Russia's crummy little stealth fighter

[PR3D4TOR]

And that's why everyone wants stealth. Those F-4's have a decent doppler radar and would pick up non-stealth aircraft just as good as they did back in the 70's. Using ECM would blind them perhaps, but they would still know someone was there.

[zack1234]

How dare you!

You left out North Korea

They have 3000 stealth planes in New Jersey

[FBKampfer]

The Pak-FA doesn't seem too bad. Especially when you consider that it doesnt seem to be intended as a direct 1:1 counter to the Raptor.

I mean, let's be honest, the F22 is vastly over engineered for what we're saying are its main advantages. If we want to use it as a stealth AWACS, then we should have built a dedicated stealth AWACS. But now, it's going to be treated exactly like a carrier in a large scale conflict, and kept out of danger for fear of losing it, which defeats its primary role as a fighter.

The Russians, on the other hand, seem to want to build a new generation fighter that happens to have stealth. However, I suspect that the cost grew to be prohibitive to such an employment, and that they were banking on its stealth as a marketing feature to help push unit cost back down with foreign sales.

Now if I were to guess, Sukhoi is simply being told to keep the tooling in place so that if the situation changes,they can start cranking them out.

Does this make their fighter bad? No, it just means that they didn't foresee cost overruns, and poor foreign sales, in much the same way we screwed up on the F35. We assumed everyone would jump at the chance to get their hands on it, but then it turned out to be more expensive and less capable than advertised.

[Brooke]

it's not directly on this topic, but there is an excellent book that tells the story of the development of the F-16 and F-18 -- a great book about an interesting man and the inner workings of the Pentagon:  "Boyd:  The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War," by Coram.

[Zimme83]

And that's why everyone wants stealth. Those F-4's have a decent doppler radar and would pick up non-stealth aircraft just as good as they did back in the 70's. Using ECM would blind them perhaps, but they would still know someone was there.

Even EF2000 etc is steath in that case. While not taking it as far as the F-22 the European fighters have a lot of rcs reducing technology, it isnt all about the skin, air intake design etc is just as important.
Data links and BVR missiled fired in passive mode would prob have the same result as a F-22 to an out dated F-4.


Choosing the right amount of stealth delicate balance, advanced stealth technology reqire a lot of maintainance and in case of a war not everyone can afford it. A non stealth plane flying is still better than a stealh fighter on the ground.

SwAF for ex, for which Gripen was designed for, is a defensive AF, it means that in case of war they would fight over their own territory and with a risk of having airfields bombed. The doctrine of road bases require a plane with STOL capabilities and that can be kept in the air with a minimum of ground support. That rules out too advanced stealth technology. The extensive network of radars aviable would btw cancel out much of the advantages a stealth fighter would have.

Point is that the right balance of features on a plane depends on what they are intended to do. Sometimes its worth leaving the last % of cutting edge technology and having a plane u can afford in numbers. Alteast for most smaller countries. 1 F-22 cost roughly as much as 12 Gripen during its lifespan and for a small country its better to buy 12 Gripen than 1 F-22.

[PR3D4TOR]

Sure, but it's also better to have 12 F-35's than 12 Gripen.

[Zimme83]

If u can afford it yes, and if u dont need to hide them in the forrest to avoid bombing in case of war.

[PR3D4TOR]

I don't think the price difference is that great. What does a Gripen-NG go for these days?

Why can't you hide an F-35 in a forest?

[Zimme83]

Gripen NG is a completley different bird but in dollars it should land somewere in the area of 60-80 million usd.
U can hide a F-35 in the forrest, but it would require more than 10 conscripts +1 offficer to keep it flying. Stealth skin also requiers more maintanance.

[PR3D4TOR]

The last lot the USAF bought the F-35 went for $108 million a pop. The price drops about $4 million per production lot, so give it a couple of years and it will probably be in the $80 million range.

Are you privy to the maintenance requirements of an operational F-35? I don't think so. And even if they can't maintain the stealth skin in a forest clearing under wartime conditions that does not mean they can't operate the aircraft with reduced stealth capability and minimum maintenance. The Norwegian air force is getting F-35's. Don't they operate in similar conditions to you guys?

[Rich46yo]

Does this make their fighter bad? No, it just means that they didn't foresee cost overruns, and poor foreign sales, in much the same way we screwed up on the F35. We assumed everyone would jump at the chance to get their hands on it, but then it turned out to be more expensive and less capable than advertised.

Is there anything else to call it but "bad"? Its failed to even come near any of its performance parameters ; Its one customer/partner has publicly called it a POS, and now the Russians themselves are only building enough to demonstrate at air shows. I think that qualifies it as "bad", the fact that it wont be built to even have a remote chance at operational involvement. Five have already been built, one lost in a fire, and the Indians wont even pick up the phone to answer. Sheesh! Thats not "good"

To think a '70s era F4, if we even sold the Doppler versions to Iran, could compete with modern stealth fighters is insane. Sure if we called the Iranians and told them exactly when and where our fighters will be their 50yo jets might have a chance, in effect thats what we did with the Serbs when they downed the F117 by flying exact routes, altitudes, times, during the day. But I think we've learned from that. Those F4s had a tought time against the Iraqi's in '88 and all of a sudden they are "war winners" in 2015 against America?

I'd like to see proff of the "but it would require more than 10 conscripts +1 offficer to keep it flying. Stealth skin also requiers more maintanance. " assertion. The F35 has been built to outperform legacy aircraft in sortie rates and nowhere is this more apparent then in its stealth coating that has literally been built into its composite skin, unlike planes like the F117 which had a comparatively fragile stealth application.

The F117 first flew 34 years ago. I think we've gotten better at making stealth materials since then.

[Zimme83]

The last lot the USAF bought the F-35 went for $108 million a pop. The price drops about $4 million per production lot, so give it a couple of years and it will probably be in the $80 million range.

Are you privy to the maintenance requirements of an operational F-35? I don't think so. And even if they can't maintain the stealth skin in a forest clearing under wartime conditions that does not mean they can't operate the aircraft with reduced stealth capability and minimum maintenance. The Norwegian air force is getting F-35's. Don't they operate in similar conditions to you guys?

We know that u have a hard on for the F-35. But even u should be able to figure out why SwAF, in the 80:s decided buy Gripen instead of F-35...

[PR3D4TOR]

Why didn't Norway. Your neighbor?

Gripen has not exactly been an export success now has it.

[Zimme83]

Because Norway make their own desicions. Buying planes is as much about politics as it is about performance.

[PR3D4TOR]

You keep making claims you cannot back up. Are you really privy to the maintenance requirements of an operational F-35? I think not. Yet you feel qualified to compare it unfavorably to the Gripen.