Posted on 06/10/2005 10:05:36 PM PDT by Srirangan
KUBINKA, Moscow Region, June 8 (Itar-Tass) -- The development of the fifth generation fighter proceeds in strict compliance with the schedule and the plane will be flight-tested in 2007, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov has said.
About the condition of the Russian Air Force’s fleet of aircraft Mikhailov said, “the Air Force receives planes in sufficient numbers, there are aircraft at the reserve bases, too.”
“We are also receiving new planes, including Su-34 and Su-27SM, and others still being tested. There is nothing we can criticize these planes for.”
Russian presidential adviser Alexander Burutin told reporters that the Russian Air Force by 2012 will have up to 60 percent of new aviation technologies.
“A new armament program has been developed and we shall achieve this parameter by 2010-2012,” he said.
You could probably easily sneak the bears into Russia and the wolves into Syria. The spotted owl I don't know, I've never spotted one. :-) Turtles for the Senate. Snakes for the Dem caucus. I don't know what to do about Dean. Even his own are about to kick him out of the nest.
In airplane design, I've heard it said....
If it's ugly, it's German;
If it's weird looking, it's Russian;
If it's ugly AND weird looking; it's FRENCH!
You may be right. I would have said that, post WWII, if it's ugly, it's British. Ugly and weird looking could be Russian, but probably is also British. Or a French design they got from the British. OTOH, American designs are generally gorgeous. Heck, even the A-10 is a handsome airplane.
"see his cosmological constant in general relativity--wasn't shown to be correct until 80 years after its discovery"
Still hasn't been shown to be correct. If they find the Higg's boson when LHC is up, then maybe you can make that conclusion.
And the Sukhoi S-37 prototype flew in December 1982, exactly two years before the "American copy" Gruman X-29
Most true in the 1930s
But half true in the French case, back in the 30s they were produve the most elegant and the most ugly aircraft, wuth nothing between.
Although for an example of French aesthetics. the late 19th century battleships remain the archetypical example 
You are mixing up aircraft designations. Sukhoi have already announced that the PAK-FA will not be based on the Berkut. The Su-37, only one of which was built, is the Flanker E. The Su-37 crashed in 2002. The S-37 (Sierra 37)Berkut was redesignated Su-47. It carries the 'NATO codename' Firkin.
The F22 is challenged by nothing.
With a near endless budget and an extremely high cost per unit the US simply can afford a plane that is loaded with AESA, IFF, Stealth, thrust vectoring, super cruise and and and. The F22 is a perversion of physics. Where mutually exclusive variables have somehow been optimized in one aircraft so it has both high performance and stealth. It's the epitome of how enough money thrown at a project CAN just buy success. Like a dream team in basketball that is so good because you just go out and buy the best players, the F22 is simply the product of a huge budget for defense. Nothing performs like a F22 because others simply can't afford the R&D, purchase, and sustainment of such an aircraft. Most of these other aircraft that the F22 is compared to are nothing more than Generation 4 airframes on steroids. They do NOT have true super cruise. They do NOT have true STEALTH. They do NOT have thrust vectoring. Many don't even have an AESA, and if they do, it's a slower and weaker system (In shear wattage and processor speed). The EF does NOT even have an IFF. It can't even interrogate another plane! The F22 is in a class of its own, and that's no over exaggeration.
You take a nation with a huge Aerospace industry that particularly in defense is a world leader. You give them billions to do research and then allow for an extremely expensive airplane to be built per unit. Meaning, special materials can be used to achieve stealth and cut weight. Engines can be huge and powerful (70,000 pounds of thrust!) and cost a lot, use a lot of fuel and cost a lot to rebuild. The electronics can be massive and powerful as well. In the end you get a F22. All these little Vladimirs magic MIGs, Hans’s super EF and Pierre’s Rafale comparisons fail to include the broad and in some aspects huge performance advantage of the F22. They try to focus on one small aspect to show that the EF is a rival to the F22, and of course cheaper. They leave out the AESA, IFF, Super-cruise, Stealth, range, thrust vectoring, acceleration, sustained turn rates, and and and. It’s a simple argumentative technique. It’s also silly. NOTHING out there matches a F22. A F22 today is like the F15 was in 1980, complete overmatch to anything out there. That is exactly what it was made to do!
Red6
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.