General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rich46yo on June 04, 2015, 12:41:46 PM
Title: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 04, 2015, 12:41:46 PM
From the beginning Ive told people this project was a piece of crap. Russia has been spinning it around air shows trying to convince the world its very first attempt at stealth has jumped three generations ahead of the Yanks. Thing is they have partners, India, who havnt been afraid to expose this POS for what it is. So now they have cut their own original order from 52 to 12 and the IAF , their partner and only export customer, doesnt even want one and no doubt will be soon knocking on the WH door asking for F-35s. http://theweek.com/articles/558397/russias-fancy-newstealth-fighter-serious-trouble
To blame world oil prices for the cut in orders is ludicrous cause Putin has shown he's willing to do anything for a complete revamp of the Russian armed forces and his current military budgets show that. What is obvious is the project is a total flub and was important enough for both the Russians and Indians to sink countless Billions into? Why? Why is stealth so important that everyone wants it?
First off they are not easy to design and build. Look at the problems were having with the F-35, our 4th stealth airplane. Tho I would hazard that most of "its" issues are that it was designed to have to many tasks and versions, most of all that jump jet version, and Lockheed has mismanaged the project. Still its going forward and it looks like it has no serious rivals from other players. For the next 10 to 20 years America and her allies will dominate the stealth war plane industry.
But the others will keep trying. I doubt China's J-31 effort will be any better, hell they suck at building engines, but apparently "stealth" is important enough for every major player to want it.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 02:02:57 PM
Isn't the Iranians F14 fleet from the 70's with no upgrades? They are lucky to have radar at all! :D
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 02:30:51 PM
F-4 ≠ F-14
However they were undoubtedly in range of Iranian ground control radar.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Sabre on June 04, 2015, 04:33:13 PM
Looking at the pictures of this aircraft, the most obvious problems are with the engines. Because they're not buried in the fuselage like the Raptor or F-35, the are both a radar and an infrared hot-spot. There's also a lot more to building a truly stealth vehicle than shape. Radar Absorbing Material (RAM), selective-frequency radomes, and low-probability-of-intercept radar are all (among many other less-sexy, but no less important) technologies that must be mastered and successfully integrated into the air frame to make it a combat-winning weapon. No doubt this a/c has a lower radar signature than a Mig-29 or Su-30, but would be at a tactical disadvantage to the F-22 (my opinion). Also, assuming this Russian bird doesn't have super-cruise like the Raptor does, it also holds a distinct operational disadvantage. Super-cruise is a force multiplier that is hard to overstate.
Regarding why stealth is important, the reasons are numerous and (mostly) obvious, and range from tactical to operational. The most obvious (operationally) is the element of surprise. Another, tactical, advantage is simply that whomever gets lock first wins the engagement. If your radar can lock up at 30-miles, but your enemy's can't lock up on you until 5 miles, he'll never get a chance to fire.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 04, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
Problem with F-22 is that its combat capability is very limited, its a very potent plane but with 125 or so combat ready and with a pretty high demand for maintainace it will be har to keep any big number of F-22:s in the air for a longer period of time in case of a full scale war against a potent enemy. Most missions will have to be flown by teen fighters.
How big impact the F-22 can have is of course a matter of how the conflict looks like, against a low tech enemy like Iraq it doesnt matter if u have stealth planes or not. Against for ex China its a different matter. Problem will be to deploy them, operations against chinese mainland would requier air-to-air refueling and the tankers are not stealth. Penetrating an airspace covered by multiple ground and air based radars would make even the Raptor detectable.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Gman on June 04, 2015, 05:57:07 PM
My TL;DR =
High five for Rich,
and the only big problem with the F22 is that another 300 or more weren't built. That and no JHMS/Aim9x, which is being rectified as we speak.
/end.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 04, 2015, 06:03:20 PM
and the only big problem with the F22 is that another 300 or more weren't built. That and no JHMS/Aim9x, which is being rectified as we speak.
/end.
Plus maybe the lack of a data link. But yes, the F-22 systems biggest flaw is the low number of planes aviable. That decrease the combat capabilites. Its similar to the Me 262. A superior plane but lack of quantity limits the operational impact.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 04, 2015, 07:16:42 PM
The big reason there has been a lack of development of the f22, including more airframes, is that there has been a lack of a true opponent to it. It was designed for a war that was over before it first rolled off the production line and many possible upgrades were deferred to a later time, which was put off time and again because there has never been an operational need for it in combat. Mostly cause there has never been an adversary dangerous enough to worth risking it in its small numbers.
Eventually we let some fly around Syria and lob a few bombs out just so's we could say it "performed flawlessly in combat" which is a Joke. Its an ATA superiority fighter and while it can ground strike who in their right mind would do so when any cheap legacy could do the same thing, minus the news headlines.
I dont know what the current planned upgrades are for it. I know the data link 16 standard was considered a problem cause it could potentially expose the aircraft to an enemy. I thought there was some variation planned but I dont know the status, nor the status of all the planned software and weapons integration upgrades budgeted. The lack of an export version kinda killed the program as well.
I mean look at the war's we have fought since the F22 began testing. Iraq, Serbia, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Libya. Of them all Gulf-1 had the best enemy air defense and we clobbered it like a seal hunt. In Iraq and Serbia the F117 and B2 shined even tho they went up again fairly capable systems 3rd world-wise. We are now approaching the reality of opening night attacks against ATA networks being made up entirely of precision strike weapons. Im actually more interested in what will follow the F22 and the B2 then I am with what is.
Are the future threats serious enough to pour so many resources into next gen stealth?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 07:35:19 PM
The procurement and design process of the F-22 started with the ATF program in 1981, at the height of the cold war. Obviously the need for a massive number of them disappeared along with its intended main adversary.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 04, 2015, 07:44:00 PM
Using F-22 against a country like Iraq is a complete waste.
It has been pretty extensive proven that SAM:s and AAA cannot "shut down" an air space. Without sufficient numbers of fighters u will loose the air war (and also the ground war). Chaff and radar jammers combined with HARM gives even a non stealth fighter good enough survivability in a combat zone. What US hasnt been up against for a very long time is a potent air force. Even in Vietnam USAF greatly outnumbered the enemy in the skies. A match against a country like China would be something completley different. That would be a war were F-22 can make a difference but with the low numbers it prob wont.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 07:54:47 PM
Zimme, it goes back to McNamara and Vietnam, the F-X program. The USAF would go for a two-fighter force. A small force of big expensive air superiority fighters and a large force of smaller cheaper fighters. The result was the F-15 and F-16. The F-22 and F-35 is the next generation of this force structure.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 04, 2015, 08:17:39 PM
and the only big problem with the F22 is that another 300 or more weren't built. That and no JHMS/Aim9x, which is being rectified as we speak.
/end.
The USAAF considers the F-22 to be a "force multiplier weapon", that's how they are justifying the low number and saying it's not to the detriment to possible future combat operations.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 04, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
Nothing wrong with that. Problem is the low numbers of F-22 aviable and that the F-35 has a long way to go before it is ready for combat in any larger scale.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on June 05, 2015, 12:15:36 AM
However they were undoubtedly in range of Iranian ground control radar.
The Iranian F4 has the same exact problem. They were acquired in the 70's and never even upgraded.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 12:20:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: zack1234 on June 05, 2015, 12:49:29 AM
How dare you! :old:
You left out North Korea :banana:
They have 3000 stealth planes in New Jersey
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 05, 2015, 12:51:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Brooke on June 05, 2015, 03:15:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 03:36:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 03:40:07 AM
Sure, but it's also better to have 12 F-35's than 12 Gripen.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 04:03:48 AM
If u can afford it yes, and if u dont need to hide them in the forrest to avoid bombing in case of war.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 04:11:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 04:25:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 05:11:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 05, 2015, 08:09:39 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 08:18:11 AM
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...
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 08:22:11 AM
Why didn't Norway. Your neighbor?
Gripen has not exactly been an export success now has it.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 08:26:38 AM
Because Norway make their own desicions. Buying planes is as much about politics as it is about performance.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 08:33:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 08:40:23 AM
Haha. Forgot. Not mention any non-us plane in any way that can be concidered positive. :rofl
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Zimme83 on June 05, 2015, 08:44:39 AM
Every time i mention Gripen u guys goes bananas. :aok FYI Swedens main reason do develop Gripen was to not be dependant on a foregin aircraft system. Thats why we did not waited another 30 years before replacing the J-35 and JA-37:s....
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 09:09:59 AM
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"
The F-35 wasn't anywhere close to parameters, already grossly over budget, behind schedule, dropping potential buyers like flys, and would have been scrapped if we hadn't sunk so much money down that rat hole before it was up for review. By those standards, the F35 was an abject failure that we've managed to turn into an underwhelming performer, but acceptable half success for the project, through sheer weight of the dollar bills we've thrown at it.
And this is our 4th stealth plane, and it's not much better than Russia's first! We love to make little of our opponent's successes, but as a first attempt, it's pretty damn good, actually.
I would have thought you would be somewhat immune to the whole "murica" goggles thing, actually. Just don't fall into the American habit of underestimating our enemies.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 05, 2015, 01:50:42 PM
The F35 is, I believe, operational. Very few, if any, are questioning its low/attack capabilities. In that role it will probably shine. As an all aspect fighter it will probably fall short. Its still to early to tell. In my opinion the 35B version really hurt the program as we just tried to do to many things with the air frame.
My "'murica thing" is based on History, 4 years myself in USAF, and a clear picture of the present and near future. No other nation can survive against American air power. Its that simple. The F35 has had a troubled start but I think its going to end up being a very good component in a war winning system.
You cant seem to understand that future air war's will more resemble "Enders Game" then they will WW2 or even Vietnam. Im talking fuzed networks of air land sea assets giving commanders an unprecedented picture of the battlefield, most of all in the air. Where combat planes will operate together, linked together, sharing target data and data of all kinds at a speed unheard of before. This was the war the F35 was designed for. Not a P51 vs 190 combat, or MIG alley, but a networked, information intensive, precision strike, BVR environment.
We could have made it faster. We could have made it a lot of things more. We could have made it an F22 with bombs. But we never meant to fight fair with it and I'm not giving up on the airplane or the theory behind it. I honestly think this "hate the F35" thing has gone past logic and taken on a life of its own. Now some are saying the stealth coating wont stay on. The damn thing was tested in some of the harshest salt water environments known and its done fine.
Theres going to be a Dozen, or maybe more, nations eventually flying 2,500 to 3,000 airframes. Kinda sounds like a more successful program then Putin's wonderjet.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: wpeters on June 06, 2015, 03:37:21 PM
The F35 is, I believe, operational. Very few, if any, are questioning its low/attack capabilities. In that role it will probably shine. As an all aspect fighter it will probably fall short. Its still to early to tell. In my opinion the 35B version really hurt the program as we just tried to do to many things with the air frame.
My "'murica thing" is based on History, 4 years myself in USAF, and a clear picture of the present and near future. No other nation can survive against American air power. Its that simple. The F35 has had a troubled start but I think its going to end up being a very good component in a war winning system.
You cant seem to understand that future air war's will more resemble "Enders Game" then they will WW2 or even Vietnam. Im talking fuzed networks of air land sea assets giving commanders an unprecedented picture of the battlefield, most of all in the air. Where combat planes will operate together, linked together, sharing target data and data of all kinds at a speed unheard of before. This was the war the F35 was designed for. Not a P51 vs 190 combat, or MIG alley, but a networked, information intensive, precision strike, BVR environment.
We could have made it faster. We could have made it a lot of things more. We could have made it an F22 with bombs. But we never meant to fight fair with it and I'm not giving up on the airplane or the theory behind it. I honestly think this "hate the F35" thing has gone past logic and taken on a life of its own. Now some are saying the stealth coating wont stay on. The damn thing was tested in some of the harshest salt water environments known and its done fine.
Theres going to be a Dozen, or maybe more, nations eventually flying 2,500 to 3,000 airframes. Kinda sounds like a more successful program then Putin's wonderjet.
Agreed
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Gman on June 06, 2015, 11:31:00 PM
Agreed as well.
I'm waiting for the day when info gets out on how an F35A does vs an F16 is dissimilar A2A training. Some info out there says that in a combat config (not air show clean), the F35 matches or even beats the F16 in terms of accel, climb rate, instantaneous turn rate, as well as sustained rate/radius. Some info says it doesn't. This forum if you search it will yield many links for/against this. I will say that even if it comes close to the F16 in terms of BFM/ACM capability, then there really shouldn't be a whole lot of complaints IMO. 108 mil isn't all that much more than the Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, SuperHornet, and so on. Especially when you consider the sensor fusion (the most important issue in terms of combat capability from what many pilots have said), and oh ya, that whole low observable thing.
It'll take time to tell. From watching the F35B high tempo ops testing going on right now, the F35B seems to be working in terms of at least being able to generate sorties at the rate it is supposed to, at least so far as what "they" are telling the public.
A friend of mine who has flown a ton of modern fighters flew the Gripen at the Empire test pilot school in the UK, and has many good things to say about it. A great jack of all trades, plus it's very, very small and hard to see in close in fights. Good radar(AESA optional now), decent payload/range, price, but most importantly, sortie generation capability. Due to the simplicity/maintenance of the Gripen, it can really crank out the sorties, easily doubling the CF18 Hornet my friend has 2500hrs in he says. That means 50 fighters in broad strokes = 100 in time of war when high sortie rates are needed, at 50% the cost of the next closest gen 4.5 fighter.
Anyhow, as much as the F35B is slagged - compromised the capabilities of the A/C model, USMC doesn't need a Stealth fighter, too hard on the decks of various Assault ships it's supposed to use, etc etc - the potential is there if the USA makes wise decisions in the future that the sea control/power of the USA will increase measurably by having the ability to pop 20+ advanced Stealth Fighters in the F35B on another 10+ Assault class ship types. IMO this could really add a lot of capability to the future striking power of the USN. Possibly. Again, it'll be interesting to see how it all works out. I think anyone who compares the F35B with the Harrier though will say it's a huge leap forward for the USMC, but at a very high price.
The UK is another issue as well, what with the 2 big bird farms they are building. Recently Russia has been playing footsies with Argentina, offering them Su24s at a ridiculously low lease rate, and other fighters as well. All there is down there to counter this is 4 Typhoons stationed there permanently, of which 1 or 2 = in maintenance cycle often, which means there is a 2-ship in the Falklands at best..at that's it. Not saying there is going to be another fight over the Falklands, but having 2 CVs with F35Bs or Cs would be a very smart deterrent at least.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 07, 2015, 02:15:13 AM
Sorry about the late reply, work has been hell.
Anyway, the F-35 will undoubtedly shine as a bomb truck. It's not an exceedingly demanding role, and stealth just makes it harder to get rid of.
However, my point is that we tried to build it to do all these things, and really the one it's going to be good at is the only one we should have designed it to do from the get go. We pissed away all that money for what is a glorified replacement for the harrier.
The PAK-FA seems to rather have been misdesigned (by US standards and methods of thinking at any rate) than poorly designed. Given that the Russian military isn't nearly as networked and integrated as our own is, it's no surprise that they didn't design their new fighter to our standards in that area. As I said before, they don't seem to have ever intended to build an F22 clone. Instead they built a fighter to fight a different type of conflict.
Now whether that mentality is wise or prudent is another matter entirely. But it doesn't affect the quality of the fighter, which should be assessed from the standpoint of its intended use. Personally, I'm of the opinion they've built a decent stealth fighter to fight a war out of the 1980's, but have badly misjudged the requirements for their next Gen fighter.
And I hold a similar view of the F35. Only we built it for a current war, and misjudged the requirements.
As for your Murica business, it's fine to be proud of what we've accomplished (technologically), and take objective pride in an airframe. But where it becomes a problem is when it turns into bias. You've shown you're biased right from the title. You start out unobjectively bashing the PAK-FA, with descriptions that simply don't fit, but are instead typical diminutive and belittling terms in US English. The PAK-FA is not small, and I'm sure they're built with a sufficient level of quality control. But then a purely objective assessment of the aircraft was never what you wanted to post.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 07, 2015, 02:29:19 AM
Then in your opinion what should "the requirements for their next Gen fighter" have been, and how does the F-35 not meet those requirements?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 07, 2015, 09:21:12 AM
Lol, these werent my words. Maybe you should go back and read the posts. Apparently my calling a POS built by Russia a "POS" caused some poster to refer to my so called "'murica thing". Idiotic! If it wasnt a POS they would actually be building and selling the thing. If it wasnt junk their main, and only partner, would be picking the phone up. The Russians promised a 5th gen all aspect stealth fight equal or superior to the F22 and they delivered what is barely a technology demonstrator, and a bad one at that. What else should one call it?
What are its problems? Well the Indian AF say's its engines are crap, its underpowered, the air frame cracks all the time, its stealth features are inadequate, its weapons carriage is inadequate, the capability of its AESA radar is poor, its maintainability and safety features are poor. And even worse the Russians wont even share information with them, for instance the reason one of them burned up awhile ago. Now considering the Indians are paying 1/2 the development price for this fighter I'd say the program was severely mishandled, aka "crummy".
Quote
As for your Murica business, it's fine to be proud of what we've accomplished (technologically), and take objective pride in an airframe. But where it becomes a problem is when it turns into bias. You've shown you're biased right from the title. You start out unobjectively bashing the PAK-FA, with descriptions that simply don't fit, but are instead typical diminutive and belittling terms in US English. The PAK-FA is not small, and I'm sure they're built with a sufficient level of quality control. But then a purely objective assessment of the aircraft was never what you wanted to post.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: zack1234 on June 07, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
You should buy the UK stealth bomber :old:
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 07, 2015, 03:31:37 PM
Lol, these werent my words. Maybe you should go back and read the posts. Apparently my calling a POS built by Russia a "POS" caused some poster to refer to my so called "'murica thing". Idiotic! If it wasnt a POS they would actually be building and selling the thing. If it wasnt junk their main, and only partner, would be picking the phone up. The Russians promised a 5th gen all aspect stealth fight equal or superior to the F22 and they delivered what is barely a technology demonstrator, and a bad one at that. What else should one call it?
What are its problems? Well the Indian AF say's its engines are crap, its underpowered, the air frame cracks all the time, its stealth features are inadequate, its weapons carriage is inadequate, the capability of its AESA radar is poor, its maintainability and safety features are poor. And even worse the Russians wont even share information with them, for instance the reason one of them burned up awhile ago. Now considering the Indians are paying 1/2 the development price for this fighter I'd say the program was severely mishandled, aka "crummy".
Those are your exact words. Read your title "Russia's crummy little stealth fighter". Right there your sole intent is to belittle the fighter from the get go, no matter if your insults and criticisms are accurate or not.
They may have some truth to them. I hadn't heard about the airframe issues, and intend to dig into that.
As for the sales, we're having trouble selling any large quantities of the F35, and that's to people we designed it for. Lack of sales isn't necessarily linked to an items quality.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Vulcan on June 07, 2015, 04:14:54 PM
LOL is the F-35's gun even working yet?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 07, 2015, 06:32:33 PM
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 07, 2015, 07:04:58 PM
FBKampfer, I'll ask again: In your opinion what should "the requirements for their next Gen fighter" have been, and how does the F-35 not meet those requirements?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 07, 2015, 08:59:16 PM
FBKampfer, I'll ask again: In your opinion what should "the requirements for their next Gen fighter" have been, and how does the F-35 not meet those requirements?
Who's? The US military's or Russia's?
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 07, 2015, 09:33:45 PM
From the beginning Ive told people this project was a piece of crap. Russia has been spinning it around air shows trying to convince the world its very first attempt at stealth has jumped three generations ahead of the Yanks.
And then each time west becomes surprised how did these russkies created such a deadly plane
- MiG-15 - oooops big surprise - MiG-21 - oooops apparently it is great plane, encounter it - go low and run for your life - MiG-29/Su-27 - ooops apparently they one of the best short range missiles and helmet mounted sight and absolutely deadly in close combat (it took about 15-20 years to west to get such stuff)
Ahhh one more... another wooden wonder around is La-5/7 - BTW top ww2 allied ace Kozhedub had flown this wooden wonder.
I always wonder when West would stop consistently underestimate Russian designs. I assume that Chinese would finally have their plane that does not fall far from western but cheaper and in greater numbers.
I'm not telling that Sukhoi PAK FA is not in problem especially after Putin puts hist own country into economical death spiral.
But yet forgetting history is something very-very common ;)
Look at the problems were having with the F-35, our 4th stealth airplane.
The problem with F-35 isn't its stealth. But rather an attempt to design 3 planes in one by a committee, push every possible and impossible tested and untested technology call everything else obsolete and finally not doing proper risk management.
Take a look on F-117... Have blue had flown first time in 1977 and in 1983 F-117 entered service (6 years from the concept design to service) and F-117 first flight was in 1981(!).
It was good design that concentrated in a specific task.
What F-35? Is exact opposite, no wonder it didn't "fully take off" yet.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 08, 2015, 11:26:41 AM
Well its hard not to "underestimate" an airplane so badly designed even the designer wont build it or share any info with the co-financier, and only customer. Were not talking legacy fighters here, were talking stealth ones. Its like comparing vacuum tubes to super computers.
The Chinese have a worse record of engine design then even the Russians and there is no hard evidence to think theirs will be any better. Do remember both are closed societys and release only what info they want to. Meanwhile the Mil/Indust power in the west love to tag along cause it gets them very big budgets for new shiny toys that make them a lot of money.
The F117 was developed during the height of the Cold War which could have gotten "hot" very, very quickly. There were no financial constraints attached to it, no congressional oversight, no people from a dozen countries posting in forums about it. It was a one sentence black hole in a budget report where endless streams of money poured in with no questions asked. Also, compared to the F35, its a very simple airplane.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Plawranc on June 08, 2015, 10:47:14 PM
The Russians are far more capable and far more deadly an adversary than many realize. And Putin is quite possibly the most dangerous man in a position of power in the world. Underestimating either the Russians or their leader is a grave mistake that many a man has made. And all of them lived to regret it... and died because of it.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: FBKampfer on June 09, 2015, 12:45:59 AM
Should have done just two versions, one for Army and Marines, one for the Navy.
Both should have an internal gun. We've seen close air support is still useful, and that a gun is useful for CAS flights.
Large surge capacity, through simplicity and modularity of design. If we get in a large scale conflict, we need to be able to replace losses.
Centralized manufacturing. Radar and screens are one thing. But if the bastards don't make an ejector seat or the mounting hardware for the P&W engine, or whatever it is, they need to license the parts and tool up to crank them out right along side the airframe.
And to be clear, I didn't intend to say we've grossly misjudged requirements, only that we've made a mistake similar in kind, not in scale, as was made with the PAK-FA. Primarily, it seems to be because we're trying to build for and sell to everyone and their grandmother.
It's understandable, just not forgivable.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Brooke on June 09, 2015, 02:01:35 AM
Since when did Americans become so polarized, paranoid, and illogical about their politics?
You mean like the rest of the world? Still got a ways to go there. :rofl
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 09, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
Well except for nukes they really cant use, or they themselves would go <poof>, they actually have a very limited ability to project power other then right on their peripheries. They cant send airfields anywhere in the world at 30 knots, they have limited air lift, limited amphibious capability, their air force is far, far weaker then ours. Really across the board they are no match and when Putin says Russia isnt a threat to America and the west he means it. Where he is a threat is places like Ukraine where he can chip his way back to a semblance of an Empire while NATO is weak minded and in no mood to fight him over what they believe are scraps.
Like just Air Force-wise http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/us-and-russian-military-aircraft-full-comparison.html And when you figure in training, maintenance, interoperablity, avionics, networkcentricity and overall support the gap even widens more. Naval-wise they have always been hampered by geography and the USN keeps ruthlessly grinding on and on with technological advancements. Lasers, rail guns, stealth, sub hunting drones, improved missilry, mobility. Add to all that we have alliances and friends who share Democratic values. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/
I'd actually rate China as the more dangerous potential enemy now. Putin linked his revival/buildup so keenly on oil prices he is not at the mercy of a market nobody can really control and predict. There are to many players, many of whom dont like or trust Putin. The Chinese meanwhile, as Asians cleverly do, take the "Long View". They have already spent decades building relationships with resource rich nations and have undertaken, I believe, a more realistic military build up with long term achievable goals. That of Hegemony in Asia, most of all in resource rich area's that dont have an American presence.
The Russians are far more capable and far more deadly an adversary than many realize. And Putin is quite possibly the most dangerous man in a position of power in the world. Underestimating either the Russians or their leader is a grave mistake that many a man has made. And all of them lived to regret it... and died because of it.
Honestly if your going to make such a statement then back it up some way. It would be overly theatrical even if it was true, which it isnt.
Quote
When Moscow moved to annex Crimea in March, the U.S. Navy promptly sailed its new flattop USS George H.W. Bush into the eastern Mediterranean to reassure NATO governments. Bush‘s battle group included no fewer than 60 high-tech warplanes and several of Washington’s modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, armed with missiles and guns for fighting planes, submarines and other ships.
In response, the Kremlin sent in Kuznetsov. The aging carrier — much smaller than Bush — carried a dozen or so Sukhoi fighters. Her six escorts included just a single heavily-armed vessel, the Soviet-vintage nuclear cruiser Pyotr Velikiy. The other five ships included one small amphibious landing ship plus three support tankers and a tugboat.
The tugboat was along for a good reason. On the few occasions when Kuznetsov leaves port, she often promptly breaks down. In 2009, a short circuit sparked a fire that killed one seaman aboard the rusting vessel.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Brooke on June 09, 2015, 03:25:13 PM
Since when did people become so complacent, gullible, and ignorant about vital issues of governance?
Late 1800's would be mtmy guess
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Gman on June 09, 2015, 05:54:08 PM
I linked an article about 1/2 a year ago, from a reputable UK defense site, which did an in depth story on how India is really pissed at Russia because over 1/2 their SU fighter fleet is offline at any given time due to Russia not fixing their broken engines as they were contracted to do. It was greater the 50% of their fighters that were constantly unable of even taking off, much less doing anything else.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 10, 2015, 10:56:57 AM
Half a dozen F-35B training on USS Wasp. Pretty impressive to see them go through the motions of carrier operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6SRY5Zj3g
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on June 10, 2015, 11:23:22 AM
If history has taught us anything, the russians don't even need weapons. They just march millions after millions to be slaughtered until the opposite side runs out of ammo.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Someguy63 on June 10, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
I'm reading things that say their PakFa has better capabilities than our F22. I'm not saying I agree but just noting.
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Sabre on June 10, 2015, 11:55:47 AM
Just in the news: FAF is considering to upgrade the Hornet fleet to F35:s... we can probably afford 2 of them. :devil
One more than you need to RULE THE WOOOORRRRLLLLLLDDDDDD! (Okay, I may be slightly biased in my opinions...so sue me!) :airplane:
Title: Re: Russia's crummy little stealth fighter
Post by: Rich46yo on June 13, 2015, 10:37:13 AM
Quote
The Russian air force has seen three crashes in the past week to include two fighter jets and one strategic bomber as the Russians have increased flying operations to counter the NATO coalition.
Many have speculated that the Russians lack of maintenance and upgrades to aging aircraft may catch up to them should Putin’s military be called upon to activate large portions of previously dormant forces.