynamic performance, I would expect more out of this aircraft than the F-22. But there is more to air warfare than your turning radius and maximum angle-of-attack. It will be hard to compare its avionics, I would expect them to place more sensitive IR sensors on the final model (similar to the MiG 29) and potentially have a rear-facing radar array, as well (which would allow them to fire and fly away while still providing mid-course updates, an advantage the F-22 does not have, relying on combat networking to pick up the slack, there).

It's really a difference of design philosophy - the U.S. is trying to take a more network centric approach to combat, while the Russians seem to back more self-contained systems. This has come out of their various mission requirements and the rifts between the the USSR member states and the standard customers of Russian aircraft.

And just like anything else - they could release the designs to ten different countries to produce on their own, and you would get ten different aircraft with some rather different properties. The quality of the industry producing these aircraft and the choice of materials will influence a lot of factors.

The biggest factor, however, the pilots, does not look to be in Russia's favor. They can't afford to keep their pilots qualified in the aircraft and give them near as many drills as many other nations can. In this respect - the aircraft may be far more capable than it will ever be able to demonstrate.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

While the Russians have their own technological triumphs, I doubt they have plasma-stealth on an aircraft. It would simply not be all that great of a stealth mechanism, spare for aerospace applications. Not to mention it's simply impractical with known technology (and while I know someone will argue Area 51 and aliens and that military technology is decades ahead of civilian technology - but, that is a relative misnomer).


I believe they do employ plasma stealth for many reasons, first being that Russian brass has claimed successful tests of it on Tu-160s over northern NORAD airspace... which is interesting because it is only the Tu-95s that NORAD seems to intercept up there.

Second is that I have vaguely seen some older (80s/90s) Russian military clips/pictures of scientific testing of plasma stealth technology, where they claimed success. While this doesn't prove that the Russians have it deployed, it does prove that they have at least put extensive research into it. Russia usually puts that much effort into a project if they see serious potential in its capability.

hahaha, I hate people talking about Area 51/alien technology garbage, but at the same time it easily separates the intelligent people from the idiots in a discussion like this. The truth about flying saucers is out there in plain sight (they do exist and they are human made) but it is because of lingering alien conspiracy mongerers that full exposure will not come soon enough.


The biggest factor, however, the pilots, does not look to be in Russia's favor. They can't afford to keep their pilots qualified in the aircraft and give them near as many drills as many other nations can. In this respect - the aircraft may be far more capable than it will ever be able to demonstrate.


In my personal opinion, the biggest factor in demonstrating the capability of military equipment is environmental. In peace time like right now, these fifth generation fighters are just technology demonstrators and they mean nothing until a war breaks out that involves their extensive use. It is the survivabilty of the aircraft's design in extreme conditions that matter, such as war, weather, lack of maintenence, etc.

American war machines require extensive maintenence, almost on an insane level. For instance the M1A1 Abrams might seem like a fast, powerful and heavily armored tank which could make it the best MBT in the world... until it is combat proven to need an entire convoy of fuel trucks and engineers to support a group of Abrams. Same story with carrier fleets, AWACS support groups, and of course fifth generation fighters.

I've tried to understand why the US only picks fights with exponentially inferior armies like in 2003 Iraq. The only fair reasoning that I've discovered is that American military equipment couldn't survive the cost and conditions of fighting an similarily armed enemy.

Here is an example:
List of media-reported American aviation losses in Iraq War (Wikipedia)

According to this, 152 American aircraft have been downed in the Iraq war with only 45 resulting from insurgents with .50cals and MANPADS. Also American generals are concerned about the inability to replace these downed aircraft fast enough, pointing out the logistical nightmare that is the US military.

Just like the Nazis with their mighty Tiger tanks, built to instill fear in their enemies just by technological capabilities alone. Unfortunately they couldn't do much except drive on a paved road or face extensive and crippling mechanical breakdowns. (I bring this up to point out past incidents in modern war, not to compare Nazis to US).

My point here is that Russia has always built its weapons, not to be flashy and expensive, but to be cost effective and reliable in the actual conditions of war. This is where I see the true superiority of the T-50 over the F-22, which like the F-35 is just an economical joke.

As for the pilot's role, I believe their training should only be to introduce them to the aircraft's systems, high-gravity flight, and combat training. A true pilot will find their place in the fight when they get to the fight, not during countless simulations. If a pilot relies on simulation, then they'll have a hard time adjusting to the individual characteristics of enemy pilots, if they survive at all. A pilot must study the combat capability of other pilots to be effective in shattered skies.

By the way, thanks for the long and detailed post


[edit on 22-6-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The PAK-FA is still many many years from being operational. Its about where the F-22 was at, in early/mid 90s.

And a modern fighter, no matter how good an airframe, also requires a integrated functional weapons system, and that can be what takes the longest. The PAK-FA is certainly not combat ready in its early state..



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
[I believe they do employ plasma stealth for many reasons, first being that Russian brass has claimed successful tests of it on Tu-160s over northern NORAD airspace... which is interesting because it is only the Tu-95s that NORAD seems to intercept up there.


Really?

www.armybase.us...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Oooops double post

[edit on 6/23/10 by FredT]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



I believe they do employ plasma stealth for many reasons, first being that Russian brass has claimed successful tests of it on Tu-160s over northern NORAD airspace... which is interesting because it is only the Tu-95s that NORAD seems to intercept up there.


That's not what I got out of the claims: Link

What he said was to the effect of: "We were doing some exercises and were never counter-detected or challenged by aircraft on patrol or intercept."

Plasma stealth enthusiasts don't all of a sudden claim it makes aircraft invisible, too, surely.

The Tu-160's mission profile is a Hi-Lo-Hi one. You fly in high level (efficient), drop down supersonic for a strike (survivability and to avoid early warning and search radars), then you climb and fly back out high.

Radars are not the all-seeing-eye. Many of the land based air defense radars could really stand to be retired and replaced with newer systems that are far more capable than the ones in service. However - no one seems to think the Russians are going to turn around and bomb us.

It should be noted that this is more of a demonstration of defeating radars with strategy as opposed to technology (certainly a very Russian way of thinking).


American war machines require extensive maintenence, almost on an insane level. For instance the M1A1 Abrams might seem like a fast, powerful and heavily armored tank which could make it the best MBT in the world... until it is combat proven to need an entire convoy of fuel trucks and engineers to support a group of Abrams. Same story with carrier fleets, AWACS support groups, and of course fifth generation fighters.


Hate to break it to you - but Soviet military strategy is not all that different. While the U.S. tends to revolve around higher-tech and higher-maintenance solutions than Russian designs - you have to look at the difference between the two nations and their respective markets. The U.S. has, for about the past century, been a leading industrial and technological power. We also live in a temperate climate and have planned most of our combat to take place around Europe - which is largely temperate and the climate is not all that harsh.

Russians have to put up with far harsher winters, and have many arid and sandy nations as part of the former USSR. Most of their designs are built to be simple and easy to maintain in those environments - arguably at the sacrifice of performance.


According to this, 152 American aircraft have been downed in the Iraq war with only 45 resulting from insurgents with .50cals and MANPADS. Also American generals are concerned about the inability to replace these downed aircraft fast enough, pointing out the logistical nightmare that is the US military.


Most of these deal with Helos. Surprisingly, the turbine engines helos use do not run on sand.

When you consider the length of time we have been over there, and the amount of forces we have operating - we have more combined military presence in that region than many of those countries do, combined. They are also flying more sorties than any of those countries would have the need or economy to support.

I'm not sure there is anything remotely approaching this scale of deployment in that region undertaken by the Russians to accurately compare it to.


My point here is that Russia has always built its weapons, not to be flashy and expensive, but to be cost effective and reliable in the actual conditions of war. This is where I see the true superiority of the T-50 over the F-22, which like the F-35 is just an economical joke.


People often blend strategic and tactical value together. The tactical value of something like the F-22 is immense and does open up the possibility of undertaking missions that would, otherwise, be very costly to human life and resources using other aircraft.

The strategic value, however, is a little bit different, as there are too few aircraft to really provide an effective presence, and their logistical demand is very high for their tactical value.

It's a case where the Raptor can win a lot of battles, but lose the war.

The Soviets have always tended to favor the strategic policy over the tactical one. Not simply quantity over quality, but a more balanced approach to quality and quantity that they can produce effectively. In short - they will get the job done.

It's a slightly different philosophy on similar goals and influenced by different environmental and geographical considerations.


As for the pilot's role, I believe their training should only be to introduce them to the aircraft's systems, high-gravity flight, and combat training. A true pilot will find their place in the fight when they get to the fight, not during countless simulations. If a pilot relies on simulation, then they'll have a hard time adjusting to the individual characteristics of enemy pilots, if they survive at all. A pilot must study the combat capability of other pilots to be effective in shattered skies.


Pilots with more simulator training and flight-hours doing combat exercises tend to do better in joint exercises and combat operations.

I go outside on almost any given day, and there are a few F-15s from Whiteman doing a dogfight out over the North-Eastern end of town. I'd have to check, but I think the squadron is deployed, as I haven't heard them for a while. Similarly, the A-10s operated by the guard fly by the house in pairs and trios quite regularly - they stepped up exercises a few weeks ago and I haven't heard much of them since (I suspect they deployed).

It is this valuable time in the cockpit of a flying aircraft that the Russians have difficulty affording.


By the way, thanks for the long and detailed post


Thanks, I am glad someone out there on the internet actually enjoys complete thought (even if it is in disagreement).

3x Edit: For the love of all things holy, that link just does not want to work - worked fine in the preview last time....

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]





new topics




 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join