Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia's 5G fighter to be '3 times cheaper than foreign analogs'
Ria Novosti ^ | 17/06/2010

Posted on 06/17/2010 6:43:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 06/17/2010 6:43:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Lovin’ those “stealthy” air-intakes. LOL


2 posted on 06/17/2010 6:45:39 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("We beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
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.
3 posted on 06/17/2010 6:46:32 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

“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.


4 posted on 06/17/2010 6:46:36 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

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.


5 posted on 06/17/2010 6:51:30 AM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

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


6 posted on 06/17/2010 6:52:47 AM PDT by Xenalyte (Yes, Chef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

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


7 posted on 06/17/2010 6:54:17 AM PDT by Tax-chick (A cat may look at a queen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

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.


8 posted on 06/17/2010 6:58:42 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

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


9 posted on 06/17/2010 7:00:49 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

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


10 posted on 06/17/2010 7:03:20 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
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.
11 posted on 06/17/2010 7:04:15 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

“Quantity has a quality all of its own.”


12 posted on 06/17/2010 7:05:39 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
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"?

13 posted on 06/17/2010 7:09:46 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
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.

14 posted on 06/17/2010 7:17:14 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Impressive doctrinal analysis.

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

15 posted on 06/17/2010 7:19:44 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: verity
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.
16 posted on 06/17/2010 7:33:27 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
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.

17 posted on 06/17/2010 7:51:50 AM PDT by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

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.


18 posted on 06/17/2010 7:56:21 AM PDT by ASOC (Things are not always as they appear, ask the dog chasing the car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
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.
19 posted on 06/17/2010 8:05:47 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
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.

20 posted on 06/17/2010 8:49:57 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson