OT - New Russian Stealth Fighter

[centuryseries]

Saw this yesterday on BBC news website, forgive me if someone else has already mentioned it, I have looked but did not find anything.

New Sukhoi Stealth fighter:

"Russia's response to the US stealth fighter, a new fifth-generation fighter, has made its first successful flight.
The "fifth generation" jet is designed to be invisible to radar. Russia's air force hopes to acquire it in 2015. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8487026.stm

[peter12213]

Wow thanks I hadn't heard of this!

[centuryseries]

Me neither, I'm quite surprised as usually I keep my nose to the ground on new developments!

Before anyone says it's a poor copy of an F-22, remember that it was a Russian physicist Pyotr Ufimtsev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) who in 1962 published a document titled "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction". This was then translated into English and used by the US to test the theory which led to the F-117.

I think it looks beautifully sleek. Raptor is a little chunky looking, but Sukhoi seem to make elegant designs.

[Hanimichal]

http://www.youtube.com/v/MQDPHAMC6WU&hl=pt_BR&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/gpQ-mToRvn8&hl=pt_BR&fs=1&

[warchild]

She's a gorgeous plane. yeah, some people are gonna knock her because they refuse to believe that russia has any intellegent people with an iq over fourty, but te truth is, our f-22s have been getting shot down in play battles for some time now by su-27s. Then the su-35s hit but were so expensive, russia couldnt afford them. This plane looks good. it's a more simple design, yet very sdleek and self contained. not at all clunky. I doubt she'll have the maneuverability of say the su-33 or su-35, but i've been incorrect before.. it'll be fun watching this one develop.

[Matt Wynn]

the T-50 (Sukhois in house designation) will get thrust vectoring on all axes i believe... she's beautiful and potent, the air to air missile she's envisaged to carry has greater range than anything in the current NATO arsenal, if i recall right that is...

[Sundog]

She's a gorgeous plane. yeah, some people are gonna knock her because they refuse to believe that russia has any intellegent people with an iq over fourty, but te truth is, our f-22s have been getting shot down in play battles for some time now by su-27s. Then the su-35s hit but were so expensive, russia couldnt afford them. This plane looks good. it's a more simple design, yet very sdleek and self contained. not at all clunky. I doubt she'll have the maneuverability of say the su-33 or su-35, but i've been incorrect before.. it'll be fun watching this one develop.

Show me one instance where an F-22 was shot down by an Su-27? I've yet to see any evidence of this. I think you've definitely confused the F-15 for the F-22, because F-22's haven't had any dogfights with Su-27's, other than at Groom Lake at best. In fact, the only shoot downs of the F-22 I've come across are when the F-22 pilots decide to hotdog it and get into a knife fight, giving up all of their advantages, then getting shot down by the wingman they didn't see. i.e.- Bad tactics are the only time I've seen an F-22 get shot down in any war game and those have all been by Hornets or Growlers. Even the Growler pilot who made the kill said it just turned out to be a lucky shot.

As for the T-50, it will be at least as maneuverable as any of the Flanker family, as it is a truly unstable design and uses it's 3D TV to great advantage. However, it isn't as stealthy as the F-22 and it probably isn't as stealthy as the F-35, though it's probably close. That's because they, the Russians, don't want the T-50 to be a hanger queen due to the level of stealth treatment you need to attain the level of stealth the U.S. has set for it's designs.

Also, much of the design treatments, such as the 3D fixed shock inlets are like what the U.S. uses, because they make sense. Much of that technology was developed in the U.S. and yes, they referenced it. I hope people here don't think the Russians are so stupid that they would spend billions of dollars developing a knowledge base they could get from us at much less cost. It's a known fact that Russia and China already have all of the info on the F-22 and F-35 designs and their technologies. It's actually being able to manufacture them that's the difficult part.

So yeah, there are similarities between the T-50 and the F-22. But that's also because physics and technology determine what the plane will look like, to a certain extent. And yes, the Russians did reference U.S. designs and technology in developing it, because they would have been fools not to. The mission defines the design, not the other way around. In fact, the T-50 is a logical progression of the Flanker design, adapted for the new mission requirements.

Also, in a bit of a geek fit, I have to say I can't help thinking of the sensor behind the cockpit as a miniature R2D2. ;)

As of this moment, I think it's the best looking fighter flying. If you would like more info and pictures, you can reference the following links;

Secret Projects T-50 thread (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9186.0.html)

Ares Blog postings and analysis of the T-50 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9a612298-23c3-4114-92f0-3ae37649ee7b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[spotlope]

She's a gorgeous plane. yeah, some people are gonna knock her because they refuse to believe that russia has any intellegent people with an iq over fourty, but te truth is, our f-22s have been getting shot down in play battles for some time now by su-27s. Then the su-35s hit but were so expensive, russia couldnt afford them. This plane looks good. it's a more simple design, yet very sdleek and self contained. not at all clunky. I doubt she'll have the maneuverability of say the su-33 or su-35, but i've been incorrect before.. it'll be fun watching this one develop.

Anyone who thinks there aren't brilliant scientists and engineers in Russia is probably a little low on IQ points themselves. You don't just have to look at history, which is full of examples of Russia's scientific prowess, just look at all the programmers and developers who are still working there. How many sims have you seen lately that haven't come from behind the former Iron Curtain? Not too many.

[Sundog]

Anyone who thinks there aren't brilliant scientists and engineers in Russia is probably a little low on IQ points themselves. You don't just have to look at history, which is full of examples of Russia's scientific prowess, just look at all the programmers and developers who are still working there. How many sims have you seen lately that haven't come from behind the former Iron Curtain? Not too many.

It rarely has anything to do with brilliance and everything to do with money. Give any country enough money and they can develop this technology. Also, the main reason many sims, etc., are developed in Russia and not here is related to costs/economics. Most companies in the West aren't going to wait years to develop something that will give them little ROI.

My point being, smart people are everywhere. The only time nations come into play is in terms of national policy regarding education. If you want an area where Russians truly excel, look at math. Since they lag behind the west in computer technology, their math prowess is very strong, since they they've had to use it to solve problems explicitly and not implicitly with computers.

[Lionheart]

Man.. It looks like ours! lol..

Wierd to see a Sukoi nose on what looks like a Raptor fuselage.

Good to see they are still working on modern aircraft. I thought they were out of the picture for a while.


We have to remember that we came out with the F-15 and it did use qualities that the Russians used on their Sukoi's.

[Bjoern]

We have to remember that we came out with the F-15 and it did use qualities that the Russians used on their Sukoi's.

The F-15 was actually developed because of the MiG-25 which was developed because of the XB-70 which was developed because of the MiG-21 which was developed...

And yes, the Su-27 was the russian answer to the F-15.

[Sundog]

We have to remember that we came out with the F-15 and it did use qualities that the Russians used on their Sukoi's.

This makes no sense. The leading Sukhoi fighter before the F-15 first flew in 1972 was the Su-21 Flagon. You also have the whole Su-7,9,17,22 series, but, once again, I fail to see any similarities to the F-15.

Now, Perhaps, you mean the MiG-25, but it's configuration can be seen in the NAA WS-300 design from around 1955, or the NAA A-5 Vigilante (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5224.0/highlight,ws-300.html). Perhaps it isn't known here, but the original Vigilante design had two vertical tails, all the way to full scale mock-up, until they went to a single vertical tail for production.

Now, if you want to see an advanced "old" Soviet fighter, that presaged one of our designs, in terms of being an advanced lightweight fighter, look up the MiG Ye-8 at google. It was a very advanced development of the MiG-21, except it had a problem with engines blowing up; not MiG's fault, but it doomed the program. In some ways it presaged the F-16, but there were many conceptual designs with chin inlets on the boards.

Btw the canards on the Ye-8 aren't flight control surfaces. They were free to pivot at subsonic speeds, but locked in place at supersonic speeds. This was done to move the center of lift forward at supersonic speed and minimize trim drag. It was a very good mechanical solution to a difficult problem.

[Lazerbeak]

Personally, I don't think it does look much like the F-22. It reminds me much more of the old YF-23 Black Widow, if anything. I do know this: whatever it does or doesn't resemble, it's damned beautiful!

Much respect to Russia for coming up with yet another gorgeous fighter design. Can't wait to see this beast strut its stuff at an airshow.

[Lateral-G]

Looks like an F-22 cross-bred with a YF-23.

Unless the Russians are better at integrating their new fighters into the fleet than we are I think the 2015 IOC date is a bit optimistic....

-G-

[jymp]

And we have another copy of a US design

[Sundog]

And we have another copy of a US design

Not really. The basic layout echo's that of the Flanker. Now add LO tech and you have the T-50. You'd actually have to know aircraft design to understand why, but the mission designs the aircraft and given a similar state of technology, aircraft will look similar. There are only so many good solutions to the same problem and it just turns out physics in Russia is the same as physics in the U.S.

[centuryseries]

Looks like an F-22 cross-bred with a YF-23.

Unless the Russians are better at integrating their new fighters into the fleet than we are I think the 2015 IOC date is a bit optimistic....

-G-

Don't forget that all the computer gizmos that go into a modern day US fighter tend to slow everything down.

In the boom years the US built some fantasticly revolutionary aircraft. Lockheed's A-12 is a fine example - CIA ordered them in 1960 while it was still a design on paper, first flight 1962, first operational flight in 1967 over South East Asia.

There are two distinct paths that military aircraft have to endure before production, the first is perhaps the easiest whereby the aircraft is designed and built in secrecy away from spending scrutiny and the public eye - examples are Blackbird family and F-117. Then there's the incredibly difficult and lengthy path like that the Raptor and Spirit endured in the public eye with politicians scrutinising spending and making cutbacks to win points with the voters.

Russia, if it does decide to go ahead with production should be able to field the aircraft in 2015 so long as it's not as complicated as the F-22.

Lets not forget the Russians datalinked their Mig 31 Foxhounds many, many years ago and fielded advanced weapon aiming capabilities to their Flankers, not to mention thrust vectoring on an operational jet - they should not be underestimated.

[warchild]

Believe me gentlemen. I wasnt underestimating them, nor was i ballyhooing their efforts. I have nothing BUT the greatest respect for Russias abilities to produce a plane that is not only equal too, but better than our own. After working on a flight model for their su-35/s-37 with it's operational canards and tail plane, i gave up. I'm not the exactly the brightest lightbulb on the marquee but i'm no slouch either, and the genius that went into the real su-35 was mind blowing.
No, rather, i believe i've been misread. What i rail against is the americans sense of nationalism. Its not patriotism, its the beast that says we're the best always, and screw anyone who doesnt agree. We arent the best always. we make our mistakes, and other countries around the world have moments of sheer brilliance as well, and deserve to be looked at in their own light, instead of in comparison to the touted propoganda of our own government.
This plane is a very good looking plane. it's going to be fun watching it develope. Its going to be even more fun watching the rest of the world react to it.. will they embrace it? will they develope against it?? what will the worlds nations do now??

Pam.

[centuryseries]

What i rail against is the americans sense of nationalism. Its not patriotism, its the beast that says we're the best always, and screw anyone who doesnt agree.

I completely agree. :mixedsmi:

It leads to complacency. The kind of complacency that both the US, UK and allies are witnessing now that we are fighting a low tech battle with WW3 technology. But thats another story altogether, one thats not for discussion here.

[deathfromafar]

The Russians have always had decent engineering and during the Soviet years, their manufacturing capability was massive. Quality wise, some things they made were quite advanced while many other areas were not. In the Soviet days, the Kremlin held a no expense spared approach to building their military. The result was a bloated and inefficient system filled with numerous flaws which could be exploited by an enemy 1/10th the size. The cost of building and maintaining that giant military ended up causing the Soviet Union to be broke towards their end. If they had followed the same approach as the US, they would have been better off and turned out better hardware and still in sufficient numbers enough to defend their country.

Avionics and advanced communications were and still remain a weak point for them. The reasons they lag behind vary but it is wrong to assume they will never close the gap in avionics at least to a close degree. As for this T-50, a lot of the information about this aircraft and Russia's current manufacturing capability indicates that this is going to be a steep climb for them. They have a lot of issues with their manufacturing capability right now which need to be addressed(upgrades and retooling are direly needed). The other issue seems to be a serious shortage of advanced materials needed for building this aircraft. All these latter factors will likely mean serious delays in seeing it deployed either in Russia or India. I suspect it will be more like after 2020 before they start to really be seen anywhere. However, they may try to push it faster by using less advanced materials and processes. If they do that, I wouldn't expect it to be all that great of a plane. Even if they take their time and perfect the T-50, I still don't expect it to be anything stellar. I would even go so far as to say it will be a maintenance nightmare just as their other aircraft are. Just ask the nations that operate Mig-29's, SU-27's/SU-30's. Hangar queens for the most part. More than a few nations who operated these types dumped them because of the high costs and poor reliability. I don't expect any better out of the T-50. In fact, I bet it's cost will be so high that only 2 or 3 nations will buy it in numbers.

When anyone tried to compare Western/American hardware to Russian hardware, well combat from 1950 forward shows clear results. Especially when our side applied common sense and utilized proven approaches with adaptive thinking on the battlefield on ground or in air. Likewise we've seen results of assumption as well where we didn't do so well. Overall I'm comfortable in what we make and field.

So, time will tell if the T-50 turns out to be of great significance or not. It if does, maybe more F-22's will be built and some of our allies may need them down the road. Some Lockheed officials just mentioned yesterday that there's talk of an export model of the F-22. We'll see.

[Z-AZ1USN]

And we have another copy of a US design

I agree....well..I wonder how much they spent for R@D for this?
Wanna bet Nada, Zip, Zilch...however, they may of had to come up
with a way for it to burn vodka. As always imitation is a sincere
from of flattery. They did it with a captured B29 and copied that down
faithfully to the last rivet. Even their space shuttle look like what we
have been using.

[Ken Stallings]

I would need to see higher quality images of the nose area to be totally convinced of this first impression, but the design of the nose doesn't appear too stealthy to me. It appears rounded, and rounded objects are not intrinsically stealthy. This is especially true for the nose radome of this aircraft.

I am certain that the design of the overall fuselage offers enhanced low observability properties. The devil is fully in the details. Not only airframe shape but also materials and coatings.

BTW: The examples of the Flanker shooting down F-22's was in error. It was F-15C's and in head-to-head competition between F-15C's flown by our less experienced pilots against instructor pilots flying Su-27's of the Indian Air Force.

This points to a couple of facts. First and foremost dogfights normally come down to who is better in the cockpit. Second, the Indian Air Force is a first rate organization with excellent training standards. That's why we sent some of our less experienced pilots over there. It was an excellent learning opportunity for them to go against excellent pilots flying dissimilar aircraft, in this case a very potent Su-27.

Cheers,

Ken

[deathfromafar]

The examples of the Flanker shooting down F-22's was in error. It was F-15C's and in head-to-head competition between F-15C's flown by our less experienced pilots against instructor pilots flying Su-27's of the Indian Air Force.

Don't forget the F-15 and F-16's in that exercise were flying specific profiles and were "noses cold". The later Red Flag meet when the IAF SU-30MKI's were at Nellis indicated that the radar/fire control systems in the SU-30 isn't what the Russians crack it up to be. The Indian AF pilots committed numerous incidents of fratricide which indicates there are serious deficiencies with TD/IFF modes of those Russian AESA radar sets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfXBoeV86Yo&feature=related

[djscoo]

There are several pictures on the wikipedia website...none of them are particularly clear though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

[Ken Stallings]

There are several pictures on the wikipedia website...none of them are particularly clear though.


Appreciate that link! Those photos helped me conclude a few things. First, I was right, the upper half and lower half of the nose radome is circular. Also, the underside shot seemed to show a seam running down the lateral line which I suspect is an internal weapons bay. If I am wrong, then the weapons would have to be hung on external pylons, which would seriously degrade stealth characteristics.

One final observation is that the cockpit canopy is not coated. If you look at photos of the F-22's canopy, you will notice it has a gold hue to it. That's not a bad photo or your imagination. The F-22 canopy has gold integrated into it in a special way so as not to degrade seeing through the acrylic, but enough so that radar energy is bounced off the surface of the canopy vice getting inside and bouncing off all those lovely angular surfaces inside -- like the pilot, which can bounce back radar energy to the radome it came from.

I'm thinking this aircraft is indeed a very significant reduction of radar cross section from the Su-27. But on first look, I suspect it has a RCS significantly larger than that of the F-22.

Cheers,

Ken

[djscoo]

Statistics say 10 internal and 2 external hardpoints...I think you are right about those being doors along the centerline.

[Bjoern]

The result was a bloated and inefficient system filled with numerous flaws which could be exploited by an enemy 1/10th the size.

...sometimes in form of a Cessna 172...


Avionics and advanced communications were and still remain a weak point for them.

Actually not really. Datalinks were used since the late 70s in versions of the MiG-21 or -23.

Whether they were badly needed in the russian defense philosophy (ground control all the way) is a different question.


I would even go so far as to say it will be a maintenance nightmare just as their other aircraft are. Just ask the nations that operate Mig-29's, SU-27's/SU-30's. Hangar queens for the most part. More than a few nations who operated these types dumped them because of the high costs and poor reliability. I don't expect any better out of the T-50. In fact, I bet it's cost will be so high that only 2 or 3 nations will buy it in numbers.

From what I know the LSK and Luftwaffe were quite happy with their MiGs.
They only got shipped off to other nations because of the reunification (and subsequent downsizing and reorganization of the united armed forces) and the advent of the Eurofighter (made the Luftwaffe give the Fulcrums to Poland to free training capabilities for EF conversion).




I agree....well..I wonder how much they spent for R@D for this?
Wanna bet Nada, Zip, Zilch...however, they may of had to come up
with a way for it to burn vodka. As always imitation is a sincere
from of flattery. They did it with a captured B29 and copied that down
faithfully to the last rivet. Even their space shuttle look like what we
have been using.

All (internationally speaking) reusable spacecraft designs didn't look that much different from Rockwell's original Space Shuttle.

Why try to make things different at all costs?

Buran was capable of a fully automated mission, by the way. A difference to its american counterpart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29


I'm curious whether the T-50 retains the famed rough field capabilities of most of its predecessors or not.

[Hanimichal]

is this an cars to have beauty designs? or this is for flight dynamic question!

same design with f-22 only in the imagination of the viewer

[deathfromafar]

Actually not really. Datalinks were used since the late 70s in versions of the MiG-21 or -23.

Yes, I know as I mentioned they were advanced in some areas while not in others. But those systems and the entire comms network were not very secure from ELINT and EW capability we had. This was put to the test a few times.

As far as the Migs and Sukhois maintenance, Mig-29 engines averaged about a 350 hour TBO which is very poor by current standards and the SU's AL-31's quite a bit better but both have a number of drawbacks compared to Western engine designs and durability. Their centerspools and casings are reported to be fairly good but their blade disks and engine systems are another story. The next generation of engines may overcome many of the old or current shortcomings. Time will tell if the cash is there and actual fruition occurs.

[warchild]

I would need to see higher quality images of the nose area to be totally convinced of this first impression, but the design of the nose doesn't appear too stealthy to me. It appears rounded, and rounded objects are not intrinsically stealthy. This is especially true for the nose radome of this aircraft.

I am certain that the design of the overall fuselage offers enhanced low observability properties. The devil is fully in the details. Not only airframe shape but also materials and coatings.

BTW: The examples of the Flanker shooting down F-22's was in error. It was F-15C's and in head-to-head competition between F-15C's flown by our less experienced pilots against instructor pilots flying Su-27's of the Indian Air Force.

This points to a couple of facts. First and foremost dogfights normally come down to who is better in the cockpit. Second, the Indian Air Force is a first rate organization with excellent training standards. That's why we sent some of our less experienced pilots over there. It was an excellent learning opportunity for them to go against excellent pilots flying dissimilar aircraft, in this case a very potent Su-27.

Cheers,

Ken

I hear ya there ken.. Thanks for the correction.. :)..

[Sundog]

BTW: The examples of the Flanker shooting down F-22's was in error. It was F-15C's and in head-to-head competition between F-15C's flown by our less experienced pilots against instructor pilots flying Su-27's of the Indian Air Force.

This points to a couple of facts. First and foremost dogfights normally come down to who is better in the cockpit. Second, the Indian Air Force is a first rate organization with excellent training standards. That's why we sent some of our less experienced pilots over there. It was an excellent learning opportunity for them to go against excellent pilots flying dissimilar aircraft, in this case a very potent Su-27.

The reason the F-15's lost to the Flankers was due to the rules of engagement the Indian Air Force asked them, the USAF, to use. The IAF had the F-15's not use their long range missiles, which is their strength. As a result, the Flankers were able to get in close enough to kill the F-15's. I'm also quite sure the USAF allowed this, since they were trying to drum up need for F-22's at the time as well.

[centuryseries]

As a result, the Flankers were able to get in close enough to kill the F-15's. I'm also quite sure the USAF allowed this, since they were trying to drum up need for F-22's at the time as well.

LOL well it wouldn't be much fun as a BVR engagement! Seriously though, in a dogfight their Sukhois have thrust vectoring if I'm not mistaken? :icon_lol:

On the subject of Datalinks, is the F-22 Netcentric yet? I heard or read that it isn't yet.

Russian Mig-31 is argubly the best interceptor in the world right now. Like it or hate it, when the US lost the F-14 they lost a huge capability with those Phoenix missiles too. :mixedsmi:

I see that nose profile as not being round in the second movie on the first page, it looks more like the beak that the side by side seat SU-34 has?

[Bjoern]

As far as the Migs and Sukhois maintenance, Mig-29 engines averaged about a 350 hour TBO which is very poor by current standards and the SU's AL-31's quite a bit better but both have a number of drawbacks compared to Western engine designs and durability. Their centerspools and casings are reported to be fairly good but their blade disks and engine systems are another story. The next generation of engines may overcome many of the old or current shortcomings. Time will tell if the cash is there and actual fruition occurs.

Well, what do you need ultradurable engines for if you have a few thousand of them in stock instead?
Back when the 27 and 29 were designed and introduced, most of their user countries still used the "use and throw away" mentality.

Ever since well...maintenance seems to be cheaper than replacement. See our F-4s.

[Sundog]

LOL well it wouldn't be much fun as a BVR engagement! Seriously though, in a dogfight their Sukhois have thrust vectoring if I'm not mistaken?

They have newer Flankers with thrust vectoring as well, but I don't think those are the ones they fought. In fact, partly as Ken Stalling was saying about pilot skills, their vectored thrust Su-27MKI's fought some of our F-16 aggressor pilots last year and lost. There was actually a video of the U.S. aggressor pilots talking about it in their debriefing on YouTube for a week or so, before the Pentagon pulled it. Anyway, the F-16's were able to kill them because the Indian pilots used the thrust vectoring in a very high-G, high alpha turn (I think they were trying to due a modified J-turn at around 30000ft) at the beginning of the fight and ended up bleeding off all of their energy and falling tail first (Since the fall off in thrust at altitude results in T/W being less than one) and the F-16's seeing them do that just went vertical and came right back down on top of them and killed them.

Of course, the F-16 pilots said the IAF will actually do quite well, once they learn how to take advantage of their TV and that with proper training they should easily be able to beat the F-16. I only point that as reference to say why I don't think TV had anything to do with the fight between the Flankers and the Eagles. In fact, IIRC, it was the Flankers IR sensors that allowed some of them to sneak up on and kill the Eagles.

With regard to the MiG-31, I have an excellent book on it. It's a very formidable aircraft and they built the structure for a high enough q-limit to do 1000mph on the deck. There isn't an aircraft around that will touch that. Although it's safe to say a bird strike would be completely catastrophic down there. To me, the MiG-31 is the very definition of "Klingon Battle Cruiser," and I mean that in a good way. ;)

[Bone]

Drag Chutes?? OMG, what a joke.

[Ken Stallings]

I'm also quite sure the USAF allowed this, since they were trying to drum up need for F-22's at the time as well.

I won't deny that was a small goal. But the primary goal was simply to give some of our younger pilots some seriously valuable training. And to do that, it was necessary to turn the fight into a knife fight in a phone booth -- a classic visual dogfight.

You can practice the radar and datalink radar guided engagements in any training range in the states against any opponent. But to have a chance to put your pilots up against actual Su-27's in a dogfight was a wonderful training opportunity.

In terms of training with Su-27's I know the Indian Air Force put more hours on their jets than any other nation flying the Su-27. So, it's not just gaining experience against this type, but also being flown by expert pilots! I don't believe the IAF really forced us into those ROE's. It's pretty much what we wanted also.

Cheers,

Ken

[Matt Wynn]

i remember the Indian Su-30MKI's visiting the UK, they were under orders NOT to turn the radar on, still, great looking aircraft, as for a copy remember this has it's origins back before the Berlin wall came down and the Iron Curtain was still closed over the window of the world...

still this makes a great formation image, the Tornado F.3, Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 and the Su-30MKI
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_SU-30MKI_Eurofighter_Tornado-F3_lg.jpg

back on topic, without seeing more images and studying them to me it looks stealthy, but them inlets... they'll be the make or break in stealth capability I believe... could do with some F-117 style inlet screens :icon_lol: one thing i like on the T-50... the way the Elevators look to be part of the wing but are a seperate unit... well i love the design even if it is an imitation...

[Sundog]

Drag Chutes?? OMG, what a joke.

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.

Just for reference, look at Norway's F-16s, they have brake chutes as well, precisely because of the operating conditions they encounter in the far north.


but them inlets... they'll be the make or break in stealth capability I believe

The inlets drop down drastically at the top, and maybe go up behind it. They're obviously using either a "vertical" serpentine duct, where the F-22 uses lateral serpentine ducts, or they could just be going with fan blockers, like the Super Hornet uses.

[centuryseries]

Drag Chutes?? OMG, what a joke.

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 :icon_lol: 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?

[peter12213]

I agree with Centuryseries, if they make one it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than anything the UK or US could do it for and I certainly bet it'll have features that we havent thought of or be capable of manouvres that ours arn't, the Russians are excellent aeronautical engineers more than capable of pulling somthing like this off if they have the money, not to blow smoke up the ruskies arses though lol! As for drag chutes though I have no problems with them as Sundog said in cold countries you often find aircraft using them, as brakes just don't work as effectivly in snow and ice especially as most aircraft tyres are slick and so have little or no grip!!

Smoothie that is a great shot the MKI has always been my favourite Flanker variant next to the SU37 Terminator that is!

:salute: Pete!

[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 :icon_lol: 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 :icon_lol: 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? :icon_lol:

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 (http://www.propro.ru/flankers/eng/t-10.htm)

T-10-1 Ref 2 (http://media.photobucket.com/image/T-10%20Prototype/huyphuc1981_nb/may_bay/sukhoi/t-10.gif)

North American F/X ref 1 (http://www.aircraftdesign.com/naa-fx.gif)

North American F/X ref 2 (http://www.aircraftdesign.com/ri-f15mockup.jpg)

[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 :kilroy:

[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 :monkies:


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 :kilroy:

[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 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/3/833562/-Italy-Seizes-Bank-of-America-AssetsFraud-Is-Finally-Catching-Up-With-Wall-St.-Bankers).

[Hanimichal]

'Stealth' shot down in Yugoslavia
http://translate.google.com.br/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aereo.jor.br%2F2010%2F02%2F03%2 Fstealth-abatido-na-iugoslavia%2Fcomment-page-1%2F&sl=pt&tl=en

[deathfromafar]

'Stealth' shot down in Yugoslavia
http://translate.google.com.br/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aereo.jor.br%2F2010%2F02%2F03%2 Fstealth-abatido-na-iugoslavia%2Fcomment-page-1%2F&sl=pt&tl=en

Yes, that did happen but that article as well as most stories about the incident are gross disinformation. There is an audio clip of the flight and the pilot explaining what happened at a press conference after action. He came off a successful target run and one of the bay doors jammed open leaving his plane with a greatly increased RCS which a SAM battery(I believe an SA-3's) was able to lock onto. The Serbs and Russians thump their chest over this all day long but fail to explain why they were never able to replicate their "anti-stealth" SAM and Radar capability on the thousands of F-117 and B-2 sorties. They fired a lot of SAM's with only a handful of hits and shootdowns on NATO aircraft. After many of their SAM batteries were taken out by HARM's they stopped turning them on. NATO OWNED the airspace.

Stealth works but they can suffer system and mechanical failures like any other machine rendering them vulnerable.

Here is the F-117 pilot talking about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmqLyn4Q15U

[huub vink]

Without the knowledge of the Russians, ISS (international Space Station) could not have been built. In 1971 the Russians already launced their first manned space station (Salyut 1).

Russian technology is often based on a different philosophy, but in no way "less" than Western technology.

Based on my own experiences in space industry, I'm convinced the Russians don't need an example to construct a stealth fighter. And perhaps better, equal or less sophisticated, but definitely a lot cheaper than any western product of comparable quality.

Cheers,
Huub

[Bjoern]

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 :kilroy:

Well, I always said dump the A400M and get a westernized An-70...but nooooo...the Luftwaffe and FAF had to have it their way. :D




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.

During Yom Kippur the procedure was the standard "stay below the radar" employed/taught ever since SAMs hit the scene.




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

Haha, so did the Russians. :d

[Matt Wynn]

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

Need we say Ho229 and B-2 here? :icon_lol:

[centuryseries]

Need we say Ho229 and B-2 here? :icon_lol:

A point well made. Also just look at the US space programmes beginnings, German scientists!

Regarding the stance of Soviet SAM systems, I agree with what you say to an extent, but someone has to push the fire button and during a surprise attack that person is likely to be off guard. During wartime it's fair to say he'd be on his toes actively looking for trouble headed his way.

Re the Stealth Fighter being shot down over Yugoslavia, I read somewhere that it was because the aircraft was flying the same tracks each day?

Also I need to point out that the F-117 is only stealthy to certain radar wavelengths.

[Matt Wynn]

yeah while flying into Fairford for Air Tattoo's in the past they've been fitted with 'Biscuit tins' to enhance the radar feedback :icon_lol:

[Gibbage]

Need we say Ho229 and B-2 here? :icon_lol:

BS. Look up the Northrop N9M and B-35 before making stupid assumptions. The B-2 was based off of the B-35, NOT the Ho-229. In fact, they have the exact same wing span, and control system.

[CodyValkyrie]

I cannot speak specifically to the stealth plane, but regarding EW and SAM sites, having done 5 years EW for the F-16 and A-10, I can assure you we were WELL aware of the equipment that the Russians and MANY other countries (including allies) were capable of.

Regardless, with exception of the newest Russian equipment, I had full faith in even our antiquated AN/ALQ-184 jamming pod to tackle almost anything thrown at it. The Iraqi's learned the lesson the hard way, along with many of Israel's enemies. After a while, the Iraqi army simply stopped turning their equipment on because of the HARM. What they often resorted to was blinking their radar to get a fix, turning the system off, then waiting until the aircraft was closer and thus had a smaller response time at which point they turned it back on. The flexibility of basic fighter ECM however often gave the pilot a fighting chance.

In many ways, I miss my EW days. I certainly miss the F-16 and A-10!

[Gibbage]

The Iraqi's resorted too blind firing there SAM's in a long run, resulting in one landing in a crowded shopping mall. That was blamed on the US, till photo's proved it was a SAM that was blind fired, turned around, and landed near the launch sight that just happened to be near the market.

[Matt Wynn]

Kevin, I DIDN'T say it was a modified copy, what i failed to say (Don't worry i'll take the flak) is that the Ho229 had 'Stealth' tendencies, this was back in 1944 and 1945 this thing is from remember...

"Using radar of the same type and frequency used by British coastal defenses in World War II, the engineers found that an Ho 229, flying a few dozen feet above the English Channel, would indeed have been "invisible" to the Royal Air Force — an advantage that arrived too late for the Nazis to exploit." and this document goes on to say...
"This was the most advanced technology that the Germans had at the end of the war, and Northrop solved the question of how stealthy it was and its performance against Allied radar at the time.. It's significantly better than anything flying operationally probably until the 1960s"

i do believe Northrop Grumman visited the Ho229 in the Smithsonian while working on the B-2... see the XB35 was partial... but you look carefully the shape of the B-2 to me looks closer to the 229 than to the XB-35... stealth as stated before relies on the radar wavelength... you could make a housebrick practically invisible to radar I bet, also the hindrance lies in radar nice habit of de-cluttering, were it not for that well an object flying at high altitude and high subsonic .75M+ with the radar cross section of a pigeon... i wouldn't hang about in hitting or giving the Fire order :icon_lol:

I think what this thread is doing now is just highlighting how different all our viewpoints are, to me the East is where my fascination lies, the west across the pond is where I look for 'usage above looks'. American Aircraft look the part and are made to be good at a job, to the East the aircraft are designed to be Rugged, and practically go anywhere! look at the worlds largest aircraft the AN-225, thats rough field capable believe it or not :icon_lol: as i say, just differences of opinion, i'll be quiet now and Kevin, my apologies for implying what was said, no hard feelings *offers hand* "put it there buddy, no qualms" :ernae:

[Gibbage]

Sorry for jumping like that. I just get sick of people attributing the B-2 too the Ho-229. Its simply not giving proper credit were credit is due. The flying wing was Jack Northrops dream. To have the credit taken away from him is just a sin in my mind. The Horton brothers and Northrop worked seperatly without much knoledge of each others work till well after the war. Each came up with unique designs that shared few engineering and design elements other then the fact they were flying wings.

I spoke to a few of the designers of the B-2. Yes, they did visit the 229, and I quote directly from them "We learned nothing new". The B-2 has 0 design elements from the 229, but share many many elements from the B-35. From the wings span, too the controle system (split ailerons, the Horton used air brakes on the wingtips for rudders), and even down too little airbrakes in front of the bomb bay too brake up the air.

Funny storry about those airbrakes the engineer told me. During the B-35/49 development, Northrop found out that flying wings created a dense mass of fast moving air under the body. When they would drop bombs from the B-35 and B-49, they would litterally SKIP on this airstream, throwing off targeting. They installed small airbrakes in front of the bomb bay to brake up this airstream, and those same airbrakes are on the B-2.

You can see them here above the guys head.

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090814-f-5205b-026.jpg

Not many photo's of them, but its one of those little things not many people know about.

[Ken Stallings]

Sundog,

Flew the MC-130E in those successful Red Flag missions in 1997-99.

We had many "tricks" to defeat the latest Soviet stuff. I flew multiple Red Flag sorties and was never shot down. Had a few claims made on us, but our "tricks" often fooled their systems in sly little ways that even the operators were unable to figure out until everyone sat down and crunched the actual numbers.

Cheers,

Ken

[djscoo]

the MC-130E
The ugliest, most beautiful aircraft. Certainly not aesthetically pleasing, but it has a utilitarian beauty. :ernae:

[Bjoern]

BS. Look up the Northrop N9M and B-35 before making stupid assumptions. The B-2 was based off of the B-35, NOT the Ho-229. In fact, they have the exact same wing span, and control system.


The Horton brothers and Northrop worked seperatly without much knoledge of each others work till well after the war.


The N-1M was in-part inspired by the pre-war successes of the all-wing sailplanes and propeller-driven designs of Nazi Germany's Horten brothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M

[CodyValkyrie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M
While I personally despise using Wikipedia as a source, in this context I want to point something out....


First flown in 1942, the N-9M (M for Model) was the third in a lineage of all-wing Northrop aircraft designs that began in 1929 when Jack Northrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knudsen_Northrop) succeeded in early experiments with his single-prop, twin-tailed, stressed metal skin "Flying Wing" monoplane, and a decade later, the dual-prop N-1M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M) of 1939–1941.

... to note, "...that began in 1929..."


The first Horten glider flew in 1933, when both brothers were still in their teens.

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

The Northrop designs began in 1929, while nearly four years later the 1933 the first of the Horten gliders were built and flown.

Saying the Northrop design was developed from the Horton Brother's designs is taking it out of context. It does say "in-part", which to me is questionable at best and there is no evidence to suggest this on the same page you referenced. About the only concession I would make would be that the Horton/Gotha designs inspired them to continue their research.

This is the problem with Wikipedia. Multiple sources is not necessarily a bad thing, but often there is little fact checking against other material that speaks in opposite.

That is much like saying that the AK-47 owes its design to the Sturmgewehr 44 (Stg-44) assault rifle. Not only are they completely different designs internally and operate differently, Kalishnikov has defended against this claim since it was first brought up. Basically, just because there are some similar looks, does not mean they were built from each other.

[Bjoern]

This is the problem with Wikipedia. Multiple sources is not necessarily a bad thing, but often there is little fact checking against other material that speaks in opposite.

That's the problem with anything. If you want absolutely, positively watertight proof you'll have to go back in time and write everything down yourself.

For getting a quick overview, Wiki is awfully nice though. And that was all I was on about; showing that Northrop and Horten had indeed a connection.


That is much like saying that the AK-47 owes its design to the Sturmgewehr 44 (Stg-44) assault rifle. Not only are they completely different designs internally and operate differently, Kalishnikov has defended against this claim since it was first brought up. Basically, just because there are some similar looks, does not mean they were built from each other.

The mechanism may be different but one would be blind denying any connection between the StG44 and the AK-47.

[Matt Wynn]

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov was a Tanker, he admired the StG44 and while in hospital set about designing the answer to it, the rest, as we know is history...

wiki is good for a quick overview, paired with books and digging afterwards you can really gen up on something :jump:

[CodyValkyrie]

GROSSLY off topic, but I knew what I said would draw a bit of fire.

Kalishnikov, before his death in a camera interview disputed these claims that his design was based on the STG44. Now, myself I have been an avid firearms collector and smith for 12+ years, as well as an NFA Form 4 owner (yes, I own machine guns legally). I have fired about every type of AK variant (AK-47, AKM, AMD-65, Galil, Krinkov, AK-74, etc etc etc) and have become intimately familiar with the design, concepts and function. I have also fired and studied in detail the STG-44. About the only similarity that the two have is the banana style clip and some similarities to the gas system (not new concepts, but I digress). The AK has more in common with Simonov's SKS than any other conventional firearm of the time. Both the STG-44 and the AK have on paper similar modes of operation, however so do most other designs of the time. The biggest difference between the AK (with exception of a few other Russian designs) is that it was built from the ground up with large amounts of tolerance, spacing the parts such as the bolt, gas piston, recoil springs, etc far apart so that it could withstand high amounts of debris intrusion while still being able to operate. The STG-44 clearly was not made with this being the most important aspect of the firearm. Even the breakdown of the two firearms is completely different.

Of note, weapons designers of all sides often had examples of enemy weapons, including Kalishnikov. It just happens that because these were some of the first assault rifles built, people attribute the design of the AK to the STG-44. Kalishnikov entered into competition for a weapon platform for new 7.64x41 round. He lost the competition to the SKS design. When a new competition was spurred later on for the development of a true assault rifle style weapon based on the 7.62x39 round, he used some of his developments from 1943 to create his new AK firearm. The STG-44 was being fielded at roughly the same time.

The ONLY conclusion I can come to in either regard if you ignore Kalishnikov's own words is that the STG-44 spurred the development in competition only. They owe very little design similarities to each other. The same can be said about Northrop's designs versus that of the German's. Potentially, the same "might" be said about the new Russian aircraft, however time will tell.

Invariabely, history has often shown, if you task two different people in different circumstances who have similar problems, they often come up with similar solutions.

[centuryseries]

I cannot speak specifically to the stealth plane, but regarding EW and SAM sites, having done 5 years EW for the F-16 and A-10, I can assure you we were WELL aware of the equipment that the Russians and MANY other countries (including allies) were capable of.

Thats not what I'm saying, what I was trying to say about their defences originally was that the sheer quantity of their SAM systems ie different SAM systems, long range, short range, high altitude low altitude etc, the Russians must have the know how to develop a half decent stealth aircraft for less money.

I don't care whether the USAF can defeat their missiles or not that was not my point that I was trying to get across.

It's amazing how defensive you guys get!! :medals: but I did not state anywhere that 'their SAMs are better than your defensive equipment'. This topic is about the T-50 and Russian technology not a pro-US nor pro-Russian thread. Please lets stay on track, it was a good discussion a few pages back about a new aircraft but as usual there are elements of the community who are exceptionally patriotic (nothing wrong with that) and that doesn't encourage constructive discussion.

[CodyValkyrie]

No offense taken man. I was just stating the current (as of 5 years ago) state of our EW as I saw it in active duty. What the Russians have always been able to do was field a plethora of SAM equipment in country, and to its allies. Proof in point, Vietnam. Russian SAM technology has always been the boon of western civilizations, and in many trial by actual fire examples, Russian designs have proved formidable. I wouldn't have had a job in the U.S.A.F. had this not been the case.

I do feel however the topic has remained civil, and interesting. I am holding nothing negative on anyone. I'm simply stating my experience in regards to this conversation, and where it goes.

I have no dog in the fight regarding the new Russian design anymore and I find the whole conversation rather interesting. It looks like an interesting plane. I wonder how this will play out on the modern battlefield if they are able to field the plane in great numbers, as well as to their allies, and how this will interact with our current systems and technology.

My comments about EW were not directed at anyone in particular, but were rather intended to add informtion to this conversation, especially since the topic had shifted somewhat to EW and SAMS in particular, an area of which I feel I have some degree of expertise in.

[centuryseries]

No offense taken man. I was just stating the current (as of 5 years ago) state of our EW as I saw it in active duty. What the Russians have always been able to do was field a plethora of SAM equipment in country, and to its allies. Proof in point, Vietnam. Russian SAM technology has always been the boon of western civilizations, and in many trial by actual fire examples, Russian designs have proved formidable. I wouldn't have had a job in the U.S.A.F. had this not been the case.

I do feel however the topic has remained civil, and interesting. I am holding nothing negative on anyone. I'm simply stating my experience in regards to this conversation, and where it goes.

I have no dog in the fight regarding the new Russian design anymore and I find the whole conversation rather interesting. It looks like an interesting plane. I wonder how this will play out on the modern battlefield if they are able to field the plane in great numbers, as well as to their allies, and how this will interact with our current systems and technology.

My comments about EW were not directed at anyone in particular, but were rather intended to add informtion to this conversation, especially since the topic had shifted somewhat to EW and SAMS in particular, an area of which I feel I have some degree of expertise in.

No worries :jump: it is a very interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it. Just trying to ensure that it stays as balanced as possible!

I'm fascinated by the methods the jammers used to use to deceive the threat posed by Radar systems, one particular system I read about in Rich Grahams SR-71 books is intriguing the way it would somehow (the method is beyond me) give the tracking radar a false distance and location away from the deceiving aircraft thereby making any missile that gets close detonate harmlessly.

Awesome stuff - and that was old technology heaven only knows what these systems do today.

Has anyone found any decent photos of the T-50?

[stiz]

100% nonesense


i dont care if it is, i for one find it extermly hard to belive that claim, and i know i'm not the only one. Also if a plane makes it back to base with battle damage, but pulls of a successful landing, but is then scraped due to the damage .. is that counted as a loss ...

[Matt Wynn]

i dont care if it is, i for one find it extermly hard to belive that claim, and i know i'm not the only one. Also if a plane makes it back to base with battle damage, but pulls of a successful landing, but is then scraped due to the damage .. is that counted as a loss ...

a loss implies taken out in battle if i recall... not after service... i admire the way technology advances then gets stalemated by other tech... the T-50 just Like the Raptor, i'm sure will perform admirably, so what'll be it's official Designation? Su-40? :icon_lol:

[Ken Stallings]

That's the problem with anything. If you want absolutely, positively watertight proof you'll have to go back in time and write everything down yourself.

For getting a quick overview, Wiki is awfully nice though. And that was all I was on about; showing that Northrop and Horten had indeed a connection.



The mechanism may be different but one would be blind denying any connection between the StG44 and the AK-47.

You miss his point! You are implying that the Horton design inspired Jack Northrup. Not true at all. Makes as much historical sense as trying to say one man inspired the design of the jet engine. In fact, it was a three-man parallel development track. One Brit, one German, and one Italian all worked the issues simultaneously and without coordination or awareness.

Jack Northrup had his vision about a flying wing before World War II and therefore since we did not know about the Horton design until after the war ended, it is illogical, inaccurate, and to a certain degree insulting to assert that Northrup was inspired by the Horton aircraft.

Yes, he inspected the aircraft, but that was for helpful tidbits. Northrup didn't look at the aircraft after the war and suddenly see a flash of inspiration. He had been working the issue himself years prior.

One should note that nowhere have I written here that other nation's stuff was junk. In fact, what I said is that it's wrong to assert inferiority on the part of allied AAA systems. I've also provided personal knowledge and experience to help back it up. I would assert that to use Wikipedia to try to refute such statements doesn't strengthen the argument. Whether this sidebar discussion on the B-2 or AAA systems, much has been brought to this discussion that is historically inaccurate. To return to my original point regarding allied AAA systems ...

The Patriot was not developed to take down incoming missiles. It was designed to take out incoming aircraft. It was just that Patriot was such an incredibly lethal, fast, and accurate anti-aircraft system, that it could pull double duty in Gulf War I to take out SCUDS. Some have myopically claimed the effectiveness was doctored.

They miss the point on three levels. It wasn't designed to do that and only became highly lethal in ABM use with follow-on modifications. Second, in war you aren't obligated to tell the enemy the truth. Third, despite some misses in GW1, it did have a few cases of direct hits -- something amazing for the day! Sorry if we used the media to send a somewhat hyped up message. But I hope civilians can understand that in the effort to discourage Saddam from using them to kill innocent civilians, a little "white lie" was entirely moral and justified!

Moreover to this discussion, it means one heck of a fine AAA system was fielded!

Cheers,

Ken

[bushpilot]

There's already a FSX native model of this, here's a shot of it with stealth enabled:173go1::

http://s80.flight1.net/forums/uploads/20100205_145753_sneak.jpg

[Ken Stallings]

FSX model of stealth clouds? Nice to know! :icon_lol:

[CodyValkyrie]

The Klingons and Romulans must answer for this atrocity!

[warchild]

You miss his point! You are implying that the Horton design inspired Jack Northrup. Not true at all. Makes as much historical sense as trying to say one man inspired the design of the jet engine. In fact, it was a three-man parallel development track. One Brit, one German, and one Italian all worked the issues simultaneously and without coordination or awareness.

Jack Northrup had his vision about a flying wing before World War II and therefore since we did not know about the Horton design until after the war ended, it is illogical, inaccurate, and to a certain degree insulting to assert that Northrup was inspired by the Horton aircraft.



Cheers,

Ken

One of the more amazing and unexplained phenomena that can be seen throuought history, is people getting similar ideas within a specific time range. This is most noticeable with the Renaissance Style of painting wherein several artists living hundreds of miles apart and having no contact with each other, developed very similar styles. iin the 20s and thirties, and fourties, flying wings for some reason became a popular idea, and america finally carried through with the B-2. It's very easy to claim that one thing copies another, when truth told, none of the inventors may have a clue about the existence of the others doing the same thing..

[deathfromafar]

i dont care if it is, i for one find it extermly hard to belive that claim, and i know i'm not the only one. Also if a plane makes it back to base with battle damage, but pulls of a successful landing, but is then scraped due to the damage .. is that counted as a loss ...

The claims are 100% confirmed. NO Air to Air losses have occurred of a single F-15 in combat between the USAF,IDF, and Saudi AF who have used them in combat. The record currently stands at 104 to 0.

There have been F-15E's lost to SAM's and Ground Fire. The first 2 lost happened on Jan 16th 1991 in the Strike Eagle's combat debut. Even the E model's loss rate is extremely low. All this equates to a combination of excellent design, above average systems, avionics/countermeasures, and excellent training and planning.

[deathfromafar]

I'd like to elaborate a little further regarding the discussions of Simulated Air to Air kills in large scale exercises. Seems there are a lot of forum board and youtube baby-chest thumpers trying to make hay out of some of the results of various Fighter/Weapons Meets. The whole purpose of such exercises are to build knowledge, skill, confidence, efficiency, and above all, survivability to Air Combat Crews. The US has the two largest and most experienced organizations in the world who provide just such training. The training's sole purpose is to help our forces and allied forces in hopes of giving them an edge in combat. Our instructors both indigenous and foreign are some of the best people in the business. They(the Red Team) are not there to beat up on the Blue Team or show them who is boss/who has the best equipment. If they wanted to they could but it would defeat the purpose of the training.

Sometimes the most experienced pilots will go 1V1 to see what they have. Here's a video showing guys from the 457th FS flying F-16C Block 32's against Luftwaffe Mig-29's. The score as the video indicates was lopsided. One of the pilots(retired USAF) who flew in the exercise is a lurking member here. All the F-16 Pilots in that exercise were previous Red Flag Instructors many of whom were Vietnam and Gulf War Vets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJrtHQsKjOw&feature=related

[Ken Stallings]

Well said, sir!

Joe Foss said it best in my view. "It ain't the crate! It's the man in the crate!"

The view of the USAF and USN aviation is that it really works best if you can put the best man in the best crate! Then, you have an unfair advantage. And in war, that's the way you want it -- a completely unfair advantage!

So, in training, we often deliberately put our guys in a competitive disadvantage to hone specific skills. Then, they have all the tools in their bag.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJrtHQsKjOw&feature=related

:ernae: That's what Chuck Yeager would term an old-fashioned fanny waxing!

I got a laugh when the video spliced the scene of the crash at the airshow.

Ken

[Sundog]

Sundog,

Flew the MC-130E in those successful Red Flag missions in 1997-99.

We had many "tricks" to defeat the latest Soviet stuff. I flew multiple Red Flag sorties and was never shot down. Had a few claims made on us, but our "tricks" often fooled their systems in sly little ways that even the operators were unable to figure out until everyone sat down and crunched the actual numbers.

Cheers,

Ken

Ahhh...O.K., thanks for the info. That makes me want to go fly my CS C-130 now. :D

[Sundog]

I'd like to elaborate a little further regarding the discussions of Simulated Air to Air kills in large scale exercises. Seems there are a lot of forum board and youtube baby-chest thumpers trying to make hay out of some of the results of various Fighter/Weapons Meets. The whole purpose of such exercises are to build knowledge, skill, confidence, efficiency, and above all, survivability to Air Combat Crews. The US has the two largest and most experienced organizations in the world who provide just such training. The training's sole purpose is to help our forces and allied forces in hopes of giving them an edge in combat. Our instructors both indigenous and foreign are some of the best people in the business. They(the Red Team) are not there to beat up on the Blue Team or show them who is boss/who has the best equipment. If they wanted to they could but it would defeat the purpose of the training.

Sometimes the most experienced pilots will go 1V1 to see what they have. Here's a video showing guys from the 457th FS flying F-16C Block 32's against Luftwaffe Mig-29's. The score as the video indicates was lopsided. One of the pilots(retired USAF) who flew in the exercise is a lurking member here. All the F-16 Pilots in that exercise were previous Red Flag Instructors many of whom were Vietnam and Gulf War Vets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJrtHQsKjOw&feature=related

I don't know how old it was, but one of the best shows I've ever seen on DACT was on the military channel not too long ago and it was about an F/A-18 squadron that deployed to Germany to train against the Luftwaffe's MiG-29s. It was very informative, at least for me anyway. It also seemed very "down to earth," no pun intended, at least in terms of how it presented the training scenario's, etc. If anyone here hasn't seen it, I highly recommend it. I believe it's from 2006 and titled "Red October," After doing a search for it.

[stiz]

I'd like to elaborate a little further regarding the discussions of Simulated Air to Air kills in large scale exercises. Seems there are a lot of forum board and youtube baby-chest thumpers trying to make hay out of some of the results of various Fighter/Weapons Meets. The whole purpose of such exercises are to build knowledge, skill, confidence, efficiency, and above all, survivability to Air Combat Crews. The US has the two largest and most experienced organizations in the world who provide just such training. The training's sole purpose is to help our forces and allied forces in hopes of giving them an edge in combat. Our instructors both indigenous and foreign are some of the best people in the business.

I'm not gonna say what i wanna say here because i'll most likely get banned for disturbing the peace and upsetting chest beating yanks. :monkies:

[deathfromafar]

I'm not gonna say what i wanna say here because i'll most likely get banned for disturbing the peace and upsetting chest beating yanks. :monkies:

Actually Stiz, aside from your above remark being filled with youthful exuberance, to the contrary I did not aim my remark at you specifically but I know you're aware of what I mean when I mention that there is a lot of that going on in various places and for the record, I don't see you doing that. Here you have a good cross section of guys who have worked in the arena in one form or another and are very knowledgeable. Sundog is from the Aerospace Engineering arena. Ken Stallings from the Military who is close in the know about these things. CodyValkyrie from ECM which are too often overlooked by the public at large but extremely valuable field and folks. I worked as a Govt Contractor for the Military(Aviation) many moons ago and was in the middle of many exercises. there are literally dozens of people in here with tons of background in Military Aerospace. We speak the truth and we're all about helping allies. In a very unified sense, our efforts and hard work have paid off in spades. The combat results are proven and manuals that got us there were written quite often in blood from all too often difficult to deadly experiences.

[centuryseries]

Sundog is from the Aerospace Engineering arena. Ken Stallings from the Military who is close in the know about these things. CodyValkyrie from ECM which are too often overlooked by the public at large but extremely valuable field and folks. I worked as a Govt Contractor for the Military(Aviation) many moons ago and was in the middle of many exercises. there are literally dozens of people in here with tons of background in Military Aerospace. We speak the truth and we're all about helping allies. In a very unified sense, our efforts and hard work have paid off in spades. The combat results are proven and manuals that got us there were written quite often in blood from all too often difficult to deadly experiences.

That aside loyalty can cloud judgement/opinion on ones own wares - I think that the company I work for has better products than our rivals - but is that because I work there, or is it because they are better products than the rest? I'd like to think the latter, but I cannot be sure my judgement is not being overrun by corporate loyalty.

Lets get back on topic no more B-2, no more SAMs no more ECM no more exercises or competition results and no more F-15 fan club lol this topic was supposed to be about the T-50 design. :icon_lol:

[deathfromafar]

That aside loyalty can cloud judgement/opinion on ones own wares - I think that the company I work for has better products than our rivals - but is that because I work there, or is it because they are better products than the rest? I'd like to think the latter, but I cannot be sure my judgement is not being overrun by corporate loyalty.

Lets get back on topic no more B-2, no more SAMs no more ECM no more exercises or competition results and no more F-15 fan club lol this topic was supposed to be about the T-50 design. :icon_lol:

No loyalty clouding judgment here, just stating facts which some seem to simply not like/or agree with but otherwise laid out in an objective and level manner.

BTW, this T-50 may be in deep trouble already. I got a couple of financial reports from a friend of mine who works in and out of Moscow. Money wise, things aren't looking too bright for the T-50 and other major projects in Russia. Deep cuts are coming and remaining money is to be steered towards more important projects. The 250 T-50's the Russian Air Force hoped for may end up only being 60 to 100 drawn out between 2015 to 2025. The new wonder-Sukhoi was named as being targeted as an unnecessary defense program by some critics. So, it may fall to a similar fate to the F-22. Time will tell.

[Ken Stallings]

The T-50 is suffering because of the decline in the price paid for natural gas out of Russia. That gas contract with Europe was a huge source of revenues for Russia.

The economic recession in the United States is pretty significant, and to those who've lost their jobs and/or are woefully underemployed at this time, it's a depression. But as it normally the case, we in the US complain loudly when in fact it's worse elsewhere.

Ken

[Bjoern]

Kalishnikov, before his death in a camera interview disputed these claims that his design was based on the STG44.


Zugleich wurden viele Eigenarten des deutschen Modells in die eigene Entwicklung übernommen, was den ganzen Prozess erheblich beschleunigte. Allerdings ist das System der Verschlussverriegelung mit dem gesteuerten Drehkopf völlig anders gelöst als beim deutschen Sturmgewehr."At the same time, many properties of the german model got incorporated into its development, which accelerated the whole process significantly. Yet, the breech locking system with its rotating head is an entirely different solution than in the german Sturmgewehr."





You miss his point! You are implying that the Horton design inspired Jack Northrup. Not true at all.

You miss my point.


Jack Northrup had his vision about a flying wing before World War II and therefore since we did not know about the Horton design until after the war ended, it is illogical, inaccurate, and to a certain degree insulting to assert that Northrup was inspired by the Horton aircraft.So there was no prewar development of flying wings at all and the continents were as seperated as planets in different solar systems and there were no such things as travel and communication between then.

Yeah, right.


...and the guy is called Northrop, FFS!

[deathfromafar]

The T-50 is suffering because of the decline in the price paid for natural gas out of Russia. That gas contract with Europe was a huge source of revenues for Russia.

The economic recession in the United States is pretty significant, and to those who've lost their jobs and/or are woefully underemployed at this time, it's a depression. But as it normally the case, we in the US complain loudly when in fact it's worse elsewhere.

Ken

Russia's situation is far worse than many outside the country realize. The effect on many major defense programs has been obvious for some time. On top of that, their Military is still bloated a good bit from the Soviet era plus it is estimated that 80% or more of their Military hardware are aged and/or falling into a state of disrepair. One project that has blindsided the Russians is the SS-N-30 SLBM. They have sunk billions into that program and it has been plagued with problems. Reason is as said before here. Lack of cash. Such as it is, the funding shortfalls have caused Russia to lag badly in many technology, hardware, and manufacturing sectors. All said are the prime reason the T-50 took so long to get into the air and many of it's proposed vital components are still in limbo. The only saving grace for Russia right now is India's investment. Them plus other countries who have bought Russia's defense hardware have brought in vital cash that helped save their defense industry thus far. If this plane is built in any significant numbers, it will come at the cost of giving other programs the axe.

[CodyValkyrie]

"At the same time, many properties of the german model got incorporated into its development, which accelerated the whole process significantly. Yet, the breech locking system with its rotating head is an entirely different solution than in the german Sturmgewehr."

I would like to know where you got that. Many design features of both weapons were made from information already available to gun designers since the beginning of the century, and developed further from World War I. What are these "properties?"

As I said, coming from someone who has spent time with both, the few things that are similar were well known to firearms manufacturers long before either were made and owe those principals to other firearms manufacturer's of the time.

To note, the STG-44 was stamped steel, had a tilting bolt design similar in ways to the later developed STG-58 or FAL as it is more commonly known.

The original AK-47 on the other hand was a milled steel receiver with a gas operated piston with rotating bolt design.

These two designs lend themselves to two COMPLETELY different ways to build a firearm, and represent the largest difference in the internal parts, and how and where they are positioned and to their function. There is almost nothing in common with these weapons except the shape of the magazine, which curved magazines were NOT new and the fact they used a shorter standard rifle round, which was determined in Russia less by the manufacturer themselves and based heavily on the requirements that the government deemed necessary at the time.

To put it simply, the AK-47 has more in common with an M1 Garand than the STG-44 as far as function and design, not only in the design of the original receiver (yes, original AK-47s were milled from a solid billet of steel, whereas the later AKM was stamped), the way the bolt functions, rotates and locks.

About the T-50, sadly I don't have much more to say.

[Bjoern]

I would like to know where you got that.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47

(Before you start ranting again: Different language, different editor.)


Many design features of both weapons were made from information already available to gun designers since the beginning of the century, and developed further from World War I. What are these "properties?"

How should I know?

The info being avaiable is one thing, but actually using it and fielding it is another.
The russians had something like assault rifles before WW1, but they didn't field it in numbers.

If it hadn't been for the StG44, fielded in huge quantities, common use of assault rifles would have happened way later, if at all.


Andere Konstruktionen, zum Beispiel das bekannte AK-47 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47) (Automat Kalaschnikow) (Kaliber 7,62 x 39 mm (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,62_x_39_mm)), übernahmen bei eigener Technik das taktische Konzept, welches dem StGw 44 zugrunde liegt.

"Other designs, for example the well known AK-47, inherited the tactical concept of the StG44 while featuring own mechanisms."

There's way more to an assault rifle than just the firing mechnaism. Kalashnikov may have already had a mechanism, but he needed to wrap it into something usable and that's where I say the StG44 came into play since it was already battle-proof. Do some external refinements for better handling or whatever here and there et voilà, AK-47.

[Matt Wynn]

guys we're just going in a loop here, lets get it back on Topic if we could please :salute:

[centuryseries]

guys we're just going in a loop here, lets get it back on Topic if we could please :salute:

I know it's not like I haven't asked everyone politely to get back on topic about 3 times!!! :isadizzy:

Please guys, guns have no place in this topic (unless the T-50 has some, and in any case only aerial gunnery. :ernae:

Can I suggest 'Pistols at dawn' for those who wish to continue the gun argument? :pop4: