I agree about the low chances of problems with new aircraft, that is why I said it is too unlikely to justify not getting a new fleet.

I am not saying we should keep 4th generation fighters for the expected duration of the F-22/F-35. What I was saying is we are investing a lot in stealth technology, and if a new development in the future battlefield makes the stealth technology useless, it is a lost investment. It is similar to the development of the aircraft carrier. Some nations invested an insane amount of resources to develop state of the art battleships, but overnight the power of the battleship shrunk immensely. If a similar thing happened to the F-22/F-35, we would have to scramble to make something else.

I understand that over time the advances in military technology will equal the playing field between the F-22/F-35 and their adversaries. Over the life time of the fleet, they will devalue when it comes to capability. I am talking about a sudden change. We would be better off waiting to design a new aircraft after that sudden change than before. Again since it is a rare occurrence and impossible to predict, it is not worth halting development. It is just one of those risks you take when you invest heavily in a design.

 

I understand that my opinions account for less than yours or others, but when did I attack an expert? I think that is where the bulk of the problem is coming from. I was attacked because I said the F-15 was still a competitive aircraft and I was challenged.

 

If that unnamed advance marginalizes our latest generation stealth technology, what it would it do to your 1/2-generation improvement F-15? Seems like that would be a complete waste of expenditure. Think about it.

Since you are focused on this increase in enemy capability, are the odds better that the 1/2-generation improved F-15 would be marginalized or that the F-22/F-35 would be? Is it better to spend 50% of the up-front cost on a 25% chance of success over 10 years, or 100% of the up-front cost on a 75% chance of success over 20 years.

There are valid arguments against a pure F-22/F-35 fleet, you aren't making them. Your arguments are actually better used against your own suggested replacement.

You weren't attacked, Hacker did nothing more than ask you what your experience is - that's a valid question. Your answer could have been "Senior Research Analyst for the RAND corporation" for all we know (had that been accurate). Your answers instead were that you know someone, you read the internet, and you fly simulators. All valid in their own right, but you presented them as equivalent experience to guys like Hacker - not even close.

And the challenging of an opinion does not equal an attack, either. The challenging of opinion is the hallmark of true scientific process, a well-defined and reasoned opinion is also an easily defended opinion.

 

I am not arguing that we wait to develop a new aircraft until that unnamed development happens. I don’t believe this is something that should dictate the development of aircraft; I was just saying it is something to think about.

The reason I don’t support a large F-22 fleet is not because I think it will be proven obsolete. I actually think it will do an amazing job. The main reason why I am not in support of it is because I think it is a bit overkill for the majority of the missions. It is designed to excel in an extreme battlefield. It is unlikely that we will go to all out war with China or Russia so I don’t like the idea of having an entire fleet designed for that mission. I believe in the end the F-22 and the F-35 will be doing missions that cheaper aircraft could do.

You have a valid point that we have to be prepared for anything and if we do go to war with China or Russia we will be at a disadvantage with the few F-22s we have. I just feel that we have never been prepared for every type of war and we can’t afford to. The Air Force has made due with a small amount of high tech aircraft before and I think we can do it again. It will not be ideal, but we will have to work with what we have. I believe we have put too much reliance on the F-22 and F-35 and now that we won’t have as many as we wanted, we have a gap. If instead of developing only 5th generation aircraft, we could have had a more balanced fleet if the Air Force asked for a cheap 4th generation aircraft that we could use to supplement the few 5th generation fleet.

I didn’t intend to say that my knowledge is equivalent to anybody. I wanted to show that I come from an environment that discusses military history and development all the time and that I wasn’t getting all my opinions from Wikipedia. I wanted to indicate that I was somewhere between a fighter pilot and someone who saw a 10 minute segment on the F-15 on the History Channel.

 

 

I'm glad someone is enjoying this.

 

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/29/2010 10:07 AM CST

Well, this brings back the old days when Flug Revue would pop out some over-the-fence shots obtained from the Military Missions in East Germany, and the assembled reptiles at Flight would adjourn to our secret analysis facility to figure out what it all meant.




First of all, for anyone contemplating the use of the word "Raptorski": don't. While this is an airplane that could have been the answer to the Advanced Tactical Fighter requirement, way back when, it's not an F-22 in many important ways.

In a lot of ways, the T-50 reflects the heritage of the T-10 Flanker series - it's much more like them than Sukhoi's last fighter prototype, the forward-swept-wing Su-47 Berkut, ever was. From the Flanker family, the T-50 gets the massive "centroplane" - a wide central body that blends the fuselage and inner wing - three-surface aerodynamic control and true three-dimensional thrust vectoring. The main weapons bay has been seen on a Flanker model, too.

Look at some of these in detail. The centroplane is huge, extending well outside the engines and terminating at the rear in a broad beaver-tail between the exhaust nozzles.






It accommodates a boatload of fuel on the Flanker and will do the same here. After the canard hokey-pokey in the T-10 family (in on the Su-30MK, out on the Su-35) the T-50 has something different: the forward part of the leading edge extension is movable. According to the usually well informed Flateric over at Secret Projects, it is called the Povorotnaya Chast Naplyva (PChN) or movable LEX section.

3-D thrust vectoring is also used on the Su-35. The T-50 and the T-10 family are distinguished by widely separated engines, which is important because that's the only way to use vectored thrust in roll. What's new on the T-50 is that the designers have cashed in on TVC by shrinking the tail surfaces, saving on drag, weight and signature.

With separated engines and a wide body, the T-50 designers have been able to install dual front and rear weapon bays. Added to this are side bays outboard of the engines. Flateric reports that each bay is designed to hold "at least two" missiles and that the outer bays are designed for short-range AAMs. The centerline bays could each hold two large weapons (like R-33s) or three-to-four of the newly announced RVV-MD. The latter has folding wings, as does the RVV-SD development of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) family - the latter explaining why the underwing bays are small.

The big new feature of the T-50 is stealth. The aircraft that flew today is a prototype - and it does not show visible features like a frameless canopy and panel alignment that you'd expect on a production aircraft. Other not-very-stealthy-looking features include the gaps around the inlet (compare the YF-23) and a spherical infrared search and track housing in front of the windshield. And, of course, the nozzles are round. But it has a chined forebody, edge alignment and (probably) inlet line-of-sight blockage and internal weapons.

Apparently the designers and systems analysts have looked at the thorny question of "how much stealth do we want to pay for?" and have come up with a different answer than the F-22 designers. The fact that the armed forces of potential adversaries don't have S-300 and S-400 missiles may have something to do with that answer.

Supercruise? Definitely. The aircraft has a lot of power, and you would not go with that sharply swept delta wing if that wasn't the goal.



vidcap by Matej from Secret Projects

The big question is how long the aircraft will take to enter service, which is a product of three factors - how much money is available, how many resources industry can muster to get the job done, and where the design, technically, stands at this point.

The first question depends largely on the Russian economy, and on the priority which the military gives to the fighter. At the moment, the strategic rocket forces are the priority and are elbowing all others away from the trough; also, the military could decide that the Su-35 is a good upgrade route for now. The X-factor: whether and when India will join the program, and how much cash it will involve.

The second - industry's ability to execute the program - is hard to estimate. On the downside, Russia has not inducted a brand-new aircraft into service since the 1980s. However, there are signs of a new development strategy at work here: the T-50's engines are outgrowths of the Su-35's and are being test-flown on a T-10 airframe, and the flight control system and (very likely) cockpit and avionics may be similar.

How far along is the program? Russian practice historically has been to start development with a series of prototypes that successively conform more to the production design. That's followed by an early series of aircraft that are "pre-operational" - flown by service units. Today's T-50 is, in US terms, something between a technology demonstrator and a systems development and demonstration aircraft.

Upshot - I would expect to see quite a few Su-35S regiments operational before we see a combat-ready T-50 - but with the caveat that a lot of Indian money could change things.

 

DUDE! Girls and beer are way more fun. Trust me I'm aircrew

 

Maybe the real threat here is the future development of these doo-dads:

 

Shack.

I simply wanted to know where such an opinion was coming from.

Turns out, I got all the answer I needed from this, so I didn't really feel the need to engage in the discussion: