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

Originally posted by FredT

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...

That's in British airspace, half a world away from NORAD patrolled Canadian territories. In fact I used that very picture in the article for a photoshop assignment not too long ago where I put a Berkut intercepting the Tornado from 5 o'clock position

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."

I remember from back when this story broke out that, either in the same article or in another quote from Russian brass at the time (all depending on who published the article) that the modernized Blackjacks were testing plasma stealth technology as well. This isn't really surprising considering Russia has been testing vast amounts of prototype weaponry lately, especially during Chechen and Georgian conflicts.

Here is a summary of Russian efforts into plasma stealth:
Russian plasma stealth fighters

Russian technology has always been underplayed because of American dominance in the media. Unless people go out of their way to actually look into things like this then it will always been assumed that this technology is a myth and blah blah blah like most egocentric Americans like to believe. It is Russian philosophy to not show off their most advanced technology and to act like the underdog until the fight actually begins. I'm not saying the US doesn't hide technology either, but considering American weaponry is produced by investors and corporations it is hard to hide advanced weaponry and therefore the US chooses to broadcast such things instead of acting stupid to it.

Seriously, look at American blockbuster movies like Iron Man. The American military's latest hardware like F-22 is shown off and since it is on TV most civilians believe it is beyond actual capabilities. And oh Christ, don't even get me started on the movie "Stealth" which portrays SU-35s as easily destroyed, by fantasy aircraft no less. I bring up movies because they do influence people's perspectives, especially on high-end military technology because where else is the average person going to see it?

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.

I believe we have different perspectives on performance. To me, performance has to do with a fighter being able to take off, patrol, engage in combat, RTB and repeat with minimal maintenance in poor conditions. Performance in combat is 100% dependent on the general sustainability of the aircraft and pilot capability because you will never have the optimal conditions necessary to maintain all the high end capability of the aircraft. If you can master the fundamentals, ie basic combat, then everything else should be second-nature because it is never 100% dependable.

This is why I believe US air strategy revolves around air supremacy involving ECMs, AWACS, and group mentality because it renders any less-than-optimal condition as redundant... until the enemy starts targeting main command, control and priority units such as AWACS and tanker craft. Then the whole strategy just falls apart and the true weaknesses of these craft can be exploited.

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.

The one dominant thing that the US has on Russia is the fact that there are 700+ American military bases all over the world. This makes logistical support exponentially easier for the US to conduct its operations. For example, if an F-22 takes damage in an hypothetic engagement it would return to base and probably be shipped off to a safer repair base far away from combat, and immediately replaced in the combat area. While Russia does have global bases, it is not nearly on the same level.

People often blend strategic and tactical value together.

I agree with what you say. It is important to understand both technical and strategic values, but it takes a quality officer to understand and connect both in order to win a conflict. Russia and the US both have experienced officers on all strategic levels so in a combat situation between the F-22 and T-50, the strategic capability of the commanders involved will definitely have an effect on the tactical outcome of the battle.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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.

Do you realy think state of the art fighters needs pilots that need rest, heat and space when they pass out during hign G turns and only have one pair of eyes.

Could a pilots realy do much better than ten people sitting in a remote location when a jet is running out of fuel because it got a bullet in the tank or do you add to the dead weight of the jet with ejecter seats ?

The weakest link has become man and you will be hard pushed to come up with an excuse to say a man is needed at the controls and again also note the controls become dead weight when you take man out of the equation.

sorry if i upset you all but i'll pit a machine that is being flown by ten people on the ground that goes faster and turns sharper against a human any day and sure i know the battery in my calculater might go flat but i'll still use it all the same thank you.

Originally posted by LieBuster
Could a pilots realy do much better than ten people sitting in a remote location when a jet is running out of fuel because it got a bullet in the tank or do you add to the dead weight of the jet with ejecter seats ?

WHile UCAVs etc will be part of the future you still want to have a human in the cockpit of some of your aircraft, be they strategic or tactical, or even civilian

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Since neither you or I have access to NORAD info (or we cannot talk about it) its speculation at this point.

That being said, the IR energy given off by a plasma field could also be picked up by the constalation of US DSP satelites in orbit.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Russian technology has always been underplayed because of American dominance in the media. Unless people go out of their way to actually look into things like this then it will always been assumed that this technology is a myth and blah blah blah like most egocentric Americans like to believe. It is Russian philosophy to not show off their most advanced technology and to act like the underdog until the fight actually begins. I'm not saying the US doesn't hide technology either, but considering American weaponry is produced by investors and corporations it is hard to hide advanced weaponry and therefore the US chooses to broadcast such things instead of acting stupid to it.

Sorry, the Russians are not known for advanced technology, honestly. They are known for undertaking some very costly measures in developing certain elements of their military - rearward facing radars in fighters and some more advanced infra-red search and tracking devices, for example; but they have since been radically outpaced.

It's not an issue of "hiding technology" - it's simply an issue of they do not have the industry and economy to support it - they never really have. It's not meant as an insult - it is simply a fact of life.

They may be testing some rather radical ideas out there, possibly - Russians are known for having some different concepts of physics than the U.S. - and perhaps they've hit on a few things that the West has not. I doubt any of it, however, is going to lead to practical plasma-stealth technology on anything other than space-faring vehicles.

Seriously, look at American blockbuster movies like Iron Man. The American military's latest hardware like F-22 is shown off and since it is on TV most civilians believe it is beyond actual capabilities. And oh Christ, don't even get me started on the movie "Stealth" which portrays SU-35s as easily destroyed, by fantasy aircraft no less. I bring up movies because they do influence people's perspectives, especially on high-end military technology because where else is the average person going to see it?

If it isn't obvious by now, I'm not the average person. I wish I could name off a bunch of degrees or several thousand hours in the cockpit of a Tomcat, but I must confess I'm simply a lowly enlisted Avionics Technician who has worshiped combat aviation since a wee lad.

But I digress - the point here is that it's equally as silly to back a bunch of claims regarding plasma-stealth on the premise of national pride as it is to base your ideas of American air superiority fighters on movies.

When it comes right down to it - all aircraft are pretty easy to destroy. A fragmentary warhead, regardless of how it gets in proximity to the aircraft, will destroy it. Now, of course, you mean to say that the Su-35s are not as easy to hit with a missile without also inflicting their own kills. Which is a fair analysis.

However, it's just as silly to try and say: "The Russians have perfected plasma stealth and are testing it on aircraft - why else would your radars not see them flying over your airspace?" as it is to try and say "The F-22 is the most awesomeest aircraft ever and pwns everything."

I believe we have different perspectives on performance. To me, performance has to do with a fighter being able to take off, patrol, engage in combat, RTB and repeat with minimal maintenance in poor conditions. Performance in combat is 100% dependent on the general sustainability of the aircraft and pilot capability because you will never have the optimal conditions necessary to maintain all the high end capability of the aircraft. If you can master the fundamentals, ie basic combat, then everything else should be second-nature because it is never 100% dependable.

High-end equipment doesn't equate to high-maintenance. Example - many of the new Super Hornets carry avionics that are almost identical to the F-22. The reason the F-22 is more expensive to maintain is due to a number of design and manufacturing oversights, for the most part.

The new high-performance radars can outlast the actual airframe in service life, much better than the old magnetron and klystron based radars.

Arguably, yes, an aircraft that can get into the air, blow stuff up, and land is a very good investment. However, when the more 'picky' aircraft can blast it out of the air, the whole idea of RTB goes out the window.

Better to have an aircraft that returns to be fixed up than an aircraft that doesn't return at all, even if it takes less maintenance.

This is why I believe US air strategy revolves around air supremacy involving ECMs, AWACS, and group mentality because it renders any less-than-optimal condition as redundant... until the enemy starts targeting main command, control and priority units such as AWACS and tanker craft. Then the whole strategy just falls apart and the true weaknesses of these craft can be exploited.

And the Russians have developed some magical method of eliminating these weaknesses? Sure - they have put rear-facing radars on interceptors, which allows them some self-contained tactical advantages operating outside of AWACS - but they still need fuel, airstrips, weapons, etc to be effective.

You seem to presume a U.S. invasion of Russia - which would make logistics for the Russians a lot more simple. Conversely, if Russia were to launch a strike, it would be them that suffers the most from logistical concerns.

In the end - the terms of the engagement will determine the outcome as much as the aircraft participating in it.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

This is why I believe US air strategy revolves around air supremacy involving ECMs, AWACS, and group mentality because it renders any less-than-optimal condition as redundant... until the enemy starts targeting main command, control and priority units such as AWACS and tanker craft. Then the whole strategy just falls apart and the true weaknesses of these craft can be exploited.

And the Russians have developed some magical method of eliminating these weaknesses? Sure - they have put rear-facing radars on interceptors, which allows them some self-contained tactical advantages operating outside of AWACS - but they still need fuel, airstrips, weapons, etc to be effective.

You seem to presume a U.S. invasion of Russia - which would make logistics for the Russians a lot more simple. Conversely, if Russia were to launch a strike, it would be them that suffers the most from logistical concerns.

In the end - the terms of the engagement will determine the outcome as much as the aircraft participating in it.

I am creating hypothetical situations to point out the extremes that we could ever see with these aircraft, that being a war between the two most dominant militaries in the world (US and Russia). This is also considering what these aircraft are designed for but in a strategic way.

An American invasion of Russia would require American air supremacy, which is the purpose of the F-22. American air fleets would consist of fighters, attackers, bombers, refuelers, AWACS, electronic warfare craft, etc in large formations that can fend off lesser amounts of enemy aircraft through technical superiority, usually revolving around advanced communication between offensive (fighters) and defensive (air control) aircraft. Russia has clearly developed weapons capable of dispersing and eliminating any elements involved in this formation network in order to destroy the communication advantage, such as the S-400 system.

A Russian invasion of the US would probably involve splinter fighter/attacker formations to conduct surgical strikes on important American facilities. This is because a total Russian invasion of the US is unfeasable because Russia does not maintain an empirical global invasion force like the US does, so Russia must use its aircraft effectively to pass through American patrols and conduct rogue missions against priority targets.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow

America appears to be more wealthy judged only on GDP,

Which is the parameters used today in judging a nations wealth.

until you figure in debt,

Debt has nothing to do with a nations yearly GDP. Debt compiled as a % of GDP does. And while the US debt as a percentage of GDP is not at historic lows, it is in fact manageable.

and the rate of debt increase.

As does the rate of economic expansion. The problem becomes a problem with the debt increases at a faster rate. This could be dealt with by good sound economic policy mixed with fiscal responsibility.

Spending all that borrowed foreign money sure swells your GDP.

*Facepalm* You clearly do not understand economics if you truly believe the above crap. Foreign borrowing does not inflate GDP (are you serious?).

With a credit card, any bum can live like a King for a very short time, but that is not real wealth.

Overspending =/= Riches. America is in fact rich, despite your clear lack of insight on the matter. Over spending is the issue, not Americas GDP (which = 27% of the worlds GDP).

Russia has roughly half the population of the US for comparison, so it is fairly large.

Which does not bode well for Russia long term.. Population growth helps sustain overall growth in the economy. Russia has a third world mortality rate combined with a first world birth rate. Putin himself back on 06' stated the most urgent problem facing Russia is its demographic crisis.

Russias population is estimated to be nearly half what it is today by the year 2050.

So with all this vast American wealth, why are California and several other American states about to die financially ?

No state is about to "die" financially. These states are in the mess they are because they elected morons in power who cant seem to figure out that lower taxes, and less spending/fiscal responsibility will = profit.

The vast wealth of America is a complete illusion.

It most certainly is not. Do not confuse your own envious wishes with reality.

Now that foreigners have stopped putting cash in your begging bowl,

If that were true, then foreigners would own a much larger share of the total US debt.

financial reality is about to strike down America very hard indeed.

"When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." For the sake of the world economy, you better hope your wrong.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I am creating hypothetical situations to point out the extremes that we could ever see with these aircraft, that being a war between the two most dominant militaries in the world (US and Russia).

Just a minor technicality. US > China > Russia. (in that order)

An American invasion of Russia would require American air supremacy, which is the purpose of the F-22.

The purpose of the F22 is to assure American Air superiority anywhere, everywhere, anytime for at least the next 20 years..

This Russian fighter is simply not on par with the raptor at this time (especially at this moment). Regarding it as "better" is nothing more than sensationalism. Would you honestly expect a patriotic ex-KGB officer to say anything less?



[edit on 29-6-2010 by West Coast]

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.

You are becoming to logical!

Take this into consideration. The US has a ban on exporting the F22. Russia is selling its fighter to whoever can shell out the greenbacks. If air superiority is the game here, then why sell out your secrets to whomever can afford it?

It would seem that only one nation is acting as if they have a true air superiority fighter. Whilst the other is simply pimping theirs out like a whore on a street corner.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by West Coast]

Originally posted by West Coast

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.

You are becoming to logical!

Take this into consideration. The US has a ban on exporting the F22. Russia is selling its fighter to whoever can shell out the greenbacks. If air superiority is the game here, then why sell out your secrets to whomever can afford it?

It would seem that only one nation is acting as if they have a true air superiority fighter. Whilst the other is simply pimping theirs out like a whore on a street corner.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by West Coast]

WTF are you on? Russia has a good export policy if you knew anything about their military. For instance, Russia exports the T-90 tank, built for speed and straight on assault, while they keep their more defensive and heavily armored T-80s to themselves.

The export model of the T-50 is very simple, it's a joint operation anyways with India so why not sell export models anyways if it is not a Russian exclusive aircraft. Russia needs both the foreign help and sales of an export T-50 to complete the project and quickly develop a truely domestic 5th generation Russian fighter.

And really, do you think Russian exports are anywhere close to the quality of their domestic weapons? Like all those "fearsome" Iraqi T-72s which were nothing more than scrap parts shipped to and re-assembled by Iraqi engineers.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

WTF are you on?

Awful defensive arn't we?

Russia has a good export policy if you knew anything about their military.

And I wonder why that is?

For instance, Russia exports the T-90 tank, built for speed and straight on assault, while they keep their more defensive and heavily armored T-80s to themselves.

The T80 is incredibly obsolete, no one wants them...

The export model of the T-50 is very simple,

Yet the US could do the same with the F22, (make a simple one for export) yet they do not.

it's a joint operation anyways with India so why not sell export models anyways if it is not a Russian exclusive aircraft.

Which brings one to question rather or not Russia has the finances to do such a project without another nation investing heavily.

Russia needs both the foreign help and sales of an export T-50 to complete the project and quickly develop a truely domestic 5th generation Russian fighter.

There is a reason why the US does not export the F22. And for good reason, espionage is much easier.

And really, do you think Russian exports are anywhere close to the quality of their domestic weapons? Like all those "fearsome" Iraqi T-72s which were nothing more than scrap parts shipped to and re-assembled by Iraqi engineers.

That is not in question, the fact that the main platform is going to be sold internationally is quite telling. This aircraft is all talk and hype. I am sure it will be a decent aircraft, but in regards to the F22, there is no real equal.

reply to post by West Coast

That is not in question, the fact that the main platform is going to be sold internationally is quite telling. This aircraft is all talk and hype. I am sure it will be a decent aircraft, but in regards to the F22, there is no real equal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Russians have never had a mentality of keeping things (inventions) so top secret that only they can have them. Not with these types of systems at least (tanks, planes, ships). Unlike the US that says everything is top of the line and thats why they don't release the specs. Everything is top of the line until the Serbians shoot one down... then its obsolete... and on to wasting money again.

I wonder whose side russia will be on when the war with iran breaks out?

Originally posted by 3vilscript
Unlike the US that says everything is top of the line and thats why they don't release the specs. Everything is top of the line until the Serbians shoot one down... then its obsolete... and on to wasting money again.

Regarding the Serbians downing the F117 nighthawk...You are aware that it was due to incompetence by the US and nothing more, correct? Day time sorties, flying the same route one too many times, the serbians being in the right spot at the right time...etc. Obviously not a case of Russian tech superiority...rather reckless abandonment of US combat code.

And the F117 is obsolete when compared to the B2, F35, and F22 (even the B1 Lancer).

It is also retired now (since 2007). That should tell you something. It served its purpose, but is earlier stealth technology from a bygone era (thus, it is in fact obsolete, and has been for a while).

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by 3vilscript
Unlike the US that says everything is top of the line and thats why they don't release the specs. Everything is top of the line until the Serbians shoot one down... then its obsolete... and on to wasting money again.

Regarding the Serbians downing the F117 nighthawk...You are aware that it was due to incompetence by the US and nothing more, correct? Day time sorties, flying the same route one too many times, the serbians being in the right spot at the right time...etc. Obviously not a case of Russian tech superiority...rather reckless abandonment of US combat code.

And the F117 is obsolete when compared to the B2, F35, and F22 (even the B1 Lancer).

It is also retired now (since 2007). That should tell you something. It served its purpose, but is earlier stealth technology from a bygone era (thus, it is in fact obsolete, and has been for a while).

I didn't say it was Russian tech superiority... if anything it was Serbian mind superiority. I read somewhere they set up radars to broadcast on unusually long wavelengths (or something) and also guessed some of the flight patterns (as you mention). But it wasn't just dumb luck.

As for it being retired, yeah it tells me something... It's obsolete! It' doesn't tell me anything about it while it was operational. Except what I already know... That it was deadly against the fearsome Panamanians, Serbians, also lethal against the highly elite Iraqi military... twice.

reply to post by paraphi


Well I can point out at least 2 wars my country fought in which Soviet/Non-American aircraft outclassed their American counterparts..

Indo-Pak wars of 1971 and 1999.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by paraphi

 

Well I can point out at least 2 wars my country fought in which Soviet/Non-American aircraft outclassed their American counterparts..

Indo-Pak wars of 1971 and 1999.

The Syrians faught the IAF on several occasions with "superior" airframes as well and we know how that worked out.

Originally posted by FredT

The Syrians faught the IAF on several occasions with "superior" airframes as well and we know how that worked out.

But it seems that the best airframes the Syrians ever fought with were the MiG 21Fs and the worst the Israelis ever fought were the Mirage III and V (Nesher), with a large majority of the contests occuring between these two types of a/c.

The Mirage III and MiG 21 are comparable with the MiG being more short n sweet in capability while the Mirage is more stamina.

Beyond this, its mostly been F-16s and F-15s vs MiG-21s and these are a generation apart.

so Im not sure where you see the Syrians having the edge in any engagements with the Israelis.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I am creating hypothetical situations to point out the extremes that we could ever see with these aircraft, that being a war between the two most dominant militaries in the world (US and Russia).

Just a minor technicality. US > China > Russia. (in that order)

An American invasion of Russia would require American air supremacy, which is the purpose of the F-22.

The purpose of the F22 is to assure American Air superiority anywhere, everywhere, anytime for at least the next 20 years..

This Russian fighter is simply not on par with the raptor at this time (especially at this moment). Regarding it as "better" is nothing more than sensationalism. Would you honestly expect a patriotic ex-KGB officer to say anything less?



[edit on 29-6-2010 by West Coast]

The reason U say this is because U believed the lie said through out the cold war the Rus was behind U.S.A., U actualy thing U know more than the exKGB agent

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by 3vilscript
Unlike the US that says everything is top of the line and thats why they don't release the specs. Everything is top of the line until the Serbians shoot one down... then its obsolete... and on to wasting money again.

Regarding the Serbians downing the F117 nighthawk...You are aware that it was due to incompetence by the US and nothing more, correct? Day time sorties, flying the same route one too many times, the serbians being in the right spot at the right time...etc. Obviously not a case of Russian tech superiority...rather reckless abandonment of US combat code.

It was shot down at night, not day, and it was an SA-6 that did it, so yes that is TECH.

And the F117 is obsolete when compared to the B2, F35, and F22 (even the B1 Lancer).

It is also retired now (since 2007). That should tell you something. It served its purpose, but is earlier stealth technology from a bygone era (thus, it is in fact obsolete, and has been for a while).