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

This is not true. The USA has a debt of 14 Trillion Dollars. Look up the us national debt real time website. Last I heard, the USA had a C rating and not to mention that the source of your infomation is from the USA which has a habit of not telling the truth.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Lol, now you see who those parts of the crashed f-117 in Serbia went to ...

Cant believe someone starred this. The blind leading the blind.

I agree with the view that by the time it is fully developed it will be better than the F-22A, given the timescale, it really ought to be. However I am equally sure that some kind of F-22B will maintain the balance. Thus has it ever been.

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Lol, now you see who those parts of the crashed f-117 in Serbia went to ...

Cant believe someone starred this. The blind leading the blind.

I agree with the view that by the time it is fully developed it will be better than the F-22A, given the timescale, it really ought to be. However I am equally sure that some kind of F-22B will maintain the balance. Thus has it ever been.

Well the F-22 is ending its production run.

The Russian plane is still at least 10+ years from being operational however in any kind of squadron numbers. Its at about the point the YF-22 was in 1991.

Yes, it is ending its production run, but you don't need new airframes to turn an A into a B. See Harrier GR.7 to GR.9, Tornado GR.1 to GR.4 etc for examples.

Otherwise, yes, that's how I see it too

reply to post by waynos


That is definitely true for Britain and other nations, Israel seems to have made a business out of it, but the US seems to prefer to buy upgraded aircraft as brand new. e.g F-15, 16, 18.
They are going to have a huge problem if they close the F-22 production line and potentially cancel the F-35 or curtail its number sufficiently. Any new programme would be decades away from production and the aforementioned teenager fighters are rapidly approaching the end of their basic design potential. Combine the financial requirements for new bombers and strike aircraft and its hard to imagine their being much scope to counter this Russian airborne Ferrari.

Jensy

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by LieBuster

 

Try to keep it real. Regardless of the kit Russia has / has not got (the biggest bomb or the fastest torpedo) none of these have been used. The point is that in the last (say 30-40 years) each time Russian / Soviet kit has come up against western kit it has failed the test.

I am not diminishing Russian prowess in developing and fielding decent equipment, but (as I said), to date that equipment has failed the army who has fielded it.

Regards

You're forgetting the most prolific and reliable assault rifle in the history of the world, also known as the Kalashnikov. Have we ever really "beaten" Al-Qaeda" and the like? They just keep coming and coming as it is easy to train someone in the use and maintainance of an AK-47, that's just a fact.

Surprise!

I fully expected him to say -

"We have built the second best fighter in the world!"

Originally posted by Fiberx
Surprise!

I fully expected him to say -

"We have built the second best fighter in the world!"

Actually until its has a functional weapons system, its just an expensive aerobatic aircraft.

Although there is a lot of speculation about the PAK FA. The platform itself will be very capable. It will at least be equal to the F-22, but I do expect the serial models of the PAK FA to exceed it in multiple fields.

Some updates on the program from my Russian friends.

The new engines, called "type 30" have achieved a 15% thrust increase vs the current 117's, it will be up to 25% on the first serial batch. A 15% increases puts them in the low 17,000kgf class (F-22 is around 18). I was not expecting a new engine for at least 5 years. I though it would go into production with 117's and upgraded shortly after, so I was surprised by this. Mikhailovich Chepkin, Director of Lyulka-Saturn, has confirmed that the "type 30" engine is on one of the two PAK FA prototypes, probably T-50-2, since it hasn't been seen in a while.

Also, Sergey Bogdanov, the PAK FA test pilot was awared the title Hero of Russia, congrats to him.

This just in:

Today Prime Minister Putin and President Obama decided to just whip 'em out and measure, saving tax payers TRILLIONS.










(one can only hope)

Originally posted by Signals
This just in:

Today Prime Minister Putin and President Obama decided to just whip 'em out and measure, saving tax payers TRILLIONS.

(one can only hope)

Russia would probably still be ahead in that case

Any news on the third T-50 prototype?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


There are 4 prototypes.
The 3rd and 4th aircraft will be equipped with on board equipment required by the customer including the new N050 AESA radar.
The are scheduled to fly sometime this fall.

Originally posted by sadchild01
reply to post by paraphi

 

what utter bull , check out the vietnam, korean and indo-pak wars , Soviet equipment pretty well .
U.S losses:
All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft:
Vietnam losses:

* An-2 4 claimed
* MiG-17 Fresco 36
* MiG-19 Farmer 2
* MiG-21 Fishbed 54

in korea US and UN losses were 3046 aircraft compared to 1000 on the commie side .
www.spiritus-temporis.com...

In indo -pak wars, again India defeated pakistan with soviet equipment in 1971



[edit on 20-6-2010 by sadchild01]

Most of the loses were from AAA and SAM. But in the air to air arena, the things were different. To have the complete picture of how the aircraft performed in air combat, I listed below the combat record of some of these planes, sorted by kills versus losses ratio

plane type air victories / losses in air combat

F-15 Eagle 104 / 0
Sea Harrier 23 / 0
Su-27 "Flanker" 6 / 0
A-10 Thunderbolt II 2 / 0
Mirage 2000 1 / 0
F-16 Fighting Falcon 90 / 1
F-14 Tomcat 135 / 5
Mirage III/5 & IAI Nesher/Dagger 401 / 69
F-8 Crusader 19 / 5
Dassault Ouragan 3 / 1
F-104 Starfighter 11 / 5
F-4 Phantom II 312 / 143
Dassault Mystere IV 15 / 7
F/A-18 Hornet 2 / 1
IAI Kfir 2 / 1
F-5 Freedom Fighter / Tiger II 27 / 20
MiG-19 "Farmer" & Shenyang J-6 45 / 39
Dassault Super Mystere 9 / 8
F-105 Thunderchief 32 / 34
Su-25 "Frogfoot" 3 / 4
MiG-29 "Fulcrum" 13 / 20
F-100 Super Sabre 1 / 2
Sud Aviation Vautour II 1 / 2
MiG-21 Fishbed & Chengdu J-7 230 / 488
Mirage F1 22 / 48
MiG-25 "Foxbat" 8 / 19
MiG-17 "Fresco" & Shenyang J-4/5 83 / 215
F-102 Delta Dagger 1 / 3
Hawker Hunter 21 / 66
MiG-23 & MiG-27 "Flogger" 22 / 86
A-4 Skyhawk 3 / 19
Su-17/20/22 "Fitter" 3 / 57
Su-7 "Fitter" 1 / 62

reply to post by toreishi


lmao arguing over who is the bigger aircraft nerd. Hi5!

wat about aurora ?

srsly

does he think the raptor is the top of our mountian ?

reply to post by Phage


You are correct. There are still theaters, air and ground, where shear numbers prevail and always will.

The old 3 to 1 'throw weight' still applies.

as good as the f-22 is..

its useless without a pilot.. if the issues that they have with the f-22 persist than its just another 400million dollar paper weight and a p-51 mustang will be more dominant.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
wat about aurora ?

I don't think the Russians are too scared of fictional aircraft.

does he think the raptor is the top of our mountian ?

News flash, it is. Speculative insubstantial bollocks on the Internet cannot go to war.

Does the air-to-air missiles of the Russian fighter jets have better range and other properties then their American counterparts? When we compare airplane, perhaps compare the ones that have been produced in larger numbers? I think the stealth capacity of F22 is impressive. They are nowhere to be seen.

reply to post by nidstav


A lot plays into the effectiveness of a missile.

People often forget that a missile travels faster than any bullet and has a relatively short fuel burn to send it on a ballistic collision with a maneuvering target. Or, more accurately; a missile is like a grenade or claymore mine - it explodes with a cone of shrapnel that doesn't hit the aircraft so much as the aircraft flies into it. "splash" kills are not all that common with many missiles - the shrapnel simply does unrecoverable damage to the jet turbines and forces the aircraft down.

Unless you are talking about more modern missiles designed for the ABM shielding. Those are a kinetic kill weapon with a solid steel "warhead" that slams into the target (theoretically a re-entry vehicle the size of a coffee table traveling chaotically through the atmosphere at mach 20+) and separating the warhead components before a successful detonation can be initiated.

Or the nuclear tipped Aim-54C missiles designed to drop scores of Russian strike aircraft destined for a fleet (though there were some of the Nike series of strategic defense missiles that functioned in a similar manner; spare for being ground-launched).

Basically, you've got a bigger, better grenade launcher. Guidance systems and more power can make it perform more ideally - but it doesn't change the raw ballistics involved in air-to-air engagements. Altitude and airspeed can send a little Aim-9X into a Mi-24 from ranges well beyond what is considered that system's effective range (provided you can get a solid lock or datalink for a lock-after-launch).

By that same token, if a missile can't accurately project the flight path of the target and make corrections to keep the craft in its kill zone... then it's harmless whether fired in a merger (dogfight) or from 800 kilometers away.

Also, if the target aircraft detects the launch in a BVR scenario - it is almost always possible for the aircraft to simply fly the other direction. An aircraft will, generally, pack far more endurance than any missile and be able to widen the gap enough that the missile will fall harmlessly to the ground, having been defeated by the ultimate countermeasure known as gravity.

It's kind of hard to say who has the better/worse missiles. The Russians had a lot of good ideas - INS/datalink guidance with IR terminal missiles theoretically make for some very nasty BVR engagements. But sometimes their implementation was either too utilitarian or lacking in expertise.

The U.S. has a bad habit of taking a good idea and turning it into a mediocre solution through a dozen program restructurings (political climate pending) and a lack of total-force perspective (IE - they will cancel an aircraft that would have made effective use of a missile system then nigerneer it onto an airframe it was never designed to work with... and wonder why it doesn't meet their expectations).

A little bit of common sense applied to either country's defense spending would have made the "fire missile" button much more akin to the "I win" button.