From US:

F-35’s
F-22
SH/Growler

At least this is from the latest produced airframes in its Inventory. Dunno how long the F-15E will remain in service though..

UK:
F-35B
EF
???

dunno how long the Tornardo’s will last though..

France:
Rafale
RafaleM
Rafale

Germany:
EF
Tornardo’s
EF

In my humle opinion, VVS’s Hellducks is the most potent platform for a tactical bomber/striker role among these. It is bound the get New and better systems along the way.

We beat everyone there!
A quintet.
Typhoon, Tornado , F-35A, F-35B and AMX!:p
Plus MMI A/V8 and F/35B.

More seriously, why we are always forgotten about in such comparisons?

Also considering that at the moment we have more plane carriers than UK, France and Germany put together and we will the only ones to produce our own F-35.

Yes , I’ve read it, the part with MiG denying the finalization of a regular commercial contract included.
Now, finalization of contract is one precise thing, so maybe one can ask himself if they are only dismissing this part and not the whole deal instead.
Maybe negotiations are about to be concluded and they are just waiting for MAKS or Arms Expo for signing it officially.

Certainly, pictures about ongoing construction of MiG-35D seems to suggest otherwise but who knows if they are for a customer and for Trial instead?
For the rest, I fervently hope they are for Iraq instead, so to see them trashing Wahabi scum.

One about Irbis plate being movable even in elevation was new to me and the one about the pseudo-AESA is pure gold, puttingnall Russian radar development in a brand new light.

About sanctions and the fall of oil price, they have had an impact on the whole economical system but also the consequent cuts have been distributed on the whole budget system in an equal measure.
Defense spending, together with demographic support measures have been reserved a privileged status for the future budgets, unlike in the majority of western countries on which they are usually the first voices to be cut, so I don’t see any relevant long term effects there .

LOL..What I meant to say was that there is absolutely nothing surprising about the media-releases and the sharing of Boeing’s proposal not seeing the light of the day yet. They aren’t expected to see the light of the day at this point. Don’t expect any serious push towards a program of record till 2022 at the earliest and between now and then they’ll probably look at prototypes, X-planes and other stuff that generally tend to lead medium term development projects. The aim this time is to considerably shorten the design and development lead time from the 12+ years it took the F-22 and F-35 ( and most other 4.5 generation aircraft)..and the approach to that goal is still being defined from what I gather, and part of that is extensive prototyping and pre program launch technology maturation and development with more measures to be disclosed/shared over the next 2 years.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]240019[/ATTACH]

Ok, agreed on this. Another one time;)
Interesting to see how an evolutionary design like the F-18E took a considerable less time being developed, in case of Eurocanards I think that the famigerate peace dividends has exacted a tool also.
Russia ones was instead victims of the nineties economical collapse at the point it would be even difficult to ascertain the exact development time of many of actual production models.

The USAF and USN at the moment have distinct programs, and what appears to be distinct AOA’s as well (with the USAF AOA much later). They are focusing a technology investment effort loosely with DARPA but at the moment there are 2 different efforts targeting different time-lines. Of course the F-15C is important that is why I mentioned it in my post. The F-15C’s post upgrades will be good till the 2030’s (close to 2040) so they will require replacement much earlier than the F-22A’s that are going to go even longer. Of course whatever the USAF decides it will be one platform that will replace the F-15 and F-22A so that point is rather moot.

RFI is just that, a broad industry wide solicitation that drives the program as it develops. Its essentially a part of the process of the customer/operator figuring out where the Industry stands and what it can deliver, with what investment and in what timeframe.

Stealth will play a very important role in designs that will come post F-35, just as it will play an important role in providing ‘survivability’ to the Long Range Strike Bomber, Future UAV’s, UCAV’s etc..It will obviously not be the only thing that is the driving focus..Other focus areas have received quite a significant amount of money especially propulsion and directed energy. Additionally early S&T work has begun in developing the next generation of passive sensors, looking into data-links, advanced weapons including Directed Energy weapons..There is a lot to do to get to the sort of aircrafts the OEM’s are talking about at the moment..At least 15 years if not more of work that needs both industry funding, competent S&T effort, a capable and well funded work-force and support both at the institutional and political level. The only reason ‘stealth’ is getting ‘coverage’ because based on pictures that are clearly released for media consumption (and may or may not represent what the actual designs are) don’t show much else other than design features.

Capability changes with technology over time and so do the requirements. In the early 80’s you could not build a Low-Observable fighter that could maneuver to save its life. By the early 90’s technology enabled you them put Low-Observability requirements right alongside those of agility, and different teams designed very different aircraft as per their own philosophy of what the mix of LO and performance should be. In that case you could balance out survivability and performance because survivability had come to a point where it offered enough utility to actually allow for it to be put into a key performance parameter right alongside things such as agility, speed, supercruise and other criteria. What will be the definition of maneuverability and survivability when DEW’s become standard? That is what i was alluding to..If I can fire speed of light weapons behind me the sort of agility I require will look much different from the sort of agility that drove the ATF for example. A 200 KW airborne Directed Energy Laser in the next 25 years could fundamentally change your major definitions and combat aircraft design drivers. And if your enemy has those then the best defense is to A) have better offense or B ) to be more survivable through both stealth (not being detected before you can detect and target your opponent) and through hardening and C ) Use your imagination because non one ‘really’ knows yet and that is why you go through the entire design and technology maturation process to get answers to these ‘hard questions’. . All those will change the way decisions are made in combat aircraft design especially for designs that are unlikely to be operational in large quantities in the mid 2030’s and also unlikely to be phased out before 2070.

Even if we neglect DEW’s altogether, the industry has been working on stealth for a long time and we know that particularly Boeing has been very active in internal investments when it comes to developing advanced capability particularly in relationship to stealth and relevantly, in tailless, agile fighters that use some of the advances in stealth but attempt to overcome the challenges associated with tailless designs (plenty of work from the Phantom works under both Mcdonnell Douglas and Boeing) , a concept that both lockheed and Northrop Grumman have also studied. The point is that the F-22 was a 1980’s design and the F-35 a 90’s design. Plenty of investments have been made to advance the needle on stealth over the years especially when the next generation of fighters aren’t likely to appear before 2030 at the earliest. People get into a frenzy when they ‘assume’ that stealth is the ONLY design feature that would set the next-generation apart when it would be but one aspect of a design that would need to absorb a lot of capability in order to provide the sort of leap over the status-quo that the YF-22 and YF-23 weapons systems promised for example. For all we know stealth could merely be an evolutionary capability in a next-generation aircraft with more revolutionary capability coming through the power generation and the directed energy weapons enabled by it? Or there could be a giant leap in broadband stealth somewhere out there that may show up in future designs….

http://news.usni.org/2015/02/18/lockheed-martin-skunk-works-chief-u-s-next-generation-fighters-need-stealth

Bring-on-it, in my language we would say that you “are try to slam down an open door” in the sense that you and I are saying the same thing , only from a different starting point.
Let’s have a check:
USAF and USN have different program; same.

F-15 substitute will came out after 2030, same opinion you and I.

Stealth “will obviously not be the only thing”, thank you summarized better than me what is the core of my replies about the F/A-XX program.

Same about f-22 being a’80 project and F-35 a ’90, same opinion there.

So exactly about what are we discussing about there?:confused:
Just different nuances in the same general painting, it seems me.

Ok bud I have to call you on this.

its compeletely new engine. only new generation engine can increase thrust , increase engine life and still maintain same weight/dimension.

Glyph. JSR thank for support but call was on me, so I’m forced to bother again the contributors of this thread with something almost partially off topics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
The prototypes and initial production batch will be delivered with a highly upgraded variant of the*AL-31F*used by the Su-27 family as interim engines while a new clean-sheet design powerplant is currently under development. The aircraft is*
I’m sorry It’s the Su-27 engine as If that makes a difference. Its not a clean sheet design.

Jessmo, thanks for the call, it is a discussion thread so we have to be just happy our post recall some other’s interest and keep the wheel turning.

Just a note, what in your first post was called ,correctly, a Su-30 legacy engine in your second one has become the Su-27 engine pure and simple…I call it a rhetorical slip.
It is something like to say that the engines powering F-16 block 62 are the same that powered the block 15 or that F414 and the F404 are basically the same thing.

Because there is nothing wrong to evolve an engine through an evolutionary path if it gave you the required performances (and if a AF thrust of 147kn from a 1350 kg engine is not such a thing I doesn’t know what other will be), above all if, in parallel, your nation are developing a completely new, clean sheet design…something Russian are just doing.

For the rest, I consider the F135 an hell of a good engine, superior to all others currently around, a pity that being coupled to a such draggy platform it can’t live up to its own full potential.
More weight seem me to hold your other considerations about the stealth features incorporated in the tail part of the F-35, very interesting indeed.
Just you seems to have missed the deliver of the T-50-7 static prototype in with engine covers, serrated edges and soon are present or the news, an official Sukhoi one, that the PAK-FA stealth provisions, beginning with the complete RAM, cover would be finalized just on the T-50-6-2 prototype that would be delivered to Athubinsk at the end of this year.

About this, let me add a note: it is possible that I also, for practical reasons i.e. to cut my own post here to a reasonable length, have maybe contributed to a radical misunderstanding in treating the PAK-FA as a real operative plane, while it is still just a prototype, a well advanced one but just still such a thing.

ATM we don’t even know what its official designation will be if you note and the planes that are actually undergoing State Trials , after the T-50-5 accident would be called XF-something in the USA at the point they are now .
Or better said, at the point they were when they entered in Athubinsk State Trial site nicknamed, with just reason, the Black Hole by the contributors of the current and past PAK-FA threads.

I would recommend you familiarize yourself with what an RFI actually means. Boeing and pretty much all other ‘interested parties’ have design teams actively working internally in maturing their own teams for future programs. The USN issues a request for information (RFI not RFP) asking about industry inputs and basically information on what some of the designs and concepts the industry is working on for future programs at appropriate time-lines (i.e. for the USN, F-18E/F retirement timelines that is possibly 15 years from now)…The next step for that program is an institutional analysis of alternative out of which may come a request for proposal for a new program. That will happen much later, probably closer to 2020-2022 time-frame.

Meanwhile, the industry (at this point Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing) continue to build there capability, designs and internal offerings in anticipation of future projects which would naturally be required since there is only one advanced acquisition program that will go into the 2020’s. To boost these internal design efforts, the previous defense secretary (Hagel) proposed initiatives designed at prototyping capability, technology and even building prototypes that would A) keep the design teams working and funding, and B ) reduce the lead time for new starts. In the FY16 budget this has been spun into the aerospace innovation initiative which is going to be funding prototype X-planes that would advance technology and help the USAF and USN build requirements and reduce risk on future projects to replace aircraft such as the F-15C, F-18E/F and F-22A. If you go to the sixth generation fighter thread you will find some articles and videos of officials discussing that effort. Here’s another …. Its not coming next year, or 2 years from now or 5 years now or even 10 years from now. Its something that is for the post 2025, and realistically post 2030 time-frame.

I-ll give a further check thank.
I was however just pointing out that the stated expectations of having in 2023 a substitute for not only the FA18 but also for the F-22 (Oh, poor F-15, forgotten by anyone…) just two or three years later seemed me just anotherof the hollow statements Boeing has produced along all those years.

Now instead,we agreed that we are all talking about something that would be finalized well beyond 2030.

In the article is also stated that RFI is from 2008, so I think FBW was just referring to another one…
And thank the Heaven that they have not gone further with those initial ideas, all still based on an emphasis on stealth alone…

For the rest doesn’t seems you that our conversation is, although in a natural, not forced way, quite rapidly slipped into something that would fit better into that one other thread about 6 gen aircraft?

Well, like we were saying before it is not sure that the F/A-XX will be stealthy, the USN is wondering about the need for stealth.

The PAK-FA probably doesn’t have the level of stealth of the F-35 and the F-22 is of the same order of stealth, probably from the front at least, from the other angles the F-35 likely has a higher RCS.

If they want a tailless design, will they have enough maneuvrability? Maybe a thrust vectoring exhaust would help somewhat but is it possible to make a stealthy 2D TV? And TV doesn’t help for the sustained turn rate. But I think STR is less important nowadays so it might not be that bad.

????? Until now, it was said,in official audit, that the OVERALL level of stealth of F-22 is vastly superior of that of F-35, it was pointed also by many that the measures taken to achieve this 360° coverage that made the cost and the complexity of the Raptor to skyrocket, causing the final demise of its production and now you say F-35 is superior not in the frontal ( something absolutely probable) but instead in the other angle of attack?
Same with the asserted inferiority of PAK-FA, something that I ‘ve heard hundreds of times, all based with no any significative variations after something Sukhoi’s chief designer had stated, now several years ago> than PAK-FA was designed in a way not to sacrificate too much of its overall flight performances in order to achieve a superior level of stealth, as it happened, according to him, with the F-22.
To put it simple while F/22 was designed to have an equally low RCS in almost all direction, both T/50 than F/35 but also any other project actually ongoing has scrapped it and sport a head/on focused RCS reduction.
It seems a paradox but F/22 RCS although superior in that regard was just not enough to the for the mission it was intended to perform i.e. unrealistic expectations about what the stealth allow to do, while a most limited one is still sufficient to perform more standard .

Now, after all this years it seems that you have remained stuck to this initial declaration, without even give a glimpse to the now several threads in this same forum about the PAK-FA?
Maybe you are one of those that that still believes than the T-50 has exposed fan blades, with not any tentative of shielding them?:eagerness: