Starfish PrimeFirst Su-35S was delivered to the VVS in february 2014, at the moment they are completing the first series of 48 and another contract of 50 has been signed, add to them the 68 Su-34 and the 76 Su-30 consigned between 2010-2015 and you would get an idea of the real last generation Flanker production level.
So we’re looking at about 12 planes per year given that they’re still committed to replacing Su-24s with Su-34s. So it will likely take until about 2025 to have a third as many Su-50s as there are F-22s. Maybe they cut Su-30 production and end up with half as many?? Raptor production was about 40+/year at peak and F-35 production will likely be similar (or better given problems mentioned) for the US alone.
Starfish PrimeReally? Show you got the balls to do it..
Just like your pathetic little J-20 to 1.44 comment..
What balls would be required? Chinese conduct has already been ruled illegal by a UN court of arbitration = legitimacy. Subs and bomber hit military targets on islands with cruise missiles from 2,500km away if they start drilling other nations’ EEZs, and what’s China going to do about it? Try fly bombers across the Pacific to the US mainland. Sail across? That would be a really quick way to lose an air force and a navy and would probably result in mainland targets like CAC getting a cruise missile through the roof too.
Yeah, they just both happen to have quad fins at the back, which is a very distinctive feature. Then they added stolen F-35 intake designs and EOTS and Russian engines. Originality is not their strong suit.
http://www.kyaboss.com/chinese-copy-everything-25-crazy-pictures-showing-their-brand-replicas
http://www.businessinsider.com/things-that-china-copied-from-the-world-2013-8?IR=T
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/features/car-culture/its-a-knock-off-chinas-copycat-cars-at-the-2015-shanghai-motor-show/
Starfish PrimeYes, Google is my friend.. and now show me where does it say anything about one million dead..
I’ve read the figure somewhere but getting back to the original point, I’ve proven that in the case of Korea and Vietnam, plenty of Russian personnel were unofficially involved. Same with Ethiopian-Eritrean War, so saying that the operators were poorly trained doesn’t fly. Aside from that, many Vietnamese air men were aces.
Anyway I’ll make another thread for this, so people can talk about Syria ops in peace.
Starfish PrimeHow they are contemporaries, really? Different gen, different weight class. Even if you are ignoring the generation difference (which would reflect design goals), you can compare MiG-21 with F-5, not F-4, and F-4’s counterpart would still be Su-11.
Then I still disagree about comparing them such way. Its very much like comparing F-5E with F-15A, based on the fact they are introduced with a few year intervals and finding F-5 to be inferior.
US built F-86, Soviet MiG-15 built same year was inferior, so response was MiG-17 2 years later.
US built F-100, Soviet responese was MiG-19 2 years later.
US built F-104 and Soviet response was MiG-21 2 years later.This is due to US generally led the technological advances, and Soviets merely countered that in their best abilities.
Not really, the F-5E was a variant of an old design. The MiG-21 and F-4 were brand new variants in 1959 and 1960 respectively, just as F-86 and MiG-15 both arrived the same year. The Su-11 had worse raw stats than the MiG-21 anyway.
Or perhaps the F-4 was the response to the MiG-21, only 1 year later, both developments in parallel.
Starfish PrimeOne million dead? Woooow… ROTFL… educate us and tell us more.. please… 🙂
I’ll remind you next time the F-117 shootdown is discussed..
Who’s constantly producing these idiots? :confused:
Google is your friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_combat_losses_between_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_United_States
http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol12/felgenhauer.html
I make no excuses for that, it is what is, one visual range shoot down of an aircraft with no ESM or ECM over the course of 2,055 sorties. There’s a range at which stealth is effective and it isn’t 8 miles.
Who’s constantly producing these idiots? :confused:
Pierre Sprey and Picard.
Starfish PrimeUtter nonsense.. Vietnamese air force consisted mainly of MiG-21Fs, MiG-19s and MiG-17Fs. Later some MiG-21PF/PFM/MFs. Had the US encountered Soviet forces at that time, they would be facing Su-11-8Ms, Su-15TMs, MiG-23SM/Ms, MiG-25Ps and Tu-128s instead.
Discussed to death over and over.. The missiles were supplied second-hand, with partially defunct batteries powering the cryocoolers.. Poor storage conditions, poor training, firing the missiles from outside of the launch paramaters or from the very threshold of the acquisition range, take your pick.. It’s like a kid shooting an AK, you cannot really depend on the results.
The Soviets were flying many of the MiG-21s. MiG-25Ps only came out during the last year of the war, MiG-23 last 2 years. Su-15 and Tu-128s wouldn’t have changed anything. MiG-21s and F-4s entered service within a year of each other. Unfortunately factual history doesn’t meet with pretensions.
Strange because some of the pilots were Russian mercenaries.
http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=47
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)
And some of the same problems also affected Vietnam era Sparrows…. 15-20 years before the R-27 entered service….. so the comparison is still a fair one. You can tell this by examining Ritchie’s Pk vs the overall AIM-7 Pk.
Starfish PrimeHard to understand why the Global Hawk program didn’t specify at least comparable service ceiling, payload and sensors as the U-2 to begin with. There’s only so much you can do with a UAV with 20,000 ft lower altitude, half internal volume, 3/5th payload and engine power.
5,000ft lower, over twice the range, no pressure suits needed, no little wheels to hold the wings off the ground, easier to fly.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq4-global-hawk-uav/
https://www.jfcbs.nato.int/trident-juncture/page533373146
Starfish Primeits quite the opposite. as far as fighters goes. they might look like western aircraft. but there is a good reason why when given a choice, people will buy western or russian. Russia, even with all the support problems, accusations of price changes, things requiring early overhall and reliability, still seem to be the preferred source of aircraft over China. Even Pakistan which has very few options, are jumping at any opportunity to buy Russian.
And also why China themselves, despite the supposed awesomeness of their Flankers, are still buying super flankers. If you can build an Accord, why are you still importing Camrys?
Because plagiarism only gets you so far.
Starfish Primewith one air refuel Su-30MK has 5200km range. T-50 will be double of it.
http://eng.irkut.com/products/18/238/
:highly_amused: Or maybe the one in-flight refuel is how it reaches 5,400km.
Starfish PrimeThe guess quoted below is for two 3,300 pound/1,500kg bombs for the Pak Fa, given the size of the J-20 expect it to be comparable but the Chinese aircraft are even more secrete than the russians. You might ask Flateric on the Pak Fa thread for a much better assessment.
http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/sukhoi-pak-fa.html
Without official performance figures it will not be provable one way or the other. Technology is not a stationary thing though & for example I expect the F-35 will have increased range and be able to supercruise without the occasional use of afterburners when it gets the new variable cycle engine being developed by General Electric and the Pak Fa will be getting a type 30 engine.
No chance of fitting 1,500kg bombs in the bays of a PAK-FA. Too long and too wide. There are some other comical figures in that link too.
It’s a dead cert, it will not go 5,400km or 5,500km (as per link) on internal fuel. It has a 10% lower fuel fraction than an Su-35, so with some engine improvements and drag reduction it might hope to make roughly the same range as a clean Su-35 (3,600km).
Starfish Prime3600km is with 4AAMs and lattest figure is 11300 kg fuel on uacrussia website for Su-35.
Evidence?
Starfish PrimeDo we know which version of the R-27 the two sides used? There are a few.
Indeed we do know, it was a terrible version.
Utter nonsense.. Vietnamese air force consisted mainly of MiG-21Fs, MiG-19s and MiG-17Fs. Later some MiG-21PF/PFM/MFs. Had the US encountered Soviet forces at that time, they would be facing Su-11-8Ms, Su-15TMs, MiG-23SM/Ms, MiG-25Ps and Tu-128s instead.
Discussed to death over and over.. The missiles were supplied second-hand, with partially defunct batteries powering the cryocoolers.. Poor storage conditions, poor training, firing the missiles from outside of the launch paramaters or from the very threshold of the acquisition range, take your pick.. It’s like a kid shooting an AK, you cannot really depend on the results.
Soviet pilots were flying many of the MiG-21s. 1 million Russians lost their lives during the Cold War with no acknowledgement of participation.
Excuses, excuses, always excuses. Excuses why Western technology worked, excuses why Russian technology failed. I guess it depends whether you like making excuses, or whether you like winning.
Starfish PrimeIt’s the effectiveness of planes not the quantity. Like MIG-31BM2 more effective in implementing no fly zone. F-18E not . SU-34 easily dodge then to bomb Syrians.
Care to prove that. MiG-31, massive RCS target. Su-34, explain why it’s more effective than a MiG-29.
Starfish PrimeUtterly irrelevant.. The question is, can the US use the force to achieve its strategic objectives? Can they defend Taiwan strait vs China? Can it take over Spratleys if they see fit? Can they turn over Middle East? Can they force Russia to behave as they would like to?
These are the only things that really matter..
And the F-35 is just a copied Yak-141.. do you think you are the only one who can think out nonsense just to pi$$ someone off?
Yes, 2,000+ cruise missile attack to take out the nicely allocated rock targets in SCS.
Except it isn’t, not even close. Try again.
Starfish PrimeIt does not have to have half the drag, twice the thrust, twice the lift, half the wing loading,etc. as long as the total adds up to the claimed performance. I don’t think Sukhoi has announced any official figures.
The F-35’s weapon bay is probably about right for the size & shape of the aircraft, however because all fifth generation aircraft have internal weapon bays I would not consider the ones on the F-35 to be much of a compromise. The F-22, T-50, J-10, etc. do not have a STOVL variant to complicate airframe shaping compromises.
How many can carry 2,000lb bombs internally though?
Well someone has claimed 5,400km range for the T-50. The most it could have is about the same as a a clean Su-35 (3,600km) even with marginal improvements to engines and drag.
Sign In
