Russia to test fifth-generation fighter in 2009

[SUBMAN1]

LANGKAWI: Flight tests of a fifth-generation Russian-Indian fighter will begin as early as 2009 and mass production of the aircraft may start by 2015, the Sukhoi aircraft maker said Wednesday.


A Russian-Indian advanced multirole fighter is being developed from a Russian prototype by Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, under an intergovernmental agreement signed in October.


"At present we are building prototypes of the fifth-generation fighter and will soon start preparation for flight-testing, which is planned for 2009," Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan announced at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace (LIMA) 2007 exhibition in Malaysia.


Pogosyan said mass production of the future fighter could begin by 2015.


The new fighter aircraft, which will feature high maneuverability and stealth to ensure air superiority and precision in destroying ground and sea targets, will be built at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft-manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East.


Discussing the future implementation of the Russian-Indian project, Pogosyan said joint efforts should be focused on three areas: coordination of technical specifications, application of advanced technologies, and preparation of a legal framework for future cooperation.


"We have conducted preliminary discussions on these issues and now we have to work out a detailed program for the implementation of the [fifth-generation fighter] project," the official said.


India and Russia have a long history of military cooperation, going back almost half a century. The existing Russian-Indian military-technical cooperation program, which lasts until 2010, lists up to 200 projects worth about $18 billion in all, according to Russia's defense ministry.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Wishes them luck. America needs a competitor.

Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether Europe's best chance for actually having European equipment is to work with Russia. That way, they'd at least have one partner with the will to actually make an effort... and Russia gets access to more modern electronics - benefits for all.

[SUBMAN1]

Wishes them luck. America needs a competitor.

Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether Europe's best chance for actually having European equipment is to work with Russia. That way, they'd at least have one partner with the will to actually make an effort... and Russia gets access to more modern electronics - benefits for all.Russia's got access to modern electronics. They have MiG and SU upgrade programs all the time, giving them glass cockpits.

Besides, Europe has Eurofighter. This is an excellent aircraft. Probably the second best aircraft flying at this time, outside of F-22 only. Better than anything Russia is fielding right now, and better than anything India is fielding as well. This new Russian fighter is just a catch up program.

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Russia's got access to modern electronics. They have MiG and SU upgrade programs all the time, giving them glass cockpits.
That's why I said MORE.

As for the superiority of the Typhoon, well debates over aircraft can last for near eternity, but here's an alternate view of the matter: http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

[XabbaRus]

Carlo Kopp, that name rings a bell. There are a couple of aussies over at strategypage who also post at defensetalk.com whose opinion I respect and what they and others have to say about Kopp isn't good. He's a guy with an agenda so I would take that article with a pinch of salt. From what I understand he has pissed off a fair number of Aussie top brass.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Carlo Kopp, that name rings a bell. There are a couple of aussies over at strategypage who also post at defensetalk.com whose opinion I respect and what they and others have to say about Kopp isn't good. He's a guy with an agenda so I would take that article with a pinch of salt. From what I understand he has pissed off a fair number of Aussie top brass.

Of course he did. He's basically saying the Australian military is making a huge, horrible mistake, and you don't do that without making some enemies, since he's basically calling them idiots.

On the other hand, he is prominent enough to have his opinions directly quoted by the Australian Parliament, so at least he's no Mike Sparks (but then, even Sparks occasionally has a good point). Which must of course, be just infuriating to the Aussie top brass by itself.

As for agenda, he certainly has a position. In a world where people are constantly mumbling about electronics (a group which includes the Australian MoD) as the solution to all problems, he's a kinematics man who believes that though electronics are important, they are also the icing on the airframe and (to a lesser extent, since these can sometimes be changed) engine cake. Since the electronics can be changed, it is important to get the airframe right. It is the fundamental origin of most of his positions regarding everything from the F-22 to the JSF.

But as for agenda in all its more sinister senses, I wonder what they are claiming he is. Lockheed agent? Propagandist from Red China. I'm interested.

The only thing I wonder is what he thinks of oh, Colonel Riccioni, the guy who contributed to the F-16 and the most prominent star against the F-22. The F-22 did well in its last combat exercise IIRC, but then it has always done well in American simulations (which includes American assumptions of how air combat will occur). If I were Riccioni, I would note that in the last round, most of its kills were BVR - only ~3 were WVR, and the F-22s seem rather heavily supported by a tanker in a relatively small playing area.

[SUBMAN1]

Heavily supported by a tanker? That is interesting given that it doesn't need to be. Almost 1900 nmi range on that thing without drop tanks. Maybe they always like a full gas tank so that they could turn and burn longer.

-S

PS. American doctrine and F-22 doctrine put the ideal scenario at BVR. This is not by chance, this is how the F-22 plays the game. Close, you can not only see it, but it is vulnerable to SR AA missiles. The F-22 in my opnion can probably wipe every last fighter from the sky using hit and run tactics using BVR, and there isn't a damn thing an enemy can do about it.

[fatty]

PS. American doctrine and F-22 doctrine put the ideal scenario at BVR. This is not by chance, this is how the F-22 plays the game. Close, you can not only see it, but it is vulnerable to SR AA missiles. The F-22 in my opnion can probably wipe every last fighter from the sky using hit and run tactics using BVR, and there isn't a damn thing an enemy can do about it.

Hope it will work out like that in practice and not like in Vietnam, where you had a big lumbering all-weather fighter/bomber with a very long reach - yet unable to use it due to RoE restrictions. Once an enemy closed the gap he was facing an opponent without the weapons or practice to battle in tight quarters. Not like the air war was a failure, but losses were taken.

[SUBMAN1]

Hope it will work out like that in practice and not like in Vietnam, where you had a big lumbering all-weather fighter/bomber with a very long reach - yet unable to use it due to RoE restrictions. Once an enemy closed the gap he was facing an opponent without the weapons or practice to battle in tight quarters. Not like the air war was a failure, but losses were taken.With the AIM-9X, helmet mounting cueing, thrust vectoring, and the ability to turn on a dime while traveling the opposite direction, it can fight like nothing else close in. An F-16 if no match for it in a dogfight. Couple this to 70,000 lbs of thrust, and a TDW of what? How high is it again? Massive. Forgot though, and there is not even any airspeed bleed in a tight turn. It can out accelerate an F-15 while in military power when the F-15's were in full burner - a constant problem for the F-15 chase planes during developement.

If it comes down to a knife fight, the F-22 has all the advantages, but this comes at the expense of giving up half your bag of tricks by being BVR. That Radar can scan you without the F-22 even showing up on the TWD, and it can have a missile in the air as well with the same result. Last thing you know is a AMRAAM turning its seeker on and its game over for you.

Basically, given any scenario, it is a completely unfair fight to fight an F-22. In testing using the theoretical thrust vectoring SU-35/37 that Russia was supposed to build, the F-22 was given a 10 to 1 kill ratio. It lost the knife fight once in a while, but this is only after the F-22 closed and got into short range.

In the tests for current gen fighters, a single F-22 engaged 6 F-15's. Every time, all F-15's were shot down. One of the pilots described it as a situation where he even gave up trying to fight the F-22, and instead concentrating on how long he could stay alive. That right there is why we have this aircraft. The F-15's never knew what hit them. The only thing they got was an Amraam lighting up for the terminal phase, and by that time, it is too late.

For your viewing pleasure - this is what that damn lumbering plane can actually do! :D Planes are not supposed to fly like that! There is no compressor stall. Having an AoA of 90 degrees or even 180 degrees means nothing to this jet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU&feature=related

-S

PS. They even had to design a new G suit for this thing. The old style as found on an F-16 was not adequate.

[NEON DEON]

In the tests for current gen fighters, a single F-22 engaged 6 F-15's. Every time, all F-15's were shot down. One of the pilots described it as a situation where he even gave up trying to fight the F-22, and instead concentrating on how long he could stay alive. That right there is why we have this aircraft. The F-15's never knew what hit them. The only thing they got was an Amraam lighting up for the terminal phase, and by that time, it is too late.

Where do I sign? :D

Given the F-15s track record of over 100 kills with no losses and the info SUB provided above, I would have to have the F-22.

Unless, you figure you would never have to use them. Then homegrown would do so you could help out your local economies.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Heavily supported by a tanker? That is interesting given that it doesn't need to be. Almost 1900 nmi range on that thing without drop tanks. Maybe they always like a full gas tank so that they could turn and burn longer.

Maybe. But I'm saying what will be in Riccioni's mind. Its ferry is 2000 statute miles, which is reasonable - it really has a comparable fuel load with a Su-27 which is credited with as much as 4000 kilometers, but with a fixed intake for stealth. Fixed intakes for subsonic aircraft typically max out around Mach 1.8, and the F-22 supposedly can hack ~2.4 - the only way I can see this happening is to readjust the fixed intake closer to the setting a variable intake would assume at high supersonic, but that will no doubt do "wonders" to its subsonic fuel efficiency (still the more efficient form). The supercruise part of its 400NM combat radius is only 100NM, which pretty much means that after every intercept they'll feel like refuelling.

PS. American doctrine and F-22 doctrine put the ideal scenario at BVR. This is not by chance, this is how the F-22 plays the game. Close, you can not only see it, but it is vulnerable to SR AA missiles. The F-22 in my opnion can probably wipe every last fighter from the sky using hit and run tactics using BVR, and there isn't a damn thing an enemy can do about it.

When I said "the game is fought using American assumptions", I didn't just mean the part where they do BVR - that's tactics, not really an assumption. For example, they fight assuming the radar will not be tracked. It apparently really doesn't show on current American RWRs, but it is a 20kW emission that's ultimately all in the X-band, so assuming it won't show on all equipment is kind of a Maignot Line mentality. The simulated enemy does not have heat-tracking sensors either. So it becomes a radar on radar fight, which is the sensor least capable of detecting the F-22!

[SUBMAN1]

Heavily supported by a tanker? That is interesting given that it doesn't need to be. Almost 1900 nmi range on that thing without drop tanks. Maybe they always like a full gas tank so that they could turn and burn longer.
Maybe. But I'm saying what will be in Riccioni's mind. Its ferry is 2000 statute miles, which is reasonable - it really has a comparable fuel load with a Su-27 which is credited with as much as 4000 kilometers, but with a fixed intake for stealth. Fixed intakes for subsonic aircraft typically max out around Mach 1.8, and the F-22 supposedly can hack ~2.4 - the only way I can see this happening is to readjust the fixed intake closer to the setting a variable intake would assume at high supersonic, but that will no doubt do "wonders" to its subsonic fuel efficiency (still the more efficient form). The supercruise part of its 400NM combat radius is only 100NM, which pretty much means that after every intercept they'll feel like refuelling.

PS. American doctrine and F-22 doctrine put the ideal scenario at BVR. This is not by chance, this is how the F-22 plays the game. Close, you can not only see it, but it is vulnerable to SR AA missiles. The F-22 in my opnion can probably wipe every last fighter from the sky using hit and run tactics using BVR, and there isn't a damn thing an enemy can do about it.
When I said "the game is fought using American assumptions", I didn't just mean the part where they do BVR - that's tactics, not really an assumption. For example, they fight assuming the radar will not be tracked. It apparently really doesn't show on current American RWRs, but it is a 20kW emission that's ultimately all in the X-band, so assuming it won't show on all equipment is kind of a Maignot Line mentality. The simulated enemy does not have heat-tracking sensors either. So it becomes a radar on radar fight, which is the sensor least capable of detecting the F-22!
Two things. The Supercruise was supposed to be nearly as fuel efficient as flying subsonically as a requirement during development (I did some work on it during development), so I doubt the 400 km range at that speed. I'd expect it to be at least double, if not tripple - probably close to 1000 nmi. It is out of the transonic region when it is operating at these speeds as well, which is why the Mach 1.5 min speed spec during development, so this puts it back in a very fuel efficient region - similar to how the Concord operates.

Two was the IR signature had to be almost nothing, so I doubt your IRST will be effective at a range to give you sufficient warning. Flying outside of the Transonic region also puts your air temps back into the subsonic region. Let me see if I can find any testing on both these issues. Right now, you and I are both assuming on both points.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Well, i think we are screwed in finding max range data. Everything with the aircraft is classified. They throw out general numbers, but we already know that some pilots have tipped up that they exceeded certain speeds when the public number is lower.

Regardless, you have an IR signature that is equal or lower than the F-117, and no IRST device can find that so far, so we know that they aren't going to find the F-22 either.

On Supercruise, we know we are out of the transonic region Approximately (Mach 1 to Mach 1.4 - many older fighters can't even power out of this region) at a very fuel efficient Mach 1.5. At Mach 2, yeah, 400 nmi may be a reality since again you are just burning gas when going faster than this, but not back at Mach 1.5. We know one pilot pushed the jet faster than Mach 1.7 without using afterburner.

One thing that makes this jet hard to find data on is that even the engines are classified - They say 35,000 lbs as a public number, but if it can out accelerate an F-15 without usning AB, how much real thrust is it actually making???

The jet shrouded in mystery.

Anyway, here is some interesting info on some of the techniques used to kill it's IR sig:

Infrared Radiation There are two significant sources of infrared radiation from air breathing propulsion systems: hot parts and jet wakes. The fundamental variables available for reducing radiation are temperature and emissivity, and the basic tool available is line of sight masking.


Recently some interesting progress has been made in directed energy, particularly for multiple bounce situations, but that subject will not be discussed further here. Emissivity can be a double edged sword, particularly inside a duct.


While a low emissivity surface will reduce the emitted energy, it will also enhance reflected energy that may be coming from a hotter internal region. Thus, a careful optimization must be made to determine the preferred emissivity pattern inside a jet engine exhaust pipe.


This pattern must be played against the frequency range available to detectors, which typically covers a band from one to 12 microns.


The short wavelengths are particularly effective at high temperatures, while the long wavelengths are most effective at typical ambient atmospheric temperatures. The required emissivity pattern as a function of both frequency and spatial dispersion having been determined, the next issue is how to make materials that fit the bill.


The first inclination of the infrared coating designer is to throw some metal flakes into a transparent binder. Coming up with a transparent binder over the frequency range of interest is not easy, and the radar coating man probably won't like the effects of the metal particles on his favorite observable.


The next move is usually to come up with a multi layer material, where the same cancellation approach that was discussed earlier regarding radar suppressant coatings is used. The dimensions now are in angstroms rather than millimeters.


The big push at present is in moving from metal layers in the films to metal oxides for radar cross section compatibility. Getting the required performance as a function of frequency is not easy, and it is a significant feat to get down to an emissivity of 0.1, particularly over a sustained frequency range. Thus, the biggest practical ratio of emissivities is liable to be one order of magnitude.


Everyone can recognize that all of this discussion is meaningless if engines continue to deposit carbon (one of the highest emissivity materials known) on duct walls. For the infrared coating to be effective, it is not sufficient to have a very low particulate ratio in the engine exhaust, but to have one that is essentially zero.
Carbon buildup on hot engine parts is a cumulative situation, and there are very few bright, shiny parts inside exhaust nozzles after a number of hours of operation. For this reason alone, it is likely that emissivity control will predominantly be employed on surfaces other than those exposed to engine exhaust gases, i.e., inlets and aircraft external parts.
The other available variable is temperature. This, in principle, gives a great deal more opportunity for radiation reduction than emissivity, because of the large exponential dependence. The general equation for emitted radiation is that it varies with the product of emissivity and temperature to the fourth power.


However, this is a great simplification, because it does not account for the frequency shift of radiation with temperature. In the frequency range at which most simple detectors work (one to five microns), and at typical hot-metal temperatures, the exponential dependency will be typically near eight rather than four, and so at a particular frequency corresponding to a specific detector, the radiation will be proportional to the product of the emissivity and temperature to the eighth power. It is fairly clear that a small reduction in temperature can have a much greater effect than any reasonably anticipated reduction in emissivity.


The third approach is masking. This is clearly much easier to do when the majority of the power is taken off by the turbine, as in a propjet or helicopter application, than when the jet provides the basic propulsive force.


The former community has been using this approach to infrared suppression for many years, but it is only recently that the jet-propulsion crowd has tackled this problem. The Lockheed F 117A and the Northrop B 2 both use a similar approach of masking to prevent any hot parts being visible in the lower hemisphere.


In summary, infrared radiation should be tackled by a combination of temperature reduction and masking, although there is no point in doing these past the point where the hot parts are no longer the dominant terms in the radiation equation.
The main body of the airplane has its own radiation, heavily dependent on speed and altitude, and the jet plume can be a most significant factor, particularly in afterburning operation. Strong cooperation between engine and airframe manufacturers in the early stages of design is extremely important. The choice of engine bypass ratio, for example, should not be made solely on the basis of performance, but on a combination of that and survivability for maximum system effectiveness.


The jet-wake radiation follows the same laws as the engine hot parts, a very strong dependency on temperature and a multiplicative factor of emissivity. Air has a very low emissivity, carbon particles have a high broadband emissivity, and water vapor emits in very specific bands.


Infrared seekers have mixed feelings about water vapor wavelengths, because, while they help in locating jet plumes, they hinder in terms of the general attenuation due to moisture content in the atmosphere. There is no reason, however, why smart seekers shouldn't be able to make an instant decision about whether conditions are favorable for using water-vapor bands for detection.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Regardless, you have an IR signature that is equal or lower than the F-117, and no IRST device can find that so far, so we know that they aren't going to find the F-22 either.
I have every confidence that thanks to baffling, masking, and that nice stuff (for the record, seems to make sense but got a URL?) down the bottom, they've suppressed the IR from the back (at least if the burner is off). What I'm concerned about is that in the age of front-seeking missiles, they can also home off various heat sources from the front (though less efficiently), and the F-22, in supercruising, will greatly increase those blots.

Maybe that's a concern, maybe it isn't (at least not yet), but are tests actually being done to verify this, and if the tests come out less than well, what to do on the day when the suppression ceases to work. After all, sensors are moving ahead faster and a easier upgrade than trying to squeeze out any more heat suppression.

On Supercruise, we know we are out of the transonic region Approximately (Mach 1 to Mach 1.4 - many older fighters can't even power out of this region) at a very fuel efficient Mach 1.5. At Mach 2, yeah, 400 nmi may be a reality since again you are just burning gas when going faster than this, but not back at Mach 1.5. We know one pilot pushed the jet faster than Mach 1.7 without using afterburner.
Yes, the test pilot. I'm actually taking that into account. The problem is that 20000 pounds of fuel will not give a SUBSONIC fighter a 1000NM radius.

One thing that makes this jet hard to find data on is that even the engines are classified - They say 35,000 lbs as a public number, but if it can out accelerate an F-15 without usning AB, how much real thrust is it actually making???
Actually, I'll bet that it actually does make 35000 pounds static on the ground (or 36000, or 34000). As a rule, gross mis-statement of physical performance specs does not work - the Navy tried that "over 20 knots" crap 4 decades ago and as far as I can tell it fooled no one. For one thing, operators leak. For another thing, engineering principles are known worldwide and gross lies are quickly exposed by engineering analysis.

The answer IMO is probably simple - the F-22 uses a fixed ramp and the F-15 uses a variable ramp (one thing I will say Riccioni definitely took little account of as far as I can see when he pointed the number out as a paper stat). On the ground, the F-22's engine is actually cannot be at the optimal setting if it is to be at the optimal setting in its planned high-alt supersonic regime of flight (in fact, fixed ramps optimized for subsonic operation generally max out around Metz's reported supercruise speed even with the A/B pushing - see the plummet in the Su-24's top speed when they decided to go for fixed ramps, even though the only other change is that the plane got a little lighter from eliminating the variable ramps!). So the bench test (which became a catalog spec) compared an optimally tuned F100 to a suboptimally tuned F119. At the altitude where the F-22 actually supercruises, the F119's fixed ramp is in its element and we are comparing two optimally tuned engines - with the F119's military power coming in as close to or better than the F100's A/B. Add the fact that chase planes are likely to be carrying some "hangers" like cameras (IIRC, the F-15 flanks out at Mach 2.5 clean but Mach 1.78 when carrying Sparrows), add the part where the F-22's aerodynamics no doubt have a greater bias towards the supersonic, and the chase result is a done deal.

Which is one of the reasons I'm actually inclined to believe the 400NM test number (including 100NM of supercruise) as broadly accurate (apparently the radius is 600NM in full subsonic). In a world where engines have reached a fairly high level of development, it runs suboptimally at the subsonic cruise mode (yet that must still be significantly more efficient than the supersonic flight mode or it won't be subsonic), while in the supersonic mode it is at optimal performance but nevertheless must put out more thrust than it does in subsonic.

[Chock]

I actually think the most impressive thing about the aircraft is its ability to attain and maintain high speeds without reheat, as it was with the BAC Concorde. All the airshow antics you see from fighter jets are nice to watch, but they almost all invariably end up with a fighter that has pissed its fuel away in ten minutes if it's using the 'burner at low altitude. Which of course doesn't matter at an airshow as the airfield is right underneath you, but in combat, the more capability you have without relying on the 'burners to power yourself out of trouble, the more options you have.

Even if you end up in a circling dogfight and the other guy has to bug out without anyone being shot down, he's still lost the fight, and in fact this is often how dogfights - both real and mock - are decided, because anyone running for home with the fuel light blinking is either out of the fight, or setting himself up for a missile up the tailpipe, probably both. Turning after the merge is primarily a defensive move and this is nothing new of course, but ask any Luftwaffe bf109 pilot in the Battle of Britain what he would have preferred, some more fuel on board or some more agility, and you know what he would choose!

It's interesting to read the comments (of which there are many) under the YouTube video of the original post, with various people who are doubtless not very qualified to comment authoratively on the matter, opining on 'this or that plane being better', but for me the question of fuel saving when actually doing its job , makes the F-22 a hands down winner, and you don't need to know the 'brochure figures' to see what an advantage that capability confers. In contrast, some earlier generation jet fighter aircraft cannot even use all their fuel without becoming dangerously out of balance on their fore-aft centre of gravity (famously the the Shenyang J-7/Mig-21), so fuel consumption is a very important factor. But it's obviously not the whole story, I remember watching an F-16 and a Sukhoi 35 both doing maximum rate turns at low altitude (this at the USAF's 50th Anniversary show at RAF Fairford), the big Sukhoi was doing it without 'burners and turning inside the F-16. Of course the F-16 was making more noise and doubtless impressing people in that way, but I remember thinking 'damn that's amazing' seeing the Su-35 do it in dry power, and it was clear that in a real fight, the F-16 pilot would have been ejecting from his jet as the engine conked out from fuel starvation; but if anyone thinks an Su-35 is going to get a shot off prior to an F-22 before the merge, they must be dreaming, so it's something of a moot point where the USAF's new jet is concerned. That said, when your fancy missiles fail to do the job, as they did in Vietnam, and doubtless will again in some future conflict, turning an not 'burning is going to be a decider.

The 'brochure figures' for combat aircraft have always been somewhat misleading in this respect, they are okay for documentaries and the 'ooh' factor when listing superlatives, but the truth is most mach 1 and 2-plus fighters are severely limited in their abilities to use that speed or power for sustained periods unless they can go off to a tanker somewhere after a fight, and with a fighter in the area that is difficult to detect, and long-ranged too, who is going to want to be flying a tanker that lights up on radar like a christmas tree? This is another advantage the F-22 will confer.

In reasonably recent years, we've seen how important fuel consumption is for combat deployment, and if we go back as far as the Vietnam air war, it was a deciding factor on which aircraft even got sent to the theatre. The F-104 Starfighter being withdrawn after one tour, largely because it lacked range, being replaced in the CAP role by the F-4 thus it, and F-105, had to fight their way to targets in the North much of the time, often having to refuel in a coasting shallow dive coming home, as their tanks were nearly dry.

So if I were overseeing the design of a new Russian/Indian air superiority jet, I'd be concentrating on loiter times and long range shooting capability, because, all things considered, the fuel left in the tanks and the long range shot will probably decide the battle. And the F-22 is definitely the one to follow where both these are concerned, regardless of fancy airshow antics.

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

Might I point out, that this is a damn good and entertaining thread? :D Shows we have some sharp minds at Subsim.

-S

[Hakahura]

Alway's hard to predict tomorrow's wars.

But unless Western society's values change drastically, in all but full scale war I think BVR combat has had it's day. No western politician is likely to allow it's forces to engage the enemy without positive identification. Whilst BVR combat is a useful and potentially engagement winning tool, it's not much use if the politicians tie your hands.

[SUBMAN1]

Alway's hard to predict tomorrow's wars.

But unless Western society's values change drastically, in all but full scale war I think BVR combat has had it's day. No western politician is likely to allow it's forces to engage the enemy without positive identification. Whilst BVR combat is a useful and potentially engagement winning tool, it's not much use if the politicians tie your hands.Hardly. Positive identification includes radar identification. Even a simple F-16 now days can count the compressor blades on an engine, telling you what aircraft you are looking at. And failing that due to a side shot, AWACS knows! :D All doctrine avoids a close end engagement too - You are never to put yourself in one.

-S

[geetrue]

Wishes them luck. America needs a competitor.

Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether Europe's best chance for actually having European equipment is to work with Russia. That way, they'd at least have one partner with the will to actually make an effort... and Russia gets access to more modern electronics - benefits for all.

How can you trust someone who has never kept a treaty? They would love to be someone's partner that's for sure. A European co-op jet fighter made in Russia does not interest anyone ... who are they going to fight? Each other?

Paint one red and one blue ... :lol: sorry for the irony.

They might even be able to put secret microchips in the airframe to bring it down in a time of war ... :down:

[CCIP]

How can you trust someone who has never kept a treaty?
You mean the Americans? :damn:

(bad joke, but I find your statement to be no less provocative and unfair, not to mention unsubstantiated)

[geetrue]

How can you trust someone who has never kept a treaty?
You mean the Americans? :damn:

(bad joke, but I find your statement to be no less provocative and unfair, not to mention unsubstantiated)

Only because you are Russian my friend ... when your in a cold war both sides see it different ... wait a minute that goes for a hot war too, uh ...

Merry Christmas