Russian Stealth Fighter
 

There is no certainty the Russia will even be willing to spend the money to acquire the PAK FA. It could very expensive but still not meet true fifth-generation fighter metrics. They might well end up going with 4.5 generation aircraft...probably souped up flankers.

I have heard about this before, but I was secretly hoping that the plane appeared better than it truly was. Now I am second guessing that. The 400 meter takeoff roll is very impressive as are the claims that it is more economical than the F-22. This would not surprise me because the US’s greatest strength, and weakness, is its ability and desire to build things without compromise. The Russians always seemed willing to make sacrifices on capability to cut costs and out produce us. They fact that they are planning to export this is also alarming. We can’t afford to participate in this technology race right now, but depending on what countries get this plane, we might have to. It could be like the 1980s except now Russia might lead in the military spending and drive our economy to the brink (even more than it is now).

On a more positive note, it could be like most new Russian fighters where its bark is worse than its bite. Also, if both countries can play nice, it would be the greatest showdown ever to see how the F-22 and the T-50 do in some friendly mock dogfights. And, depending on how economical the T-50 is, maybe we could get some to supplement the F-22 fleet :rolleyes:.

We don't have to compete in a technology race...we are already solidly in the 5th generation world. The russians and everyone else are trying to match our level, which is a very difficult proposition without many tens of billions (with a B) of dollars to blow on R&D.

Do we have enough F-22's? Debatable, but if we need to counter a 4.5, or 4.8 generation foriegn fighter we can always buy more F-35's...that production line is going to be open for a very long time.

I find it almost implausible that anyone could get ahead of this in this arena any time in the next several decades. Motivation, innovation, dedication, and hordes of bright third-world engineers (trained in the US) will not be enough...it also requires a ludicrous amount of $$$. We probably spent more developing the F-22 than any other nation's entire annual defense budget...several times over.

The Russians have had a hard time 1) buying new equipment and 2) bringing new hardware from testing to operational use. Unless Putin has found new sources of money (and maybe he is counting on the gas/oil reserves), it is unlikely the new Sukhoi will be on the front line anytime soon.

As for the F-22.. it is an orphan. As for the F-35... hmmm.. slow, short range, not very nimble, not stealthy. Good reason to remember the old axioms, "Never fly the A model of anything" and "The C model eventually demonstrates the abilities that the A was supposed to have." :D

I am sure that the F-22 is superior when compared to the T-50, but as Russians have proved before, they simply make up for what they lack in capability with numbers. Just because we outspend every other country when it comes to our military doesn’t mean some resourceful Russian can’t make a plane that is 90% as capable but 30% cheaper than the F-22.

I think that we have plenty of F-22s for any realistic situation, but if Russia is able to produce and sell this aircraft in numbers approaching 1000, our technological perch won’t seem so high. It would be an interesting dynamic if countries we are technically allies with, like Russia and India, gain stealth technology.

I was never too excited about the F-35. For me, it would make more sense to have a few top of the line highly advanced fighters (F-22) to use in those rare occasions where we would have to fight for air supremacy in an area with heavy radar. Then once we eliminate their air force and take out antiaircraft sites, we could use traditional fighters that would be cheaper to build and operate.

I don’t really see where the F-35 fits into the picture. It is designed to take over the role of the F-16, but I don’t get why they spent so much money making it stealthy. If we need a fighter to go into a radar environment, then send in an F-22. If we need a fighter to go to a place without radar, send in a brand new F-15 or F-16 model that we could have developed for the money we spent on the F-35. I can’t think of a battlefield situation that calls for moderate stealth capability.

Would anyone else support another attempt at the F-20? The nearly 30 year old design is still impressive today, so only imagine what it could look like now if we invested even only half the money the F-35 got.

I agree that the F-22 seems to be an orphan, but the F-35 , if it ever becomes to be (you can tell I have little faith in any present timelines) is already a leap in technology above the F-22 from the briefs that I saw. The potential of that aircraft, especially in the targeting systems and the amount of SA gathered and displayed, is far above anything flying right now. As for never flying the 'A' model of anything, i can partially agree except for later Lots of an 'A' model. I have quite a few hours in the 'A' model of Hornet and it was quite capable :D

The Russians have a history of being less impressed with fine details and being more interested in brute power, What hasn't been demonstrated is a trained crew -vs- trained crew to an equal degree. An example would be T-80 tanks in the hands of the Iraqis were no match whatsoever against western main battle tanks in Desert Storm. There is no deate that the T-80 isn't a good tank, but in the hands of children who don't know how to employ them to their advantage they were sitting ducks.

It will be interesting to watch if this airplane actually has an evolution in its' destiny. Sadly, I'll be watching this show from the sidelines :(

USMCFLYR

But wouldn’t it be possible to put those same avionics and targeting systems into a cheaper airframe? Or in the sense of standardization, why not design an avionics, weapons, and targeting package that are the same for all fighters. Of course there could be minor modifications of software and hardware for specific cases.

That is basically what the F-35 will be. It is replacing much more than just the F-16 that you mentioned earlier. As far as a cheaper airframe - you are already seeing that. Many of those sensors and avionics and targeting systems are going into a variety of UAVs. In other situations, if you want the capability that will be brought to the battlefield with these new system then no.....you can't get them necessarily on older, cheaper airframes. The US military likes the idea of smaller, sleeker, more capable forces. We rely on our technological superiority over the mass numbers of less capable aircraft. the question you pose about a fewer number of more expensive aircraft versus the large number of cheaper aircraft is as old as weapons themselves. Aren't you wanting to go ito the military soon? Maybe you will find yourself in the acquisition field. We could really use some good, smart people who actually know how to manage capability and money at the same time. IMO.

USMCFLYR

Maybe that is why I would prefer a larger Air Force with cheaper planes. Then I will have a better chance of getting a fighter. I forgot all about UAVs though. It does make sense then. Use the expensive fighters at the beginning, and then use the cheap UAVs to orbit around for hours looking for anything else that comes up after the initial strikes against other fighters and air defense systems.

On a side note, I heard a while ago that they were sticking more fighter pilots than any other airframe in UAVs because they are both single pilot aircraft. Is that true? I know I am getting ahead of myself, but when it comes time to make a track preference, I would like to select fighter/bomber, but I want to limit my risk to UAVs as much as possible. I would love to fly anything, but the nothing in the civilian worked compares to fighters so it would be my only chance to ever fly an airplane like that ever.

Based on what? We have about 180 Raptors. Situation.. dust up and we deploy the Raptors. We send maybe 3-4 squadrons.. 60 airplanes or 1/3 of the fleet. At any given point the frag calls for maybe 20-30 birds... half the deployed fleet.

Let's say it is the Chinese with J-10s and their SU-27 knock-offs. Lots of 'em. After the initial dump, the Raptors are winchester and still more J-10s and -27s are coming. Launch the rest of the Raptors?

Where are the Raptors based? Japan. Korea? Guam? How about tankers to get them to/from the dust-up?

The Raptor was an easy grape to pick when looking for budget cuts. But enough for a real dust-up? We disagree.

I've read the -35s software is a leap but the airframe is doggy. Somewhere I read the wingloading is approaching that of the Century Series fighters. ???

Yes, quite capable but without the speed, range and lifting capability of the old -14 and if it was so capable, why the SUPER Hornet. :D

The history of the Russians is to build equipment that will stand up in the field, not some gold-plated hangar queen. They do not expect the equipment (or men) to last and if the air has separated at 500kts from the surface, why worry about 1/2in gaps?


In what must have been a double insult, reportedly one of the MiG-29's original test pilots was asked by some US pilots about the -29 in the hands of the Iraqis and why they had done so poorly. His comment was it was "...like pigs wearing a Rolex."

The raptors obviously can't go it alone...I think the idea is high-low. Hopefully the low (f35) will work well and they will buy enough of them.

I don't think we are going to lose an engagement due to raptor shortage, not in the forseeable future.

What do you mean by the bolded part of your statement above?

USMCFLYR

Here is another hypothetical situation, we buy 380 F-22s and train like WWIII is around the corner. 50 years go by, and the cost of maintaining a military capable of destroying other superpowers spending its time in third world countries where only 1% of the aircrafts potential is utilized begins to bring down our economy. Meanwhile, China’s growing economy becomes stronger than ours and then they can afford to produce 100s of 5th generation aircraft more than us.

As you hinted at in your post, the weakest part in our fleet is the tankers. Those are things we really need. Unlike the F-22, they can be fully utilized in nearly every mission. Having a limited number of ultra high end aircraft is nothing new to the military. We only have 59 F-117s, 20 B-2s, and 100 B-1Bs, but we manage just fine. Imagine if the supporters of the F-117, B-2, and B-1A got their way and we had to spend billions to support a huge stealth fleet when we are fighting nations without an air force? Aircraft have become so expensive now that we are gambling as to whether we will need them in the future. Major wars don’t come out of nowhere. There is always a steady period of increasing tension, and that is the time when we commit to building as many of the latest technology fighters we can.

We do disagree, but this is not a new debate. Whenever new military equipment is introduced there are always those that think it is a waste and some that think it is vital. B-1A and M1A1 come to mind each with completely different results.

Kassarine - without enough air superiority fighters or next-generation stealth aircraft that can take out current generation mobile SAMs, you can have all the tankers or airlift you want - but you won't have them long. Do the terms permissive or semi-permissive environment mean anything to you - because that's the only environments those aircraft can fly in.

Unfortunately, we have to plan for all the possibilities from asymmetric to total warfare. We only need so many B-2's because we would only use that asset to strike so many targets. An air superiority fighter, on the other hand, would likely face hundreds of aircraft in a worst-case example. Remember that our Army has been able to operate without worry of enemy air attack since the Korean war, and their continued success depends on that record continuing. The same goes for our logistics tail, also.

It's funny how you seem to be willing to equate 100 B-1's to 100 F-22's, having no consideration of their missions or the how numerous their respective target sets may be.

I never said that 100 B-2s equal 100 F-22s. My point was that we have always had to make choices between capability and cost. In the case of the B-2, the Air Force determined they only needed a few because after the fall of the USSR they could not justify the expense of a large stealth bomber fleet when most of the enemies we would realistically face have small air defense systems. Also, if we went to war with a superpower like China, we would need a large stealth bomber force too. We would also need an even larger ground force, but you don’t hear anyone saying we need to get 2 million more troops ready for combat now.

It would be nice if we could have a military designed for every type of warfare, but we can’t, and we never could. The idea of maintaining a military that can take on every type of enemy possible is not sustainable.

Also, what is with the confrontational attitude? This is a valid debate with equal evidence on both sides. I agree that if we go to war with China right now, I would be wrong and we would desperately need more F-22s. I also agree that sometimes it is better to spend money on an aircraft that is never used because it acts as a deterrent for other countries. Can’t you agree that the F-22 has taken up resources that could be used for more imminent threats? Or that there is a greater chance that the F-22s we have will most likely never be used for the all out total warfare they were designed for?

[quote=III Corps;754082]Yes, quite capable but without the speed, range and lifting capability of the old -14 and if it was so capable, why the SUPER Hornet. :Dquote]

Are you really asking this question?

Kass - those were direct questions, not confrontations. You have to plan using an ORM model - risk to reward. Of course, aircraft like the F-22 cost exponentially more than MQ-9's, but the risk (cost) of not being prepared for the war that the F-22 is designed for is exponentially more than the risk of not being prepared for the war the MQ-9 is designed for. The nation that only prepares for today's war will be woefully unprepared for tomorrow's war, and our nation has been guilty of that on numerous occasions.

For the record, I am not a proponent of the F-22 per se, I am a proponent of a robust air superiority capability (and 189 F-22's are not it). If yo had read any of the F-22 specific threads, you would have seen that I was more a proponent of upgraded F-15's and a smaller contingent of F-22's. Air superiority is not a "nice thing to have", it allows your offensive strike aircraft to operate at will, your ISR aircraft (so important now) to operate at will, and your ground forces to operate at will with no threat of attack by enemy aircraft. Air superiority is an incredible multiplier, so to say that the money could have gone towards better uses - I disagree.

The day before Katrina, it would have seemed a wise use of resources (for someone who could not evacuate) to buy water, food, and generators. Two days after Katrina, it wouldn't have seemed like such a good use when people with guns came and took all of the food, water, and generators. The day before, someone would have said "do you know how much more food and water you can buy instead of a $600 gun and $150 of ammunition?" Afterwards, they would "I wish we still had that smaller stockpile (minus the $750) instead of nothing at all." Same goes here - NO, I do not agree that the resources would be better used for a more imminent threat because I think 5-10 yrs down the road as well as towards tomorrow - even though I am currently actively fighting the war of today. We need to maintain a credible threat to keep potential enemies from piling on or using our distraction to pursue their national goals. And we need to make sure we don't roll from winning today's war into losing tomorrow's. These capabilities can't be built overnight.

I am not advocating buying more Raptors. They are expensive no doubt. But I do not agree that 180 are sufficient as is often argued. And since the -35 is still years off, we may go through a few years where we are less than capable of responding. Meanwhile the Chinese are bulking up. And as you noted the Chinese have the ability (technology and money) to build a lot of new machines. They also do not have to worry about basing.
Very much so and like many things, the process has become very convoluted so the need is overshadowed by politics. As a former tanker puke, it always amazed me that the NVAF never came after us as we sat off the coast refueling the F-4s and -105s.

The BONE and the tank are interesting examples. The BONE for example seems to have finally come into its own as a stand-off platform but that certainly is NOT the mission it was designed for or intended for. But then the F-4 was originally designed as a fleet interceptor, not intended as a dog-fighter. This just goes to show the guys at the pointy end find ways of making things work in spite of politics.

Rhetorical but the remark was the ORIGINAL Hornet was very capable. It may have been but there were shortcomings. And if the original capabilities were sufficient, why redesign it to almost a completely new airplane?

Apparently someone thought there were design points that fell short or at least needed to be revised.

Yes the original comment was 'Very Capable'. But in the grand scheme of things there is nothing the SuperHornet does that the Legacy Hornet doesn't do except give gas and a bit in the EW realm. I fly both of them routinely...The SH isn't so much about expanded capability as it was a step up in increased capacity, there's a stark difference. The other issue you're not even touching on is the gap in Strike Fighters that the SH virtually eliminates provided the buy of aircraft is sufficient. We have out and overflown our Legacy Hornets which drove the requirements for the cheaper SH that bridges the gap to JSF.

Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.

http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...ot/1357100.jpg

If their stealth attempts are anything like their Uski 2Ski attempts, it will be too heavy and under perform.

Well, sometimes tone gets lost in text so I understand. I like the idea of having stealth fighters we can use to dominate a major battlefield, but I think we would have to sacrifice a lot in the form of funds for other equally important aircraft and weapons to get a all the F-22s we wanted. What is the point of having a sharp spear if the shaft it is on is weak and the person holding it isn’t able to lift it? Defense funding is a balancing act and we can’t afford to have unlimited amounts of the best equipment. Look at body armor for example. Our soldiers go into battle having good armor, but not the best. It is a compromise because the military would rather have a lot of troops with good armor than a few with the best.

It is similar to the B-1A program or even the XB-70. Large supersonic bombers that would be able to attack Russia well before any of their bombers could come within range of our allies. We were able to build them and demonstrate their capability, but in the end, the cost of the aircraft could not justify their use. We determined the ICBM and submarine programs were more cost effective.

The F-15 has a fantastic service record and is still a match for any plane out there. I think we would be better off if we created a new version (not an upgrade). It would probably be much cheaper and therefore we can build more. In the past, we have seen that when it comes down to it, it is the operator/s at the controls of the weapon platform that really make the difference.

Word has it that the SH also has a suprisingly low RS.... altogether very capable.

High/Low fighter mix consisting of a smaller number of very expensive air superiority/supremacy fighters complemented by a larger number of less expensive fighters (usually attack optimized). It gives you that sharp performance edge if you go up against a high-end opponent, but still allows you larger numbers of switch-hitters for various circumstances such a low-tech foe with a crap-load of airframes.

It's a common strategy, this is what we did with the F15/16 and F14/18, and more or less what the russians have with the mig29 & flanker.

Other folks do it too.

What kind of experience do you have in this area? I don't happen to agree with that sentiment. It's a very capable airplane still, to be certain, but there are many limitations simply being a 30-year-old airframe.

I have not flown the aircraft, but I did not know you needed to fly an aircraft before you are allowed to talk about it or know anything about it. My stepfather had over 1000 hours in it at did some weapons testing on it, so I think I know enough to say that it is a great fighter.

Also, in my post, I was saying that we need a new F-15. I know it is 30 years old, and that is why we need a new version. The fact that even 30 years after it left the plant it can still maintain the title of air superiority fighter is impressive.

Of course sometimes it is better to start fresh than limit yourself to a 30 year old design, my intention was to point out that we don’t always need to build the most high tech and expensive aircraft we can. I am sure that for $30 million (cost of an F-15) we can build a new fighter that is better than the current F-15s but still cheaper than the $83 million F-35.

He didn't ask about your 'flight' experience, he asked about your experience. The fact that your step dad had a 1000 hours in it doesn't really equate to any expertise on your part.

I'm curious, you have some strong opinions, how did you arrive at them? I guess I'd ask, what is your experience in this area?

You certainly have that right about the Russians and the Chinese copies. One important criteria that people seem to overlook when they compare the F-35, etc... is the ability to perform the mission, again and again with an economy that may be hurt in a major war.

Just from my minglings with older Yaks and Nanchangs... the systems, while crude, are pretty remarkable in their simple nature.. the pnuematic (air) system is really interesting no need for hydraulic fluid, etc. The remote field is where those Eastern aircraft are designed to be used.

I'm probably the least knowledgeable person in this thread... but the thing that concerns me about the F-35 is so many moving parts all working perfectly together... can it keep it up when the rubber meets the road?

As far as the Russians developing this new fighter into something marketable... I wouldn't ever count them out of the game.

The Eagle was a phenomenal aircraft in it's day, and has been a dominant fighter aircraft over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, it's just old. There's no amount of new avionics or modifications to the airframe that you can perform to make it really a dominant fighter now given what is currently fielded.

It can hold it's own currently, but it's certainly not the best in the world because of the airframe design. It's the training and tactics of the people that fly it that make it so.

He has Microsoft Flight Simulator at home. :rolleyes:

No serioiusly, he is a CFII. :)

I believe knowing someone who has experience in an aircraft can equate to something. It is certainly not the same as having that experience yourself, but that is how people learn. You talk to someone that is more knowledgeable than you in an area and over time, you get some insight. That combined with the fact that there is a ton of information available about the F-15 allows me to have an opinion that the F-15 kicks butt. Many pilots are interested and learn about aircraft that they have not flown. Everyone on here has been talking about the F-35, F-22, and T-50, but most probably have not flown them.

Why hasn’t anyone jumped down LivingInMem’s post about being in favor of an upgraded F-15? It may because I am stating it more, but that is because this is a big interest to me. I don’t really think that my opinion of having only a few raptors and spending the money on more cost effective (and less advanced) aircraft is that controversial. I may just be a military enthusiast for now, but there are a good amount of people in the military who share similar viewpoints.

All aircraft have limitations (even the F-22 and F-35 probably), and the challenge is to develop strategies that hide weaknesses and accentuate positives. So even if the F-15 is holding its own due to superior tactics, a new version could be designed with its current weaknesses in mind. I guess that I am not arguing for a new F-15, but a new 4th generation or 4.5 generation fighter. Really, you believe that money is better spent on a large fleet of 5th generation fighters, and I believe that a larger fleet of 4th generation with a tactical fleet of 5th generation is better. It is an age old balancing act of numbers verse performance.

Hey, I worked hard for the multi add-on, so don’t sell me short. ;)

And, FWIW, I do have a lot of experience with Microsoft Flight Sim, and if you have seen my setup, I bet you would want to try it out. It’s been known to bring some to tears. Also, all the F-15 models (or any military aircraft) for MFS are pretty inaccurate, so I don’t use them. I am a big flying nerd, and it is not unusual for me to log 6 hours of flight and then come home and fly for 2 hours in my sim. Currently I have an FTD approved 737 with an instructor station. In about 2 months, I will have finished my T-6 setup. Laugh if you want, but MFS is an effective training aid if you use it like one.

Because I have credibility and can articulate my position better than you. And I don't say that "they know as little as me because they haven't flown the F-22 or F-35 just like I haven't" when in reality, they have: studied enough about air-to-air to qualify for an equivalent of a PhD from any institution, they have spent thousands of hours putting their theories to the test in a practical real-world environment, they have fought against some of those aircraft they talk about if they haven't flown them, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind you defending your right to have an opinion, but do yourself a favor and don't try to bring those who have "been there, done that" to your level (or you to their level). Just like you have the right to tell a doctor what's wrong with your bloodwork, or you have the right to tell an auto mechanic what is wrong with your car - they have the right to scoff you when you act as if you know as much as they do.

The rationale for the reduced F-22 buy was the F-35. Unfortunately, the F-35 won't be fielded for quite a while. The good news is, neither will aircraft like this. Aircraft like the Su-35; however, will be fielded much sooner - so will advanced mobile SAM systems.

Looking at the most likely threat over the next X years, an aircraft with the capabilities of the F-22 was certainly needed. We needed a capability to defeat the SA-20 and Su-35 tomorrow. What was not needed was for us to put our entire air superiority capability into just 189 of aircraft. An integrated fleet would have been better.

The F-15 does have its limitations, but at this time the majority of the air-air threat is still comprised of MiG-21's / MiG-29's / early-generation Su-27's / etc. With that in mind, an upgraded F-15 would have done well as a limited-life interim missile truck to span the gap from now until the F-35 comes on line. The F-22 is capable, but its MR rate is only so good, only so many can deploy at a time, and it can only carry so many missiles to the fight. An upgraded F-15 with a SLEP and an ESA radar, Aim-9x, HMS, and advanced IRCM could have provided a very capable defense-in-depth to the adversaries who are likely to fight quality with quantity. Not a popular concept, but airframe hours could have been protected by transitioning the majority of CT to the simulator - not the best answer, but better than not having them at all. It's not perfect, but it's better than the reduced fleet of F-22s alone.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to everyone except for the USAF leadership that the F-22 buy was going to be cut - they continued to put all of our eggs into the F-22 basket until the very end by slashing the rest of the fleet. Maybe they thought they could improve the likelihood of the F-22 buy if they could argue that we didn't have any other airplanes with which to fight a war.

Your reply advocates the full development of a new F-15 like aircraft instead of the F-22, I advocate a stop-gap as an answer to the F-22 planned fleet reduction. Your plan would have us rolling out the new F-15 about the same time the F-35 is rolling out. My plan had the ability to have immediate returns. Your plan involved spending A LOT of money for a long-term stop gap measure. My plan involved spending not as much for a shorter-term measure. I could go on, but you and I are not really on the same page.

Similar to putting all our eggs into one basket with the F-22, investing the future fleet in two brand new aircraft is also a little risky. Not only are these new aircraft, but a new generation of aircraft. Any bugs in initial deployment could be disastrous. Also, it would be a real pain if the stealth capability gets defeated by a new aircraft detection system. It would be like investing in a top of the line battleship in the 1930s and then everyone else buying an aircraft carrier to sink it. Although, the chances of this happening are not high enough to stop investing in new technology and cancel the orders.

The ORM of aircraft design minimizes the threat of that occurring long before the first aircraft ever takes to the sky. When was the last time an aircraft development project was canceled for other than political or fiscal reasons?

FWIW, the new stealth aircraft WILL be detectable by some new technology at some point - that is how this game works. You keep making incremental advances in capability that stay ahead of their incremental advances in their capability. KNOWING that they will make those advances, the long-term stop gap measures that you advocate are doomed to guaranteed failure much sooner than the full development program of the F-22 or F-35.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I wasn’t trying to say that your knowledge base is the same as mine. I know many have more actual experience than me. I took attacks on my basis for my opinions as attack on my opinions. I was merely trying to point out that I am not the only one who believes the F-22/F-35 combination is the only answer.

....and actual knowledge vs mere opinion. Reference the rest of my post that you didn't quote. I don't claim that doctors know more than me only because they have more actual experience - they also have years of med school and continuing education as well as experience. So, not only can the doctor do a gallbladder surgery better than I can, his opinion on the subject is more likely better informed than mine is (more like a guess vs an educated opinion).

It doesn't keep me from espousing my opinion, but mine and theirs aren't equated even if we agree every once in a while. Keep expressing your opinion and conversing, that's how you gain knowledge. But, keep the relative positions in perspective - don't attack the expert, you'll lose every time.