With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin’s New Jet Beats US Hands-Down.....

[MMC]

*yawn*

Such amazing claims.

Over an aircraft that has a total of 5 prototypes made, is not expected to see service for another 3-5 years, and is at best stealthy, not stealth.

This is why I never pay much attention to any claims of prototypes. I wait until the final product is delivered and actually in service before I really consider it a valid piece of materiel.

Mornin OF. :2wave: Well the report was that they were going to production. But now it seems that to has ran into a glitch.

 

[Renae]

With the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter still in limbo over reliability problems, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration on Monday said it would begin regular production of its newest fighter jet, the T-50, next year. According to state-run media, the Russian military will begin mass-producing the advanced fighter jet in several versions, and will also begin making models that will be available for export.

Experts estimate that the F-35 remains years away from deployment in a combat situation, despite assurances to the contrary from the Pentagon. At the moment, that isn’t a major security issue. The F-22, for all its problems, is currently without real competition in the battle for the skies. However, if the Russian T-50 is true to its specification, that could change in the not-too-distant future.

The T-50 is significantly faster than the F-22, and has a huge advantage in terms of range – 5,500 kilometers compared to the F-22’s 3,400. The T-50’s detection systems allow it to spot incoming threats at a distance of up to 400 kilometers, compared to the F-22’s 210 km. Most experts believe that the F-35 would be the dominant plane, should it ever come on line in the form its supporters have promised. But a continuous delay in production leaves Russia with the most dominant fighter jet on the planet.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-f-35-grounded-putin-101500633.html

Is our Air Force even ready for any of this? Does the US Air Force have serious problems? What say ye?

We'll still win based on training and how we war fight. The Russians still follow soviet doctrine, which is very command and control heavy.

However, yes, aircraft wise we're in a pickle of stupid caused not by greed as some might try to claim, but arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

We need another F-4 style fighter. Something that's all around amazing, capable, reliable and able to mass produce. Have 3 squadrons of "High tech superior Air to Air fighters for handling that threat and then a work horse to do all the heavy lifting.

Hell, you could just rebuild the Phantom with modern materials and avionics and we'd be set. Because of how the American war fighting system works, with autonomous aircraft, highly trained pilots and the ability take out command and control targets the the Chinese and Russians are inferior. They both rely on that style of fighting.

 

[Renae]

I thought our air force was committed to UAV's for the future.

UAV's are vulnerable to communication jamming. They are not the future, as much as congress critters might want to think so.

 

[MMC]

We'll still win based on training and how we war fight. The Russians still follow soviet doctrine, which is very command and control heavy.

However, yes, aircraft wise we're in a pickle of stupid caused not by greed as some might try to claim, but arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

We need another F-4 style fighter. Something that's all around amazing, capable, reliable and able to mass produce. Have 3 squadrons of "High tech superior Air to Air fighters for handling that threat and then a work horse to do all the heavy lifting.

Hell, you could just rebuild the Phantom with modern materials and avionics and we'd be set. Because of how the American war fighting system works, with autonomous aircraft, highly trained pilots and the ability take out command and control targets the the Chinese and Russians are inferior. They both rely on that style of fighting.

Mornin Vic. :2wave: We need something that can break atmosphere and orbit. Then can drop in from out of the sun so to speak. But that wont be for a bit of time yet. I agree.....I don't think we should be looking to put all our eggs into one basket and think the F 35 is the answer to counter anything else others have or are working on.

The Russians say their SU 47 can break Orbit.

Our trouble military wise is just beginning. The Ohio class subs will need to be updated or improved upon totally, by 2024. There is no if and or's to get around that. Carriers are expensive to. Which many forget that its the military coming in with the save over humanitarian and disasters.

I mention this due to the fact that we know China is building subs of all sizes and now have upped their game by attempting to put a Naval base in the South Atlantic. Their response to BO's Asian pivot.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Mornin OF. :2wave: Well the report was that they were going to production. But now it seems that to has ran into a glitch.

To me the only thing that matters is "entered active service".

I do not care so much about prototypes, or testing, going into production, or anything else.

The F-35 has been in production for a while now, and as anybody should expect they are still working out problems.

Plus nobody should ever forget the simple fact that the F-35 is 3 different aircraft.

Come back to me when somebody else is making an equivalent aircraft, with VSTOL and carrier capability.

 

[joko104]

Who has the fastest military aircraft and which flies furthest is irrelevant. To quest for greater speed and range ceased decades ago. Rather, it is about versatility, how stealthy and mostly about electronic and weapons superiority. The F35 is superior by far by those measures. Russia making a new fast aircraft doesn't mean much.

 

[Renae]

Mornin Vic. :2wave: We need something that can break atmosphere and orbit. Then can drop in from out of the sun so to speak. But that wont be for a bit of time yet. I agree.....I don't think we should be looking to put all our eggs into one basket and think the F 35 is the answer to counter anything else others have or are working on.

The Russians say their SU 47 can break Orbit.

Our trouble military wise is just beginning. The Ohio class subs will need to be updated or improved upon totally, by 2024. There is no if and or's to get around that. Carriers are expensive to. Which many forget that its the military coming in with the save over humanitarian and disasters.

I mention this due to the fact that we know China is building subs of all sizes and now have upped their game by attempting to put a Naval base in the South Atlantic. Their response to BO's Asian pivot.

Yeah, not gonna break orbit, sorry. The required weight of heat shields would make it a worthless fighter.

 

[MMC]

Who has the fastest military aircraft and which flies furthest is irrelevant. To quest for greater speed and range ceased decades ago. Rather, it is about versatility, how stealthy and mostly about electronic and weapons superiority. The F35 is superior by far by those measures. Russia making a new fast aircraft doesn't mean much.

Well its their detection method.....with whatever radar they are using. So far US Air Force confirms range of 400km. To our Raptors 210km

 

[KevinKohler]

So here's the thing. What are Russians more afraid of? What has them crippled at the moment?



Our military might, or our economic clout?


We can kill more with trade embargoes than we could ever HOPE to do with advanced military tech. Short of nuclear war, that is.

 

[KevinKohler]

But I get it. NOT spending billions on R and D and more and more increasingly expensive gadgets for the military is BAD FOR BUSINESS.

 

[KevinKohler]

Mornin Vic. :2wave: We need something that can break atmosphere and orbit. Then can drop in from out of the sun so to speak. But that wont be for a bit of time yet. I agree.....I don't think we should be looking to put all our eggs into one basket and think the F 35 is the answer to counter anything else others have or are working on.

The Russians say their SU 47 can break Orbit.

Our trouble military wise is just beginning. The Ohio class subs will need to be updated or improved upon totally, by 2024. There is no if and or's to get around that. Carriers are expensive to. Which many forget that its the military coming in with the save over humanitarian and disasters.

I mention this due to the fact that we know China is building subs of all sizes and now have upped their game by attempting to put a Naval base in the South Atlantic. Their response to BO's Asian pivot.

They say they have a FIGHTER jet that can break orbit? As in, it can fly in and operate in the thermosphere?


I'm not buying it. What's it's propulsion system? How do they keep their pilot alive? How do they keep their munitions from detonating?

 

[US Conservative]

Mornin Vic. :2wave: We need something that can break atmosphere and orbit. Then can drop in from out of the sun so to speak. But that wont be for a bit of time yet. I agree.....I don't think we should be looking to put all our eggs into one basket and think the F 35 is the answer to counter anything else others have or are working on.

The Russians say their SU 47 can break Orbit.

Our trouble military wise is just beginning. The Ohio class subs will need to be updated or improved upon totally, by 2024. There is no if and or's to get around that. Carriers are expensive to. Which many forget that its the military coming in with the save over humanitarian and disasters.

I mention this due to the fact that we know China is building subs of all sizes and now have upped their game by attempting to put a Naval base in the South Atlantic. Their response to BO's Asian pivot.

I was reading over at warisboring about the flaw of the F35 being its compromise for VTOL, even the non VTOL variants are limited by the design requirements of the VTOL setup.

China has apparently copied the F35 but without the VTOL capability-so its sleeker, has twin engines, and likely would outperform our own F35-however the F35 is not an air superiority fighter-its an attack aircraft. Air to Air should be controlled where the F35 is used.

As for the SU47, only one was built, its published service ceiling is 60K feet, and its forward swept wing is made for better maneuverability at low speeds, it would be an inferior option for sub orbital space, its not strong enough. Theres also only limited thrust vectoring.

 

[MMC]

They say they have a FIGHTER jet that can break orbit? As in, it can fly in and operate in the thermosphere?


I'm not buying it. What's it's propulsion system? How do they keep their pilot alive? How do they keep their munitions from detonating?

If they did it.....there was nothing on that plane nor someone inside it. Moreover I would want to know where it landed.

I think the Russians like to boast a lot. Buzzing recon planes isn't saying much.

This was all I got on it.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

 

[Oozlefinch]

So here's the thing. What are Russians more afraid of? What has them crippled at the moment?

Our military might, or our economic clout?

We can kill more with trade embargoes than we could ever HOPE to do with advanced military tech. Short of nuclear war, that is.

Russia is in financial trouble at the moment, along with Venezuela and any other country that is highly dependent on oil for a major part of their economy.

That oil is the main source of their profit, and it is a fraction of what it was even a year ago. That is the problem with any "one trick pony" economy, be it based upon oil, computer chips, wood, or simply inexpensive exports.

The US has what they have long dreamed of, a truly diverse economy that is not dependent upon a single commodity. And our largest export is still food, something that everybody on the planet needs.

Russia's biggest fear at the moment is that oil prices will remain low.

And while Russia's other major export is military equipment, this will not matter worth a dam for that.

If anybody ever looks at the main military exports of Russia, it is not their newest and best equipment that is exported in any serious numbers. Primarily it is 20-40 year old equipment, which is surplus to Russia but often better (or at least better condition) then what most of the world uses.

The T-90 entered production over 20 years ago, but with the exception of India and Algeria, no country has bought more then a handful of them. But they are still exporting large numbers of the T-72 to this day, a tank over 40 years old. Same with the T-62, which is over 50 years old. Odds are none of their current in development weapon systems will be exported in any serious numbers for at least 1-2 decades. And I am highly doubtful if there will be much exchange between Russia and China in the future either.

I think Russia is pretty much fed up of China stealing most of their designs and then claiming them as their own.

 

[KevinKohler]

If they did it.....there was nothing on that plane nor someone inside it. Moreover I would want to know where it landed.

I think the Russians like to boast a lot. Buzzing recon planes isn't saying much.

This was all I got on it.

Su-47 (S-37 Berkut) Golden Eagle Fighter - Airforce Technology

That, unless I am mistaken, is a decades old plane...

 

[Oozlefinch]

I was reading over at warisboring about the flaw of the F35 being its compromise for VTOL, even the non VTOL variants are limited by the design requirements of the VTOL setup.

China has apparently copied the F35 but without the VTOL capability-so its sleeker, has twin engines, and likely would outperform our own F35-however the F35 is not an air superiority fighter-its an attack aircraft. Air to Air should be controlled where the F35 is used.

That also depends upon which version of the F-35 you are talking about.

For the Air Force, it would be multi-role primarily. For the Navy it would be primarily air superiority (when defending the carrier group), and then strike roles when engaged offensively.

For the Marines, it would be similar, with more emphasis on air to mud when supporting their amphibious groups.

The F-35 is one of the problems when you go multi-role. That is that you end up with a "jack of all trades - master of none" item as a result. Probably the only branch that will really be happy with theirs is going to be the Marines. Because now they can finally retire their 30+ year old Harrier fleet. I myself am not a big fan of the F-35, but it really was the only way the Marines would have ever been able to retire their Harriers. The Pentagon would never have authorized them to replace them otherwise. Kind of like the decades long battle over the Osprey.

 

[KevinKohler]

I was reading over at warisboring about the flaw of the F35 being its compromise for VTOL, even the non VTOL variants are limited by the design requirements of the VTOL setup.

China has apparently copied the F35 but without the VTOL capability-so its sleeker, has twin engines, and likely would outperform our own F35-however the F35 is not an air superiority fighter-its an attack aircraft. Air to Air should be controlled where the F35 is used.

As for the SU47, only one was built, its published service ceiling is 60K feet, and its forward swept wing is made for better maneuverability at low speeds, it would be an inferior option for sub orbital space, its not strong enough. Theres also only limited thrust vectoring.

Vertical take off and landing is a HUGE benefit, though. No airfield.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Vertical take off and landing is a HUGE benefit, though. No airfield.

Yes and no, yes and no.

VTOL also greatly reduces the ordinance load the aircraft is capable of using, and also the range and speed most of the time.

On the battlefield, it's actual use is rather limited, since you still have to bring fuel and ordinance to the airfield that is being used, even if it is just an LZ sized piece of land or a highway.

However, in the amphibious role it is a big help, since that means it can be operated from almost any ship. The British had even made do with converting container ships as emergency aircraft carriers in the past (with questionable results).

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I guess that means we need to spend billions on new war machines that we will not even use against Russia, hell, if we go to war with Russia, it will just be a nuclear war, why are we even bothering developing these war machines?

I guess you missed the part about exports. We may not fight Russia, however at some point we could end up fighting one of their customers.

 

[US Conservative]

That also depends upon which version of the F-35 you are talking about.

For the Air Force, it would be multi-role primarily. For the Navy it would be primarily air superiority (when defending the carrier group), and then strike roles when engaged offensively.

For the Marines, it would be similar, with more emphasis on air to mud when supporting their amphibious groups.

The F-35 is one of the problems when you go multi-role. That is that you end up with a "jack of all trades - master of none" item as a result. Probably the only branch that will really be happy with theirs is going to be the Marines. Because now they can finally retire their 30+ year old Harrier fleet. I myself am not a big fan of the F-35, but it really was the only way the Marines would have ever been able to retire their Harriers. The Pentagon would never have authorized them to replace them otherwise. Kind of like the decades long battle over the Osprey.

Yes each variant has its intended uses, but the article states that the compromises for the Marine variant greatly reduced the capacity for this aircraft generally.

You'd know better than I would, but the article also mentioned that VTOL/STOL aren't used in the mud (still requiring an asphalt/concrete landing pad that can actually melt away) because it can suck mud and debris into the engine. Elsewhere I read that the marines rarely actually use them for vertical takeoff/landing because it greatly reduces payload, range, loiter time, and stresses the airframe greatly.

I recognize the benefits and drawbacks of a compromise design, but I wonder if the VTOL aspect was too much of a compromise-my biggest concern being that it reduces the overall flexibility of the aircraft where its most likely to be needed and used vs one specific niche role where it would be useful.

The chinese ripoff may be just for show-but it seems like a sleeker design with twin engines would have been preferable in most situations.

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes and no, yes and no.

VTOL also greatly reduces the ordinance load the aircraft is capable of using, and also the range and speed most of the time.

On the battlefield, it's actual use is rather limited, since you still have to bring fuel and ordinance to the airfield that is being used, even if it is just an LZ sized piece of land or a highway.

However, in the amphibious role it is a big help, since that means it can be operated from almost any ship. The British had even made do with converting container ships as emergency aircraft carriers in the past (with questionable results).

Right, amphibious was what I was thinking. It's what made the harrier a hit.

 

[Dovkan]

I guess you missed the part about exports. We may not fight Russia, however at some point we could end up fighting one of their customers.

Again, why would we need new stealth bombers and such when the world is essentially nuclear at this point?

 

[US Conservative]

Vertical take off and landing is a HUGE benefit, though. No airfield.

Depends, as Oozlefinch points out. For marine task forces, off of "mini carriers" its nice.
But I dont know that they are landing in the dirt. The russians had a VTOL too, I forget its name but it suffered from payload, power, and range problems.

 

[MMC]

That, unless I am mistaken, is a decades old plane...

Yeah, they said it was based off the SU 37.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That, unless I am mistaken, is a decades old plane...

Well, that is almost quite literally true.

While it's first flight was in 1997 (18 years ago), that is probably close enough to consider it "decades old".

But you are exactly right when you say "plane". There has been a total of one (1) Su-47 Golden Eagle (NATO: Firkin) made.

And it is not terribly unlike the X-29 that the US played with over 30 years ago.