Russian air force goes stealth

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Um...in general, would you WANT the nations the U.S. is likely to fight to be able to hurt the U.S. that much more? Because it sounds like you do, Skybird. Would you support Iran over the U.S.? Did you know they stone women to death, there, and hang others for very trivial reasons (e.g., being gay)? And how about North Korea? God, they're even worse!!!

I fail to see where you draw the conclusion that Skybird implies some kind of opinion on such matters in this thread...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I fail to see where you draw the conclusion that Skybird implies some kind of opinion on such matters in this thread...

I agree, something tells me that the notion of the PAK-FA superseding the F-22 will not go down well in certain circles of this forum However, it's not a given, although as has already been said, things should not be automatically discounted just because they were made in Russia. Certainly, one of the primary factors in this comparison is how much bang you will get for your buck. If the PAK-FA is the cheap F-22, then you're going to see it becoming popular in the export market, and Russia will make a killing from it. Meanwhile, the F-22, whilst being a fantastic piece of kit, will not be exported, and will not be built to its full potential because the US cannot afford it.
More importantly, perhaps, is the performance of the PAK-FA in relation to the F-35, because that is, for all intents and purposes, the export version of the F-22, if the PAK-FA can outperform the F-35, be sold at a lower cost than the F-35 and have a lower maintenance cost than the F-35, then the Russians are going to make a killing.
However, until these facts are known, I will not stray either side of the fence.

[Skybird]

Well, what the Russian jet is missing is thrust vectoring, and Times Online just reported that it uses pretty old engine types. On the other hand it has twice the range of the F-22. But you do not want to use such an expensive and precious jet in close combat, if possible, when eye contact would neutralise most of the advantage from being undetected on radar. And here, the superior Russian AAM with their greater range, high sensor sensibility and high agility, may be more than adequate for compensating an eventual weakness in airplane agility, compared to the thrust-vectoring F-22. but since the Mig-29 and Su-27 we have seen that lacking agility of russian fighters is a relative term anyway. I would not be surprised if the airframe geometry nevertheless makes this plane more agile in dogfighting than one may assume when noting the lacking thrust vectoring.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, what the Russian jet is missing is thrust vectoring, and Times Online just reported that it uses pretty old engine types.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised, since it'll be darn unlikely that the Russians will make a stealth fighter and use an old engine and even less likely they'll admit it, but when I read it was Golts who said that, I'm like "Oh". While the Russian military has problems, this fella is such a chunk of ice when it comes to the Russian military if anybody should be disappear into a gulag for criticizing the State he'll have to qualify. See also this thread for what I have to say about him.

Criticism generally is a good thing but with such "helpful" critics like him, the Russian military might well be better off it his lot were collectively shipped to Siberia.

To be fair, there is apparently a school in Russian aviation, even in the VVS. that figures that thrust vectoring is not worth the expense considering the limitations in Russian pilot quality (due to relative lack of flying hours). But I don't see how they would pass up supercruise.

[Oberon]

Hmmm, this is true, rather odd that they would choose to omit thrust vectoring when they've already put it in the MiG-29OVT, however this is most likely a ploy to reduce operating expenses. Like you say, in gunzo combat the element of stealth is useless, although maneuverablity is king, so close up gunzo, the Raptor would probably pwn the PAK-FA. Long range though, well I guess a lot of that is down to the cross section of the aircraft and the missile range and sensitivity which, like you say, the Russians do do a good job.
By the way, has any more information come to light about the claim the Russians made about the aircraft having an 'artificial intellect'?

Oh, and another thing that made me chuckle, the NATO reporting name....Firefox.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Oberon

By the way, has any more information come to light about the claim the Russians made about the aircraft having an 'artificial intellect'?

As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about it, I see no reason why not. Supposedly artificial intelligence is used even in the Su-34, and the Russians have always had an interest in trying to reduce as many decisions as possible into calculations and norms that are then more suitable for automation, while the West tends to believe military thinking is an art and can't be and shouldn't be "reduced" to a science.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about it, I see no reason why not. Supposedly artificial intelligence is used even in the Su-34, and the Russians have always had an interest in trying to reduce as many decisions as possible into calculations and norms that are then more suitable for automation, while the West tends to believe military thinking is an art and can't be and shouldn't be "reduced" to a science.

Oh, indeed, you only have to look at the Alfa at their early attempts to reduce workload through automation and computers. I was just wondering what kind of things this AI would do?

[XabbaRus]

I think they used old engines as the new ones aren't ready. Nothing new in that.

But hey that doesn't stop Golts letting it get in the way of a story criticising the Russian airforce and equipment.