backtop

Print 171 comment(s) - last by ipay.. on Sep 7 at 3:01 AM

India will be test flying its first stealth fighter later this year. The Sukhoi FGFA, pictured here, will seat two, do Mach 2+, and be ultra-maneuverable. The fifth generation fighter supposedly will give Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II a run for their money.  (Source: India-Defence.com)
New fighter, designed by Russian Sukhoi is reportedly more maneuverable than Lockheed Martin's designs

India, one of the world's brightest emerging technical superpowers -- currently, the seventh biggest nation in terms of land area, and the second biggest in terms of population -- is preparing to make a major military leap forward.  It will be flying its first stealth fighter in under four months.

The new fighter is a so-called "fifth generation" fighter jet.  Currently only two such fighter jets exist, both produced by Lockheed Martin: the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.  The Indian fighter is being developed by Russian firm Sukhoi and is dubbed the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft or FGFA.  The fighter is being jointly developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), India's leading aerospace firm and is based on the Sukhoi PAK FA, also currently under development.

Similar to the F-22 and the F-35, the new fighter uses thrust vector control (TVC) to redirect engine output for vertical take-off/landing and greater maneuverability.  The exact extent of the fighter's TVC abilities remain to be seen, but HAL and Sukhoi are bragging that it will be more maneuverable than either of Lockheed Martin's fifth generation fighters.

The fighter's maximum planned speed is reportedly Mach 2+.  This would make it faster than the F-35 Lightning II (capable of Mach 1.67) and a possible rival to the F-22 Raptor in terms of pure speed.

Much remains unknown the public, though, about the $3B USD fighter project which is being financed jointly by India and Russia.  How the fighter's stealth abilities will stack up versus the Lockheed Martin in terms of electronics and stealth features is also unknown at this point.

One difference that is known is that the Indian variant will feature twin seats.  The Indian variant will also largely use Indian-developed weapons such as the Astra, a Beyond Visual Range missile currently under development by the nation.  However, it will also be compatible with a variety of other payloads and countermeasures.

Alexei Fedorov, president of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation assures, "The prototype will take off this year."

Assuming it meets its schedule, Russia and India may finally be prepared to give America a real challenge at last in terms of air superiority.  Currently, most of India's 852 combat air craft are Soviet-era relics.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 1
The USA have had a stealth fighter operational for several years, India will have its bird flying at the end of the year. The Russia and the China are probably not far behind. Meanwhile, Europe just introduced a 4.5 gen fighter (Eurofighter) and has no plan whatsoever to develop a domestic stealth fighter. Instead, we will rely on an cheap/downgraded version of the US tech. That's pathetic.




RE: Where is Europe?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/31/2009 2:21:38 PM , Rating: 5
From the looks of that artist rendering, looks like they took the F-22 design and said "Hey, that works" :-)

Then again, didn't the Russians also pretty much copy our space shuttle with their Buran as well?


RE: Where is Europe?
By eldardude on 8/31/2009 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, it's just that the space shuttle's design was a good balance of cost and performance. Russia have done the same and just about any other country will follow their footsteps.

Same goes with the F-22. The design works, why settle for less?


RE: Where is Europe?
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2009 8:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh well turn about is fair game. The f15 looks like it took a lot of design cues from the mig25. All is fair in love an war.


RE: Where is Europe?
By inperfectdarkness on 9/1/2009 1:18:03 AM , Rating: 5
actually, the mig25 was stolen (nearly in entirity) from canada's project arrow (cf-105). so if anything...the influences for the f-15 were north-american long before the soviets had any ideas.

the speculation on WHEN then maiden flight of the pak-fa/fgfa will take place is anyone's guess--as there's a wide variety of dates quoted everywhere. i'd speculate that they're at least a year or two away from anything credible.

i'd also like to scoff at the "cost" being listed as 3 billion USD. i can practically guarantee that india is going to end up paying significantly more than that just in r&d. you have to pay to play...any any figures coming in well below what the USA would pay for up-to-date technology simply reek of second-rate work (i.e. f22 will pwn it in combat).

the actual design looks amazingly like the f22, which can also be said for china's j-xx mockups--although the fgfa also appears to have significant su-30 influences (tail booms, etc). as many have insinuated--these are knockoffs. almost a knee-jerk reaction probably based on national pride as much as defensive aspirations. nearly everything that russia clones is unequivocally inferior--as is the case with most technology cloning. what worries me about this venture is that india has a habit of IMPROVING the areas russia seems to have weaknesses in; hence the upgraded mig-21/23 in india's use.

expect a lot of talk & a much lower threat. these aircraft may eventually prove more than a handful for a flight of f-15's...but it's doubtful that f-22's will be on parity with ANYTHING for years. that's also precisely why secretary gates and his cronyism with regards to USAF leadership are completely and utterly in the wrong for cancelling the f22. the f35 will never be a true air-supeority fighter, and the prowse about it being one are hot air.

to comment on the f-117 shootdown, they were also chucking sa2's & 3's in the air like they were hunting the moon. our frequency of overflight + their liberal use of missiles + sticking to the same routes of flight = inevitable shootdown. hardly a distinctive "failure" of stealth technology. even less consequential when you see how "blind" f16's are to f22's & how outclassed f15's are to them as well. that's largely based on design capabilities OUTSIDE of aerodynamic performance.

furthermore, keep in mind that stealth doesn't make something "invisible". that's not the intention. stealth reduces the distance at which a given radar can detect an object. the idea is to create "gaps" in the radar coverage net. that's precisely what the f-117 did in desert storm. perforate the radar coverate with stealth, attack key points to create bigger holes, fly conventional aircraft in to mop up everything else. that's textbook application of stealth. by the time saddam realized he was under attack--he had no means of communicating orders to his troops.

yes, we've tested the f-22 against all types of friendly radars--and most of the unfriendly ones as well. stealth doesn't work on ultra-long wave radars. these radars are also limited in detection capability--because the length of the emission makes for crappy resolution. that's why they're always accompanied by other radars to "break-out" the radar picture. FLIR will also defeat stealth.

more to come...


RE: Where is Europe?
By inperfectdarkness on 9/1/2009 3:15:25 AM , Rating: 5
to those commenting on "bomb trucks". the f35 is designed to replace the f16, f18, and the f117. there's also a lot of "talk" about it replacing the a-10...but i firmly believe that will be handed over to an mq-9 successor.

like the f16/f18, the f35 will be capable of air-air combat...but it will NOT have the capabilities of a dedicated air-superiority fighter. i will not belittle the air-air capabilities of the f35 as being non-existent--but i will condemn those who blindly purport that it can do the job as adeptly as an f-22. the f-15c fleet numbers over 700. we're being asked to do their job with 186 f-22's. that, and whatever other f-35's they throw into the mix for air-air. somehow...i don't see this being a successful plan.

directed energy weapons are a LONG way from being employable on a tactical fighter. also, the gates cancelled the airborne laser--so kiss that potential goodbye. gates is rotting our military from the inside out--one necessary project at a time. i dispise the man's accumen immensely. even IF they became viable in combat--direct energy would have a limited capability. missiles have much longer head-head range than a laser could hope for--mainly due to attenuation, targeting problems, etc.

UAS's will eventually take over the role of all combat aircraft, imho, but we're still quite a ways away from a competant air-air unmanned fighter. unlike fighting an air-ground war, in the air-air realm, the battlespace is 3D & surrounds the aircraft. we currently do not have the technology to recreate a pilot's "intuitive feel" remotely. i.e. we can't duplicate intuition, 6th sense, etc with a remotely piloted asset. these are inherent components of a competant air-air man/weapon system. i doubt that the viability of 4.5 gen fighters will remain until the advent of true air-air UAS's.

i wouldn't be so quick to condem the f22's speed either. i would estimate that it's easily within 1 mach of the sr-71's top speed. of course we could design faster...but hypersonic craft and scramjet engines are a whole new kettle of fish with regards to design nightmares.

with regards to our GDP spending...qatar leads the list at 10% of GDP being spent on defense. if you subtract the amount spent on defense that is going purely towards sustaining the ongoing war-efforts...our defense spending (on readiness, fleet maintaince, upkeep) is actually about 3.0/3.1%. history also teaches us that when our core expenditures on defense have been < 4% GDP...that our readiness, capabilities, etc are all dramatically lowered. in fact, the MOST productive economic periods for the USA in the 20th century were almost unanimously ones where we increased defense spending. trickle-down economics actually does work. *shocked*

even if our navy is "xxx" number of times outclassing our enemies; bear in mind we have multiple fleets because 1 will simply not provide a global-reach/global-strike capability that we need. we are currently postured to have a marine response ANYWHERE in the world in 6 hours. a smaller navy will NOT allow for this type of readiness. if we only had 1 coast to defend & we didn't have to worry about global-reach...then perhaps such ludicrous statements about our navy being "overkill" would be sensible.

if "socio-economic-impact" was the only factor weighed in contract awards--the f22 would still be in production--and GM would never have gotten a handout. and i'm not stating that flippantly. that said, it's not the NEW weapons systems costs that are killing us--these go to large corporations. it's the little stuff that is nickle & diming us to death.

the military may have 15,000 pilots...but the USAF has only about 3500. i'd guess the navy has a few less. the marines & the army make up the bulk--but those are largely warrant officers. warrant officers don't have the extensive training that top-level fighter pilots do. in fact, their training is 1-2 years shorter than most USAF pilots--who usually have at least 3 years in service before being consider "mission qualified".

pilots aren't "desk jockeys" until they are usually senior o4's or o5's. they're also not making 140k/ year. 100k is about what you're going to max at for an o5. the other problem is that when you start handing over jobs formerly performed by airmen & giving them to civilians, you bleed the military of experience. lack of proper "seasoning" is why the USAF had to evolve from the AAF--the leadership wasn't capable, trained, or equipped to properly lead. you can't properly give an annual review to a pilot if you yourself are not a qualified pilot. let's ask the gardener outside if he'll do an annual review on the theoretical physicist working inside. that should save us a LOT of $$$. *rolls eyes*

the people who "get out" quite often find themselves in contracting positions--often in teaching/advising roles. i would never be so bold as to suggest that their "experience/training" is lost. it's actually a delicate balance between flying & commanding. you'll usually see commanders in the USAF are all ~20 years in service (read, appx 40 years or older). these individuals who are firmly on the "paperwork" side have given more than enough to their given trade (piloting) as evidince by their long-met ADSC (usually ~12 years for pilots). if the military doesn't feel 12 years is long enough--it should extend the ADSC.

the argument for keeping "pilots only as pilots" makes about as much sense as putting a seasoned infantry colonel in a hot LZ; rather than keeping him at the forward command post.

the f-22 vs. f-35 debate is old & dead. and "near competitor" is so large of a mis-nomer....i won't further justify it with a response.

"destroy an entire city from space"? there's been a lot of talk about space-war, FITcamaro. the reality of how much it costs to get 1-lbs into space makes the prospect of "raining fire from the bozosphere" a laughable idea. although you are right...the number of f-22's we have isn't enough to maintain sole responsibility for air-superiority. factor in the increased flight-hours from having a reduced # of airframes...and this situation isn't going to improve.

remember, train & equip for the wars we could fight--not the ones we have fought. the threat for needing high-technology weaponry isn't manifest in a superpower showdown. it's manifest in the "other" superpower selling all of their goods to small, terrorist/nonfriendly countries that we DO end up in conflict with. imagine what happens if we have to fight iranian 5th gen fighters (imported from china/russia) with american 4.5 gen ones. yikes.

the threat of an aa-13 taking down our HVAA is incredibly remote. such a missile would have to be about as big as an sa-5 (ginormous) and would likely meant that only 1 could be carried at a time. it's probably also likely that HARMs could be modified to intercept it mid-air, and/or that weasels/prowlers could jam the seeker-head. and don't think for a minute that an AWACS is going to fly dumb & stupid directly into the the flightpath of a missile. they'll turn tail & run--reducing the range capability of any missile.

in soviet russia, aircraft stealths you!


RE: Where is Europe?
By rocman on 9/1/2009 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 1
If only Secretary Gates can see all the points you raised...

One thing though - stealth is only one facet of an effective air superiority fighter. Or any fighter, really. There's also pilot competence/training, avionics, info sharing with friendlies and good old aerodynamic abilities. No doubt the higher up people in the air force were a little complacent back in the Balkan conflict. Like you said, stealth isn't invisibility (at least not yet...?).

That being said, I seriously think we should replace the F-15s with F-22s at an one-to-one ratio. At the very least. I can see that for the near future, we might not need to ramp up production - after all, we'll want to get the latter blocks as they come along too! But closing down the production line ENTIRELY? Retarded to say the least. We're not always going to be fighting countries that have no air force.

The F-35 is a compromise. Compared to the Raptor, it's not as stealthy or capable, and most importantly, it's not that cheap... Sure, the original budget looked good, but today? It is useful though, in our typical hi-lo mix with the F-22. BUT... that's assuming we have enough F-22s. 187? Oops, sorry we just lost one. 186 now! They keep saying 186 is enough - just wait until we fight a real air force. That number would take a big hit from attrition alone.


RE: Where is Europe?
By dark matter on 9/2/2009 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 3
Very nice Essay. Shame it doesn't win you wars eh. Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Its pointless having "Stealth" bombers when your enemy is a villager.

America hasn't "won" any wars since WW2. Faith in technology is one thing, but to fight a war against faith you need more than technology.


RE: Where is Europe?
By inperfectdarkness on 9/3/2009 9:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
thanks for not reading all of what i posted:

quote:
remember, train & equip for the wars we could fight--not the ones we have fought. the threat for needing high-technology weaponry isn't manifest in a superpower showdown. it's manifest in the "other" superpower selling all of their goods to small, terrorist/nonfriendly countries that we DO end up in conflict with.


i'm also elated to learn that we didn't win desert storm. care to share more?


RE: Where is Europe?
By ipay on 9/7/2009 3:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
imperfectdarkness, you should be employed to do the job that Gates is supposedly there for. As you said, he's killing the US military - there's a difference between scaling down military capabilities versus making them completely ineffective, and Gates seems woefully unable to tell the difference.


RE: Where is Europe?
By CheesePoofs on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By TerranMagistrate on 8/31/2009 9:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow.

The Buran never amounted to anything more than scrap metal and wasted Soviet funding. Exactly like the N-1 rocket the Soviets made to rival the Saturn V.

The truth is American technology the best in the world.


RE: Where is Europe?
By SiliconAddict on 8/31/2009 9:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
When we are willing to pay for it that is.


RE: Where is Europe?
By TerranMagistrate on 8/31/2009 9:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
And we are willing most of the time, that's why we're ahead.


RE: Where is Europe?
By RussianTank on 9/1/2009 1:40:07 AM , Rating: 1
You may have the money but not the idea, must I remind you who was the first to enter space. As a side note, the picture of a plane here is not the next gen Russian stealth fighter.


RE: Where is Europe?
By slunkius on 9/1/2009 5:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
pure russian rubbish. so russia was the first one to have the IDEA to enter space? i doubt it. it sure was first to actually enter space, but then again americans were first to land on the moon, so it is debatable which "first" is more important.


RE: Where is Europe?
By dark matter on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By mojoe721 on 9/2/2009 8:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are freakin' kiddin' me right? Who do you think put the mirrors on the moon then, aliens?

Solar radiation? It is called space suits, you know the ones they use quite often during space walks while fixing the shuttle and or repairing the telescopes.

They've already did that. They have shown the past landing sites, etc. Try to google it!


RE: Where is Europe?
By Hardin on 9/2/2009 9:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
You lose all credibility when you call the moon landing a hoax. Nothing you say is valid really.


RE: Where is Europe?
By mojoe721 on 9/2/2009 9:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think he also believes Hiroshima was faked as well and US never had the atom bomb..


RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 9/1/2009 7:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I simply must take issue with the berating of the Buran.

It was better than the shuttle in most of the key areas. If the shuttle had the Buran's ability to fly remotely it would have meant the shuttle could have been used for its design mission (inserting both govt and commerical satellites into orbit).

This capability would have made the shuttle much more economically feasible, and given NASA a significant helping hand financially.

The engine concept of the Buran was also much more efficient.


RE: Where is Europe?
By TerranMagistrate on 9/1/2009 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, all things with such complexity seem to look better on paper.


RE: Where is Europe?
By niaaa on 9/3/2009 7:16:40 AM , Rating: 4
amazing how anyone who questions the US almighty superiority gets rated down, whatever the subject


RE: Where is Europe?
By TMV192 on 9/1/2009 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 3
The N1 was clearly not going to keep up with the Saturn V, but it took a massive ballooning of NASA's budget to make it happen, and Korolev, von Braun's rival, died before he could finish the design so it never flew successfully. But as far as the Buran goes, it only became scrap after funding fell through at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Design-wise, like most of Russia's rockets, it was quite efficient in terms of budget, that's why most new space countries use Russian derived rockets, and even Lockheed's own Atlas V rocket, a rocket the Augustine Commission may recommend over the Ares I, uses the an engine derived from Buran's Energia Launch rocket. In fact, Energia is a lot like rocket's that NASA has been thinking about as a replacement for the shuttle since the 90's


RE: Where is Europe?
By Chernobyl68 on 9/1/2009 6:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did have jet engines, to assist with landing.


RE: Where is Europe?
By 91TTZ on 9/1/2009 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they did copy the design. The Soviet Union had many spacecraft which were their own design that served the same function as US analogs. Yet, none of them looked identical the way Buran looked like the Shuttle. Also, they produced a near identical copy of the Concorde. There were some differences, but it was obviously a copied design. The US plans for a SST at the time looked very different.


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrPoletski on 9/6/2009 7:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
I very much doubt they've stolen the design of the f22, more likely the geometric requirements of reducing your radar signature end up making similar sized planes be the same shape.

that's the primary means of 'stealthing' the F22, not fancy gizmos (though undoubtedly it has many), but simply the shape of the craft itself.

On top of that, I recall the russians having some sort of plasma based stealth technology - of which there were very scant details - that could supposedly be employed on any craft (with presumably varying levels of effectiveness). Makes me wonder if this technology is used on this craft to further augment its stealth capabilities. Would make sense, but then handing a tech around internationally for anyone to reverse engineer does not. The F22 still hasnt made it out of the states yet for that very reason.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Aberforth on 8/31/2009 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
That's a generic design for implementing stealth mainly to minimize radar detection at low altitudes.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 3:27:07 PM , Rating: 5
That rendering is not official.

It has been on the net for years.

Does look nice though.


RE: Where is Europe?
By nafhan on 8/31/2009 3:28:01 PM , Rating: 1
A manned stealth aircraft is pretty much going to look like the F22 or have a completely different control surface layout (delta wing for example). This happens with cars, too.

As far as the Buran, it was quite different and more capable. The aerodynamic similarities were imposed by Soviet military leaderships insistence on a delta wing glider design. It was sad that they never really got any use. Oh well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program#Key_dif...


RE: Where is Europe?
By Aberforth on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By DEVGRU on 8/31/2009 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Alexei Fedorov, president of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation assures, "The prototype will take off this year."


Heh, no mention of the LANDING though. :)


RE: Where is Europe?
By ciparis on 9/1/2009 12:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
^^ Rating 6 please, sirs.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Sazar on 8/31/2009 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like it has a number of Mig 29 and 35 design characteristics as well honestly :)


RE: Where is Europe?
By HotFoot on 9/2/2009 10:23:31 AM , Rating: 3
You DO NOT want to suggest that there are intelligent people doing anything creative outside the U.S.A. on these forums or you will be automatically down-rated.

Put the flag-waving aside for a minute, people. It's getting pretty old.


RE: Where is Europe?
By eddieroolz on 8/31/2009 9:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not to forget the B-1 Lancer/Tupolev Tu-144.

They look identical.


RE: Where is Europe?
By TerranMagistrate on 8/31/2009 9:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the Tu-160.

Why spend money on being original when you can just produce a knock-off counterpart that looks almost as good but technically isn't.


RE: Where is Europe?
By croc on 8/31/2009 10:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Og invented the wheel... The idiot forgot to invent the patent office first, or he'd have owned the planet!

Seriously, form follows function. As in the wheel, that form works best. Trying for a different form will compromise the function.


RE: Where is Europe?
By StormFox on 9/3/2009 12:01:34 AM , Rating: 3
Buran? in a way only the exterior.

they took the rocket engines out of the shuttle and put it on the rocket.

Result? More Cargo space. much more

If that is not enough... they used technology back then to fully automate the shuttle. their shuttle can launch itself.. get to space.. and back all by itself.

too bad for the Russian lack of $$$. the Buran would be very interesting indeed. the Energia is a fantastic rocket too


RE: Where is Europe?
By Titanius on 8/31/2009 2:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Can't you read:

quote:
Much remains unknown the public, though, about the $3B USD fighter project which is being financed jointly by India and Russia.


RE: Where is Europe?
By lukasbradley on 8/31/2009 2:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe The Europe can call The Fighter "The Definite Article".


RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 2:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get the joke.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Goty on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 2:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, English is not my first language and I actually had very little formal training, mostly learned it on the job. I thrive to improve my skills, but I'm bound to make mistakes I'm afraid.


RE: Where is Europe?
By lukasbradley on 8/31/2009 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, it was a poor attempt at a poor joke. Fail.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Goty on 9/1/2009 2:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
No worries, that's how you learn!


RE: Where is Europe?
By haukionkannel on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, stealth is better for offense, but how are you supposed to defend yourself against something you can't see? Without tech parity, a stealthy enemy air force could wipe out most of the defense in the air and on the ground before you realized you're under attack. And without tech parity, there's no way you can retaliate. Your pretty shiny planes will make nice targets for the stealthy interceptors your enemy is fielding. Plus, it's not like they would use AA missiles to shoot your clearly visible bombers down. Oh wait...


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 3:20:31 PM , Rating: 4
One F-117 was shot down. ONE. 16 years after its introduction. And it was shot down because the mission plan was sloppy (always using the same route). If stealth is almost useless as you imply, why did the US develop the F-117, the B2, the F-22 and are now getting the F-35? Why are the Russian, Chinese and Indian air forces developing their own stealth aircraft? Of course there are, or will be, counter to new technology. But arguing you don't need it and shouldn't work on it? Just like iron wasn't all that good compared to bronze? Or ironclads vs wooden ships? Battleships vs aircraft carriers? Jets vs props? You need more examples?


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't answer to anything. So please, enlighten me. How is stealth not important/useful enough to care about in modern aerial warfare? Yes it's possible to shoot down a stealth aircraft. It happened once, to a first generation plane flying on a predictable route.

But: there are no indication that current defense systems would be adequate to detect and destroy an incoming stealthy air attack. And even with radar or other detection methods improving, so will the various tech used to reduce RCS or obfuscate in any way a plane. Giving up on stealth is simply yielding to any assailant a large advantage.


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Who said it was a magical arrow? I never said it was the be all and end all. What I said is that while every major player is working on producing a modern stealth aircraft for their air forces, Europe as a whole is sitting on its hands. And there's nothing preventing to work on stealth and anti-stealth at the same time.
Europe has had different military agenda than the US since the end of WWII, not by choice but by necessity. But things are changing. The Cold War is over, the Soviet boogeyman is gone and the US big brother may not be so inclined to stand for them.
Now, the game is about placing your pawns were they matter, taking control of resources and holding on to them. The US have the capacity to influence, by economic or military means foreign nations. The Russians are working towards re-establishing their sphere of influence lost after the collapse of the USSR and the Chinese are securing resources for themselves making good buddies with Sudan and other "friendly" states. And they're all building up (or maintaining) their military, you know, "just in case". What is Europe doing? Bickering about how many MP per capita the parliament should get? How to split/reform the CAP? As soon as the banking crisis started, it was every man for himself. To each their priorities I guess, but you can't always rely on your allies to come at the rescue. If you like history, read about the feodorati and the Roman empire.


RE: Where is Europe?
By omnicronx on 8/31/2009 6:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No Stealth aircraft has been tested against a comparably advanced anti-aircraft system.
Are you a moron? The US has surely tested their own aircraft to the point where the should be quite confident with stealth technology. Sure, they have probably never seen real action with a comparable AA system, but it surely has been teste with their own AA systems. You don't need to shoot a missile at an aircraft to test to see whether or not your plane gets tagged.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2009 8:15:25 PM , Rating: 4
I saw a war game where they were pitting the f22 against f15's and the results were brutal, straight up massacre. The f15, which has a 104 to 0 kill ratio,is basically defenseless against the f22, says something for stealth technology.


RE: Where is Europe?
By SiliconAddict on 8/31/2009 10:08:09 PM , Rating: 1
Guys. Stealth is simply another tech to layer on top of a defense. If you guys ever RPGed or played Final fantasy you know that adding defense upon defense helps and in a battle, that little edge could win the battle.
Its the current buzz word and is the reason why pretty much every branch of the military is looking into stealth. A military force would be stupid to not at least be looking into implementing it. Why are you guys beating each other over the head with this?


RE: Where is Europe?
By straycat74 on 8/31/2009 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you quoted Darth Vader. Does that one-up the Wookie Defense?


RE: Where is Europe?
By acase on 8/31/2009 3:55:11 PM , Rating: 5
Anyone else feel like they just witnessed a fight break out at the special olympics?


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Where is Europe?
By pxavierperez on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By 91TTZ on 8/31/2009 4:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
With only one F-117 ever being shot down we can't be sure how effectively it was tracked. It could have just been a lucky shot. But I agree with your point that stealth aircraft aren't invincible or even invisible. They're just harder to detect and can't be detect from as far away.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 5:01:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sure, stealth is better for offense, but how are you supposed to defend yourself against something you can't see? Without tech parity, a stealthy enemy air force could wipe out most of the defense in the air and on the ground before you realized you're under attack.


Common misconception.

Long wavelength search radar can see ANY low-observable aircraft. The USAF know this. The USAF have admitted this.

Ground control can vector defensive air to the area, then **passively** slave IR guided AAMs from the IRST, like the French MICA. Then its the stealth aircraft that have no warning of their detection and the incoming missile.

There are more ways of killing an aircaft than radar signals.


RE: Where is Europe?
By ChronoReverse on 8/31/2009 11:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I thought it was pretty well-known by now that stealth isn't complete invisibility against radar? Since the USAF admitted it, that just means that they won't treat the stealth platforms as invisible and thus stealth simply becomes an additional advantage layer.

After all, if simply using passive IR anti-air missiles was so effective, would radar guided missiles have become so popular in use? Sure, if a stealth attack plane assumed that they were completely invisible it'd be an issue, but I think they've learned their lesson by now?

The F-22 tends to be (should be?) quite backed up by AWACS anyway so I don't see them being dropped on that easily. It's not like they'll be sent out on their own with a mission like "go in there and wreak havoc okay?"


RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 9/1/2009 8:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, I thought it was pretty well-known by now that stealth isn't complete invisibility against radar?


Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear earlier.

By: "Long wavelength search radar can see ANY low-observable aircraft."

I mean: "Current low observable technology is COMPLETELY USELESS against long wavelength radar. The detection range is not changed whatsoever."

Clear enough?


RE: Where is Europe?
By ChronoReverse on 9/1/2009 12:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I wasn't being clear enough since I meant the exact same thing. When I said not completely invisible against radar, I meant that some types of radars can see stealth craft just fine (although the nature of long wavelength radio waves means that it's not as precise).


RE: Where is Europe?
By kattanna on 8/31/2009 3:00:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Where is Europe?


i guess you didnt pay attention in geography class did you?


RE: Where is Europe?
By Fallen Kell on 8/31/2009 3:01:42 PM , Rating: 5
Europe is doing what Europe has done for the last 50 years... not a lot militarily... France's involvement in the Gulf conflicts has consisted of sending a bunch of their high end fighter jets into the area and flying "support" which consists of being in the air while other nation's jets are doing the real work and gathering as much electronic intelligence on the capabilities of the other jets as they can.

I still love the Indian press coverage of the 2008 Joint Red Flag exercises which they were invited to take part of in the USA. Go see YouTube for what I am talking about. They didn't like the fact that a US Colonel stated the cold hard truth that about the capabilities of the SU-30 MKI jet (which is the basis for the new stealth version). The US Miramar forces in F-15's and F-16's wear winning a lot of the 1 v 1 dog-fights mainly due to tactics. The Su-30 MKI pilots fell into a similar tactical blunder that early F-22 pilots did, but it was worse with the SU-30 MKI due to the engines not being as powerful as the F-22. Basically, when the pilots tried to turn fast, and turn so much that they used the vectored thrust to pivot the jet around the center of gravity and not the center of lift, the jet would lose altitude and forward momentum. During this manoeuvre, the F-15 and F-16 pilots would pull up, slightly and get an easy kill on the SU-30 MKI since the other jet did not have the thrust to pull up with the F-15 or F-16 while in this state. It is purely a tactical mistake, but a mistake none the less and their pilots all fell into the same mistake. Once they learned their jet a little better, it will be a very nice fighter. Training and familiarity with their jets is what let the F-15 and F-16 pilots to win during those encounters. Give the Indian pilots another year or two with their jet and they will do much better. And that is the whole point of these types of exercises (that and to develop better operational and unit cohesion for joint international missions). The Indian press all blew up about a tactical briefing that was given about the event and how the SU-30 MKI performed because the Indian press had already earlier stated that the SU-30 MKI did better than the American planes, while that statement was not entirely true (the plane itself is more advanced, the training and experience of the pilots in their respective planes was what made the difference), and the Indian press was pissed that they were called out on it, and cut and edited the briefing to only show the few negatives that were discussed, but left out all of the positives. There were a lot of gasps when some of the capabilities of the SU-30 MKI were discussed in the briefing, especially about turn radius. It is a good jet. But like most things, it has its downsides as well, and the Indian press I guess didn't like the fact that someone talked about the downsides at all...


RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 3:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They didn't like the fact that a US Colonel stated the cold hard truth that about the capabilities of the SU-30 MKI jet (which is the basis for the new stealth version).


You should know that the Su-30 can maintain a pre-stall turn rate of 22 degrees a second and the F-15 can only maintain 16 degrees. Nothing wrong with the aircraft at all, poor tactics going post-stall.

I'm sure your also aware that in Cope India 2004 the scores were pretty much reversed.

Of course, exersizes are one thing, gloves off are quite another. Both the USAF and the IAF will not have revealed their full hand (or anything like it) in any exersize.


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By TxJeepers on 8/31/2009 11:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case any one missed it. This reminds us that technology is great and we Americans are usually at the forefront. But more importantly, what sets us apart is training.


RE: Where is Europe?
By RussianTank on 9/1/2009 1:44:16 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't say what you do not know, I have seen the training in several countries across the globe, some is so good to the point of abnormal.


RE: Where is Europe?
By BZDTemp on 9/1/2009 7:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
Just because Europe is able to use more than just weapons to communicate with the world does not mean Europe is not doing is part.

You single out France but totally forget to all the other countries in Europe. France is just one country and your statement is like picking a US state and saying they did little.

I come from Denmark and we took part in both wars with Iraq and payed for it with blood. Just as we are taking part in Afghanistan and in fact we are the country which is seeing the highest proportion of our sons and daughters being killed. In other words it is not like our troops are there for a picnic.

I really think you need to reevaluate your views on what Europe is doing. Just because we try not to start wars it does not mean we are not doing our bit. Perhaps you should also consider how it was having actual borders with the Soviet Union.

PS. Not relevant with regards to the European issues but as for the Indian press. Try watching Fox and you will see US press doing just the same.


RE: Where is Europe?
By just4U on 9/1/2009 10:55:57 AM , Rating: 2
I thought France was slightly higher.. Fatalities by the coalition is listed here ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_...
It's pretty acurate.

Not to undermine Dutch involvement (which deserves respect) but one of the problems voiced by the UK,US, and Canada is the unwillingness by many European countries to take a more active combat role in Afghanistan.

I believe that's why America finally decided to double their troops there where as other countries (such as Canada) are considering pulling out. They've only got 2500 troops in the region but have seen well over a 100 deaths due to their willingness to go into a more volatile area that should see joint efforts from their European Allies.

Sadly, that's not been the case with many of the European countries signed on to this. No country wants to see more war dead coming home but they should all be doing their part.. which has not been happening.


RE: Where is Europe?
By BZDTemp on 9/1/2009 6:24:49 PM , Rating: 4
I think you're confusing Denmark and Holland. Here is a quote from the article you linked to "Denmark is the country in ISAF that has had the largest number of casualties compared to the country's population. Out of all the countries, Denmark is also the nation which has the largest percentage of its soldiers who have died."!

That I why I reacted so strongly against the usual US statement that Europe is doing anything. Europe is not one country and saying that is like saying America is one country and I wonder how the people of the US would like being put in the same box as some of countries from south of you border!?!

Look at a map. Moscow is actually a European city!

Also how is it the US gets to decide what is right for everyone? I agree that we need to help Afghanistan become a better place but as for the second Iraq war that was a BIG mistake. Had it not been for the US thirst for oil the war would not have taken place and the whole WMD thing was a fabrication. Basically Bush and his henchmen used a lot of the good will towards the US to lure many countries into a war.


RE: Where is Europe?
By just4U on 9/2/2009 9:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
The US doesn't decide what is right for everyone. While it might be the biggest voice at the table it's Allies have a large say in what actions are taken. How anyone can't see that is beyond me.

People keep pointing out Iraq. Perhaps they should but they should also note that had the coalition followed thru and finished what they started back in the 90s it's quite possible we'd not be sitting here discussing any of this now. I might be a little optimistic here but I think the middle east would have been well on the road to recovery by now if they'd just stayed and finished the job. Many of the problems we see there today are due to the mistrust by factions that were lead to believe that the West was there to help instead of leaving them to twist in the wind 16 years ago.

I also wasn't confusing Denmark with any other country. They have a smaller population and less troops in Afghanistan. That's why I said their contribution deserves respect but I believe the same holds true fro all contributers there. It's just unfortunate that most of these European countries are unwilling to take on higher profile roles in Afghanistan due to political pressure back home. This has led to it all dragging out longer then it needs to.


RE: Where is Europe?
By BZDTemp on 9/4/2009 4:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
"The US doesn't decide what is right for everyone. While it might be the biggest voice at the table it's Allies have a large say in what actions are taken. How anyone can't see that is beyond me."

Of course the US does not decide. I meant the question as a comment to you complaint because it sure sounds like you would like the world to do as the US says. You may not put it so directly but a statement like this "It's just unfortunate that most of these European countries are unwilling to take on higher profile roles in Afghanistan due to political pressure back home." pretty much repeats it. In essence you are saying the politicians of Europe should not listen to the people but instead do as the US wants!

I have very little respect for the politics behind how Iraq was handled. It's all about oil and I understand how there is little respect for what the west is doing since it is so clearly double standards apply. Doing the first Gulf war differently could have changed the time line but not much else.

If we made Israel go back to the 1967 border and abandon the settlements the Middle East would have a lot more respect for the politics of the west. But no - we turn a blind eye to Israel's crime against humanity and we do it again and again.


RE: Where is Europe?
By fteoath64 on 9/1/2009 8:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well said, @Fallen Kell!.

It is the training and organization of the USAF that makes the difference even if the enemy had superior machines. The human factor determines the win in any dog fight or air encounter. Backed with AWACS, military sats and all other support forces, the management of the battlefield is way superior.

We have seen in the North Korean war where USAF had inferior aircraft compared to their enemy Soviet jets. The training of the North Korean pilots were just appalling. The means, it would be many years before other power came up to speed on the human factor that actually operates these complex planes.


RE: Where is Europe?
By FITCamaro on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Much of the F-35 software and some of its hardware is closed from export customers, even allies. The UK did not like that. F-35 is a bombtruck, not a fighter. Read the internal critic of it from US Airforce commanders (hushed down because if its importance in the economy). Overpriced and overweight. The two important things the Yanks learned after Vietnam (where they had a enemy who wanted to fight) was that the cannon is still very useful and that BVR-capability was very bad. They learnt their lesson, The Top Gun academy and the AIM-120. The last time someone listened to the pilots and the engineers was with the F-15 and F-16. Politicians arent rational, they want votes.


RE: Where is Europe?
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 5:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the avionics and sensors software is not for export. All the software for actually flying the jet is the same.

As far as overpriced and overweight, I won't comment because I'm not a pilot. I'm not exactly a huge fan of the F35 myself either. I'd rather the money be spent on more F22s and let the rest of the world develop their own fighters.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2009 8:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is definitely a role for "bomb trucks" in modern warfare. That is pretty much what f16's have been used for. We put up f15's for fighter cap and then use f16's to do the dirty work.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:38:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, and a considerably smaller amount of its GDP towards military expenditures. The amount of money is not as important as how it is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette

As i said. Everything in the world is not black and white. Something more people hopefully will learn. Or politicians for that matter.


RE: Where is Europe?
By slunkius on 9/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where is Europe?
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 3:31:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Europe just introduced a 4.5 gen fighter (Eurofighter) and has no plan whatsoever to develop a domestic stealth fighter


Yup. The absolute correct policy.

Bypass the lame duck 5th generation.

Aerial warfare is about to undergo a paradigm shift, and all the current (and even stuff like this not yet in production) are going to be obsolete... in a manner similar to the pre and post dreadnought battleships of the early 20th century.

The introduction of compact directed energy weapons onto aircraft will render missiles ineffective. The oncoming introduction of anti-aircraft-UCAVs will be able to out-maneuvre any manned aircraft. Put the two together and....


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that losing an unmanned aircraft compared to a manned one. How it could affect the opinion at home and the political capital for waging war.


RE: Where is Europe?
By ChronoReverse on 8/31/2009 11:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
While I think there's still a little while to go before UAVs can really challenge even 4th generation fighters, it does seem that a 6th generation fighter doesn't seem particularly likely.

Still, in the interim, there's quite a large gap for the 5th generation fighter to exist. The USA's 4th generation fleet certainly can't maintain the low, erm, casualty rates that seem to be preferred.


RE: Where is Europe?
By DarkElfa on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Where is Europe?
By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 1
The last excellent fighter was the F-22. We will not see another dedicated fighter in the future i presume. Not economically viable as the bureaucrats would say.


RE: Where is Europe?
By 91TTZ on 8/31/2009 4:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The USA have had a stealth fighter operational for several years, India will have its bird flying at the end of the year. The Russia and the China are probably not far behind.


In the article it says that this is a Russian plane. India is only the buyer, it is Russian made with Russian technology.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Moohbear on 8/31/2009 5:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
The tech is developed jointly, although I suspect most of it is Russian. However, I would think HAL will get all the data to build the plane, meaning they will learn all they need to go on. They've had some problems with their last project (Tejas), but they're growing and learning. They have the FGCA program with Sukhoi and the MCA, which appears to be 100% domestic.


RE: Where is Europe?
By voodooboy on 8/31/2009 5:11:36 PM , Rating: 1
91TTZ said:
quote:
In the article it says that this is a Russian plane. India is only the buyer, it is Russian made with Russian technology.


From the article:
quote:
The fighter is being jointly developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), India's leading aerospace firm and is based on the Sukhoi PAK FA, also currently under development.


Either you don't know to read or decided to say something just for the heck of it.


RE: Where is Europe?
By 91TTZ on 9/1/2009 9:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Previous ventures between Russia and India have involved license-built Russian fighters. These collaborations have been taking place for at least the past decade. In the past collaborations between Sukhoi and HAL, nearly all of the aircraft design was Russian, with India manufacturing the aircraft under license and creating the avionics.

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI

Sukhoi has participated in a nearly identical program with China resulting in the Su-30MKK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK

Again, it's undeniably a Russian Sukhoi design with China's factories producing it under license with only minor modifications.

Both of those examples are just minor upgrades of the Su-30:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

which itself is a minor upgrade of the Su-27 from the 1970's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27


RE: Where is Europe?
By Hakuryu on 8/31/2009 4:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Where is Europe?

They are waiting until they can get another 2 billion or so from Microsoft before they start building a stealth fighter.


RE: Where is Europe?
By BZDTemp on 9/6/2009 7:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
LOL - I just knew someone would bring this up.

First of all most of the European countries may be EU members but do not confuse Europe and the EU. That is like saying the American continent is the same as the US.

Secondly.
While the fine imposed on Microsoft may sound like big money it is pocket change compared to the EU economy. We are almost half a billion people in the EU our combined BNP is something 25% more than the US (2007 figures). Try to get some perspective.


RE: Where is Europe?
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2009 7:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
Not really pathetic, they just rely on us to pay for there defense, just like Japan.


RE: Where is Europe?
By PrinceGaz on 9/1/2009 8:02:02 AM , Rating: 3
We (Britain in my case) do spend a fair bit on defence, but proportionately nowhere near as much as the US does. Quite right too, I say: we let the US spend loads on defence including allowing them airbases in our country, providing them with useful outposts which keeps everyone safer.

If Europe as a whole spent as much on defence as the US, we'd probably look to establishing airbases on US soil :)


RE: Where is Europe?
By Jeffk464 on 9/2/2009 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, be my guest. military bases are always great for the local economy.


RE: Where is Europe?
By alanore on 9/4/2009 5:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Where is Europe?

Good question, we're standing right behind you, we're supporting you in wars, we're buying your aircraft supporting your economy. We're on the frontline getting our brother and sisters, sons and daughters, killed just like you.

Airforces aren't just built up of one type of aircraft, the USA and a lot of the big European countries are in a coalition, so why would we spend huge amounts of money making something we can already buy off our allies?

Most European countries can't afford to develop a 4.5/5Gen fighter on there own, so we need to do joint developments between nations, which end up being bogged down with red tape.


RE: Where is Europe?
By MrPoletski on 9/6/2009 7:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
why do you call the eurofighter a '4.5 gen' fighter craft?


Look who took over the F22 development
By Navier on 8/31/2009 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
US Congress cuts the F22, in favor of the F35 and now this fighter (which will be sold all over the world) will be able to out pace it (in pure speed)... OOPS

Maybe it will be good for the US to have some military competition... Is the US sleeping again?




RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By SoulBlighter on 8/31/2009 2:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
First this is purely Russian design, India would be making a joint venture in developing this aircraft. I believe US should invest more into economics and newest technology rather wasting and burning money into non productive arms race.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By theapparition on 8/31/2009 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe US should invest more into economics and newest technology rather wasting and burning money into non productive arms race.

The US Government already spends 5X more on domestic programs than defense spending. How much more do you want?

The purpose of superior weapons is partly a deterent, and you can't measure the economic impact that has.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By puckalicious on 8/31/2009 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly.

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Military: 901B
Non-military nat'l sec: 520B
Medicare/medicaid/SocSec/Income security: 1,915B

So it's pretty close to 3:4 ratio between "defense" and "domestic".

Add in the fact the US spends as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on defense and it's clear we spend maybe a bit too much, or at least don't get as much value as we should. We should be able to literally rule the world if we spend as much right!?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-milit...


By SoulBlighter on 8/31/2009 7:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Currently we are using 4.7% of GDP which is kinda higher than other developed countries. Please read the following link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_th...


By ianweck on 8/31/2009 9:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or at least don't get as much value as we should.


Probably this.


By hashish2020 on 8/31/2009 11:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Medicaire/caid, SS and income security actually supply reciepts, like copays, payroll etc

SS is actually pushing the deficit down right now


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By Jeffk464 on 9/1/2009 12:25:28 AM , Rating: 3
I think I heard that the US navy is large and powerful enough to beat the next 12 largest navies combined. I would say this is a little overkill.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By RussianTank on 9/1/2009 1:46:47 AM , Rating: 1
That is surely an overkill, I read from one of the British war books that after the break of the USSR, American navy was only 20% larger than Russian, and nothing really changed since then. Meaning that Russian navy plus say, British is just as big as American already.


By Brain onna Bun on 9/1/2009 5:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
Except that the Russian navy has had nowhere near the funding for the last few years that US Navy has been consistently receiving. A Navy without funds is just rusting metal.....


By Danish1 on 9/1/2009 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Add in the fact the US spends as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on defense and it's clear we spend maybe a bit too much, or at least don't get as much value as we should.


If I'm not mistaken about half of your defense budget is black OPS'ed so you will never know.

Think about that.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By Yawgm0th on 8/31/2009 4:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US Government already spends 5X more on domestic programs than defense spending. How much more do you want?
The US spends over 9x as much as China and 16x as much as Russia on defense. The US military budget accounts for about 45% of all military spending on the planet How much more do you want?

We need superior technology and better trained and equipped forces, but we have to draw a reasonable line as to how much we'll spend for that.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By Globemaster on 8/31/2009 11:06:29 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, but due to onerous federal contracting regulations and an archaic officer promotion system we get terrible value for our money.

Having been involved in procurement for the government, I can tell you we are taught that we need to consider the socio-economic impact our spending will have. We are also taught that government spending is used for social engineering. Case in point - take a look at gsaadvantage.gov. In addition to having a terribly inefficient search function, you can actually decide who to buy from based on their socio-economic "category". Examples are "Woman Owned Business, Veteran Owned Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, SBA Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, SBA Certified 8(a) Firm & SBA Certified HUBZone Firm." I actually have to consider this in my purchase and try to direct business to the most disadvantaged.

Of course, this being a wonderfully entrepreneurial country, people have figured this out and take advantage. For example, I had to buy some chairs. The cheapest I could find them on GSA Advantage was a woman owned business in Michigan. I called the nice lady who had no stock at all, just the internet. I placed my order with her for $120 per chair and she then placed an order on staples.com for $50 per chair and had them mailed to my place of work. I, however, can not use staples.com because it is an evil large corporation, so this nice lady made a bunch of money for acting as a unnecessary middle-person and I had to use her because of our regulatory purchasing hierarchy.

In a town around an Air Force base, you'll also find that every business is owned by someone other than a white male, because they can't get any contract on the base. The electrician who works on my house actually works for his wife. The guy who came to work on my oven works for his sister. The sprinkler guy works for his 85 year old mother. Not really of course, but on paper, because then they get the contract. Can't be a single white guy with a small business, though - better not get divorced or else get married quick.

Multiply that ridiculousness times x1000000 on our larger projects with sub-contractors in 46 states so they get the votes and you can see why everything costs so much. The only solution is to exempt the military from these ridiculous regulations, appoint a small independent panel from the GAO to oversee procurement to ensure it's not ridiculously unfair and then save the taxpayer $100B annually. Take a tiny bit of unfairness for the overall good of the country. For crying out loud, we made a P-51 from concept to production in 100 days in WWII and today we've taken 15 years to contract a tanker that other countries are already flying!!!

As far as officer development - it takes about $2M to make a new pilot and the military has about 15,000. An experienced pilot has about $10-15M training invested after 10 years in service. This individual constantly has to do desk jobs, only flies once or twice per week and generally hates the fact that they are doing paperwork poorly which they were never trained for as a career broadening exercise.

The RAF lets the pilots decide after a few years - just fly and be capped at Major equivalent or, for 10% or so, continue on a leadership path. Then, rather than making all their pilots who cost $10M and gets paid $140k per year do a desk job that could be done by a civilian or Airman making $35k per year, they actually fly airplanes. They get to have less pilots who all are happier and save money doing it!

So many great folks get pissed at working a desk 4/5 of the time that they get out. You then lose everything invested and don't have a pilot or a leader. Fix this and the Air Force at least wouldn't be so screwed up because you'd have more senior folks with more experience rather than just being left with the people who want to be Generals and the people who are too comfortable to quit.

Finally, is this a great time to end F-22 production (actual cost per copy is just above the F-35, the large delta is always using the total cost which includes all the sunk R&D - actual cost per copy is ~$140M vs $110M for a ton more capability) with a near-peer competitor popping up? Just curious.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By Yawgm0th on 9/1/2009 11:06:50 AM , Rating: 2
Despite the length, I read your post and found it wonderfully informative. +6 I had no idea the military and federal government were that inefficient. It sounds like members of Congress ought to hear from you, but good luck with that.

quote:
Finally, is this a great time to end F-22 production (actual cost per copy is just above the F-35, the large delta is always using the total cost which includes all the sunk R&D - actual cost per copy is ~$140M vs $110M for a ton more capability) with a near-peer competitor popping up? Just curious.
I thought ending the F-22 program was stupid before news of this plane hit. Programs like the F-22 are why we should outspend the rest of the world -- superior technology that keeps our soldiers safer and gives our military more power.


By Danish1 on 9/1/2009 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 3
The congress members are too busy securing earmarks for their sponsors and home states to care.


By VultureTX on 9/2/2009 9:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
nice post GM.

I would say that the USAF has desk jockeys that actually understand the issues of the cockpit. Whereas UK desk huggers are ALWAYS REMFs. And thus the British military have way more issues with their gear.


By voodooboy on 8/31/2009 5:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's not true actually. While the base "platform" is a Sukhoi, this time around, India decided to build "on it" based off of it's specific requirements instead of taking a fully Russian built/designed aircraft and tacking on packages. This seems like a more cost-effective approach to building an "indigenous" aircraft than build one from absolute scratch (at which, their attempts haven't been going terribly well). So the FGFA is a fundamentally different aircraft compared to the Russian-spec PAK FA.


By Steve1981 on 8/31/2009 2:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, raw speed is inconsequential compared to the quality of avionics and stealth, which remain to be seen.


By Regs on 8/31/2009 3:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US Congress cuts the F22, in favor of the F35 and now this fighter (which will be sold all over the world) will be able to out pace it (in pure speed)... OOPS


The F-22 however was finished and completed while this one is still (my guess) is in early design phase. The F-22 had it's kinks it had to get rid of once it hit the field for battle testing. Who's to know that this Russian design won't be a complete flop or the specs over exagerated?


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By AntiM on 8/31/2009 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US Congress cuts the F22, in favor of the F35 and now this fighter (which will be sold all over the world) will be able to out pace it (in pure speed)... OOPS


The fact that they're faster and more maneuverable doesn't make them superior. Speed and maneuverability are important, however almost all air combat is performed with air-to-air missiles, so in most cases those advantages will be negligible; missile technology is king.
Avionics and pilot training are also significant factors, and I doubt many countries can match the US in those areas.


By stromgald30 on 8/31/2009 8:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'd also question the source of the better maneuverability claim. F-22 capabilities are still very classified.

Right now, the new Sukhoi seems more maneuverable according to Sukhoi. I don't know, but this sounds like asking Lexus if their new IS series car will be better than BMW's next 3-series.

Of course, they're going to say it's better. Do they really know? No. Would they tell you if it wasn't as good? No.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By nafhan on 8/31/2009 3:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're making it sound like the US isn't going to have F-22's at all. I think we're going to have somewhere north of 150 F-22's total, once production is finished.
The F-22 and F-35 situation is going to be similar to the F-15 and F-16 scenario. The F-22's will be the top of the line air superiority fighters that go in first and make it safe for the 35's to provide backup, mop up, and ground support.


By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not to forget AWACS, air-refueling planes, ECM dedicated aircraft etc.


RE: Look who took over the F22 development
By 91TTZ on 8/31/2009 4:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
The speed isn't really an issue. We had faster aircraft back in the 1950's (the F-104 Starfighter).

Time has proven that maximum performance numbers aren't nearly as important as practical performance numbers. It's very rare that a fighter ever goes maximum speed. It will run out of fuel within minutes at full afterburner. In addition, any stealth goes out the window once you light up the afterburners because the hot exhaust can be tracked from 50+ miles away.

The recent push has been for more practical factors such as range, supercruise ability, and quality of the avionics.


By riottime on 9/1/2009 12:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
yay for competition! it's not the machine but the human behind the machine that counts.


...since it's designed by the Russians
By bohrd on 8/31/2009 2:23:42 PM , Rating: 5
The jet will also be able to be submerged in water, dirt, and snow and taken out again and still be able to fly!

Key features include:
- Engineered skin that accepts mating with duct tape
- Unisex and unisized
- Will not require the same costly repairs the inferior American versions need
- Can be exported to third world countries and be used by the common peasant in their fight to overthrow the capitalist pigs who have invaded their homeland
- Nuclear powered

However
- Does not actually come with a manual
- Don't bother trying to call tech support, it will be some guy you don't really understand but is still named "John"
- Don't expect repairs
- Nuclear powered
- Use will make you sterile and the rest of your countrymen
- The twin seats are for the long flights. You know, people do get bored and if it's dark....




By monstergroup on 8/31/2009 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 3
I love how being nuclear powered is both a plus and a drawback.


By Captain Orgazmo on 8/31/2009 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 5
You forgot "airplane flies you".


RE: ...since it's designed by the Russians
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
You say that in jest.

However its well known that the Russian fighters are much more rugged than their NATO counterparts. That probably would have been a pivotal advantage had the cold war ever turned hot.


RE: ...since it's designed by the Russians
By melgross on 8/31/2009 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
"Well known" by whom? Where do you get your information from?

Even the Russians admitted after the breakup, that their fighters had only about a 65% functioning force. And Russian fighters have historically had short flight time capability.


RE: ...since it's designed by the Russians
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well known by anyone that knows the area. :-|

Are you saying that the MiG-23/27, MiG-25/31, MiG-29, Su-24 and Su-27 did not have a rough field capability?

Name the NATO fighters that had anything like equivalent abilities.

If you think a 65% service availability is bad, I suggest you start looking elsewhere for a comparison!

The short time between large maintenance cycles was due to a completely different approach to maintenance than NATO - and an approach that made much more sense in the chaos of a wartime environment.

The short flight times - I've no idea what your on about... The Flanker B has one of the largest fuel tanks on any fighter, and the MiG-31 has the largest fuel tank in a fighter/interceptor that I know of! 600 miles at Mach 2.3 (as witnessed on USAF radar screens) enough flight time for you?

The MiG-21/29 were point defence fighters, and added weight (in the form of unburnt fuel) is a hinderance to performance where needed - in the dogfight 100 miles from the airbase.

The whole operational concept of the Soviet air forces was unique planes for unique roles, no multiple capabilities. Look at it from that point of view, and it all makes so much practical sense.


By 91TTZ on 9/2/2009 10:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
he short flight times - I've no idea what your on about... The Flanker B has one of the largest fuel tanks on any fighter, and the MiG-31 has the largest fuel tank in a fighter/interceptor that I know of! 600 miles at Mach 2.3 (as witnessed on USAF radar screens) enough flight time for you?


Russian aircraft always had pretty inefficient engines, so they burned a lot more fuel and had shorter ranges than comparable American fighters.


2 things
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 2:58:56 PM , Rating: 1
1) The F35 does not use vector thrust. Only the F22 does.

2) Funny how this fighter looks almost exactly like the F35....




RE: 2 things
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 3:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
Let me add that the F35B does have VTOL capability(like the jet being discussed in the article), but that is different than vector thrust control.


RE: 2 things
By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
2) Can it be because that it tries to be a stealth-aircraft?

One of the interesting things about this is that one could believe that the Russian Federation dont have the economy to build a new generation aircraft by itself. Interesting indeed.


RE: 2 things
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2009 5:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Except the F35 isn't a fully fledged stealth aircraft. The F22 is.


RE: 2 things
By RussianTank on 9/1/2009 1:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
Who says Russia does not have the economy to design their own plane, last time I checked the official reserves Russia has +200 billion in reserves, while US has something like
-3trillion (debt). So which economy can support innovation?


RE: 2 things
By zkln on 9/1/2009 7:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
That's because you live on the Mars. If you lived on the Earth you would know that Russia is the world's largest exporter of natural gas(having the largest reserves in the world), the second largest exporter of oil (reserves being 8th largest in the world).
They are also the second largest exporter of weapon, behind USA.


Stealth?
By KZ on 8/31/2009 2:54:35 PM , Rating: 4
They may CLAIM it is stealth, but I'm quite positive that one could smell the Indian version beyond visual range.




RE: Stealth?
By monstergroup on 8/31/2009 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that was a low blow.


RE: Stealth?
By chmilz on 8/31/2009 3:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
They can drop a butter chicken bomb on my neighborhood anytime.


RE: Stealth?
By pxavierperez on 8/31/2009 4:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, that's low. But funny.


This is why stealth is useless.
By imaheadcase on 8/31/2009 8:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because we only attack countries or go to war with ones that have primitive tech to begin with.

Anyone find it funny we use high tech stealth to go after countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that don't have sophisticated enough air force or anti-aircraft weapons that warrant stealth?

I think Serbia war was one of the only exceptions off top of head that stealth helped, they used pretty modern weapons at the time in that one.

Most of jets shot down are from random anti-aircraft guns that would make stealth not helpful to begin with.

Unless for some random reason the USA/china/india/russian territories decide to invade one another, stealth is pretty much useless for the conflicts the USA engages in as of late.




RE: This is why stealth is useless.
By DLeRium on 8/31/2009 9:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well there is the possibility of going to war against a REAL threat and in the event we do so, we need stealth. At the moment, the F-22 is the only one capable of truly penetrating modern air defenses. The F-35 is insufficient and so is the F-117 clearly. All our 4th generation fighters are really just pieces of crap that will not be able to deliver if we go to war against a true superpower.

Air Power Australia did some analysis and concluded that the F-35 is a bad investment for their country and that the F-22 is the only acceptable solution against say Chinese air defenses or what Russia and China are exporting to other countries.

You can pretty much forget about Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Serbia which we raped pretty hard.


By Jeffk464 on 9/1/2009 12:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
To a certain degree I agree with what you are saying. Over the Last 15 years we would have been better off spending money on greater intelligence and counter terrorism. But the idea of super powers going to war with each other in a nuclear age is absurd anyways. There is no way any of the large nuclear armed countries can go to full scale war with each other without risking complete annihilation. I think our continual threat is going to be from terrorism, and cyber warfare. Wouldn't it be a nice weapon to be able to hack into your enemies economic system and cause it to collapse? Or like the Israelis did to Syria, where they hacked into their air defense systems to conveniently erase the incoming Israeli planes from the Syrian radar screens.


By Chernobyl68 on 9/1/2009 6:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Stealth? Useless? I guess you were too young to remember desert storm.


Hmmm... I am not 100% certain... but...
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 3:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure this is based on the Mikoyan (MiG) I-2000. Mikoyan have been under the United Aircraft Corporation since 2007 (as have Sukhoi), so I would expect that is where the confusion is arising (i.e. why its linked to Sukhoi's PAK-FA here).

The I-2000 is a lighter weight alternative to the PAK-FA - probably single engined. More of an F-35 counterpart than an F-22ski.

(Well, that was the rumours doing the rounds for the past few years - the Indians did not want the expense of a heavy fighter - they already have the Su-30 MKIs)




By MrJim on 8/31/2009 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
One could belive that the experiences learnt from the Sukhoi's PAK-FA is incorporated into this design. Russian nowadays tend to sell even their most advance technology to "allies" for cash. Not like the cold war when they dumbed down their military products for export.


By Dobs on 9/2/2009 12:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.




By Muralidharan001 on 9/2/2009 8:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
When Indians are prevented from NASA hiring.


Red Flag 2008
By Maxfli81 on 9/3/2009 8:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone remember the Red Flag 2008 war games out in Nevada? The USAF was impressed with the performance of the IAF and the capabilities of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI. They mentioned that it was only a 4.5 generation aircraft but could repeatedly kill F-15s but was no match for the F-22. I remember USAF officials saying that once the IAF gets it stealth fighter online, watch out - it could give the F-22 a run for its money.




RE: Red Flag 2008
By EricMartello on 9/3/2009 7:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
The thing about modern air combat is that it is far less tactical than it was back in the old days. You don't have dogfights where a skilled pilot in a crappy plane can beat a mediocre pilot in a high tech/high performance plane. Nowadays, whoever detects the other first and fires wins most of the time. Pilots can "fire and forget" missles from miles away and the plane with the better stealth technology will usually come out on top.


lol at this air supperiority
By AntDX316 on 9/3/2009 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
russia developing a plane that will out perform the best US fighter jet

i think missles today r so high tech u can just launch one from the ground or a ship or a aircraft miles and miles away and it would hit

if they can even get really really close to dog fight the other missles from other aircraft and launch things miles and miles away would be already inbound or the sidewinders would already have worked their magic successfully

a mid air gun fight is really old school it shouldnt really be about manuverability anymore but weaponry




RE: lol at this air supperiority
By AntDX316 on 9/3/2009 2:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
i just realised to get around the back if they get close enough and the missles dont hit they need manuverability...

why not have special missles or guns facing backwards instead of fowards so u wouldnt really care if the enemy was behind u cause the effectiveness of rear missles and front missles should be nearly same


Operational concept
By kondor999 on 8/31/2009 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 3
The FGFA doesn't have to be perfect, or even as good as the F-22. The Russian military has been obsessed with how to foil a USAF "Desert Storm"-style annihilation of a Soviet-style centralized air defense network ever since 91.

So, none of these FGF's are radar invisible. Just means you can get relatively close to an emitter before it sees you. And the key concept is "close enough".

Specifically: Close enough to cut loose an R-37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37) and take out one of our AWACs. Make it where the USAF can't use its AWACS (there are very few) and you've gone a long way toward taking control of the battlespace.




Cool Jetfighters
By Belard on 9/1/2009 8:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah... it does look like a cross between an SU-3x and an F-22. Stole our designs again. Just need to copy the shape, which can easily be done. Afterall, you can buy a plasic model of the F22.

The USA Spends millions on wind-tunnel and design tests, etc.

Why not have some radical fighters like these:
http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/comics/wallpapers/...
http://xiaoshengsu.jz.51.net/yukikaze/y-photo/fa-2...

Or this neat video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-pN_BWkeKY

Model: http://www.dzetaplus.com/image/dzeta-rt-yukikaze.j...
http://pic.poptp.net/files/3/9/9/Yukikaze_poptp_35...




History
By Cubexco on 9/1/2009 12:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Moscow continues to pursue a Sukhoi-based fifth-generation fighter. After five years of effort, Russia finally found an international partner for the development project. In 2007 India entered an agreement to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter based on the Sukhoi.
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/4168
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3577
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3577




Its Russia's Jet
By Muralidharan001 on 9/1/2009 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly the news implies wrong info. The fighter developed is for Russia by Russia and not developed for India. India has considerable role in finance and little role in tech. We will build ours around 2012 after Russia's successful test.




By abhinambiar on 9/3/2009 8:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say I see these stories all the time. I think they're meant to stoke our fears about being surpassed in military supremacy. Even if India does develop a true 5th gen fighter, there are a couple of things that should allay our fears. #1 India and the US are close allies. #2 India will not be able to afford to field more than a few of these fighters. #3 Marketing military equipment is more than about hardware. Governments buy military materiel to cement closer ties with countries. So the US still is in the strongest position. #4 Most importantly, the age of the manned fighter is effectively in its sunset. Unmanned flight does not have to attenuate acceleration, turn radius, G forces, or any other high performance characteristic for the preservation of soft organic matter in the cockpit.

By the way, I'm of Indian origin, so I don't begrudge either country acquiring advanced technology. What does disturb me, however, is the pursuit of procurement for the sake of procurement. It should always have a clearly defined purpose. For now, industrialized and developing nations are all on the same side!




This is BS
By RoberTx on 9/5/2009 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
This article is nonsense. It's just echoing the constant barrage of rumors that poor out of Russia, India and China. This very subject has had the guts debunked out of it on the military forums.




By on 9/1/2009 8:31:24 AM , Rating: 1
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




India is a joke
By vxmqzz on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: India is a joke
By riplikethat on 9/2/2009 3:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, a Pakistani. An article on India can't possibly be complete without comments from you lot.


RE: India is a joke
By vxmqzz on 9/2/2009 9:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Where is A Qiong ?

how about agni-iii

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX9QGCrkQKw

Inida should wake up from their wet dreams


RE: India is a joke
By vxmqzz on 9/2/2009 9:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
should be "Arjun tank"


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki