PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

[SkolZkiy]

Also, reguarding the PAK-FA....if Russia can't even build a working SU-35, how are they going to build a more advanced fighter??

You are so funny guy - it's in test stage. Did you already have F-35?? no, only building. Did US had something like 90's in Russia?? No. US and our fuc..n politicians almost destroyed our country and now it is reviving - a little time (5-10 for history is nothing) and you'll see rebirth of military superpower. May be not in sea but on land no doubt it would.
Right now US has advantage in sea and air and may be equal on land. But it is not an unchanging constant.

 

[Haavarla]

You are so funny guy - it's in test stage. Did you already have F-35?? no, only building. Did US had something like 90's in Russia?? No. US and our fuc..n politicians almost destroyed our country and now it is reviving - a little time (5-10 for history is nothing) and you'll see rebirth of military superpower. May be not in sea but on land no doubt it would.
Right now US has advantage in sea and air and may be equal on land. But it is not an unchanging constant.

Easy people.


You can say a lot of thinks about Russian Aviation through the time of history.
But the fact that Sukhoi survived the break down of soviet and are doing fine, consider the eco-crises these days..

Didn't Sukhois "Superjet" do pretty well at Le Bourget 2009?

"Quick question for you Roberto. I see you buy into the Russian propaganda. Here we go...Simple, how can Russia afford it? Lets see....you have 125 million people, and dropping every year. You need warm-bodies to grow an economy. Economics 101, kiddo."

As you mention above.. not bad for Russia to break the threshold of 5-generation fighter on their own.
Russian aviation history is still pretty young, lets give them a little more time shall we?

"Also, reguarding the PAK-FA....if Russia can't even build a working SU-35, how are they going to build a more advanced fighter??"

Just the fact that Soviet/Russia forsighted the future of the Heavy-fighter concept(Su-27), speaks for itself.

Just look at many of those western fighters.. gaining more weight and more internal fuel storage and less external fuel storage.

Imagine that the Soviet/Russia planned this in their mid 70's..

Shukio have several admirable product like the Su-27 series.
And the Russian Aviation sub-contractors are gaining on the western
high-tec.
Perhaps they never will reach the same level as the west but all the same i think they are gonna make history with the PAK-FA.

I'm quite sure they manage to do fine with the PAK-FA when the time comes..



Thanks

 

[localhost127]

I'm quite sure they manage to do fine with the PAK-FA when the time comes..



Thanks

but you understand how hard that may be for some people to swallow when they have yet to produce an operational LO/VLO platform. there seems to be quite the learning curve with regards to the western platform evolutions - how can you be so confident that the PAK-FA will be able to start at such a high level of LO without having any generational/supporting technology behind it to learn from?

gf is constantly bringing up the ground based pole / radar testing. i'm not familiar with the details, but from what i recall he spoke of only the US possessing these at this current time? what type of testing facilities does russia have, or have experience with when it comes to 5th generational VLO applications?

it is a bit dubious to see the confidence - "just you wait and see" type discussion, when the country of discussion has yet to produce an operational LO platform. that is the reality.

Russian aviation history is still pretty young, lets give them a little more time shall we?

i don't think anyone is downplaying that - just questioning whether they can make the jump in such a short period of time. i would only imagine the learning curve would be quite difficult to overcome with regards to the time dimension

 

[Haavarla]

localhost127;177088]but you understand how hard that may be for some people to swallow when they have yet to produce an operational LO/VLO platform. there seems to be quite the learning curve with regards to the western platform evolutions - how can you be so confident that the PAK-FA will be able to start at such a high level of LO without having any generational/supporting technology behind it to learn from?

gf is constantly bringing up the ground based pole / radar testing. i'm not familiar with the details, but from what i recall he spoke of only the US possessing these at this current time? what type of testing facilities does russia have, or have experience with when it comes to 5th generational VLO applications?

it is a bit dubious to see the confidence - "just you wait and see" type discussion, when the country of discussion has yet to produce an operational LO platform. that is the reality.

Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan has said that the PAK-FA will be the Russian answer to the F-22A.
But he hasn't said anything about its VLO application.

Maybe it will be under pair with the F-22A, i would be very suprised if it wheren't..

But then again maybe it will be better at other branches like Aerodynamics, prize, service ability and multipurpose role.



Besides we don't have any choice, we have to wait and see.



Thanks

 

[roberto]

Quick question for you Roberto. I see you buy into the Russian propaganda. Here we go...Simple, how can Russia afford it? Lets see....you have 125 million people, and dropping every year. You need warm-bodies to grow an economy. Economics 101, kiddo.

I dont buy anyone Propaganda. Russia population will increase with time but UKraine/Belarus/Kazakhistan will decrease due to internal migration/superior mineral wealth.. There is no Mexico on borders to make it third world. nor Russia needs any one From India/China to run its Universities/Corporations. It has surplus scientific pool.
Why do u think Sukhoi SSJ was the only new aircraft flew at Paris? Think over its various components and its integration and manufacturing challenge in Siberia.

Also, reguarding the PAK-FA....if Russia can't even build a working SU-35, how are they going to build a more advanced fighter??

Su-35 is flying and is the only fighter aircraft in the World that has Supercruise in its first flght from 5 to 11 km height. Superb confidence on aircraft from First flight. Why do u think PAK-FA will not Supecrusie on its first flight.?. They are making all composite 5th generation fighter.

Here is some TRUE news. Your advanced Sukhoi fighters, where destroyed 140:0 by American F-15's

Key point is it is not Ruaf nor is the number matches.
You cannot compare Russian training/tactics/quantity/strategic doctorine with third World countries shiit holes. Let Third world first produce Gymnasts/Mathematcians/Software programers/Physists like Russia than talk about Aviation of third world countries.

I love Russian and Chinese propaganda....all bark. no bite.

Surely. Both countries are free from debt and regular supplying goods of daily use for rest of the world.

UPDATE 1-US lawmaker troubled by sag in support for defense | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
If we don't build F-22s, and the maintenance problems continue to be as severe as they are, that means we wouldn't have F-22s available if something happened," he said, noting that maintenance costs currently amounted to $50,000 an hour.

This is the current maintainance cost of F-22. what will happen after 10 years of use. I dont expect Sukhoi building some thing stupid like this otherwise Russia will have to borrow money from China to make it fly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Always remember modern Stealth ideas came from Russian scientist. The rest of countries are just on paper. they cant make 21st century Stealth fighter. Key emphasis is 21st century time line for next 50 years atleast.

LO (which is the correct terminology - NOT "Stealth") did not come from the Russians. They contributed along with many others.

a brief recap for you on a history of LO development I wrote some time ago in another thread:

I think there are a couple of things that need to be determined first.
The most obvious is the definition of "stealth". Stealth is currently a buzzword typically thrown around in debate, and usually (and most commonly) with reference to platforms like the F-22 and JSF.

I guess at a personal level I get a bit irritated at that view as it dumbs down a very complex subject into a packaged "retail" type answer.

The whole basis of stealth is one of "low observability". very few people in industry use the term "stealth" as it's incorrect - it leads to follow on arguments by the more enthusiastic but less technically astute to also mumble about "invisibility" - when its clearly not.

So, LO platforms have been around for a while and need to be considered in the construct of an ability of a sensor system to correctly identify and respond defensively. The history of LO aerial management is important to look at as it shows why LO adapts and evolves and why it’s a moving feast that can't be pigeonholed as an obsolescent capability. I.e. it’s evolved over the last 90 years and will continue to evolve.

So, if I give a really brief history of Stealth concepts based around LO requirements, then it would be as follows:

E.g. the first stealth aircraft was in 1912 - it was a Taube biplane that had clear cellophane type skin named Emaillit to make it transparent vis a vis it's "bulk". LO was regarded as a visibility issue.

The second stealth aircraft was in 1913, (it was a monoplane) - the Germans decided to take it one step further and decided to retain the cellophane surface but to also paint the frame the same colour as the sky, i.e. blue/grey.

The third iteration of this was when the Germans fielded modified Fokker E111's in 1916; Emaillit was replaced with "Cellon". They then tried the same tech on a variety of different aircraft including an albatross, aviatik, rumpler and even a few bombers (VGO-1 and an R-1) so, as can be seen nice idea in principle, but ignored the fact that the engine, fuel tank and pilot were sitting up in the air for everyone to see.

But it did show lateral thinking. LO was regarded as an extension of the previous management of visibility issue. Both concepts failed as the cellophane material actually behaved like a reflector, and the pilots spent most of their time "snow blind" due to reflections. On top of that, Cellon was a material developed for the automobile industry and was applied by soaking it in water, and then stretching it over the airframe. The problem here was that when it rained, the Cellon started to expand, and thus become loose. Not exactly the best thing for an aircraft skin to do...

The next LO aircraft (in relation to enemy sensor systems being able to identify it and respond) was when the British used to run what was called "ferret missions" into the Soviet Union in the late 1940's and 1950's. The British used modified EE Canberra’s. When the Soviets developed more persistently competent missiles, radar systems and procedures to intercept, the west coast hi-speed low level ferret missions were reduced and eventually stopped. LO was regarded as low level and high speed as the Soviets did not have radar systems that could deal with low level hi speed entry, and their method of controlling gave the advantage to the ingressing aircraft. At one point the English also went high altitude as the lightened Canberras couldn't be intercepted by the Soviets (this changed once decent SAMs were bought into play). The Canberra btw was used as initially the RAF were badging USAF B-45 Tornados (which were flying lemons)

As a legacy of the success and superiority of the EE Canberra’s, the US then developed their own solution which emerged as the U2 and family. The U2 was considered LO due to a number of reasons, primarily the fact that for a short window of time the Soviets were unable to reach out and touch it. This changed with the arrival of the SA-2.

So the absolute advantage of high altitude to escape SAMs changed the LO requirement immediately. The requirement for LO management then turned to high speed high altitude aircraft.

The first purpose built LO aircraft was the A-12. It was considered LO as the Soviets could not and did not have any system capable of intercepting it. Even though it was "hot" and radar visible, the Soviets had no system capable of catching it - even when they volleyed intercepts. The LO management was high speed, high altitude where the enemy had no meaningful and managed capability to intercept even though the aircraft traffic was identified (not the plane though).

The follow on to the A-12 was the RS/SR-71 Blackbird. What's significant about the RS/SR-71 was that it was the bigger cousin to the A-12. What's even more significant was that it was a much harder beast to see and intercept. The fundamental reason was that not only was it finished in signature managing technologies, but when they discovered the impact of chine’s around the nose cone area, they were able to reduce its frontal aspect radar emitting footprint by 90%. The LO management was high speed, high altitude, onboard Elint and shape management.

At the same time that the SR-71 was in play, the US had also started to use unmanned aircraft for subsonic, low altitude recce. Again, the environment they were used in gave the US advantages. Although they lost a number of platforms, it was regarded as a success as it acted as the development vehicle for UAV's, RAM management, signature management, and it involved the enemy reacting to the threat and thus providing USAF escorting aircraft with harvesting opportunities. The Firebees/Lightning bugs were used in various guises, not just low level, so they were an adaptive platform.

The LO management was subsonic, low, medium, high altitude, surface management (they actually used RAM "blankets") and in some cases, the use of escorting aircraft as emission benefactors (such as Wild Weasels). They also developed Elint versions of these platforms (147TE). The final product development would have been a low footprint high altitude model to be used over China referred to as the 154.

The next series of LO aircraft basically were from the "Senior xxxx", "Have xxxx" and "Tacit xxxx" series of platforms. These were completely different in their LO management, and this was due to a number of reasons. One was the final comprehension of some study done by Bahret (US, and radar cross sections), Wright (US and RAM development)

The real breakthrough though was due to some Lockheed staff (Schroeder and Overholser). They came up with the concept of faceting. The original equations for faceting were done by a Scotsman named Maxwell.

These were then modified by a German electromagnetic expert named Sommerfield who developed signature management equations for simple shapes. This was followed up by some discoveries by a Russian named Ufmitsev who came up with an approach that could be applied to more complex shapes such as discs. The Russian is often touted as being the key to the development of "Stealth" - he is not, but he is one individual along a long line of others who contributed to the comprehension of LO management in its infancy.

What bought Maxwell, Sommerfield and Ufmitsev's calculations and mathematical assumptions to fruition were the improvements made in Computing. Schroder and Overholser were able to marry all of the previous work into a computer model and then made their own breakthroughs.

I'll ignore current LO trends as otherwise response this will turn into a book.....

So, why the long winded history lesson? Well, that’s because "Stealth" or more correctly LO platforms are a moving feast, a moving technological development where the capability evolves against the response. What was regarded as "Stealthy" even 25 years ago is now obsolete and replaced with new technology concepts.

It's a mistake to look at Stealth as a single technology entity - it’s not, and that why when you get people stating that bi-static radar, or OTHR or sympathetically merged commercial solutions such as mobile phone towers hooked into the sensor grid make it redundant, then they ignore the fact that the technology is not static. It ignores things such as the fact that sensor systems find it very hard to discriminate between nature and manufacture, e.g. there is a reason why the west chose subsonic cruise missiles over supersonics - and it’s tied into the history of stealth/LO development. The classic example of that is HALSOL (as a concept)

e.g., the F-22 can literally be LO managed due to its design.
Something simple like sensor arrays along the wings are able to be upgraded or improved via software. The F-22 will continue to have a role as the capability to identify it and commit to it is "not easy". The plane is not "invincible" and it’s not "invisible" - but it’s not meant to be - it’s meant to be able to be used as part of a package to exploit a weakness in the defenders grid so that other assets can bring their own "additional" sympathetic violence or electronic "wedge" to bear.

The danger is that some amateurs (and I don't mean that to be disrespectful and am making a sweeping statement out of convenience to clarify positions) only consider single platforms, they don't understand, comprehend or appreciate that response is about packages and systems. It’s also why this forum doesn't allow "this vs. that" threads as it just dumbs down the debate to a meaningless cycle of "mines bigger than yours"

As an observation, IMO the next LO platform in real terms will be hypersonics, as it is the next leap forward where existing sensor systems struggle to cope with intercepting it in time. It will then adapt to MIRVed responses on top of that hypersonic vehicle, and it will include (as the Russians have hinted at) controlled flight MIRV's. I would think that controlled flight MIRV's would have a degree of AI rather than just the Yakhont type "pop-up" "pop down" characteristics.

In a weapons management sense, miniaturisation of the prev weapons into carriers such as the F-22 make it even more relevant, when you consider that the F-22 will operate as part of a package with Compass and Rivet support, Prowler/Growler, an ability to hook into ForceNET etc etc... You can start to understand that LO participation in future wars is here to stay.

There will always be evolving counter solutions to any effective capability, but LO has been in play now for over 95 years, and we're already onto 6th and 7th generation solutions at the UAV level


Btw, I haven't even touched on LO management for ships and subs - and that’s a topic in its own right a well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You cannot compare PAK-FA project with all the above projects.

The response was to rebut some trolling comment that western aircraft development is preceded by a public fanfare heralding something new.

The opposite is true - and its irrelevant whether the programs are black or white - the bottom line is demonstrated, latent, fielded ability.

The US is on it's fifth generation of operational manned combat aircraft, they are on their 6th generation of black FTS aircraft, they're on the 3rd generation of LO unmanned. These are all visible for everyone to criticise, as opposed to other countries decrying the capability but furiously trying to get their own into service. We saw the same silly fan club nonsense when other nations criticised aircraft aircraft carriers - and now they're all crowing about getting their own rebuilt or into commission.

The same fan club commentary accompanies LO developments. No doubt we will see a variation of the theme in here.

It's a whole lot easier to measure up whether the talk is cheap when a country has its demonstrated capability in service - and in the case of the
F-117, an already retired platform as it's been surpassed by other systems. Meanwhile, all the naysayers have yet to demonstrate anything beyond line art, a stillborn Berkut, a stillborn Mig33 and lots and lots of nationalistic enthusiasm.

When someone fields another actual physical 5th generation manned platform, then ring the town bell - because until then it's all talk. Or as paraphrased to me "they're all hat and no head"

 

[gf0012-aust]

F117: Not offered for export
B-2: Not offered for export
Oxcart, YF-12, SR-71: Not offered for export
U2-TR2: Not offered for export
Have Blue POC aircraft: Not offered for export

There's a world of difference between a black program that is never intended for the export market, and a fighter development program that is fully expected to be sold abroad.

The Russians have already lined up India as the first export customer for the PAK-FA, to help secure the necessary funding to launch the program. Yet outside of India, the Russians have been unwilling to share what the airplane looks like, or what its basic performance parameters are expected to be. You can contrast that with the massive amount of publicity that surrounds such aircraft as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, or F-35 - even before they were available in production.

I disagree, as I'm responding to an original post which was clearly a trolling comment and demonstrated no comprehension of what platform history exists.

It doesn't matter whether programs are black or white. Fielded capability indicates latency and/or competency.

The Indians are not a useful citation for PAK-FA as they are getting more than a little frustrated with their Russian commitments to date. They've been screwed on the Carrier, and there is a very real demonstration of angst from the exchequer that they should not be looking at russian gear anymore.

I said 2 years ago that the Indians were moving towards western gear - this was based on discussions with an Indian Mil Liaison Officer in Australia. I was absolutely lambasted by the pro-russian Indian cohort and by the obviously russian nationalists (to be expected) in this forum. It turns out that I'm right, and there is a progressive push towards more western kit, and that commentary is now becoming public within senior Indian ranks/flag officers.

Like my comment on the Indian change in procurement mindset, I am quite happy to sit back and let history prove my point. I am more than happy to take the hits when the facts get shown on the tarmac and we actually have more than vaporware to compare.

 

[fltworthy]

I think you're missing my original point. My apologies if I was less than clear. I never suggested that the PAK-FA was going to be all that the fanboys have predicted it would be. I merely suggested that:
a) The Russians have a historical tendency to keep their cards close to their chest; and
b) The Russians have additional reasons (like wanting to see the Raptor out of production) that would likewise lead them to avoid giving the USAF additional ammunition on Capital Hill.

As you may have noticed, the Russian salesmen have been pushing the MiG-35 and Su-35 programs at every venue they can find - aircraft that are hardly production ready. At the same time, however, they have little to show in the way of the PAK-FA - probably because they've been told to button it. If they didn't need India's buy-in (at least in name) to launch the project, the PAK-FA would probably have been a black program altogether. The reality however, is that given the state of the Russian economy they badly need foreign sales (or at least the prospect of foreign sales) to keep the PAK-FA funded and moving along (however slow that progress might be).

I said 2 years ago that the Indians were moving towards western gear - this was based on discussions with an Indian Mil Liaison Officer in Australia.

I would agree with this assessment. The War on Terrorism will probably continue to propel India in that direction. I also suspect - once the PAK-FA finally rolls out - that it will not be everything that the Indian Air Force had been told it was. For the time being, however, the Indian Air Force remains notionally interested in what the Russians have promised. We'll see if they remain that way when they see what the PAK-FA really has to offer.

I disagree, as I'm responding to an original post which was clearly a trolling comment and demonstrated no comprehension of what platform history exists.

Please be careful of what you assume. I know more of that "platform history" than I care to share. And just because I do not deign to visit this particular forum on a daily basis doesn't mean that I'm some blind fan of the PAK-FA.

If you want my opinion on what the PAK-FA will be when it finally rolls out, please ask for it - don't assume. And if I seem somewhat critical of the striptease that I see US contractors performing, I am doing so as a concerned citizen, not an outside critic.

 

[Grand Danois]

Or as paraphrased to me "they're all hat and no head"

Isn't this a Texan saying and should go: "all hat and no cattle", used to describe wannabees?

 

[SkolZkiy]

PAK-FA is something unknown. We look like Ufologies here - discussing something that we doesn't even seen on pictures not talking about something more real.

To Roberto - Fairly supercruise on Su-35 is not enough true. It was done with low fuel and without missiles on board and we don't know how exactly it was reached. Su-35 would be a good fighter but supercruise wasn't said to be it's feature, it would be seen after finishing tests. Supercruise depends much on engines and aerodynamics, main problem engines.

And I agree with fltworthy
Russia has a tradition of secrecy - in US manufactures try to show their new designs to get more money for these designs. In Russia there is no such a need because our people didn't try to see what is going on in OKB and what is developing - we think that militaries better know what they need and what for they need. I'm saying only about designing of weapons not about social or political problems which invovles army. By the way remember that Indian PAK-FA would be very different because of use western avionics possibly and of course two-seat configuration. Russian variant right now is not on sale.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you're missing my original point. My apologies if I was less than clear. I never suggested that the PAK-FA was going to be all that the fanboys have predicted it would be. I merely suggested that:
a) The Russians have a historical tendency to keep their cards close to their chest; and
b) The Russians have additional reasons (like wanting to see the Raptor out of production) that would likewise lead them to avoid giving the USAF additional ammunition on Capital Hill.

I'd agree with that, but I would regard it as a general society response as well as military response.. The very few russian military officers that I've come across have struck me as being very very withdrawn compared to even European equivs. I can't but help but think that the cold war mentality still exists in the mind of some.

As you may have noticed, the Russian salesmen have been pushing the MiG-35 and Su-35 programs at every venue they can find - aircraft that are hardly production ready. At the same time, however, they have little to show in the way of the PAK-FA - probably because they've been told to button it. If they didn't need India's buy-in (at least in name) to launch the project, the PAK-FA would probably have been a black program altogether. The reality however, is that given the state of the Russian economy they badly need foreign sales (or at least the prospect of foreign sales) to keep the PAK-FA funded and moving along (however slow that progress might be).

Russian military and commercial industry is certainly struggling. A good example of this are their maritime builds. Their pre-eminent flag waving subs had more cachet than their Rocket elements, and the quality of those boats would struggle at a quality level even against the O class conventionals

I would agree with this assessment. The War on Terrorism will probably continue to propel India in that direction. I also suspect - once the PAK-FA finally rolls out - that it will not be everything that the Indian Air Force had been told it was. For the time being, however, the Indian Air Force remains notionally interested in what the Russians have promised. We'll see if they remain that way when they see what the PAK-FA really has to offer.

The indians want to believe that all is well on the farm, but a classic example is Brahmos. If you look at how and why they were sold that solution, they have ended up getting screwed again. However, at least they managed to use elements of the program to develop some capability - but in the main, I personally believe that they got dudded.

Please be careful of what you assume. I know more of that "platform history" than I care to share. And just because I do not deign to visit this particular forum on a daily basis doesn't mean that I'm some blind fan of the PAK-FA.

If you want my opinion on what the PAK-FA will be when it finally rolls out, please ask for it - don't assume. And if I seem somewhat critical of the striptease that I see US contractors performing, I am doing so as a concerned citizen, not an outside critic.

My apols if you took it personally, but when I was referencing the issue of trolling, I was not referring to you. I was quite pointedly referring to the original post which lacked rigour - and as such technical accuracy if not diplomacy. That comment was not directed at you.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Isn't this a Texan saying and should go: "all hat and no cattle", used to describe wannabees?

Nope, both exist and I suspect mean the same thing. . I discovered the other one when having a scotch enhanced debate with a USN boatie the other week when he was describing someone elses posturing.

 

[roberto]

The response was to rebut some trolling comment that western aircraft development is preceded by a public fanfare heralding something new.

The opposite is true - and its irrelevant whether the programs are black or white - the bottom line is demonstrated, latent, fielded ability.

The US is on it's fifth generation of operational manned combat aircraft, they are on their 6th generation of black FTS aircraft, they're on the 3rd generation of LO unmanned. These are all visible for everyone to criticise, as opposed to other countries decrying the capability but furiously trying to get their own into service. We saw the same silly fan club nonsense when other nations criticised aircraft aircraft carriers - and now they're all crowing about getting their own rebuilt or into commission.

The same fan club commentary accompanies LO developments. No doubt we will see a variation of the theme in here.

It's a whole lot easier to measure up whether the talk is cheap when a country has its demonstrated capability in service - and in the case of the
F-117, an already retired platform as it's been surpassed by other systems. Meanwhile, all the naysayers have yet to demonstrate anything beyond line art, a stillborn Berkut, a stillborn Mig33 and lots and lots of nationalistic enthusiasm.

When someone fields another actual physical 5th generation manned platform, then ring the town bell - because until then it's all talk. Or as paraphrased to me "they're all hat and no head"

What does it matter if u have few hanger queens with questionable effectivess against modern airdefence systems. Russian projects are more practical, cheaper and effective for long term. Case in point is MIG-31.The fastest, high altitude, longest range missiles with biggest nose for radar radar upgrade. They called it rival for 5th generation fighters. and it has 50 years service life from spartan airfield conditions.
Su-47 berkut/MIG-33 were never Ruaf projects. only the previous MIG-MFI was Soviet Project that was abondoned for newer 21st century PAK-FA.

Russian approach to World affairs is more strategic long term and is completely different than US. and Russian weopons reflect that role. thats why Russia won the Cold war.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What does it matter if u have few hanger queens with questionable effectivess against modern airdefence systems. Russian projects are more practical, cheaper and effective for long term. Case in point is MIG-31.The fastest, high altitude, longest range missiles with biggest nose for radar radar upgrade. They called it rival for 5th generation fighters. and it has 50 years service life from spartan airfield conditions.
Su-47 berkut/MIG-33 were never Ruaf projects. only the previous MIG-MFI was Soviet Project that was abondoned for newer 21st century PAK-FA.

Russian approach to World affairs is more strategic long term and is completely different than US. and Russian weopons reflect that role. thats why Russia won the Cold war.

Oh good grief. Can we not suffer from the same silly commentary that lef to your last banning?

None of the aircraft mentioned are hangar queens. they've been force operational for years.

The Sovs never won the cold war. Russian inhereited a busted economy and a broken military where corrupt generals were selling off whatever unlocked kit they could sell off.

The french have built more nuke subs since the russians over the same time
The US has built far more ships - let alone capital ships than the russians have over the same year
The British have built and impressed into active squadrons more combat fighter aircraft than the russians have
The US has built and fielded more intercontinental bombers with LO capability than russia has fielded with conventional observability profiles
The Mig 31 is a ludicrous example of a bullish interceptor with high unavailability rates and used for a mission more useful for syria than russia (and not good for either).

Don't start your silly commentary again or you will be short lived on here. I for one do not have the patience to go through it again.

 

[roberto]

Oh good grief. Can we not suffer from the same silly commentary that lef to your last banning?

None of the aircraft mentioned are hangar queens. they've been force operational for years.

Anything can be opertional for years. t does not mean it is effective for its intended purpose.
Even Su-34 is flying since 1990 and has actually droped bombs.

The Sovs never won the cold war. Russian inhereited a busted economy and a broken military where corrupt generals were selling off whatever unlocked kit they could sell off.

Soviet won the Coldwar. Think harder you will get the answer.

The french have built more nuke subs since the russians over the same time
The US has built far more ships - let alone capital ships than the russians have over the same year

Buiting more ships/submarines does not mean u have more firepower. Russian long missiles especially Antiship is yet to be surpassed by anyone.

The British have built and impressed into active squadrons more combat fighter aircraft than the russians have

Russias upgraded Su-27SM which is 4+ fighter as is claimed better than Su-30MKI.
why do they need to produce more 4th generation fighters when they have several hundreds of them. As i said earlier UK/France are too behind to be even consider Russia peer competitors.

The US has built and fielded more intercontinental bombers with LO capability than russia has fielded with conventional observability profiles
The Mig 31 is a ludicrous example of a bullish interceptor with high unavailability rates and used for a mission more useful for syria than russia (and not good for either).

They already upgraded couple of BlackJacks. and have restarted on Tu-22.
Lo platforms are practically meaningless against Russian airdefence systems. u will not see any Lo platforms depoloyed near to Russian borders.
Why expose weakness of low observable platform. Even AWACS stayed away from Georgia when S-300 batteries enter the war zone.

Don't start your silly commentary again or you will be short lived on here. I for one do not have the patience to go through it again.

you always try to impose ur opinion without anyfacts to back up. Like MIG-31 is suitable for Syria but not Ruaf while not considering that Ruaf has 3 decades of experiance on platforms and have upgrade path for aircraft to make it suitable for 21st century.

Mod edit: A temporary ban has been instituted pending a final decision, as the prior bans seem to not have had the desired impact. When making a claim within a post, unless the claim is something which is considered common knowlege, it needs to be supported. A case in point is the claim that "Soviet won the Coldwar is widely considered a wild claim, as the then nation the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has since broken apart into separate nation-states again, additionally, nations which were once Soviet client-states are now independent and many have allied with once hostile nations. Absent any proof to support the claim made, it leads one to believe the claim was made to incite other members as opposed to sparking legitimate debate. Additionally, 'backtalk' to Moderator engaged in overseeing discussions is not acceptable behavior, particulary when one is being put on notice that a return to previously unacceptable posting behavior is not desired.
-Preceptor

 

[SkolZkiy]

From where is Roberto?? I'm from Russia I don't ever say we've won cold war
sory for offtop

 

[F35Owns]

Anything can be opertional for years. t does not mean it is effective for its intended purpose.
Even Su-34 is flying since 1990 and has actually droped bombs.

Soviet won the Coldwar. Think harder you will get the answer.

Buiting more ships/submarines does not mean u have more firepower. Russian long missiles especially Antiship is yet to be surpassed by anyone.

Russias upgraded Su-27SM which is 4+ fighter as is claimed better than Su-30MKI.
why do they need to produce more 4th generation fighters when they have several hundreds of them. As i said earlier UK/France are too behind to be even consider Russia peer competitors.

They already upgraded couple of BlackJacks. and have restarted on Tu-22.
Lo platforms are practically meaningless against Russian airdefence systems. u will not see any Lo platforms depoloyed near to Russian borders.
Why expose weakness of low observable platform. Even AWACS stayed away from Georgia when S-300 batteries enter the war zone.

you always try to impose ur opinion without anyfacts to back up. Like MIG-31 is suitable for Syria but not Ruaf while not considering that Ruaf has 3 decades of experiance on platforms and have upgrade path for aircraft to make it suitable for 21st century.

Mod edit: A temporary ban has been instituted pending a final decision, as the prior bans seem to not have had the desired impact. When making a claim within a post, unless the claim is something which is considered common knowlege, it needs to be supported. A case in point is the claim that "Soviet won the Coldwar is widely considered a wild claim, as the then nation the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has since broken apart into separate nation-states again, additionally, nations which were once Soviet client-states are now independent and many have allied with once hostile nations. Absent any proof to support the claim made, it leads one to believe the claim was made to incite other members as opposed to sparking legitimate debate. Additionally, 'backtalk' to Moderator engaged in overseeing discussions is not acceptable behavior, particulary when one is being put on notice that a return to previously unacceptable posting behavior is not desired.
-Preceptor

Wow, I don't know where to start. Since I want to avoid flamming, I'll add some useful info. Roberto, check out Google and type in phrases such as "Russian Navy", "UK Navy", and "US Navy"..and see the, true, data you will receive. I acquired most of my defense knowledge from the internet.

I've always found Wikipedia to be, mostly, truthful. About 98% correct, with some flaws, no one is perfect. You will learn all about aircraft, ships, bombers.

Don't drink the kool-aid, and find the truth about the defense world.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ah, wasn't funny anyway.

 

[Falstaff]

post deleted