Here’s some new video of Russia’s second Sukhoi PAK FA stealth fighter’s first flight at the company’s Siberian plant in early March. It’s pretty good film of the jet which supposedly sacrifices stealthiness for better maneuverability against the U.S.’ F-22 Raptor. Speaking of maneuverability, watch for the shot of the PAK FA’s thrust vectoring engine nozzles in action at the 1:07 minute mark. You can also get some good views of what’s probably the jet’s infrared search and track pod mounted just in front of the cockpit canopy. This second PAK FA prototype is supposedly being used to test out some of the plane’s mission systems while the first plane , which flew for the first time last year, is being used to test out the actual airframe design.
This footage was apparently “officially leaked” by Sukhoi, according to a tipster.
Here’s more video of the new Russian fighter.
Here’s a little more info on the jet.
{ 99 comments… read them below or add one }
The might Red Air Force seems to have taken several techincal leaps ahead of the theU.S., and the Chicoms are nipping at hour heels regarding stealth technology and stealth fighters. It wont be long and we will become a second or third world nation.
As long as we keep electing people like Barack Obama the US will continue the slide downward.
Do you really think one president has the ability to drag the entire country down? It takes the combined effort of a president, the Congress, and the people to do that–exactly what happened in the 8 years before Obama was elected. Although he might do the same, it is too early to tell.
OK there was so much wrong with that post i dont know where to start. So first.
Ahead of the US…..How. Did they build over 100 of them about 5 yrs ago? Oh no they aren't operational yet are they. Stealthier or more powerful? No. More manuverable. OK but can they train enough to beat American pilots who train all the damn time, are the onboard systems better? Can they be built in large enough amounts? How reliable are they?<—that has been one of russia's biggest problems.
All that stealth tech? Guess where it came from. The US. Stolen not developed.
Surely you jest.
I can appreciate how important it is to be proud of your own country's military prowess, but do really think that Russia needs to steal other people's ideas? The rest of the world generally knows that the Russians have the best trained pilots and the most advanced jets. It's important to be objective when evaluating your own strengths, even if it means adopting a more sobering head-space. America's got the money and the numbers, but not the best quality. For the love of God, stop marinating everything with idiotic forms of national pride.
You mean the Russian Air Force pilots who hardly get any time actually flying? Or their Air Force that is largely using un-upgraded MiG-29s and Su-27s?
Really? What is it with people and Russia. Almost the entire strategy of russian arms was Quantity over Quality. Russian fighters never were the equal of their american cousins when they tried to go for high tech.
Lately they have been trying to take that away in their fighters. Many post cold war designs have been plagued by problems resulting from quality control. So yea…and thats not in just fighters but many different things.
They got there original stealth tech from the downed F-117. Anything else they need can be gleaned from our horrible ability to keep anything secure.
"Really? What is it with people and Russia. Almost the entire strategy of russian arms was Quantity over Quality"
It's only half-true. Some of Russian weaponary were designed for entire doctine "quality and superior capabilities".
For example, Tu-160 strategic bomber, Akula2 sub, SS-18 ICBM, S-300 SAM.
"Russian fighters never were the equal of their american cousins when they tried to go for high tech."
Things could change…
"They got there original stealth tech from the downed F-117."
There no reasons to think that Russians learned stelth tech from the downed F-117.
The russian employed an entire agency of more then 50000 people to just disseminate stolen technology from their spies abroad, they have a long history of this.
An enormous ammount of "soviet" tech was indeed stolen tech from the west.
Troll
Your too paranoid This plane is over 5 years from seeing front line service and by then hopefully Obama will be out of office and webe buying more F-22s again and updating F-15s to take these stealth flankers on.
Firefox incarnate!
LOL. Exactly what I was thinking. Paint it black, slap some canards on it, then call Clint. I sure hope our subs can still surface through ice to refuel it.
Canards would ruin front-aspect stealth
"The might Red Air Force seems to have taken several techincal leaps ahead of the theU.S., "
Where specifically?
Looking back old days and forward to the near future
- Aerodynamics((Su-27, Mig-29) were partially superior in some aspects compared to Western fighters.
- Engines with a 3D thrust vectoring technology which is finally developed and would be deployed on present and future Russian combat planes;
- Operational capabilities. Russian fighter jets can be operational from rough (unprepaired) airfields. While the most of Western fighet jets can't;
- Soviets introduced a helmet mounted display and "dogfight" missile(R-73) technology before West did it;
- Soviets invented first electronically scanned array radar (MiG-31);
- Russians developed ultra-long range air-air missiles (R-37 missile with a range up to 400 km, the killer of cruise missiles, AWACS aircraft, fuel tankers etc. ). PAK-FA should be able to carry those things in its weapons bays.
1. Partially superior, Western fighters were superior in other aspects. For example the F-15 was actually a better performer at higher supersonic speeds.
2. Even with 3D thrust vectoring you aren't going to dodge a AIM-9X Sidewinder or any other modern AAM for that matter. Against modern AAMs your best chance lies in fooling it via ECM or not getting locked on to begin with.
3. Mainly because most of their runways are in such awful conditions. Either way this only applies to some aircraft. Attempting to operate a Su-27 from a dirt airstrip is asking for trouble.
4. The United States had developed the AIM-95 Agile in the mid to late '70s. The project was dropped due to high costs however. Unfortunately it seems intelligence dropped the ball in regards to the AA-11 (R-73).
5. First electronically scanned array radar to be put into a fighter to be more precise. Either way it is considerably dated and was outclassed in some aspects by the final generation of mechanically steered radar.
6. There won't be room for too many of those in a weapons bay. Those are big Phoenix sized missiles. Range is supposedly around 300 km. Either-way I'm sure the USAF is looking into ways to counter these very long range missiles.
Ya know, there's probably a good, practical reason why the Russians never picked up the tradition of hosing the pilot down after an important hop.
frostbite?
That'd be it, yup.
LOL
@E_L_P , in the words of a Swedish fighter pilot 'you don't wanna fly up against the new Russian jets with AMRAAMs'… The Eurocanards with Meteor missile, IRST and wide scanning AESA's will be the hardest opponents the way things look right now. US is rapidly losing its edge.
You mean the AMRAAMski? As much as I think we should continue production of the F-22, we still have over 180 of them, plus upgraded F-15Cs, F-15Es, and Navy Super Hornets.
Oh well, maybe we can launch hundreds of cruise missiles against radars and SAM sites, and runways, and whatever they have won't even make it into the air. Just a thought.
You don't really think this plane is being devoloped to counter the west do you?I think Russia is looking at their neighbors to the south who seem to get more and more antagonistic every day.
I'm not really sure why it's being developed at all. The biggest threat to Russia is that it's a crummy place to live and the government isn't rolling its oil profits into countering the demographic tidal wave that is headed Russia's way. So I can't hazard a guess why they do anything they do with their defense procurement other than as a possible export.
There are 3 principal reasons:
To sell and make money.
To curb US power by selling them to other countries.
To maintain the industrial base.
The quality of life in large Russian cities is not far behind most "middle class" European countries. Level of life in Russian capitals could be compared with a most developed countries of Western Europe.
The latest tendencies in Russia's demography are also far from being a catastrophe.
Cruise missiles could be taken out by specialized mobile SAM / point defense systems.
Sure, but could they take out 600, because that's how many the 4 SSGNs we have could fire. Plus say add in what 30 B1s could pop off, which would be another 600. If we are going to get into one of these 'Xbox/Tom Clancy what if' discussions that is.
US is not fearing that great: massive, trillions of dollars debt, crippled growth, unemployment, inability to compete on global market, jobs being exported to Asia, no health care, and taxes wasted into weapons, and only more weapons. US GDP is so inflated, even funds that go through the correctional system are added. US weapons, like the F-35 are a disaster, with countless funds wasted. You forget what Russia is; the oldest superpower, who put first life into orbit, and accounted for some magnificent break troughs for humanity, such as beating Wermacht.
Russia has over 50 SSN-18-Satan ICBM's alone, each weighing at a staggering 450,000 pounds; each capable of carrying up to 10x800kt MIRV's. Russia has hundreds of Topol and Bulava land and submarine based ICBM's. In 2010, the new Yars-24 ICBM entered service. Russia fields world's best theater ballistic missile, Iskander (SS 26 Stone). Then there is Moskit, a Mach 4, sea skimming anti-shipper. There is R-37 anti-satellite missile. R-172, 400km anti AWACS AA missile. Russia makes the best anti-ballistics, S-300V4, as well as best AA missile systems, the S-400.
It is like they took the best part of the F-14 and combined it with the best of the F-22. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they did. In the mean time, we're so damn smart that we give our defense contractors a profit incentive to screw us. We give them a profit incentive to drag out development programs and drive up the costs, but we don't give them any profit incentive at all if they build a better weapon. We even have laws against them providing anything that is better than what our super geniuses in DoD procurement tell them to do. Then we wonder why we get screwed and why our weapons are crap. Yeah, gee, I wonder why that happens?
Actually, new Russian fightet jet have more common towards the Su-27 'Flanker" familiy. While T-50 is not Su-27 based aircraft (there're too many differences), but it's is more likely evolution of Flanker.
Ever wonder why the Su-27 looks so much like an F-14 without the swing wing? You should.
I doesnt look anthing like F14 ,has two engines and fins after that similarity stops
Su-27 is not near where ressemblence of Tomcat
Well, there you have it then.
It doesn't have to be overly stealthy, just stealthy enough to lower the PK of the AMRAAM to that of a Vietnam era Sparrow. AMRAAM has a combat PK vs poor targets of around 50 percent.
I'm sure someone has constructed a scale model of the Sukhoi T-50 and know how stealthy this aircraft is and probably know how much trouble the US will be in a few years when countries like Iran and Venezuela begin flying this jet also.
Computer pics of supposed T-50 production model (2015+) : http://img839.imageshack.us/g/sampleleft.jpg/
sorry but that is just pure speculation! I highly doubt the Russians have the money to attach this improvments anytime soon after paying the bill for development and testing.
Well, it's not closest perspective 2015+.
They still spending $billions on PAK-FA program.
Did anyone else notice that, unlike the first prototype, this one does not seem to have the longitudinal framing on the canopy?
I really cant see anything being more manueverable than the F22 without it being unmanned. The F22 has jaw dropping manueverability!
"I really cant see anything being more manueverable than the F22 "
Well, when it's compared with the F-22, PAK-FA(T-50) has some advantages in terms of aerodynamics:
- LERX (Leading edge root extensions). It could help in maneuvering at high AoA;
- 3D thrust-vectroing (require widely separated engines (F-22 has what's called 2D TVC)
- All-movable vertical stabilizers (more control power at low speeds and high speeds);
- Wide fuselage and large wings (great lifting power);
- Less "fat" airframe compared to Raptor. It means less drag for T-50 and better sustain supersonic speeds;
- PAK-FA's advanced anti-G suit which is integrated into fighter's flight control system. Integrated computer controlled pilot supporting system prevents loss of consciousness by pilots on extremely high-G maneuvering. It's helps to keep up proper breathing(controling the pilot's oxygen mask) and blood circulation(by pressing critical body parts).
3D Engines are not superior to 2D!!!! that's a mistake that many of you people make! If you point the nose of the plane to the left or to the right while in flight, you immediatley loose most of your speed. Conclusion you are not able to gain altitude while pointing your nose to the left or right of the X-axis.
Drag is always the negative of speed. And speed means the ability to gain altitude which on the other hand is one of the most important advantages in A2A combat. Ask a pilot.
It is one reason why super maneuverability is not really efficient in A2A. Because the more extreme a maneuver is the more loss of speed has to be expected!
3 into 1 post.
What thrust vectoring allows the pilot to do is point the nose quickly in the near- and post-stall part of the envelope, where the aerodynamic surfaces mush. A great A2A aircraft is (in one aspect) one that can gain or dump energy quickly, that's the essence of John Boyd's work on energy-maneuverability and fast transients.
It looks like a real deal there. Looks low profile, low observable. I would not under estimate its capability.
I know squat all about stealth and aircraft design, but I will say it is pretty. Not bad looking at all for a Russian design. If they could just do something with those engine nozzles though, they look like an afterthought.
"If they could just do something with those engine nozzles though, they look like an afterthought. "
They would do replacement of the "Su-27-looking" engine nozzles actually.
The currect engine Saturn's "117" is intermediate power plant.
The future "fifth gen" engine for PAK-FA should have "stealthy" flat nozzles, besides from strengthened thrust, service life and improved supersonic capability.
I wonder how a T-50 would do against a UCAV, like the X-47B, Phantom Ray, Neuron or Taranis
think about it
- UCAVs will have incredible stealth, they are designed around it, making them extremely hard to detect with radar
- their IR will also be extremely low: contrary to the T-50 or the F-35 with their classic engine exhausts (http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/2509.jpg), UCAV exhausts seem especially designed to hide the IR signature (http://upintelligence.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/x-47b-02.jpg)
- the cost of a T-50 or F-35 is estimated at $100+ million, while a UCAV would be around $50 million. add to that there's no pilot worth millions in training inside and a UCAV is a fearless (a huge advantage in any combat), and this would be one scary match-up
- stock up the UCAV with IR missiles, have it use its stealth to outflank its targets, and then ambush them with multiple missiles before running off
- or put AWACS guided AMRAAMS on it and either outflank or use radar emissions to detect the T-50
T-50 more likely would have much reduced IR-signature with future engine on production-ready aircraft.
Modern days UCAVs still are not able to replace manned air-superiority fighter jets in air to air combat. Period. Without the adequate A.I., they are stll remote controlled. That's means UCAVs vulnerable to jamming techniques and those machines could not be suitable dogfighters.
a Predator engaged an Iraqi Mig back in 2003; you don't call two aircraft shooting missiles at each other air-to-air combat?
and this wasn't a 300 billion dollar, 20 year development program, this was an oversized RC toy plane combined with some "you know, we have some spare Stingers lying around…" attitude because $100 million fighters couldn't deal with the enemy hit-and-run tactics
modern day air combats are no longer "dogfights", the F-35 is specifically designed around the "missiles do the turning" principle. in this world were numbers, stealth and technology decide the winner, UCAVs could be king, flying themselves most of the time, and only using their undetectable SATCOMS to relay target images, receive attack clearance and tactical advice. they engage the enemy at range, using wolf pack tactics to draw enemies into ambushes. not as heroic as dogfighting, but with a higher succes rate, less risks and certainly a better way to spend the tax payer's money
Last I checked, the MIG shot down the predator without any issue whatsoever, that really doesn't help the argument that drones are capable air to air combatants.
a) the Predator failed to kill its target because the missile failed. you put a Stinger on F-22 and it won't do much better. put a Sidewinder or an AMRAAM on a Predator, and it'll be almost as capable as any manned fighter, but at a fraction of the cost
b) after this incident, the Iraqis launched no other fighters. so even though they won the battle, the Iraqis lost the war for air superiority, a result manned fighters could not achieve
c) the Predator lost and went down. it cost maybe a million $, and no one cared. yet if a manned manned fighter goes down this is a potential political disaster, because one or two tortured pilots will turn the public opinion against the war
but until now, manned fighters are proven concept and it works good for a very long time. On contrary, UCAVs haven left labs tests. Until today, drones still require operators in combat. So, for this decade, manned fighter will still the mainstream of combat aircrafts.
for now a turboprop trainer will give any UAV run for their money in Air to Air ,let alone squaring it against a modern air superiority fighter that has sensory and weapons package that costs and weighs as much as most UAVs ,not to mention that UAVs are piloted by human pilot in a trailer with limited situational awarness again due to very limited sensors that are required to do ground attack
the F-35 and the T-50 are also still very much test-lab aircraft. at this pace, the first UCAVs could be fully operational at about the same time. at that point governments around the world will have to ask themselves which gives better value for the money?
and things would change very fast if ever the West faced off against a REAL enemy force, one that actually shoots back effectively. suddenly, losing pilots and very expensive aircraft will seem absurd when you can field expendable, cheap U(C)AVs to do the same job better
as for situational awareness, there are currently several systems being developed, all of them use an F-35 like optical detection system for avoiding other aircraft, but that same system could very easily be used in combat, giving U(C)AVs a 360 degree, 24/7 awareness. combined with a much higher G-tollerance and no fear of death, that would make for a scary enemy indeed
and the need for constant pilot guidance is also purely theoretical: SAMs and AMRAAMs don't have constant human guidance either, yet they are perfectly capable of finding and intercepting their targets, using occasional tactical human input at best
It's great ideas… in theory. But there are lot of nearly intractable problems(with the modern day tech) to make the air-air capable UCAV today. That's why air forces around the globe still rely on manned aircraft. For example, F-35 was estimated to be “air superiority capable” until at least 2040 in long-term perspective.
Combat drones of modern day and next decades would be used for preprogrammed or remote controlled strike missions only, w/o any valuable air supremacy.
I don't see how stealthy this thing could be with that IRST sticking up front, the round engine nozzles and underside engine profile, the lack of a serpentine engine inlet, and a metallic cockpit frame with rivets everywhere.
Looks like the LO treatment is still very immature and the coatings needed to make that thing even as stealthy as the F-35, barring breakthroughs in materials, would be very expensive to apply and maintain.
Sapphire glass or radar absorbent materials inside the IRST "bubble" could help to keep the stealthiness. Also, it might be intermediate implementation of the IRST. The current engine is intermediate power plant. Russians refused serpentine inlets because it's requires too much additional "dead space" inside the fuselage. They would use variable radar blockers instead. C()cKpit might be frameless in production model. Rivets everywhere in every modern days fighter jet.
Coating unlikely would be used until the late prototype or preproduction aircraft would rolled out.
Has anybody noticed short runway, dynamic and strong takeoff, rapid lifting of the T-50-2 w/o afterburner? It's should be able to operate from rough or badly prepared airfields. Look at the strong landing gear!
There were the reports that Russians want to develop naval version for aircraft carriers. Very viable design, in my opinion.
Russian weapons had a tradition of reliability, their performance maybe lesser than their counterparts from the west, but it works in almost any conditions.
That is simply not true!
Russian made planes are a nightmare for every technician on the ground. It is very (very very) hard to reach the parts inside of the plane. Google some Red Flag experiences the Indians have made with their MKI. They had much much more workload on the ground than their western colleagues. I can remember that it took us about 72h to simply replace a german MIG-29!! It was horror! We often had to import some ground personel from Russia (directly from Mikoyan) for just making sure that the Mig will go up.
It maybe that the Sukois are a bit easier to maintain, but overall it is pure horror. Not everything that is marked as russian export is as reliable as an AK-47!
*it was a engine we replaced and that had taken us almost 72h.
well maybe you are right about the maintance nightmare, but it still doesn't change the fact that they could OPERATE(discluding the maintance) in most conditions
If you look closer at the plane it has FOD screns for teh engine and mudgards on teh wheels to operate from austere strips,russian airfield are auster and very few NATO planes would be anle to operate on them for any lenght of time .No manual stone picking by hand pre flight procedure here ,so stealth costings are probably not as high tech as on F22 but at teh same time not as mantenance intensive .
F22 had a severe corrosion issue due to the coatings 2/3rd of Raptos had to be grounded and sent to depot for repairs.
So…as long as you have hard and factual intel always & guranteed 200% sure as sure…
you can always take out the air-fields these "birds" are on and supported by over-the- horizon map of the earth "super long range" steathy missles / hyper-sonic missles with air-field cratering sub-munitions….
These birds still need their "roosts"….no roosts….no sorties…
In the air, really wonder how these new russkie birds will pan out vis-a-vis with the F22/Typhoons?
Or Will the tech advantage/pilot experience be the decider in the end? Or the air tactics be it strategical or at a tactical level be another decider….or the logistics/ground crew support? many variables….
Good day all.
Did you see the rivets all over the aircraft, No stealth there. They will need a good stealth coating to cover those, then the maintenance comes.Have they developed a way to measure the all band stealth after the maintenance to check its effectiveness? Lots of problems to overcome.
Did you ever seen F-22 or F-22 without "stealth" coating and paint job? I am talking about prototypes or unfinished planes on the production lines. They have a lot of so called "rivets" all over the aircraft.
Yes, we have a lot of questions about the quality of Russian stealth coating. But we should be confident that Russians are not newbies in materials science and stealth technology is not cloudy thing for them as many people tend to believe.
That plane still reminds me of the YF-23 http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fi…
Like Stratege notes above, even the F-22 has rivets. Here is a good image of a painted jet and rivets are still visible. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?att…
That's exactly what I was thinking! It really, strongly evoked that when I first viewed that video.
I don't get your paranoia this plan IF and that's a IF sees service in Russia it'll be over 5 years away. This plane and the Chicom J-20 are inferior to the F-22 and F-15 in speed and weapons load. Dont worry. Fear Iran getting Nukes far more than this.
1. why they should be inferior and in what terms?
2 . where you got the info about speed and weapons load of both t-50 and j-20?
I wish F-22 has IRST… Anyway, I doubt the Russians will put stealthier engine nozzles on th PAK-FA. Why bother even putting 3D nozzles on there if they werent going to keep them.
The F-23 had IRST. See where that got them.
Who is trolling here?
It's just my own opinion, which is based on information from public sources. I can admit that i was wrong with "less fat airframe" term. What i had in mind when i talked about, it's smaller frontal area of the T-50 airframe, less size of vertical tails. Apparently, Sukhoi engineers have significantly reduced frontal RCS and drag power (fluid resistance) in the airframe design.
Don't worry about the Russians and Chinese having better weapons than we have. That's not what's important. What's important is the fact that our defense contractors are making RECORD PROFITS. Plus, our defense contractor CEO's are making millions, MILLIONS of dollars per year. Point to a single Russian or Chicom that can say the same?
There is nothing wrong with the status quo in the US defense industry. It is doing exactly what you want it to do. If you didn't want these defense companies to screw you, then obviously you wouldn't pay them more to do just that. I mean, only an idiot would pay a pofit incentive for a company to screw them and then wonder why that happened, right?
I think Russia is very heterogeneous country in many ways. While it has some depressing regions, many areas are quite decent places to live.
Drinking the water in second largest Russian city = death ? Is it joke?
If you have ever had Giardia, you wouldn't think its a joke! That is one evil bug, and St Pete has water pipes so old they can't get rid of it for long. A buddy of mine got it within a day of arriving in St Pete and we found out it was rampant there. Locals claim you can usually brush your teeth safely, but even that isn't recommended. I had Giardia in Nepal, it is a miserable experience, the bathroom they put me in had a toilet on the left wall and a sink opposite it on the right, I think they located the sink there intentionally because I was using both facilities simultaneously for a day. My friend wasn't so lucky. http://www.saint-petersburg.com/essentials/emerge…
the pak fa has a lighter airframe , more powerful engines and less drag – supposedly , than the Raptor
you have no idea what youre talking about.
I'm sure you'd know.
One Answer to supermaneuverability just picture a clock which is 360 degrees each number represents a chamber or compartment that houses a missile. This would be located in the underbelly of the jet and would extend when firing and would retract as not give away the jets steathiness. being the dimensions appear like a clock the shape of the firing mechanism could also be contoured underbelly of the jet. One can quickly yaw or roll right to give 3D 360 degree of attack. This would be called a 360 degree multidirectional lauch capability.
0h i forgot the chambers should also have the capability of rotating just like a gun barrel
The SU-35 and PAK / T-50 will be great aircraft IMO. The question that comes to mind for me is will Russia be able to produce these aircraft in numbers? Despite what Russia says, that they want 100's of these aircraft , they only have 48 SU-35's on order. And as other people have posted, will Russian pilots have the training needed?
The Russian Airforce publicly announced thier restructuring in 2010, possibly due to thier proformance in the Geogian conflict. Inpart a lack of experienced pilots, and lack
of discipline.
Stratege you have some very good points, but nothing new that the U.S. Airforce didnt already know. The Russians are the Masters of supermaneuverability aircraft but as some have pointed out by losing energy ( speed ) could be fatal as well.
Where the western aircraft have an advantage is in the avionics. IMO
"The SU-35 and PAK / T-50 will be great aircraft IMO. The question that comes to mind for me is will Russia be able to produce these aircraft in numbers? Despite what Russia says, that they want 100's of these aircraft , they only have 48 SU-35's on order. And as other people have posted, will Russian pilots have the training needed?"
AFAIK, those numbers are only first purchase orders.
How many they will buy? It would depend on economic situation in Russia.
In Georgia, Russia had used their "second rated" air force formations.
"Supermaneuverability" is meaningful thing. I see PAK-FA as superior supersonic performer, not just as amazing low speed dogfighter.
It's true about the avionics, while the tech gap was not too big.
The failing of the UAV is that they are configured for the ground role. They transmit real time high resolution video from one corner of the globe to the next.
In all honesty, you probably don't need to transmit /video/ to build a picture of the battlespace for a UAV fighter, even teleoperated. A UAV needs to transmit radar data in real time and receive instructions on how to fight. If position/velocity/acceleration data of the UAV itself is transmitted back to a controller in real time, all you need is additional position/velocity/acceleration data for the bogies you have to engage.
Bandwidth is what is really killing the UAV right now, bandwidth the United States doesn't have in quantity. Yes they can be jammed, but it opens a can of worms in terms of anti-radiation missiles to triangulate on jamming systems. Jamming seems to remain out of the hands of non-state players, who otherwise would be jamming Predator UAVs and parading captured UAVs all over Al-Jazeera. I imagine Israel would love to jam Hezbollah UAVs, or Iran would love to bring down a Predator from jamming and claim the credit as "new technology". It doesn't seem to exist yet?
Talking Points:
Thrust vectoring counts for little when the heat signature looks as big an F-15C…
Cockpit canopy… LegoLand?
Ferry Distance =? Refeuling done how…?
How many of these planes are going to make their max service hours flying out of Siberia… Just where are their access points from the Russian coast…? As long as their refueling bases are knocked out, they’re not going far past Russian airspace…
If the U.S. knows how strong a radar signal it would take to find an F-22, and who has what, the element of surprise is a moot point.
Now, what about the T-50-2′s design characteristics… what a profile… long, straight edges, just begging to be picked up on radar…. air intakes like a whale’s mouth…
As far as selling those planes go I don't think thats going to happen for many years.The Russians should have learned their lesson by now about selling their top line aircraft to foreign countries while their own Air Force is flying 20yr. old planes they can barely keep serviced.They are going to keep this one to themselves and completely rebuild their military-if all the spending reports are accurate.
India is already paying billions for them
A population that is shrinking, getting older and less educated is a disaster. Not sure how you would consider it otherwise.
a) Please provide any reliable source about MiGs downed by drone.
Since remote control channel could be jammed, UCAVs/drones has all chances to become expensive but useless toys. Decent A.I. does not exists.
b) Iraqis lost the war mainly because they had obsolete fighter jets(2 – 3 generation), also they were outnumbered in most situations.
c) Yeah, that's argument. But it's nothing to do with a air superiority made by drones.
Seriously? while true about sometimes lets look at those.
Tu-160
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
Looks mighty familar doesnt it?
Yes akula's are good hunter killers But. Ever seen the inside of a russian sub? Nightmares. but not bad subs as far as capabilities. And there Sams were…..Ok russia was always FAR more into ground based missile systems than the US. Russia wanted to rule the airspace from the ground the US from the air. This was partly due to the above Quantity over Quality and also because the US maintained a lead in aviation.
Also the russians built one Hell of a anti air blanket.
Tu-160 looks similar to B1, while it's bigger and twice as fast as Lancer. It is quality plane, isn't? Russians has plans to modernize their Blackjack fleet and rearm those bombers with stealthy strategic cruise missiles.
Ever seen the inside of 80's era American "Los-Angles" SSN subs? It's pretty similar to what you can see inside the 80's Akula.
Su-27 and MiG-29 are unlikely were designed in concept of "quantity over quality", those aircraft were designed to reach parity with American 4th gen.