It’s a 4.5 generation fighter. It’s very good, but we are now into 5th generation fighters. For instance, the F-22 and F-35 fighter.
Must have a large RCS with those vertical twin tails. They make great corner reflectors.
I mostly agree with the author of the article. We are finally in an AWACS, airborne net, BVR world. Missile technology is far better than it was a half century ago when it was discovered in Vietnam that fighters still desperately needed close-in cannons.
Stealth, sensors and good BVR weapons are more important now than raw maneuverability. I also suspect the F-35 may be the last manned fighter we ever build. AI and remote pilots are the future.
FR love fest for the ineffective former soviet defense industry begins in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
They will simply field far more Flankers.
Quantity has a quality all its own ~ Stalin.
Nice aircraft but this is a good reason why your wingman doesn’t fly on your a$$. As soon as the Russian pilot pops his nose up the wingman guns him.
Readers might recall that Imperial Japanese Army and Navy fighters had outstanding maneuverability throughout WWII. What they failed to understand until very late in the war was that the Allies, once they got over their shock, adapted their tactics and aircraft designs for speed, ruggedness, armor protection and firepower. By the time the IJA and IJN began fielding designs that in orporated these features while retaining the maneuverability that Japanese fighters were rightly famous for, they had lost most of their experienced pilots and their manufacturing infrastructure was being bombed into rubble.
Similarly, German tanks were technical marvels. But Russia and the United States came up with separate solutions to counter their technical prowess.
As the article’s author points out, all that superior maneuverability doesn’t mean much if the enemy doesn’t intend to fight you on those terms. That said, seeing an aircraft that big perform a hammerhead stall or Pugashev Cobra maneuver is pretty impressive.
As the old saying about aircraft goes,if it looks good, it is good.
* Wayne Handley in the 90's with his highly modified Stephen's Arko and his "Agrobatic Routine"? It would make you sick to your stomach watching what he did.
* Or Sean Tucker with his latest mount with the eliptical / Shark wingtips as he hangs off the prop?
* Or any current generation R/C acro aircraft, ICE or electric behaving more like a helicopter than a fixed wing?
What the Ruskies are doing is cool, but with enough thrust ( vectored ) to cover your butt when your are at the edge of the envelope when normally, you did run out of thrust, you can do anything, and they have.
Will it beat our Gen 5? Heck If I know. However think of this... If this thing has the typical Ruskie robust landing gear and rough field air intakes, why not mount a center pod with A-10 type weaponry and you have a later day A-10 with that maneuverability. It could use more of a high bypass type engines, but that can't be done, lets face it. If it did and they went the A-10 / Su-25 route, I'd be worried, that would be one kick-ass support bird....