PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues F-22ski- Putin boasts new jet fighter better than U.S. plane


Donger
06-18-2010, 12:05 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65G64820100617?type=politicsNews

Putin watched a test flight of a "fifth-generation" stealth fighter, dubbed the T-50 and billed as Russia's first all-new warplane since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

"This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range," Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.

Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.

Successful development of the fighter, built by Sukhoi, is crucial to showing Russia can challenge U.S. technology and modernize its military after a period of post-Soviet decay.

Russia also plans to manufacture T-50s jointly with India.

The F-22 raptor stealth fighter first flew in 1997 and is the only fifth-generation fighter in service. Fifth-generation aircraft have advanced flight and weapons control systems and can cruise at supersonic speeds.

According to the government website, the test pilot told Putin the controls of the T-50 allowed the pilot to operate most of the plane's systems without taking his hands off the joystick, which he said would be very useful under high forces of gravity.

"I know, I've flown," Putin replied. Sukhoi has said the plane should be ready for use in 2015.

Donger
06-18-2010, 12:07 PM
.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:08 PM
My son would like the glow in the dark paint...

Pants
06-18-2010, 12:09 PM
Looks like F-22 and Su-37 fucked and had a baby, lol.

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 12:12 PM
Arm's race.

Brock
06-18-2010, 12:18 PM
Now all they need is somebody sober enough to fly.

vailpass
06-18-2010, 01:27 PM
Arm's race.

Yes, I hope so.

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:29 PM
Yes, I hope so.

Only if we don't outsource the building of our arms to China!!! :D

vailpass
06-18-2010, 03:18 PM
Russia manages to partially imitate our technology 20 years after we unveil it. Meanwhile we already have 6th gen. technology being worked on in black ops areas.
It's good to be the king.

notorious
06-18-2010, 08:09 PM
The Soviets/Russians are outstanding when it comes to developing amazing aircraft.


They lack in electronics and stealth, which are more important now then raw maneuverability. The F-22 is loaded with the latest generation in communications and has the tools to give the pilot superior situational awareness (linked aircraft).



The T50's engines have a wide range of thrust vectoring, unlike the F-22 which has 1 dimensional vectoring. The T50 would probably be a mother in a close range dogfight, but the real question would be: Would it ever come to that?


Sweet airplane, but the first country to come out with pilotless aircraft will dominate the battlefield. No G restrictions and no danger of losing trained pilots will he gigantic on the next generation battlefield.


Cool Stuff. :)

Bill Parcells
06-18-2010, 08:59 PM
I think Putin is the new propaganda minister (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/18-06-2010/113908-fifth_generation-0)


Prime Minister Putin praised Russia’s new fifth-generation fighter jet when he visited the Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute in the Moscow region on June 17. However, Putin was hasty in his remarks. The T-50 fighter jet, which performed its 16th test flight for Putin, can not be referred to as the fifth-generation aircraft. Experts claim that the plane has to be reequipped to obtain the title.




BREAKING NEWS
Another Child Adopted from Russia Dies Terrible Death in USA


Eva Mendes and Her Grace
More...


For the time being, the PAK FA jet meets only a few requirements of the aircraft of this class, the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper said.

According to experts’ estimates, if a plane does not correspond to two or three requirements on the list of technical qualities, it can not be considered as fifth-generation aircraft. That is why the USA’s F-35 and Russia’s MiG-35 are only budget replacements of the genuine F-22 and T-50 fifth-generation jets.

The plane, which was demonstrated to Putin in the town of Zhukovsky, corresponded to a part of technical requirements. It is a multi-role jet that can be used both for executing air defense tasks and for striking ground-based targets.

Russia Today: Russian fifth-generation fighter: high hopes

The T-50 develops the ultrasonic speed in a regular operation mode. Fourth-generation jets had to use the afterburner for the purpose. The T-50 engine consists of the digital control system and the plasma ignition system. The engine and the advanced construction of glider give the jet extra high maneuvering abilities. Russian specialists are working on the next generation of engines that are said to improve the flight performance of the T-50.

The stealth technology, a mandatory requirement for a fifth-generation fighter jet, has not been fully developed for T-50. It is worthy of note that the T-50 is the stealthiest plane among all Russian warplanes. However, US specialists sacrificed additional maneuvering ability to make the F-22 stealthier. Experts say that Russian engineers will most likely choose the maneuvering capability between the two qualities.

The PAK FA carries state-of-the-art radar equipment with active phased antenna array. The Russian-made device allows to conduct all-sided and multi-channel target servicing, which is also one of the requirements for fifth-generation fighter jets.

The T-50 lacks the required electronic equipment. The plane of this class must carry state-of-the-art avionics: a circular data system, automated interference control and other systems. It was earlier reported that India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited would deal with development of the navigation system and the mission computer for the T-50.

Vladimir Putin said in Zhukovsky that the T-50 fifth-generation fighter jet would be 2.5 or even 3 times less expensive than its foreign analogues. The Russian jet will overcome the USA’s F-22 on its maneuvering ability, arms and range.

Russia has spent 30 billion rubles on the first stage of the development of the plane and will require additional 30 billion rubles for the second stage. The modernization of the engine and the arms of the jet will follow next.

PAK FA’s speed limit is 2600 km/h, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 2100 km/h. The practical range – 4300 km. For comparison, F-22 Raptor’s speed limit makes up 2410 km.h, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 1963 km/h, and the practical range – 3219 km.

ChiefaRoo
06-18-2010, 09:07 PM
Putin is an arrogant little man. Makes Bush look like a monk.

alnorth
06-18-2010, 09:12 PM
He can claim whatever he wants to. It is probably not to our advantage to disagree or point out how and why our planes might be better.

HC_Chief
06-18-2010, 10:59 PM
The Soviets/Russians are outstanding when it comes to developing amazing aircraft.

They lack in electronics and stealth, which are more important now then raw maneuverability. The F-22 is loaded with the latest generation in communications and has the tools to give the pilot superior situational awareness (linked aircraft).

The T50's engines have a wide range of thrust vectoring, unlike the F-22 which has 1 dimensional vectoring. The T50 would probably be a mother in a close range dogfight, but the real question would be: Would it ever come to that?

Sweet airplane, but the first country to come out with pilotless aircraft will dominate the battlefield. No G restrictions and no danger of losing trained pilots will he gigantic on the next generation battlefield.

Cool Stuff. :)

All salient points.

As for "would it ever come to that" (close-range dogfight), the answer is no. The F22 would engage, fire, and destroy its targets before they even knew they were being tracked.

A single F22 took out an entire flight of F15s in war game. The F15 is 115-0 in combat. That should tell you something. ;)

Saggysack
06-19-2010, 02:28 AM
Eh, putin's still chasing. We have moved beyond the F22. The program was cancelled last year. I"m fairly certain we aren't even flying them anymore.

ChiefaRoo
06-19-2010, 09:59 AM
Eh, putin's still chasing. We have moved beyond the F22. The program was cancelled last year. I"m fairly certain we aren't even flying them anymore.

Of course the US is flying the F-22. There are over 100+ in service.

vailpass
06-19-2010, 11:40 AM
Russia has half the capabilities they advertise.
USA has twice the capabilities we reveal.
Count on it.

chris
06-19-2010, 03:58 PM
Check out these videos of F-15 Driver describing 2008 Red Flag. F15 vs. SU30IMK.


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

Very interesting.

vailpass
06-19-2010, 05:40 PM
Here in Phoenix we have Luke Airforce Base & Goldwater Bombing Range, training base for F-16s that fly day and night.
Looks like they are in the front (thanks McCain) to get the F35 JSF. The skies out there are going to be roaring...

http://www.jsf.mil/index.htm

Saggysack
06-19-2010, 06:08 PM
Of course the US is flying the F-22. There are over 100+ in service.

You're slightly behind the times. They all have been grounded due to corrosion issues. Program funding was cancelled. Program was just too expensive for the return. F35 is the future.

googlegoogle
06-19-2010, 06:08 PM
Complete copy.

Look at the new chinese fighter on youtube. Another copy of American design.

Electronics are more important than maneuverability, weaponry and range.

You can't shoot what you can't see.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XyGYfa-GtZs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XyGYfa-GtZs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Brock
06-19-2010, 07:18 PM
You're slightly behind the times. They all have been grounded due to corrosion issues. Program funding was cancelled. Program was just too expensive for the return. F35 is the future.

They're still being built, and will continue to be until 2012. This I happen to know for a fact.

ChiefaRoo
06-19-2010, 10:33 PM
You're slightly behind the times. They all have been grounded due to corrosion issues. Program funding was cancelled. Program was just too expensive for the return. F35 is the future.

Funding has been cut but there are over 200 that have been built according to the Washington Times in March of '09
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/01/f-22-raptor-imperative/

googlegoogle
06-19-2010, 11:43 PM
F35 is really overrated. Vtol= overrated. The plane is overall slower.

Hog Farmer
06-20-2010, 07:02 AM
I'll bet they get enough funds together to have maybe 3 built by 2015. And it won't matter anyway because the lizard Gods will be here in 2012 with some shit that will make their T-50 look like a Horse drawn wagon.

boogblaster
06-20-2010, 07:25 AM
the eagle and the bear will take on the blue turbon ...

patteeu
06-20-2010, 08:48 AM
All salient points.

As for "would it ever come to that" (close-range dogfight), the answer is no. The F22 would engage, fire, and destroy its targets before they even knew they were being tracked.

A single F22 took out an entire flight of F15s in war game. The F15 is 115-0 in combat. That should tell you something. ;)

I don't disagree with your basic point (that the F22 is superior to the F15 and all other fighter aircraft in operation around the world), but I think the specific results of any given war game should be taken with a grain of salt.

notorious
06-20-2010, 10:27 AM
Please tell me the the US has developed a helmet like the Ruskies started using in the 90's that allows the pilot to fire at what he was looking at instead of having to point the nose toward the target.


Don't dog on Russian tech. They know what they are doing.



We just happen to own everyone in the electronics/stealth department, which is obviously the most important aspect of warfare on the current battlefield.

vailpass
06-20-2010, 02:56 PM
Please tell me the the US has developed a helmet like the Ruskies started using in the 90's that allows the pilot to fire at what he was looking at instead of having to point the nose toward the target.


Don't dog on Russian tech. They know what they are doing.



We just happen to own everyone in the electronics/stealth department, which is obviously the most important aspect of warfare on the current battlefield.

Shit, you kidding me? The Apache has been operating with hands-free targeting since forever.

Here is one system we have for fighters:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/index.html

Human factors guys are working with different contracts to develop neural-controlled firing systems, or so it is said. Think about that for a minute.

Anything that exists in military flight existed here first and we either use it or don't want it.

|Zach|
06-20-2010, 03:14 PM
Looks like F-22 and Su-37 ****ed and had a baby, lol.

ROFL

notorious
06-20-2010, 05:11 PM
Shit, you kidding me? The Apache has been operating with hands-free targeting since forever.



Human factors guys are working with different contracts to develop neural-controlled firing systems, or so it is said. Think about that for a minute.



Just like in "Day of the Cheetah".



And of course I know about the Apache. I wonder why the US didn't develope that for fighter aircraft, too.

vailpass
06-20-2010, 05:20 PM
Just like in "Day of the Cheetah".



And of course I know about the Apache. I wonder why the US didn't develope that for fighter aircraft, too.

We did. A ling time ago. One of the first was the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System

The JHMCS has a magnetic helmet-mounted tracker determines where the pilot's head is pointed, combined with a miniature display system that projects information onto the pilot's visor. The head tracker and visor display act as a targeting device that can aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking.

To obtain a variety of information and sensor-based data -- such as airspeed, altitude, target range, etc. -- pilots can refer to the visual display on the inside of the helmet while remaining in a "heads-up" position during combat; this eliminates the break in visual contact that occurs when they look away to check the display readouts in the cockpit.
To aim and fire a missile, pilots simply point their heads at the targets and press a switch on the flight controls to direct and fire a weapon.
To attack a ground target, the pilot can acquire the target with a sensor and note it's location on the helmet display. Alternatively, the pilot can use the helmet display to cue sensors and weapons to a visually detected ground target. J

HMCS DetailsAs a cueing system, JHMCS is a two-way interface that comprises the following capabilities:

Sensors aboard the aircraft can cue pilots to potential targets; conversely, pilots can cue weapons and sensor systems to areas of interest -- aiming radar, air-to-air missiles, infrared sensors, and air-to-ground weapons by pointing their heads at the targets.
The system graphically displays critical information and symbols -- such as targeting cues, threat warnings, and aircraft performance parameters -- directly on the pilot's visor. This significantly improves pilot situational awareness during all mission elements.
The system can be used without requiring the aircraft to be maneuvered, significantly reducing the time needed to prosecute an attack, which also minimizes the time spent in the threat environment.
Since targets may be located at high-off-boresight line-of-sight locations in relation to the shooter, the system delivers a short-range intercept envelope that is significantly larger than any other air-to-air weapon in use.
When used in conjunction with a datalink, the system permits handoff of visually detected targets from one aircraft to another, with the second aircraft receiving visual cueing to the target.
JHMCS is deployed operationally on over 1,500 F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 aircraft worldwide, including several international air forces that employ these aircraft.


http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/index.html

notorious
06-20-2010, 05:59 PM
We did. A ling time ago. One of the first was the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System

The JHMCS has a magnetic helmet-mounted tracker determines where the pilot's head is pointed, combined with a miniature display system that projects information onto the pilot's visor. The head tracker and visor display act as a targeting device that can aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking.

To obtain a variety of information and sensor-based data -- such as airspeed, altitude, target range, etc. -- pilots can refer to the visual display on the inside of the helmet while remaining in a "heads-up" position during combat; this eliminates the break in visual contact that occurs when they look away to check the display readouts in the cockpit.
To aim and fire a missile, pilots simply point their heads at the targets and press a switch on the flight controls to direct and fire a weapon.
To attack a ground target, the pilot can acquire the target with a sensor and note it's location on the helmet display. Alternatively, the pilot can use the helmet display to cue sensors and weapons to a visually detected ground target. J

HMCS DetailsAs a cueing system, JHMCS is a two-way interface that comprises the following capabilities:

Sensors aboard the aircraft can cue pilots to potential targets; conversely, pilots can cue weapons and sensor systems to areas of interest -- aiming radar, air-to-air missiles, infrared sensors, and air-to-ground weapons by pointing their heads at the targets.
The system graphically displays critical information and symbols -- such as targeting cues, threat warnings, and aircraft performance parameters -- directly on the pilot's visor. This significantly improves pilot situational awareness during all mission elements.
The system can be used without requiring the aircraft to be maneuvered, significantly reducing the time needed to prosecute an attack, which also minimizes the time spent in the threat environment.
Since targets may be located at high-off-boresight line-of-sight locations in relation to the shooter, the system delivers a short-range intercept envelope that is significantly larger than any other air-to-air weapon in use.
When used in conjunction with a datalink, the system permits handoff of visually detected targets from one aircraft to another, with the second aircraft receiving visual cueing to the target.
JHMCS is deployed operationally on over 1,500 F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 aircraft worldwide, including several international air forces that employ these aircraft.


http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/index.html

Why did they they wait to implement the system until beyond 2000? I know the Russians had it a long time before us.


I know the system, I wrote a 10 page paper on it in Flight School 13 years ago. It was very interesting to me that the US prides itself on technology yet we were beat-out by the Russians on a very useful piece of tech.

Goes to show that they are no slouches when it comes to military avaition.

patteeu
06-20-2010, 07:21 PM
Why did they they wait to implement the system until beyond 2000? I know the Russians had it a long time before us.

I don't know that they did, but either way, maybe it's not as useful a technology as you seem to be making it out to be. A helmet mounted display would probably be really useful in a close combat situation where you can actually see your targets and where your angles are all over the place, but in the beyond-visual-range encounters that we'd prefer to win our air battles in, not so much.

notorious
06-20-2010, 07:27 PM
I don't know that they did, but either way, maybe it's not as useful a technology as you seem to be making it out to be. A helmet mounted display would probably be really useful in a close combat situation where you can actually see your targets and where your angles are all over the place, but in the beyond-visual-range encounters that we'd prefer to win our air battles in, not so much.

I think that close combat will happen when everyone catches up to the US in technology someday. Stealth will eventually be developed elsewhere, which will render radar nearly ineffective. That will probably result in visual range combat once again.


During Vietnam they developed the F-4 Phantom and the Sparrow missile hand and hand. They didn't even put a cannon or machine gun in the Phantom until the pilots demanded it after getting their asses kick by the MIGs at close range.

The experts said that close combat wouldn't be a factor anymore.


Boy were they wrong back then.

patteeu
06-20-2010, 07:46 PM
I think that close combat will happen when everyone catches up to the US in technology someday. Stealth will eventually be developed elsewhere, which will render radar nearly ineffective. That will probably result in visual range combat once again.


During Vietnam they developed the F-4 Phantom and the Sparrow missile hand and hand. They didn't even put a cannon or machine gun in the Phantom until the pilots demanded it after getting their asses kick by the MIGs at close range.

The experts said that close combat wouldn't be a factor anymore.


Boy were they wrong back then.

It's a bad idea to let everyone else catch up. FTR, I'm opposed to it.

BTW, Sparrows are short range missiles so the F-4 example is a bit different than the F-22 situation in that it's primary weapon system was designed for use within visual range.

Your general point is a decent one (i.e. th

notorious
06-20-2010, 07:49 PM
It's a bad idea to let everyone else catch up. FTR, I'm opposed to it.

BTW, Sparrows are short range missiles so the F-4 example is a bit different than the F-22 situation in that it's primary weapon system was designed for use within visual range.

Your general point is a decent one (i.e. th

I hope that nobody ever catches up to us. I believe we already have a stealth drone similar to the F-22/F-35 that is infinately more capable. Everything else is going remote, a pilotless fighter would me a natural marriage. Even if a plane got shot down, you would still retain the pilot and all of his training.

patteeu
06-20-2010, 07:49 PM
I think that close combat will happen when everyone catches up to the US in technology someday. Stealth will eventually be developed elsewhere, which will render radar nearly ineffective. That will probably result in visual range combat once again.


During Vietnam they developed the F-4 Phantom and the Sparrow missile hand and hand. They didn't even put a cannon or machine gun in the Phantom until the pilots demanded it after getting their asses kick by the MIGs at close range.

The experts said that close combat wouldn't be a factor anymore.


Boy were they wrong back then.

It's a bad idea to let everyone else catch up. FTR, I'm opposed to it.

BTW, Sparrows are short range missiles so the F-4 example is a bit different than the F-22 situation in that it's primary weapon system was designed for use within visual range.

Your general point is a decent one (i.e. that well-laid plans often fail to account for the grit of the real world), but in terms of trade offs, better stealth and avionics seem like more bang for the buck than a helmet mounted display that comes in handy as a backup system.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 07:49 PM
Why does Donger only put up war and military threads? He must find the world a scarey place.

notorious
06-20-2010, 07:50 PM
He must find ChiefsPlanet a scarey place.


FYP

patteeu
06-20-2010, 07:51 PM
I hope that nobody ever catches up to us. I believe we already have a stealth drone similar to the F-22/F-35 that is infinately more capable. Everything else is going remote, a pilotless fighter would me a natural marriage. Even if a plane got shot down, you would still retain the pilot and all of his training.

:thumb: Sounds like a winner to me.

Bill Parcells
06-20-2010, 08:07 PM
F35 is really overrated. Vtol= overrated. The plane is overall slower.

which one? there are 4 or 5 variants for different missions.

Saggysack
06-21-2010, 04:30 AM
They're still being built, and will continue to be until 2012. This I happen to know for a fact.

Umm, okay. I'm pretty sure military contractors are required to fullfill their contractual obligations.

Saggysack
06-21-2010, 04:50 AM
Funding has been cut but there are over 200 that have been built according to the Washington Times in March of '09
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/01/f-22-raptor-imperative/

I'm sorry. The path of the aircraft has pretty much been laid out for it in the last few years. If you can't see the military starting to move away from direction of it because it doesn't fit the multi-role mission requirements that the Defense Dept. desires. I really don't know what to tell you then.

patteeu
06-21-2010, 07:24 AM
I'm sorry. The path of the aircraft has pretty much been laid out for it in the last few years. If you can't see the military starting to move away from direction of it because it doesn't fit the multi-role mission requirements that the Defense Dept. desires. I really don't know what to tell you then.

You've backtracked quite a bit in this thread so you should probably drop the "superior understanding" schtick. What you tried to tell him initially was that we weren't even flying them anymore, which isn't true in any sense other than a temporary grounding. We'll be flying them for many years to come even while we move toward cheaper, multi-role fighters for the future.