star49The claims concerning the superior maneuverability of the Suchoi 27 (and derivatives) are based on its airshow performance and I never saw any real life comparisons, except from a Russian source that put the Suchoi 27 well below the F-15C.
Was Sukhoi Test pilots and Designer statement based on Airshow performance?. that is the final statment. Test pilot even went into Consensus opinion of Sukhoi not his alone opinion.
Fact is Russian supplied engine to J-10 fighter and engine developer have most idea about aircraft capaiblities interms of speed/forces. J-10 is perfect aerodynamic clone of EF with even smaller wings.
There is no way EF matches Su-27SM/Su-35 performance. whose weight and thrust has been significantly altered along with FBW.
star49Yes….high tech Japanese fishing boats….absolutely must have satellites for that one. I shall have to get on to the Ministry. See what they say when I tell them that we need radar sats to keep an eye on various nations fishing vessels in our EEZ!.;)
Obviously Japanese guiding navy is guiding these fishing vessels in avioding Russian ships to steal fish.
So you have this evidence then. You can provide us at least a designation for this new system?. A launch schedule or an IOC for the new capability perhaps?. You see Star if you aren’t in possession of this evidence the question naturally follows how you know they exist?.
Russians are clearly spending far more on Military than on Civillian side of Satellite business. U can expect ten times satellite production. It is Strategic sector jus lik Topol missile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/business/worldbusiness/04gps.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/K/Kramer,%20Andrew%20E.&pagewanted=all
You know how much I care about Glonass,” Mr. Putin told his ministers
http://www.rscc.ru/en/company/publ/2008.04.29.html
We acquired unique experience in Summer 2007 while providing the Arctic expedition headed by Arthur Chilingarov, the famous Russian polar explorer, with communications services. We faced a very important task to provide a satellite channel for online video transmissions from the meridian convergence point. The territories beyond the polar circle are unavailable for geostationary satellites, thus the Molniya satellites on the high-elliptical orbit were used. The spacecraft was in the field of vision for maximum 2 hours, but wide community could observe settling down the Mir manned deep-diving vehicles at a depth of 4 km
star49http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13169248&PageNum=0
Chinese naval squadron calls at Vladivostok Tuesday
star49Yep of course you can count them. The launcher type would give half the game away in the first place. Ocean radar reconsats are not little lightweight comms birds – they are a bit more substantial than that and, to carry a piggyback ‘secret’ radar sat of a new and unheard of design, would require a reasonably heavy lift capability. Why would someone send up a heavy lifter half empty….hmmm….might be worth getting the optics on that one as it reaches orbit!.
No argument that Russian sats stay operational about as long as everone elses. Thats not the point I was making – the fact remains that there is no point going back 5 years in the records because there will be very few satellites still alive in LEO from that time.
You can accuse me of delusion when you are talking about ‘secret’ radar satellites that you have been utterly unable to point towards a single shred of credible evidence is even under design let alone ‘secretly’ orbitted?. You once ‘reliably’ informed me of how there were 50 of them in orbit spying on the Japanese fishing fleet, IIRC, I am still waiting for the list of those 50 platforms Star?. I suspect I will be waiting a considerable while longer?.:rolleyes:
U need very precise intelligence/navigation to capture those high tech japanese boats at night time at high seas which are guided by japnese navy but cannot come to there help when Russians turns there guns on them.
u need evidence from manufacturer how many satellites they are manufacturig now vs a decade ago. offcourse these are not for storage. This is the only way of knowing about satellites.
star49A Royal Navy Group with 36+ F35’s on a CVF along with Astute, T45 and C1 could match that Group.
Similarly, a USN carrier Group with 48+ F-18E/F and F35C could match it.
F-35/F-18 are not in same class PAK-FA which is to physically outperform anyother fighter in the world with longest range/speed/altitude/ultra manevorability with TVC. Add to that the wide array of weopons from Ultrasonic long range AAMs to Hypersonic/Supersonic ARM/Ashm. PAK-FA will be in totally different class. They same is true Naval weopons on ships. Add to the low cost of launching satellites with space based radar and superb economic system. I doubt any Navy will come close to it. Highspeed long range missiles are very expensive to develop and deployed. West simply cannot afford it.
star49Thats on the proviso that your initial value for the number of satellites actually operational in orbit is the same as the number that are in orbit. Quite a stretch of the imagination. Satellite lifepans, in LEO, are more usually measured in months than in years. Some Russian recon assets thats actually days not months!. Nothing new and unrecognisable has been put up recently and there have been no mysteriously unscheduled launches to have carried these new assets into orbit….over to you to substantiate new ocean recon assets Echonine.
So u can count number of satellites in each launch? and life of Satellites is as good as best or better in some cases than anyone else. I would keep ur delusions for times to come.
star49If that is the case, 1.4 being demonstrated, it should be able to do it in all conditions at least to mach 1. As we know, very cold, dense air as found in that region will produce results highly in favor, stick the Su-35 40,000 ft over Afghanistan will it do it then? Also remember the load, can it SC with a decent AtA load?
6 to 8 AAMs are not a big deal for Su-35 as most of them are in conformal underbelly or wingtip. Fighter has plenty of excess power for the weight/fuel load. U dont have any idea at what height EF can achieve decent supercruise for sustan period of time. It is likely that as Su-35 flight envelope is fully explored more higher super cruise Mach number can be achieved at 15 to 18ikm height. Test Pilot himself said that its performance can only be compared to MIG-31/F-22 from limited number of flights untill this point.
star49It seems Nuclear carrier so it should be decent size.
http://orenburg.kp.ru/daily/24179.5/389260/
Russia’s president is satisfied with the North Fleet’s training sessions
Yelena Chinkova — 13.10.2008
Today, the Tula nuclear submarine test-fired a Sineva ballistic missile to gauge its maximum range during the North Fleet’s training. The missile broke all previous records for ballistic missiles, reaching the Pacific Ocean from the Barantsev Sea.President Dmitriy Medvedev personally observed the training sessions. He arrived by helicopter to the Soviet Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. After touring the ship, Medvedev listened to a report by chief naval commander Vladimir Vysotskiy and spoke and photographed with the crew.
“During the training sessions, the navy launched a Sineva ballistic missile to gauge its maximum range,” RIA Novosti reported Medvedev as saying. “The successful launch resulted in a distance of 11,574 kilometers. This is the best result ever for a ballistic missile. What we saw today with the Sineva is a serious step forward. No one has demonstrated such a range before.”
After thanking the carrier’s crew for their service and performance, Medvedev said: “At first glance, everything looks absolutely fine […] This is a job well done. Everything worked out as planned.”
In the near future, Russia’s Defense Ministry will develop a state program to construct aircraft carriers. The first projects are expected to be implemented around 2013-2015.
“We need to build new aircraft carriers,” Medvedev said. “This is an important area of progress for our navy. All large nations do so when developing powerful fleets. Energy facilities must be nuclear. This also creates a range of other possibilities. Electronic equipment and arms must change as well.”
The main obstacle for such wide-scale plans isn’t the financial crisis, but rather searching for an appropriate territory to build the aircraft carriers.
“The issue of money isn’t important for us despite the crises on the international financial market. The real issue is where to build. The country has decreased in size since the fall of the Soviet Union, and we have fewer places where we can construct these kinds of ships,” Medvedev said.
Russia’s next submarines will be the Yuriy Dolgorukiy and Aleksandr Nevskiy. One of them will hit the manufacturing line next year.
star49http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/12/stories/2008101254541200.htm
The article says Russia to start building carriers within the next two years, with the first “built by” 2013-2015.
What do you think the design of these new Russian carriers will be? Will they resurrect the Ul’yanovsk design (nuclear reactors and steam catapults), or build more Admiral Kuznetsov type ships? What will the air wing consist of? I read that Russia is planning a competition for Su-33 replacements, and the supposed contenders were the Su-27KUB and MiG-29K. Neither of which seems to be a replacement for the Su-33.
In a related question, was the Ul’yanovsk planned to have Tor (Gauntlet) or Buk (Grizzly) SAMs? I’ve seen both listed.
Russia recently planed to cut 150 to 200K officers from armed forces. So there is space for extra spending during the current planes.
I think Mix of aviation wing with significatn AAW possibly navalized S-400/S-500 capability is the way to go. Aviation wing primary for fleet defence/Sead and bomber escort on long range missions outside the land fighter cover. 30 to 40 PAK-FA fighter is enough on single carrer as they will have much more range with supercruise and long range internal AAMs. 50 to 60,000 ton carrier is sufficient. Russian already completing floating nuke reactors but this will require much powreful reactor. This thing is double with reasonable cost.
star49For true, 100% ,whatever the weather only the F-22 and Eurofighter have demonstrated supercruise. Many can in certain conditions and clean but whats the point of that?
Couldn’t say what is lacking to prevent supercruise end of because I’m not an aeronautical engineer but I know the design of the airframe is the most critical, i.e the different types are drag must be well within the limits for supercruise. Thrust will help, no doubt, but the airframe design is far, far, far more important. Just think the gripen can supercruise with only 13,000lb of thrust.
Su-35 has done Supercruise upto Mach 1.4 fromm 5km to 11km height. Infact it went supercruise on first flight where Su-30MK has to use afterburner and couldnot keep up. what so special?
star49Except for post stall maneuverability available to some TVC equipped Flankers the Typhoon enjoys an edge in terms of acceleration, climb performance, g envelope and g-onset. And why have they failed miserably? So far I don’t see any edge for the Flanker in any area, especially for the version being currently operated.
So u already quantify the acceleration, climb rates, nose pointing ability of Su-27SM. Under full fuel load/AAM 27 tons engines should provide better than 1 to 1 TWR under all circustances with excellent internal fuel no inhibition with external ETs.
star49Waters around Somalia (Yemen) come under Pacific fleet since Soviet Times. Black Sea fleet has nothing to with it. Pacific fleet is currently engage in its own exercises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Pacific_Fleet
In the Soviet years, the Pacific Fleet was also responsible for the administration and operational direction of the Soviet Navy’s Indian Ocean (8th) Squadron and Soviet naval bases hosted by nations in the Indian Ocean rim, such as the facilities at Aden
star49No, big & small IS the point. The bigger an aircraft is, the MORE expensive it is to procure & operate/maintain but the easier it is to stuff a lot of ‘stuff’ on/in it.
You are trying to make the F-35 look bad by comparing it to MUCH larger & TOTALLY different types of aircraft.
Much larger aircraft? certainly not on volume sense. Old defintions of length and width does not matter as long as it do the job cheaply.
Where do you get that idea from?
From Ruaf and Almaz-Antei. why they say it has to fly within engagement zone of S-400 with current weopons? anyway S-400 will get Tor/Pantsyir system that will shoot any incoming PGM. when solution is long range high speed Standoff weopons so whats the point of Stealth fighter?
http://johnibii.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/pentagon-eyes-high-speed-missiles-for-stealth-aircraft/
By Robert Wall and Douglas Barrie
Aviation Week and Space Technology
December 23, 2007The U.S. military is increasingly interested in developing a new generation of high-speed air-to-surface missiles that could be integrated into stealth aircraft to attack an enemy’s radar sites or fleeting targets.
U.S. Air Force planners are anxious about enhancements in air defense technology, worrying that as powerful computer processing becomes more ubiquitous and network cabling becomes cheaper, adversaries can link radar systems of different types to raise their chances of spotting and potentially shooting down even low-observable aircraft
An electronics upgrade slated for the F-22 will give it enhanced ground-emitter location capability, which would significantly boost the aircraft’s capability to destroy enemy air-defenses. But with its current array of air-to-surface weapons, the fighter would have to fly well inside the layered engagement zones of systems such as the Almaz Antey S-400 (SA-21 Growler
BS. An Iskander missile is easier to intercept/defeat than a 5th generation aircraft.
Surely u have intercepted couple of them:)
They are continuing with Flanker & Fulcrum upgrades for export & as a way to impove their forces until the PAK-FA enters service, which even when it does will take a LONG time to build in sugnificant numbers…
they are also building new Su-34/Su-35. These have role to play with there flexibility of low price, range and long range weopons.
[quote]
The export price for the F-35A has been announced at $58.7 million, that IS less than a new Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera. AND the F-35 has been designed DESPITE ITS STEALTH to be less expensive to operate/maintain than 4th generation fighters.[/qoute]
Not a single country has signed for $58m jet untill now. First provide a proof of single contract of $58m jet.
They way are you arguing as though it is/was?
Stealth is only ONE element of what makes a fighter a 5th generation fighter.
Thats true.
There is no need to put a Brahmos or Klub missile on a F-22 or F-35.
U will need it when u face dominant foe. where u need heavy, fast, long range weopons against hardened structures that cannot be intercepted like subsonic weopons. and time sensitivity is important.
price: Hardly, the F-35 is LESS expensive to procure & operate/maintain than its 4th generation “competators”.
slow pace of production: BS, full rate production of the F-35 is set to be 230 aircraft per year!
first produce 230 aircraft per year with $58m price tag. There is no proof for any of this even country line up for JSF project dont believe in it.
increase fuel consumption: Quite the opposite.
less weopon flexibility: I’ll give you that one but weapons to do just about anything you want to do are being developed for internal carriage &/or stealthy external carriage…
read the article about compromises for internal carriage.
No, but “stealth defeating radar” is DECADES (if ever) away.
decades away. keep dreaming.
The F-117 was NOT cheap & stealth technology of the 1970’s limited it to its limited (but VERY valuable) role.
It was cheap for the quantity produced.
Not so with the F-22 & F-35. If we built enough of them fast enough the price of the F-22 would come down to where it would be a steal comparred to LESS capable F-15s or F/A-18E/Fs and the F-35 export cost is LOWER than
a new Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera.
This is big myth that higher production speed will solve stealth cost problem. Producing Stealth components require huge supply chain and with bigger quantities need higher fixed investment.
Yes & those fundamental reasons are why “stealth defeating radar” is DECADES (if ever) away.
why u repeating the same thing.
No, you have it backwards. The F-35’s weight (which is actually not THAT bad given all that it carries INTERNALLY) is a DIRECT result of a rather ambitious combat radius requirement. Without that ambitious combat radius requirement the F-35 could be significantly lighter as it would not have to carry so much internal fuel…
Like the F-15 & F-16, the F-22 & F-35 are/will be “over built” to withstand the rigors of high g life.
F-35 weight is just paper specification. It has to goes through lifecycle weopons stress testing for extended period of it times measures in years.than see the end result of weight. U cannot compare weight of inservice aircraft with some thing in development.
So now you prove just how ignorant you are by not knowing that the Su-35 is significantly larger than the F-35 (which is about the size of a Rafale).
Things are measured interms of volume. Rafale is not bigger than F-16 but has considerably large volume for fuel and engines.
No, small fighters like F-16/Rafale/Typhoon HAVE to use CFT &/or external fuel tanks because they don’t/can’t carry enough fuel internally. The F-35 does not have that problem, it carries about as much fuel internally as a larger & heavier F-15C with one 600 gal external fuel tank & as much or more than any small/medium 4th generation fighter with THREE external fuel tanks.
And just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel internally DOES NOT mean that it has to…
I said F-35 is much larger aircraft interms of volume so it is very expensive. F-15 needs upgrade with CFT but sill F-15 compromised design it cannot reach Flanker flexibility.
So, existing 4th generation fighters are “competitors” to 5th generation fighters, just not as good.
That when F-35 enters service than see 4th generation are good competitors or not considering all the advances in onboard/offboard sensors.
Search ‘F-35A 58.7 million’ 🙂
It is the price already publicly quoted to Australia & Norway.
They should sign for it with this price.
Wrong! You can only make something LO via shape, to make it VLO requires special ‘stealth’ materials.
So what if materials advancement is much slower than Semiconductors advancement.
It is nano technology in semiconductors that is changing the world.
No provied nothing. Any weapon that a 4th generation aircraft can be fitted for, a similar sized 5th generation aircraft can be fitted for.
It will be fitted outside. F-35 does not have wingspan of Su-35 for wide spacing of ultra long range weopons.
Further development of 4th generation fighters with uprated engines, CFT, larger ET, more advance avionics, IRST, more composite use in construction, et cetera is VERY expensive & time consuming and DOES NOT produce a product as good as a true 5th generation fighter.
It is not expensive if u order 3000 like JSF.
star49Case study of Salut. Soviet times things way slower and expensive.
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/about_us/success/case_study.cfm?Component=59328&ComponentTemplate=1481
To meet the growing needs of aviation, Salut made the decision to adopt product lifecycle management (PLM) technology, introducing it during a program of extensive modifications to the AL-31 engine. Dmitry Eliseev, IT director of MMPP Salut explains why:“Earlier, in Soviet times, the government financed the military-industrial complex and it took up to 10 years to develop and launch mainstream production of each engine. In this period the plant produced up to 50 copies of each engine,many of them crushed during tests. The present cost of such an engine would amount to tens of millions of rubles. Imagine if today it took 10 years to begin series production of an engine. The engine would be out of date by the time it went into production. And how much would it finally cost? It is impossible to develop engines without modern technology such as digital modeling and simulation.”
A good return on investment
“MMPP Salut would not be able to exist without these solutions from Siemens PLM Software,” says Eliseev.“They are mandatory. In terms of the return on investment, we can point to the fact that we no longer need 50 experimental sample engines. That alone can justify the cost of the software! And you can add to that the ten years’ salary for all the designers and workers involved in the process. Today the development cycle for a new engine takes from two to four years, and usually the first sample not only passes the tests but immediately goes into experimental-industrial trials. In these ways, production is 10 times less expensive
star49No it isn’t.
Besides, the F-35 is NOWHERE NEAR as big as a Su-35/Su-27SM/MIG-31BM…
Big and small is beside the point. It is the price that matters. Large aircraft with much simplified maintaince, Pilot and airmen trained, more upgrade potential with more flexiblity of weopons is the way to go.
***
No they won’t.
from where u get this idea. MIG-31BM is clearly designed for Stealth fighter along with S-400.
Yeah, right…airbases are completely defenseless.
Sure against Iskander missile strike.
No you are mistaken, stealth is one of the driving factors behind the PAK-FA, otherwise Russia would continue along with ever more advanced Flankers…
They are continuing with Flanker and MIG upgrades. I have shown PAK-FA criteria. One of it is more longer range than current Flankers/Foxhounds as Russian dont want to invest in airrefuellers.
Most countries already know the real price of the F-35 & it is LESS expensive (both to procure & to operate/maintain) than a Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera
Most countries know the price of F-35 and it is less expensive than other 4th generation fighters? i think u will have to eat ur words on this one. There is huge cost penalty of putting stuff inside airframe.
Stealth fighters have NEVER been a sole source of funding.
I can see that.
BS, with current pace of advancement in radars there won’t be any 4th or even 5th generation airframes in frontline service by the time there is “no difference between them”.
5th generation fighters can be fitted any weapon 4th generation fighters can & can extend there range (already greater than 4th generation fighters) as well.
Try to put Brahmos or Klubir missile on F-22. and see what effects on airframe life. Radars advancement are cheaper and way to go.
What compromises do stealth fighters make?
Price, slow pace of production, increase fuel consumption, less weopon flexibility.
And 1980s radar & 1990s radar & 2000s radar & 2010s radar…
right all radars are the same:)
No, the difference is that while the F-117 had to make sacrifices for stealth, the F-22 does not, nor does the F-35.
F-117 was cheap product and was usefull for its intended role in time line it was introduced.
No, it works against the kinds of systems used vs aircraft & there are FUNDAMENTAL reasons why those systems use the radio frequencies they do.
There is other fundamental reasons also:)
BS, the F-35 needs all that fuel because of the extraordanary range/combat radius requirements for such a small fighter. And the stronger engine is to compensate for the greater weight of all that fuel.
F-35 need all the fuel because it is too heavy. We have to see its life expectancy at MTOW.
BS, only significantly LARGER 4th generation aircraft could hope to be upgraded with all the NON-STEALTH advancements included in the F-35. And all of the similar sized 4th generation fighters require 2-3 external tanks to even come close to the range/combat radius of the F-35.
How is Su-35 significanlty larger in volume? Small fighters like F-16/Rafale can use CFT/2500L fuel tanks to do the job. they certainly dont use any more fuel than required.
Doesn’t make a Flanker a 5th generation fighter…
But it can be competitor to 5th generation fighters just like Test pilot said.
No it doesn’t. The F-35 & it is LESS expensive (both to procure & to operate/maintain) than a Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera.
I am waiting for this proof of less expensive claim.
Not true. While the SHAPE may not change much, the MATERIALS used can & do…
material dont have that big impact like fundamental shape and still materials advancement is much slower than Semiconductors advancement.
Again, 5th generation aircraft CAN be fitted with any weapon 4th generation aircraft can.
Provided that u want to use missiles and bombs against hardened strutures and mountaneous bases. Those things can only be carried externally. there is reason for both Su-34 and PAK-FA.
And without giving too much away, the F-22 & F-35 will eventually be capable of carrying additional weapons beyond their current internal capacity that does not compromise stealth in a major way…
when that time comes. Stealth will be obsolete anyway.
Just TRY & load a comparable sized 4th generation fighter with CLOSE to as much fuel & avionics as the F-35 CAN carry internally & see how much fuel they burn…Again, comparable sized 4th generation fighters need 2-3 external tanks to even come close to the range/combat radius of the F-35.
U dont have any proof of loading up F-35 to MTOW and operational life experiance of F-35. ur jumping a decade ahead of time.
The F-35 may be “heavy for single engine fighter” but it carries MORE fuel internally than most LARGER twin-engined 4th generation fighters & that single engine has similar thrust as the twin-engined F-15C, F/A-18E/F & Typhoon yet the F-35 is SMALLER & LIGHTER than the F-15C & F/A-18E/F and of similar size (although a bit heavier) as the Typhoon…
The compromise for ahieving that is huge cost in development and procurement and slow induction that make it meaningless. u can much further develop 4th generation fighters with uprated engines, CFT, larger ET, more advance avionics, IRST, more composite use in construction to reduce weight and still it would be cheaper. This is the idea behind Su-35 and that is the right idea.
Sign In
