OT - New Russian Stealth Fighter

[deathfromafar]

Lets not forget the Russians have a history of building aircraft that can operate out of rough strips, and that anything that helps slow you down on a rough strip somewhere is worth it in wartime. Its the same principle the Swedes use/d with their air force.

While the Russians are still operating, the US (in a mock WW3) would be caught on their pristine runways or have nowhere to land and continue the fight. All hypothetical of course - that is assuming their Nukes would get near their targets without falling apart!

Just to throw a thought out there, the Russians seem to have invested more money in Anti Aircraft SAM defences than the US - to me this is indicated by the sheer variety of SAM designations over the years, perhaps utilising their skills in Anti Aircraft technology the Russians are best placed to pull off a Stealth fighter for less money than any other country?

Actually, from the late 60's on to the early 80's, Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces had NATO greatly outnumbered. Ground/Armored forces alone were 55 Divisions to 9 Divisions. Not very good odds head to head. There were however major choke points in which NATO and the US planned to exploit if a push ever came. Namely, airfields/aux/unimproved fields and their roadways which we had mapped and targeted for air strikes as well as I/MRBM strikes. If we were on our toes we could have stopped them but if we fell asleep and had to fight from behind the eightball, well, we had Tac-Nukes all over that place besides I/MRBM's and GLCM. There were the M-110's with 8 inch TN's and Mk-54 SADM's hidden all around. Either way they would have been stopped in their tracks.

I don't think too much emphasis will be placed on the T-50 using unimproved strips. Russian fighters generally all have had high approach/landing speeds. Chutes are their thing. They use them in nearly all conditions. Sundog hit the nail on the head. Brake life not to mention other parts are saved over time.

 

[Sundog]

Lets not forget the Russians have a history of building aircraft that can operate out of rough strips, and that anything that helps slow you down on a rough strip somewhere is worth it in wartime. Its the same principle the Swedes use/d with their air force.

While the Russians are still operating, the US (in a mock WW3) would be caught on their pristine runways or have nowhere to land and continue the fight. All hypothetical of course - that is assuming their Nukes would get near their targets without falling apart!

Just to throw a thought out there, the Russians seem to have invested more money in Anti Aircraft SAM defences than the US - to me this is indicated by the sheer variety of SAM designations over the years, perhaps utilising their skills in Anti Aircraft technology the Russians are best placed to pull off a Stealth fighter for less money than any other country?

Actually, what the Swedes do is slightly different. They don't fly from rough airfields, they fly from parts of roadways designed to operate as airfields. I'll bet you knew all of that , but what I think is really cool about the Swedes is their planes are designed to land with high precision using a high sink rate, just like a Navy plane. That's one of the reasons I think it will be able for them to Navalize the Gripen quite easily. There's a really good description of the Gripen's precision landing system in one of my books about it and it's very interesting.

As for the Russians SAMs, they make a lot of sense, because missiles are cheaper than planes. Of course, they have enemies on their borders, unlike us in the U.S., so it makes them more important to them.

As for stealth, their T-50 will be less expensive, because they aren't going for all out "stealth" on it. They don't want it to be somewhat of a hanger queen like the F-22; every air show I've been to, once it starts raining the F-22 is making a bee line for the hanger. Also, maintaining the coatings is expensive. That's one of the reasons the U.S. Navy is worried about the F-35C. In fact, that's what many people are wondering right now; what kind of coating will the operational T-50 (Su-41?) use? Because the Russians have talked about not using them at all due to maintainability but we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course, you also have to consider that the T-50 most likely will never go up against an F-22, since the U.S. is the only nation flying it, but it does stand a chance of encountering an F-35 during it's service life. So that would be the metric to reference in terms of it's LO characteristics needs to meet or go up against.

All that said, I honestly hope none of them go up against each other, and I can't wait to see a T-50 in FS! I've also really enjoyed our conversation here. Thanks to everyone for being so civil. One of the forums I read on military aircraft always devolves into "our countries pen*s is bigger than your countries pen*s" and that kind of talk is always unenlightening.

 

[Ken Stallings]

Stinger Post, Patriot ... two of the most deadly AAA systems in the world. Add in systems made in France (Roland) and Great Britain (Starstreak), and it's no accident that the most lethal AAA in the world is made by NATO allies!

Don't sell you nations short, gentlemen! Your militaries and defense industries aren't populated by amateurs! Perhaps these people don't work as much PR but they make grade A weapons taking a backseat to no one!

NATO strategy also puts a premium on establishing air superiority. You don't need as many anti-aircraft ground-based systems if you establish and maintain air superiority. But trust me, there's plenty in the hands of ground troops to kill anything that gets through.

Ken

 

[Bone]

You obviously haven't operated from runways that are covered with snow and ice. Which is probably the primary reason it has them. In which case, it makes sense to use the chutes and save brake life.

Yeah, it's obvious, isn't it? Actually, I have done so many times over many years...it's in my job description. See my avatar pic? That's actually me in the left seat of that jet. I tell ya, it's not often I pop my head up around here because there's always some faker computer pilot throwing rocks like he's Chuck Yeager...it just doesn't ever seem to stop.

 

[Sundog]

Yeah, it's obvious, isn't it? Actually, I have done so many times over many years...it's in my job description. See my avatar pic? That's actually me in the left seat of that jet. I tell ya, it's not often I pop my head up around here because there's always some faker computer pilot throwing rocks like he's Chuck Yeager...it just doesn't ever seem to stop.

Actually, I'm an aerospace engineer, and I found your talking about chutes on the Russian airplanes somewhat demeaning, since I know what goes into designing aircraft to meet their requirements. If you're flying a jetliner or bizjet, well then you most likely have thrust reversers to slow down on an iced over runway, combat aircraft don't, because it would add too much weight. So I know what you mean about people throwing rocks.

BTW, out of curiosity, what type are you flying in that pic?

 

[Sundog]

Stinger Post, Patriot ... two of the most deadly AAA systems in the world. Add in systems made in France (Roland) and Great Britain (Starstreak), and it's no accident that the most lethal AAA in the world is made by NATO allies!

Don't sell you nations short, gentlemen! Your militaries and defense industries aren't populated by amateurs! Perhaps these people don't work as much PR but they make grade A weapons taking a backseat to no one!

NATO strategy also puts a premium on establishing air superiority. You don't need as many anti-aircraft ground-based systems if you establish and maintain air superiority. But trust me, there's plenty in the hands of ground troops to kill anything that gets through.

Ken

Actually, I've yet to see a Western equivalent to the S-300, much less the S-400. That isn't to say we don't make some excellent missile systems but the Russians have typically had some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Of course, we've also had some of the best jamming systems. I wouldn't be shocked if the Jammer B-52 the USAF wants is to counter the S-300 and S-400.

What I do find most exciting about our missiles, are the fact that the Aim-9X is being updated so it can also be used as an A2G weapon. That's supposedly what the F-22 we lost at Edwards was testing. I know they've been used for that before, such as in Vietnam, but the sensors are now being designed to be able to discriminate ground targets.

Having said that, one of the unsung heroes of the Afghan war has been the anti-IR missile systems we've been placing on our helo's. One of the articles in a recent issue of Aviation Week referred to a CH-47 that came under a lot of AAA fire, including MANPADS and it made it out O.K. But now I'm getting way off topic.

 

[deathfromafar]

Actually, I've yet to see a Western equivalent to the S-300, much less the S-400. That isn't to say we don't make some excellent missile systems but the Russians have typically had some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Of course, we've also had some of the best jamming systems.

If I were a customer of Russian made SAM Systems, I would be seriously worried about the claims the Russians make about their effectiveness and capability. These S-300's have been easily evaded more than enough times to question their credibility as a good system. We learned that there were in fact S-300's inside Syria(as well as SA-17's) within range of the Israeli air strike of 2007. Not a single plane from the strike package was brought down or even fire upon. We're talking F-15I's and F-16I Sufa's here. Seems someone has figured out the key to EW against these Russian Super SAM's.

As far as our SA capability is concerned are more than good enough.

One thing we should forget, this new Sukhoi is nothing but a prototype. If it even get's built in moderate numbers I suspect there will be significant changes to it by the time we see it in 10 to 15 years. At this point, there are parts of that thing that have an RCS like a barn door. If they don't spend the time and cash to iron out the obvious, then this plane is totally pointless to proceed into production with.

 

[heywooood]

panic in the streets - Russia has a new jet *yawn*

 

[Gibbage]

OK. I didnt read all the post's so forgive me if im not the first.... But...

Raptorski?

Anyone remember the Concordski?

It does look like a cross-breed of the F-22 and YF-23. Most 22 then 23 I think. As for people who say scients denotes how it looks, and its NOT a copy, I really REALLY have too disagree. So far the US has had 6 stealth designs, the B2, F111, F-22, YF-23, F35 and X32. Each and every single one looks VASTLY differant from the other. So 6 us designs, none look even remotely similar, 1 russian design, and it looks like a US design.... Hummmm. I smell Xerox at work.

As someone who studies design and shape as a job, thats just my openion. Lets just say Russia has a LONG LONG history of making copies. Tu-4? Tu-144? Tu-160? Buron? I can list them all day long. Even the Mig-29 and Su-27 smacks of F-15.

 

[Naki]

F-111 stealth???...you missed the SR-71 that has partial stealth qualities..

 

[Gibbage]

Sorry. F-117, not the Ardvark.

 

[Sundog]

Even the Mig-29 and Su-27 smacks of F-15.

The Su-27 was originally a copy of the NAA submission for the F/X, the competition that begat the F-15. The Russians thought the NAA design was superior to McDonnell Douglas's design. Eventually they separated the engines into separate nacelles and gave it twin tails, which generally offer better spin resistance due to their effectiveness in sideslip at high alpha. Unfortunately, the original wing design of the first T-10 prototype, similar to NAA's, didn't workout that well and the entire aircraft was redesigned.

T-10-1 Ref 1

T-10-1 Ref 2

North American F/X ref 1

North American F/X ref 2

 

[Bjoern]

You obviously haven't operated from runways that are covered with snow and ice. Which is probably the primary reason it has them. In which case, it makes sense to use the chutes and save brake life.

No, the primary reason is to save brake life.

You pick up the jettisoned chute, check it for tears, fold it again and put it back into the aircraft.

The LSK, back in the day, had the order of always using chutes instead of brakes since a new set of disks was considered too expensive.

Lets not forget the Russians have a history of building aircraft that can operate out of rough strips, and that anything that helps slow you down on a rough strip somewhere is worth it in wartime. Its the same principle the Swedes use/d with their air force.

Actually the strip itself slows you down enough. The grass strips used by the LSK always had concrete pads for parked aircraft to prevent them from sinking into the ground.
Taxiing was also pretty fuel consuming since you needed quite some power to get off the ground.

Actually, what the Swedes do is slightly different. They don't fly from rough airfields, they fly from parts of roadways designed to operate as airfields. I'll bet you knew all of that , but what I think is really cool about the Swedes is their planes are designed to land with high precision using a high sink rate, just like a Navy plane. That's one of the reasons I think it will be able for them to Navalize the Gripen quite easily. There's a really good description of the Gripen's precision landing system in one of my books about it and it's very interesting.

The coolest thing about swedish aircraft is that they can be completely refueled and rearmed in 15 minutes...by conscripts!

Don't sell you nations short, gentlemen! Your militaries and defense industries aren't populated by amateurs!

Neither isn't the defense industry of the russians.

BTW, out of curiosity, what type are you flying in that pic?

CRJ 200/700/900.

 

[centuryseries]

You may scoff at the effectiveness of Russian SAMs but in reality no-one country has ever been in the position to witness Russia on a war footing - I'm sure the SAM Radar operators would be awake then and the effectiveness would go up! Surprise attacks always get through. But once the bear is awake, it should not be under-estimated.

For a while the Flankers coming online in Russia were deemed to pose a big threat to the Eagle which had been around for a while and appeared to be out-performed.

I believe this is currently one of the problems with US (and various other western countries, even Eastern countries) defence strategy - most of the fighters are verging on obsolete and are old technology that would not last long in a 5th generation battle. The number of Raptors being purchased are the huge cost per plane is creating a problem as there will not be enough for the size of the country. Gone are the days when the US will purchase thousands of fighters.

I hope the T-50 (for Russias sake) gets further than the Mig 1.44.

 

[Matt Wynn]

Yeah Raptors pricey... each time numbers are cut the PPU (Price Per Unit) goes up, last time I checked it was $200m each (probably closer to $300m now), in contrast lets look at gen 4.5 aircraft... Typhoon... $60-68m, Su-30K... $34m, Su-30MKK... $53m, F-16A/B.... $14m, F-15C/D...$18.8m....

if Russia solve this thing and keep costs down i suspect a few countries will take a real interest in this thing, even NATO member states would consider it... i know at 1 point Greece Looked to the east and at Sukhois... only time will tell on this one guys

 

[deathfromafar]

You may scoff at the effectiveness of Russian SAMs but in reality no-one country has ever been in the position to witness Russia on a war footing - I'm sure the SAM Radar operators would be awake then and the effectiveness would go up! Surprise attacks always get through. But once the bear is awake, it should not be under-estimated.

It has nothing to do with their stance, it has everything to do with Electronic Warfare exploiting serious flaws in their radars/fire control systems as well as the data links between launchers & radar/command units. Somewhere in the line, intelligence sources got the gouge on how to beat the latest Russian SAM systems and radars with EW/ELINT. As far as we know publicly, the only country who exploited the flaws in combat was Israel and they did so without Stealth. How they did it is still secret and will likely remain so. One thing is for sure, the ripple effect spread through the Russian arms industry responsible for making air defense systems.

Yes, the previous generation fighters are aging out. It happens like all aircraft at some point. The F-15 still remains undefeated in actual air to air combat and has been pitted many times against Mig-29's. There have been several occasions where standard SU-27's with current Russian radar and avionics pitted in DACT engagements against the F-15. What was learned is that from a aerodynamics standpoint the planes fly and fight on a equal footing with the Flanker having a better instantaneous turn rate and the Eagle having a better sustained turn rate. From a avionics & radar standpoint, not even in the same ballpark but this is something that all MSI plans help subject to change. But eventually all older fighters will fade into history.

Let's see where this all goes. If more Raptors are needed, then maybe some of the total number of F-35's could be cut to make more money. But as one one Russian fellow I know pointed out, it would be better to develop Stealth Multi-Role/Strike Aircraft and Standoff Weapons to neutralize a potential enemy air force while most sit on the ground. That makes more sense overall.

 

[stiz]

countries copy other countries, get used to it, america has done it before .. when they werent "hireing" the others scientists

The F-15 still remains undefeated in actual air to air combat and has been pitted many times against Mig-29's

but has lost countless times in simulated combat and hasnt really been up against a modern well trained air force during actuall combat ... and several have been lost to ground fire. Sorry but that statistic just erks me

 

[deathfromafar]

but has lost countless times in simulated combat and hasnt really been up against a modern well trained air force during actuall combat ... and several have been lost to ground fire. Sorry but that statistic just erks me

100% nonesense

Simulated doesn't equate to real does it? The fact is that the F-15 has been flown against well trained pilots in actual combat and with zero losses. General Charles Horner USAF(Retired) cleared the air about the quality of Iraqi pilots in 1991. The pilots in his own words were as good as they come. We simply exploited the weaknesses in their equipment and prevailed. That time period was with legacy radars in the F-15. There is no currently fielded Russian Zhuk set that matches the F-15C's current AESA set in terms of TD/NCTR and Filtering capability. That is fact, not fiction. Not having the edge can mean all the difference.

 

[Ken Stallings]

Actually, I've yet to see a Western equivalent to the S-300, much less the S-400. That isn't to say we don't make some excellent missile systems but the Russians have typically had some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Of course, we've also had some of the best jamming systems. I wouldn't be shocked if the Jammer B-52 the USAF wants is to counter the S-300 and S-400.

What I do find most exciting about our missiles, are the fact that the Aim-9X is being updated so it can also be used as an A2G weapon. That's supposedly what the F-22 we lost at Edwards was testing. I know they've been used for that before, such as in Vietnam, but the sensors are now being designed to be able to discriminate ground targets.

Having said that, one of the unsung heroes of the Afghan war has been the anti-IR missile systems we've been placing on our helo's. One of the articles in a recent issue of Aviation Week referred to a CH-47 that came under a lot of AAA fire, including MANPADS and it made it out O.K. But now I'm getting way off topic.

Unless you are an engineer who built the allied systems and then also tested actual copies of the Russian-made stuff, I'd be a bit apprehensive making that blanket claim. I'm not claiming the Russian stuff is junk. I'm just saying too frequently I think our familiarity with our hardware sort of develops the proverbial contempt.

I know from missions flown at Red Flag against actual Soviet stuff, my EWO considered the advanced allied stuff far more lethal. We considered the Roland a very scary weapons system against our MC-130E.

In fact, considering that our technicians at Red Flag kept the Soviet stuff in premium working condition, it amazed me how little a factor those weapon systems were to our operations. Not that I would ever adopt a cavalier attitude about them. You respect what the adversary has on hand. But when the acid test came up, it wasn't as effective against our MC-130E as I expected it would be.

On the other hand, every time an allied SAM was shot by accident against our frontline fighters, the results were lethal. This is why in actual combat ops, we were more concerned getting shot down by our own stuff heading home! And yes, we kept our EW gear fully operational until we landed!

Cheers,

Ken

 

[Sundog]

Unless you are an engineer who built the allied systems and then also tested actual copies of the Russian-made stuff, I'd be a bit apprehensive making that blanket claim. I'm not claiming the Russian stuff is junk. I'm just saying too frequently I think our familiarity with our hardware sort of develops the proverbial contempt.

I know from missions flown at Red Flag against actual Soviet stuff, my EWO considered the advanced allied stuff far more lethal. We considered the Roland a very scary weapons system against our MC-130E.

In fact, considering that our technicians at Red Flag kept the Soviet stuff in premium working condition, it amazed me how little a factor those weapon systems were to our operations. Not that I would ever adopt a cavalier attitude about them. You respect what the adversary has on hand. But when the acid test came up, it wasn't as effective against our MC-130E as I expected it would be.

On the other hand, every time an allied SAM was shot by accident against our frontline fighters, the results were lethal. This is why in actual combat ops, we were more concerned getting shot down by our own stuff heading home! And yes, we kept our EW gear fully operational until we landed!

Cheers,

Ken

What did you fly and when did you fly it? Just out of curiosity (I'm not saying your old ) But one of my friends used to work on the F-16s avionics at Nellis back in the 80's and his room mate worked on the F-117 at Tonopah, although my friend didn't know it at the time. Since you had an EWO, I'm assuming an F-4G, or F-15E Strike Eagle (Great plane!), F-16 Sead? Of course my fav was the EF-111 Raven. I really miss F-111's. Of course, that's assuming you were USAF, not Navy. Or, are you saying you flew the MC-130E? Man, I'm sure you have some stories to tell, or not; at least not for a number of years .

My room mate from college was also an F-18 pilot. But that's another story.

I know what you mean about the lethality of our SAM's in the sense that the Patriot downed two aircraft in Iraq, a Tornado, and I think a Hornet, but the Hornet pilot was able to jam it, evade it, or take it out? I don't recall what the Hornet pilot did, but he knew not to screw around when it locked on him. I assume that's the fratricide you were referring to in your post?

Also, if you want to see a great missile video, look for the AIM-9X high off bore site test, where the missile makes over a 90 degree turn and up after leaving the rail. It will be interesting to see how the AIM-120D stacks up against the Meteor, although they both look very capable to me. At least in terms of publicized performance. Although I know some of our advanced missile systems are classified, but I have to wonder if any of them are derivatives of the AAAM / AIM-152.