Russia's 5G fighter to be '3 times cheaper than foreign analogs'

Ria Novosti ^ | 17/06/2010

[sukhoi-30mki]

Russia's 5G fighter to be '3 times cheaper than foreign analogs'

16:26 17/06/2010

Russia's fifth generation fighter will be about three times as cheap as its foreign analog, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

He observed the test flight of a prototype fighter and later talked to the pilot, Sergei Bogdan.

"It will be a machine superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in maneuverability, armament and range," Putin said.

"Also in morale," the pilot added.

"Above all else," Putin said smiling.

Bogdan said it was the fighter's 16th test flight and more would follow shortly.

The prime minister said 30 billion rubles (around $1 billion) had already been spent on the project and another 30 billion would be required to complete it, after which the engine, weaponry and other components would be upgraded.

He said, factoring in modernization and upgrades, the fighter will have a service life of 30-35 years.

Russia's only known fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor, so far the world's only fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 Lightning II.

Russia has been developing its newest fighter since the 1990s. The country's top military officials earlier said the stealth fighter jet with a range of up to 5,500 km would enter service with the Air Force in 2015.

The PAK FA is to be armed with next-generation air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and has two 30-mm cannons.

ZHUKOVSKY, June 17 (RIA Novosti)

[sukhoi-30mki]

[Lazamataz]

Lovin’ those “stealthy” air-intakes. LOL

[GonzoGOP]

Just wait until Obama crashes the dollar. Once the exchange rate on the greenback is two squares of toilet paper the cost of the F-22 will come way down.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“It will be a machine superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in maneuverability, armament and range”

Not if Russian history is anything to go by.

[meatloaf]

Agreed, with the caveat that my dog is always bigger than your dog and every baby is the prettiest even if they’re butt ugly.

[Xenalyte]

Does “three times cheaper” mean the same thing as “a third of the cost”?

[Tax-chick]

I suspect that’s what they’re trying to convey ... but it’s making me dizzy thinking about it.

[UCANSEE2]

I think the proper translation of “three times cheaper” is .... take the original price, and multiply it by three. The end price will be just a little cheaper.

[UCANSEE2]

It probably will be three times cheaper (quality-wise), but I don’t think they would brag about it.

[The_Victor]

With that radar singature, the loss rate should balance out the costs.

[GonzoGOP]

I don't think most people understand why the PAK FA is such a game changer. The dominance of the USAF is not based on its front line fighters. It is based on its absolute awareness over the battle space. The AWACS and JSTARS are the key weapon in the air force arsenal. They allow the F-22 ad F-35 pilots to keep their own radar in passive mode and so remain stealthy.

But if the other guy has a front aspect stealthy fighter like the PAK FA, armed with long range fire and forget missiles the AWACS can't remain in the battle space. With the AWACS dead, running or with their radars turned off the F-22s and F-35s can not use their BVR missiles and still remain stealthy. And if the PAK FAs can get in close it is a knife fight in a phone booth. No amount of stealth or super tech can help you against the Mark I human eyeball guided Gatling gun. The PAK FA doesn't need to be stealthy enough to play god from 120 km out. It just needs to be stealthy enough to avoid a hard lock until it is within 20 km and then beat the heck out of you in an old fashioned dogfight.

I hope that there is a modern incarnation of Forty-Second Boyd at the Fighter Weapons School. Because if we have to fight these new planes its going to be the carbon based components that determine the outcome of the fight not the silicon based ones.

[Little Ray]

“Quantity has a quality all of its own.”

[PapaBear3625]

Does “three times cheaper” mean the same thing as “a third of the cost”?

That's one thing that keeps bothering me. I grew up saying "one third the cost" rather than "three times cheaper", and wonder when this speech pattern started, and why. Why is it more acceptable to say "twice as small" instead of "half the size"?

[PapaBear3625]

But if the other guy has a front aspect stealthy fighter like the PAK FA, armed with long range fire and forget missiles the AWACS can't remain in the battle space. With the AWACS dead, running or with their radars turned off the F-22s and F-35s can not use their BVR missiles and still remain stealthy.

One component of air superiority is having pilots who are willing to engage in situations where there is a high probability of getting blown out of the sky. In the Iraq war, the Iraqi pilots didn't even try to fight us, they ran to Iran. With the advent of high-performance UAVs, the very-remote pilot would be very willing to trade a UAV for a piloted, expensive fighter.

[verity]

Impressive doctrinal analysis.

What are the chances that the PAK FA and the F22 will ever go head-to-head?

[GonzoGOP]

What are the chances that the PAK FA and the F22 will ever go head-to-head?

Assuming that the Russians can get it into mass production before the whole world economy goes to heck fairly good. It looks like it will be cheap enough for places like Venezuela, Syria, and Iran to get them. Think of what a country like Argentina could do with PAK FAs against the British with Harriers or at best F-35s fighting down in the Falklands.

[mbynack]

Well said GonzoGOP.

The other issue is ROE. If the ROE won't let you use BVR weapons, you've given away a lot of the advantage of stealth aircraft.

[ASOC]

At a production of, what, two a year - is this really a threat?

Also, I would like to see the real RCS figures and not the promo spew.

[GonzoGOP]

At a production of, what, two a year - is this really a threat?

All things are relative. Since our production of F-22s is now 0 per year with no replacement on the drawing board much less the production line, two per year might be enough. There are so few F-22s (only 187 built and a few crashed) that if they could put out 2 a month they would be able to establish local superiority anyplace in the world in five years.

[Yo-Yo]

Since our production of F-22s is now 0 per year

Nah, our production of F-22s is one per month until fourth quarter 2011. We will stop at 187, but we haven't had all 187 delivered yet.