Russia Must Build Two Variants of 5G Fighter - Rogozin
© RIA Novosti. Alexey Druzhinin
Posted on 02/16/2012 8:24:58 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Russia Must Build Two Variants of 5G Fighter - Rogozin
Russian aircraft manufacturers must develop at least two competitive prototypes of a fifth-generation fighter jet, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Thursday.
“Two variants of the future fighter jet must be developed to encourage competition,” Rogozin said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the future fighter must possess all technical characteristics of a fifth-generation fighter, including elements of stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, highly-integrated avionics, electronics and fire-control systems.
The existing T-50 prototype, developed under the program PAK FA (Future Aviation System for Tactical Air Force) at the Sukhoi aircraft design bureau, made its maiden flight in Russia’s Far East in January 2010 and made its first public appearance at the MAKS-2011 air show near Moscow on August 17, 2011.
There are currently three fifth-generation T-50 fighters in tests, and a total number of 14 aircraft is planned for test flights by 2015.
The T-50 is expected to enter service in 2016 and gradually replace MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker fighter jets in the Russian Air Force.
Russia Must Build Two Variants of 5G Fighter - Rogozin
© RIA Novosti. Alexey Druzhinin
Ping.
That doesn’t look all that different from the present aircraft from this distance
The way that Dear Reader wishes to slice and dice the USAF, we’ll be flying SPADS in five years.
Later he corrected his statement - “No, translation was bad, I meant we have money only enough to BUILD two fighters.”
Old Russian joke about the difference between capitalism and communism. A reporter was asking an old communist what he felt was the big difference between the two systems.
The old soviet said, “In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s other way around.”
The T-50 has a radar profile of half a square meter.
The F-22 has a radar profile of a large insect or small bird.
The F-35 has a ten year technology advantage over the F-22. It has an even smaller radar cross-section, not to mention many other fantastic Buck-Rogers-technology improvements.
The T-50 is not a fifth generation fighter.
If you include high agility and supercruise capability as prerequisites for fifth-generation jets, the F-35 won’t make the cut.
—
No way. We cannot afford SPADS or Sopwith Camels. Besides, drones are the future of aircraft, if only we could find some way to make them dirt cheap.
BTW, it is improper to refer to Him as Dear Reader, the correct form of address is Our Great Leader.
/total s
No it does not. Not by an order of magnitude.
The T-50 is not a fifth generation fighter.
There was a very interesting article by Eurofighter that makes the same claim about the F-35, and not only that but that, apart from stealth, the Typhoon is more of a '5th generation fighter' than the F-35. Also, looking at the criteria that the ATF project that spawned the F-22 gave for a 5th generation fighter, the F-35 is not 5th gen.
Even if that were true, it would still be way lower in profile than that commie piece of crap. Especially in the one angle that counts the most. That's just my educated opinion talking, I don't have access to any real numbers and I'm glad I don't. And you certainly don't, being a clerk.
Typhoon is more of a '5th generation fighter' than the F-35
The Eurofighter Typhoon is a 4th gen design that can't be made stealthy. It can supercruise but with external weapons and drop tanks the point is moot. Also non-AESA in existing versions. It doesn't even meet 4.5 gen requirements established by the U.S.
I believe I was responding to your statement that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. I did not bring up the PakFa at all in my post (and it is obvious to all that the F-35 is stealthier than the T-50). What I was saying is that you are completely wrong saying it is stealthier than the F-22. It is not stealthier - by a whole order of magnitude.
That's just my educated opinion talking
Your 'educated opinion' is correct when it comes to the RCS numbers of the PakFa versus the F-35, but then again on my post I was not referencing the Russian bird. I was referencing your comment about the F-35 being stealthier than the F-22, in which case your educated opinion is very wrong (or, at the very least, different from the 'educated opinion' given by Lockheed Martin and the USAF). The stated RCS of the F-22 and F-35 are 0.0001m2 vs 0.001m2 respectively, and a 2009 report from Lockmart and the USAF stated the F-22 had an exchange ratio of 30:1 (versus the best foreign fighters) while the F-35 has a 3:1 ratio.
I don't have access to any real numbers and I'm glad I don't. And you certainly don't, being a clerk.
Hmmm ...is that a personal attack? First of all I am not a 'clerk' (that is quite laughable actually), and while it is true neither of us has access to real numbers it does appear that whatever numbers you had access to that gave you the view the F-35 was stealthier than the Raptor were quite incorrect. Even a 'clerk' would know better.
I stand by my statements, with the stipulation that they represent an opinion, though a carefully considered one. I've seen those same numbers too, the public consumption numbers. The F-35 observability is certainly way better than the commie T-50 (we agree), and (my opinion) it is likely better than the F-22 in reference to the most common BVR engagements. Do some more background reading and think about the tech advances we've had over the last few years. Don't you think we learned anything? Or do you think we reached a technology limit with the Raptor?
You didn't have to bring up the T-50 RCS for comparison, and I didn't say you did. It's the topic of this thread so it's appropriate to make the comparison.
An "order of magnitude" is only 10 times, and when you're talking miniscule numbers, 10 times miniscule is still miniscule. Both U.S. fighters are 5th generation jets. The jet that is the topic of this thread isn't. And they're nowhere close in comparison (ours vs. theirs).
Your 'educated opinion' is correct when it comes to the RCS numbers of the PakFa versus the F-35, but then again on my post I was not referencing the Russian bird. I was referencing your comment about the F-35 being stealthier than the F-22, in which case your educated opinion is very wrong (or, at the very least, different from the 'educated opinion' given by Lockheed Martin and the USAF). The stated RCS of the F-22 and F-35 are 0.0001m2 vs 0.001m2
You don't know what the numbers are any more than me -- the public doesn't have them. Besides there isn't just one number. I don't think you get that. Anyway since we don't have the real numbers it's pointless to get so specific (as you do hook line & sinker), though we would agree they are quite small. Vanishingly small, so small one might argue there is no point in quibbling over a decimal point ("order of magnitude"), for practical purposes.
Hmmm ...is that a personal attack? First of all I am not a 'clerk' (that is quite laughable actually), and while it is true neither of us has access to real numbers it does appear that whatever numbers you had access to that gave you the view the F-35 was stealthier than the Raptor were quite incorrect. Even a 'clerk' would know better.
It's both a joke and a possible gentle dig, a slang term -- but bottom line, if you have to ask about the reference to the term "clerk", then you must be one.
USAF Airforce Association - F-22 vs F-35 comparison
1) F-22A carries twice as many air-to-air missiles as the F-35A
2) F-22A tactically employs at nearly twice the altitude and at 50% greater airspeed than the F-35A
3) Gives air-to-air missiles a 40% greater employment range and increased lethality
4) Increases air-to-ground weapons employment range
5) F-22A can control more than twice the battle space of the F-35A. Supercruise expands potential kill zones; half as many F-22s needed as F- 35 to cover same area
6) F-22A AESA radar has more T/R elements than F-35 radar
7)F-22A in production...F-35A initial operational capability date is 2013…key in considering F-15Cs need to be replaced now
8) Only the F-22 features vectored thrust, giving it twice the maneuverability of an F-35
9)The F-22 can turn at twice the rate of an F-35.
(Of the F-35) "It will provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter." George Standridge, vice president and deputy for business development at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
USAF November 2005 report: 'the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117.'
Anyways, you have the right to believe the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22, and that it is better at BVR than the F-22 ...even if Lockheed Martin and the USAF say different. Maybe you have access to classified information that proves what they are saying is erroneous, and that the reasons given as to why the F-22 cannot be sold to allies like Japan, Israel and Australia (even though they are receiving the 'stealthier' and 'better at BVR' F-35) are incorrect. As a grossly overpaid 'clerk' in Private Equity I am not privy to the sources of classified information that you have, and thus I am unfortunately forced to rely on the white paper unclassified information released by LockMart and the USAF. When they finally release information that supports your 'educated opinion' I will be the first to say you were right in saying the F-35 is stealthier, and better at BVR, than the Raptor.
Good grief. My initial reaction is, so what. This isn’t 2005, the year the first Raptor entered service; we aren’t going to get 650 Raptors. The USAF got 187 for 67 billion dollars. There is no point in talking up the Raptor over the F-35. They are not coming off the production line any more, and they won’t be adapting Raptors to land on carriers or make a VSTOL variant. The Raptor will never fulfill the role of the F-35/JSF. You turned my little remark about the impressive RCS of the F-35 into some strangely churlish urinary decathalon between the specs of the F-22 vs. the F-35/JSF.
By the way, besides being old data (same company — several years later = more advanced design tech), I should emphasize what the AFA is about. In 2005 the AFA had an agenda — of getting more Raptors. That’s because the Raptor was the hot topic, and AF officers don’t have a union that lobbies congress. The AFA is the closest thing to that — it’s a lobbying organization for AF officers.
I supported the goal of more Raptors then, knowing it would not be the eventual JSF, and I love the airplane, but this isn’t 2005 and there will be no more Raptors.
The F-35 may very well be the last manned fighter we make. We’d better make the most of it. We will be making more of them — in more variants, with more durability, and a higher achievable sortie rate than the awesome Raptor will ever accomplish. The F-35/JSF will be around for a long time. It’s a gen-5 airplane, with a vanishingly small RCS, especially compared to our likely adversary’s weapon systems. So don’t hold your breath waiting to see if the F-35 is better than the F-22 — wait and see how it performs in the real world against our adversaries. And remember they complement each other.
And for the last time, I am not quoting classified info, I don’t have access to any classified info, and even if I did I certainly wouldn’t be stupid enough to go to a public forum and post any such information in a discussion with a clerk!
Silly little man (oh, and I mean that in an endearing way). I never said the Raptor can fulfill the role of the F-35. Just that what you say about the F-35 being stealthier and better in BVR than the F-22 is only backed by your 'educated opinion' and not what the USAF and Lockheed Martin say.
I supported the goal of more Raptors then, knowing it would not be the eventual JSF, and I love the airplane, but this isn’t 2005 and there will be no more Raptors.
Yes silly little man, I know it is not 2005 and there will be no more Raptors. But then again I didn't say that so it is quite moot. Simply that, again, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the Raptor, nor as better at BVR for a number of reasons.
And for the last time, I am not quoting classified info, I don’t have access to any classified info, and even if I did I certainly wouldn’t be stupid enough to go to a public forum and post any such information in a discussion with a clerk!
Well, you cannot quote classified information when you don't have access to it, or is it impossible for your mind to wrap itself around that concept. Furthermore, it would indeed be very stupid, even for a silly little man (again, with love and endearment) like you, to discuss that information on a public forum.
I don’t really disagree with any of that, but I would add that we are going to acquire many more F-35s than F-22s; the “other design constraints” are real-world practical requirements based on the multirole, multinational, multiservice function; they will not be fighting each other (they will complement each other), and finally that both have vanishingly small RCS, among other stealth technologies. And yes, what we have learned can be applied — necessity is the mother of invention.
Guess I won't be seein' you put any quarters on the crud table....
That is actually funny (really). Anyways, have a nice day.
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.