F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[average american]

Well it's just not economy who will wait for 5 damn years

Evidently India is willing to wait a lot longer then that for the PAK-FA.
LiveLeak.com - USAF F-22 Raptor at exercise Northern Edge
LiveLeak.com - F-22 Raptor

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I expect a lot of countries will cut back on the F35 because of the economy cooling down including the USA. Also there has been a delay in any threat that F35 was designed to counter. Reform in Russia has been a catastrophic failure because neither political conditions nor economic institutions existed that would have permitted a successful rapid transition to full-blown capitalism. The political elite, from Yeltsin on down, were old Communist apparatchiks who, while rejecting Soviet socialism, were by no means democrats, and many were cynical opportunists on the make. Under their rule, there has been a gigantic looting of public assets, the rapid emergence of a financial and corporate oligarchy, no concern whatever for the deteriorating condition of the mass of ordinary citizens, and no attempt to pace the transition to a market economy in accord with the demands of equity, efficiency, or national development needs. This has been a corrupt revolution from above. Like the middle east they have a economic system based on oil and gas and lack the inferstructure to compete technologicaly with the USA. More and more countries are realizing that the T50 is just a pimped up SU27 with some new bells and whistles and a lame effort to copy US stealth technology and barring some miracle will be helpless against the F22 an F35 an wont have the support systems that will allow it to take on the USA upgraded teen fighters.

America and Russian design and development and approach is different.
US believes in designing a fighter from scratch with entirely new design and features from the existing one.
Russia believes in designing based on proven platforms and gradual evolution and upgrading. T50 is same it is based on su platform but with internal weapon bays and stealth design. t 50 will have more or less same rcs as f 35 and better maneuverability, radar than f 22. In electronics f 22 and f 35 might have an advantage but don't be surprised if Indian and Russian scientists come out with something better, if not India can always look for 3rd party solutions also.

 

[average american]

It seems a lot of people here know a lot about T50, F35 etc,, but when comes to the cold hard facts that the Russian are having problems with almost all their technology of advanced weapon systems the subject never comes up.

Russian Tech Stumbles Again Russian Tech Stumbles Again

Russian Graney (Yasen) class SSGN (nuclear powered cruise missile sub) has been delayed for the second time this year. Recent sea trials revealed that the nuclear reactor did not produce the required power and that the ability of the boat to remain quiet while under water was not working. An underpowered and noisy sub is not acceptable and the navy is demanding that the builder make it all better before 2014.

The Graneys are having new "smart" (target seeking) torpedoes designed and built for them. But even these new torpedoes are having development problems and may be cancelled.

Half of the Bulava ballistic missilehave failed BBC News - Russian missile test launch fails

Vitaly Shlykov, a former Soviet war planner and ex-deputy defense minister of Russia. "But Russia has de-industrialized. It's basically a third world country that lives by oil extraction today. This rearmament program is a political campaign, to make Putin proud. The T-50 is essentially a political gadget."

That means every part that goes into a Russian fighter plane these days has to be produced in-house, an exhaustive, time-consuming and exorbitantly expensive process, says Pavel Felgenhauer, a military expert with the opposition Novaya Gazeta newspaper in Moscow.

"Worse than that, there's a huge technological gap between Russian and Western industry," he says.

"[Russia] still has people who can design new products, but the ability of our industry to produce them is deeply questionable. What can you do if you can't get reliable components, have no modern machinery capable of making precision parts and you lack highly-skilled workers? You can't produce much of value," Felgenhauer says.

Sure the F22 and F35 have problems and are expensive, but all you have to do is look at the 2 Ton Mars Rover to see that the USA has the technology to fix any problem they may have. They dont have to be perfect just a lot better then the Russians..

 

[asianobserve]

I think Russophiles have found their match in our new unapologitic American member... :cool2:

 

[Defcon 1]

It seems a lot of people here know a lot about T50, F35 etc,, but when comes to the cold hard facts that the Russian are having problems with almost all their technology of advanced weapon systems the subject never comes up.

Russian Tech Stumbles Again Russian Tech Stumbles Again

Russian Graney (Yasen) class SSGN (nuclear powered cruise missile sub) has been delayed for the second time this year. Recent sea trials revealed that the nuclear reactor did not produce the required power and that the ability of the boat to remain quiet while under water was not working. An underpowered and noisy sub is not acceptable and the navy is demanding that the builder make it all better before 2014.

The Graneys are having new "smart" (target seeking) torpedoes designed and built for them. But even these new torpedoes are having development problems and may be cancelled.

Half of the Bulava ballistic missilehave failed BBC News - Russian missile test launch fails

Vitaly Shlykov, a former Soviet war planner and ex-deputy defense minister of Russia. "But Russia has de-industrialized. It's basically a third world country that lives by oil extraction today. This rearmament program is a political campaign, to make Putin proud. The T-50 is essentially a political gadget."

That means every part that goes into a Russian fighter plane these days has to be produced in-house, an exhaustive, time-consuming and exorbitantly expensive process, says Pavel Felgenhauer, a military expert with the opposition Novaya Gazeta newspaper in Moscow.

"Worse than that, there's a huge technological gap between Russian and Western industry," he says.

"[Russia] still has people who can design new products, but the ability of our industry to produce them is deeply questionable. What can you do if you can't get reliable components, have no modern machinery capable of making precision parts and you lack highly-skilled workers? You can't produce much of value," Felgenhauer says.

Sure the F22 and F35 have problems and are expensive, but all you have to do is look at the 2 Ton Mars Rover to see that the USA has the technology to fix any problem they may have. They dont have to be perfect just a lot better then the Russians..

These posts are of no value dude. Russian tech failed in one field, doesn't mean whole of russia is useless. Anyways, your post is offtopic and you are going against forum rules.

 

[trackwhack]

Evidently India is willing to wait a lot longer then that for the PAK-FA.

maybe because the pakfa is a real fighter plane and not a hangar queen

 

[average american]

In the real world if I recall there are 3 barebone prototypes of the T50 and no PAK-FA at this point.

There has been 25 F35s delivered so far including two to the UK. If what Vitaly Shlykov, a former Soviet war planner and ex-deputy defense minister of Russias says is true that Russia has de-industrialized. That It's basically a third world country that lives by oil extraction today, then can Russia really even develope and build an air craft comparable to the F35. Failure in one field might not mean it cant build a T50 comparable to an F22 or F35, but when its more then one field and the Russians start saying they dont have the skills to buid advanced aircraft then there is real concerns. Another concern in the USA all our dirty laundry is on the line out there to see, every problem with the F22 and F35 gets massive publicity especially from those that oppose the US military and US military spending and it makes sensational news, with the Russians you will never know of the problems untill its too late.

http://www.f-16.net/news_topic151.html
Introducing The Airplane Of The Future - Popular Mechanics

 

[p2prada]

I think Russophiles have found their match in our new unapologitic American member... :cool2:

Naaa, it's just a pain in the butt to counter his points when he does not know anything about the history of American air wars or their enemies capabilities.

There was a similar timeframe when the Flanker was introduced after the Eagle. The Americans kept talking about how great the Eagle is compared to the Flanker. After the Raptor was introduced the Youtube Karnal(Colonel) had no issues saying the Flanker was a "tad bit" better than the Eagle, with hand signs to boot. Thirty years down the line, history may repeat itself, with another Youtube Karnal saying the PAKFA was better than the Raptor, even if it is a "tad bit" with more hand signs involved.

I am not really bothered though. The final configuration of the version India is going to get will be way better than what's on the Raptor currently or what's planned for the F-35.

 

[average american]

Naaa, it's just a pain in the butt to counter his points when he does not know anything about the history of American air wars or their enemies capabilities.

There was a similar timeframe when the Flanker was introduced after the Eagle. The Americans kept talking about how great the Eagle is compared to the Flanker. After the Raptor was introduced the Youtube Karnal(Colonel) had no issues saying the Flanker was a "tad bit" better than the Eagle, with hand signs to boot. Thirty years down the line, history may repeat itself, with another Youtube Karnal saying the PAKFA was better than the Raptor, even if it is a "tad bit" with more hand signs involved.

I am not really bothered though. The final configuration of the version India is going to get will be way better than what's on the Raptor currently or what's planned for the F-35.

It was not just the US kill record,,, Israeli F-15 kill records: Battle is the arbiter of which force is superior

80-92 Mig-21 Fishbeds
several MIG-25 Foxbats

I think the flankers only shot down a couple planes in their entire history...
In the last sixty years in air to air combat, the best I can tell about six to ten american planes were shot down compared to couple hundred Russian Planes being shot down. Now you all can blame it all on every thing but the planes, But this is war not a game, it matters if you win or lose, there are no excuses..

If you consider the combat record of Russian Planes, the state of the Russian economy and its technology, how much they spend on research and development and Indias problems with its aircraft industry there is more chance of the T50 and PAK-FA being a unmitigated disaster then anything else.

Modern Air-to-Air & Air-to-Ground kill record thread

U.S. F-15 Eagle Kill Records:

5 Iraqi Mig-29 Fulcrums
7 Iraqi Mirage F-1's
8 Iraqi Mig-23's
2 Iraqi Mig-21's
1 Iraqi ll-76
2 Iraqi SU-25 Frogfoots
3 Iarqi SU-7/17
1 Iraqi MI-24 Hind
2 Iraqi SU-22 Fitters
2 Iraqi MIG-25 Foxbats
4 Serbian Mig-29 Fulcrums
1 Afghan MI-24 Hind (F-15E)
2 U.S. UH-60 Blackhawks (fratricide)

Israeli F-15 kill records:

80-92 Mig-21 Fishbeds
several MIG-25 Foxbats

Royal Saudi Air Force F-15 kill records:

2 Iranian F-4E Phantoms
2 Iraqi F-1 Mirages
1 Iraqi Mig-25

Japanese F-15 kill record:

1 Japanese F-15J (accidental shooting by another Japanese F-15J)

U.S. F/A-18C Hornet kill record:

2 Mig-21 Fishbeds

U.S. F-14 Tomcat kill records:

2 Libyan SU-22 Fitters
2 Libyan Mig-23 Floggers
1 Iraqi MI-8 Hip

Iranian F-14 Tomcat kill record:

?????

U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon kill records:

1 Iraqi Mig-29 or Mig-23
1 Serbian Mig-29
4 Serbian Soko G-4 Super Galebs
1 Iraqi Mig-25 (first AMRAAM kill)

Israel F-16 kill records:

2 Syrian MI-8 Hips
44 Syrian Migs (mostly Floggers)

Dutch F-16 kill record:

1 Serbian Mig-29

PAF F-16 kill records:

2 Russian SU-22 Fitters
8 Afghan Aircrafts
1 PAF F-16 (fratricide)


U.S. A-10 Warthog kill record (tanks and aircrafts):

2 Iraqi Mi-8 Hips
850 + Iraqi T-72 MBTs, T-62 MBTs, & T-55 MBTs
300 Iraqi APCs

U.K AV-8A Sea Harrier kills in the Falkland War:

1 C-130 Hercules
1 Mirage III
9 Mirage V's
1 Canberra
1 Pucara
6 A-4 Skyhawks



Iraqi MIG-25PD kill record:

1 U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet

Ethiopian SU-27 kill record:

4 Eritrean MiG-29s

Eritrean MiG-29 kill record:

1 Ethiopian Mig-21

Russian MIG-29 Fulcrum kill record:

1 Afghan SU-22 Fitter

Iraqi Mig-21 kill record:

1 Iranian F-14 Tomcat
Other Iranian/Kuwait aircrafts?

Indian Mig-21 kill record:

4 PAF F-104 Starfighters

 

[p2prada]

It was not just the US kill record,,, Israeli F-15 kill records: Battle is the arbiter of which force is superior

80-92 Mig-21 Fishbeds

2nd generation aircraft against a 4th generation aircraft. Ok :thumb:

several MIG-25 Foxbats

Interceptor. Cannot do anything except fly straight.

I think the flankers only shot down a couple planes in their entire history...

Only the Ethiopians used the Flankers in combat and shot down 4 Eritrean Mig-29s in the process. Notice there are no F-16 and F-15 battles against Flankers.

In the last sixty years in air to air combat, the best I can tell about six to ten american planes were shot down compared to couple hundred Russian Planes being shot down. Now you all can blame it all on every thing but the planes,

The same thing will happen if you put up 3 or 4 squadrons of Su-27s against hundreds of Mig-21s, Sabres and Starfighters.

But this is war not a game, it matters if you win or lose, there are no excuses..

I wonder what would happen if the Soviet Union, with full force, attacked a country like Greece, Poland or Romania. The same as the Americans attacking Iraq I suppose.

If you consider the combat record of Russian Planes, the state of the Russian economy and its technology, how much they spend on research and development and Indias problems with its aircraft industry there is more chance of the T50 and PAK-FA being a unmitigated disaster then anything else.

False. As soon as the Soviet Union fell apart, West Germany and East Germany united along with both Air forces. So, Mig-29s and F-16s ended up in the same force. Guess what happened in simulated dog fights against Mig-29s? In cannon engagements they were both, more or less, even. In engagements using missiles, the -29s were whipping F-16 arse to kingdom come. There was one engagement where a German pilot emptied "18" Archers on a F-16 in a single engagement. The kill ratio for a Warsaw pact Mig-29 against a F-16 was 3:1.

Your claims are merely uninformed guesses.

U.S. F-15 Eagle Kill Records:

5 Iraqi Mig-29 Fulcrums


7 Iraqi Mirage F-1's
8 Iraqi Mig-23's
2 Iraqi Mig-21's
1 Iraqi ll-76
2 Iraqi SU-25 Frogfoots
3 Iarqi SU-7/17
1 Iraqi MI-24 Hind
2 Iraqi SU-22 Fitters
2 Iraqi MIG-25 Foxbats
4 Serbian Mig-29 Fulcrums
1 Afghan MI-24 Hind (F-15E)
2 U.S. UH-60 Blackhawks (fratricide)

Heavy weight boxer against blind, crippled babies.

Israeli F-15 kill records:

80-92 Mig-21 Fishbeds
several MIG-25 Foxbats

A trained and overwhelmingly(generations ahead) superior force against an untrained, moronic bunch who were yet to learn how to fly.

Royal Saudi Air Force F-15 kill records:

2 Iranian F-4E Phantoms
2 Iraqi F-1 Mirages
1 Iraqi Mig-25

F-15 was a generation or two ahead compared to these aircraft.

Don't forget that the F-15 was the Raptor of the skies back in the day. It's primary counter was Mig-29 and Su-27. While the Su-27 was never used in combat against better enemies, the Mig-29 was either old and rusting or severely lacking electronics like radars or even missiles or the pilots lacked real combat training.

Don't forget that the American fighters were never used against powerful adversaries, only against weak and already broken enemies.

It's like sending an all star NBA basketball team to play against Zimbabwe and bragging about it after. Since the Vietnam war, the US never fought a war against a country where they think they have no chance at winning overwhelmingly.

 

[average american]

Lets say I am going make the decision to buy a very advanced aircraft, first i am going to examine the record, well lets see 200 to 5 kills, (way pass awful)
crashs, (a lot) economy compared to competiton (poor 1/8 the economy the competition) research and development 1/100th the competitiion, expert and internals opinions (poor) sucesses, most advance weapons are failures, now lets look at the competition,, Kill ratio 200 to 5 (outstanding) crashs less then 2 per 100,000 hours, one of the safest in the world, overall, 8 times the economy, one hundred times the money spent on reseach and development. technology level, one ton vehicle on mars operatonal for planned two years. Remember too that the F35 is a strike fighter whos primary role is bombing, the F22 is the air superiority plane.

Conclusion::: you decide.....

 

[p2prada]

Lets say I am going make the decision to buy a very advanced aircraft, first i am going to examine the record, well lets see 200 to 5 kills, (way pass awful)
crashs, (a lot) economy compared to competiton (poor 1/8 the economy the competition) research and development 1/100th the competitiion, expert and internals opinions (poor) sucesses, most advance weapons are failures, now lets look at the competition,, Kill ratio 200 to 5 (outstanding) crashs less then 2 per 100,000 hours, one of the safest in the world, overall, 8 times the economy, one hundred times the money spent on reseach and development. technology level, one ton vehicle on mars operatonal for planned two years. Remember too that the F35 is a strike fighter whos primary role is bombing, the F22 is the air superiority plane.

Conclusion::: you decide.....

Your attempts are cute. You should have used this logic during the Vietnam war, perhaps educated the North Vietnamese on how uber awesome your economy is.

Economy, R&D budgets all depends on your program. The Raptor and the PAKFA programs are of a similar size if money, industrial capacity and manpower is involved. If you spend Billions of dollars to make a Space shuttle only for it to blow up every now and then while the Russians spend 1/10th that amount to build the Soyuz and maintain a consistent presence in space for nearly 50 years by themselves to the point where they are the only ones sending astronauts to the ISS and will be doing so for another decade. Yeah, it all depends on how you spend it too. You can blow your money however you want, but things are not how they seem.

The Russians are the only ones in the world today to have built and maintained a GPS system called GLONASS. They are the only ones to have built a genuine heavy class air superiority aircraft and kept up with the Americans. They are the only ones to have built larger Cruisers and carriers after the Americans. The only ones to have a built a nuclear arsenal that is greater than the American arsenal. The only ones to have built submarines in a similar technological level while at higher numbers than the Americans. The only ones to have built space stations and maintained a presence in space that the US is only now hoping to dream of. Heck the Russians have a number of manned launches planned to the ISS while the Americans have none. All that on a piss poor budget as you have stated.

Expedition 33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 36 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 38 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 39 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expedition 41 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki info stops at that. Ok. All these are manned expeditions to the ISS. Notice all the numbers are in order. Great. Now, look at the Launch site information in each of these.

Due to the American ineffectiveness in sending out manned missions, the Russians had to concentrate on a much tighter manned mission schedule and has affected their other programs with the Moon and Mars missions.

You can keep your Mars rover. The Russians are better at near Earth capabilities. NASA is only good at deep space probes and that's only at sending satellites and rovers far away. Pretty worthless looking at military and economic PoV.

Conclusion: You decide...

 

[asianobserve]

Don't forget that the American fighters were never used against powerful adversaries, only against weak and already broken enemies.

It's like sending an all star NBA basketball team to play against Zimbabwe and bragging about it after. Since the Vietnam war, the US never fought a war against a country where they think they have no chance at winning overwhelmingly.

I think air warfare is not going to be decided solely by technical specifications of fighter aircrafts. Maybe the genius in the American air military strategy is not only in the technological superiority of their weapons but also in their tactics. The American Air Force guys after Vietnam war may have correctly predicted that a fighter-to-fighter engagement is a good way to give the enemy (even those less technologically adept or economically equal) an even footing. So the Americans have simply invested in other technologies to lessen the chances of A-2-A fight happening (note how the Iraqi air defense network was crippled by the AMericans before its air invasion in Gulf War 1). But if it does happen I think it is not only the weapon that the Americans have an edge, let's not forget that AMerican pilots still maintain the most rigorous training and actual combat experience of any air force (maybe save the Israelis). America is constantly looking for war to train their pilots, and if they can't find war then they just simulate it...

Red Flag exercise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's not forget also that the AMericans have already evaluated most USSR/Russian made weapons and aircrafts.

 

[average american]

Old sayiing you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear and if you consider everything it looks real ugly for the T50 and PAK-FA if they even get built, much less if they ever go up againt the F22 and F35, or even the upgraded teen fighters.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Old sayiing you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear and if you consider everything it looks real ugly for the T50 and PAK-FA if they even get built, much less if they ever go up againt the F22 and F35, or even the upgraded teen fighters.

T50 Is ugly for you because your eyes are blinded by hate for anything which is not AMERICAN..I hope real average Americans are not like you.

 

[trackwhack]

Old sayiing you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear and if you consider everything it looks real ugly for the T50 and PAK-FA if they even get built, much less if they ever go up againt the F22 and F35, or even the upgraded teen fighters.

Can you list what this everything is? Or is this average american fanboi talk?

 

[p2prada]

and if you consider everything it looks real ugly for the T50 and PAK-FA if they even get built, much less if they ever go up againt the F22 and F35, or even the upgraded teen fighters.

Stop regurgitating the same nonsense in every thread you go to. Now that you learnt the Russian space agency is actually ahead of NASA is a lot of parameters, let's get some more facts straight.

Initially the US worked on Russian stealth laws to develop stealth platforms. It was a gentleman named Petr Ufmitsev who discovered the behaviour of EM rays on objects and invented the modern equations that go into stealth designs. So, you can say he is the Einstein of the stealth world. The US worked on his equations in order to design aircraft like the F-117A, B-2 and F-22. So, at an intellectual level they are the same as American technicians, maybe even higher because they have to develop similar products at smaller budgets.

Secondly, the fact is the Flanker is better than the Eagle, at least if we go by the words of the Youtube Karnal. Also, he was talking about the MKI and not the latest Su-35.

In open source simulations of Su-35 against late model(in other words, most advanced) F-15, F-16 and F-18 even with AWACS support the Su-35 always came on top. The MKI is better than most of the teens in a lot of parameters. According to the Karnal, the MKI in the hands of a trained pilot should be able to beat the Eagle every time in a dog fight. Also, during Red Flag 2008, one of our journalists present there noted that the kill ratio of the MKI against aggressor squadrons of F-15 and F-16 was 22:1. You can take this figure as is or leave it, up to you.

Even in dog fights over India, where the Singapore Air force have leased a base for training on F-16s, the MKIs have shown superior capability as told by our pilots. Yefim Gordon also talks of how the smaller F-16s were less agile than the MKI during Indo-American exercises thereby negating some of the small aircraft's advantages, in his book on Flankers. Let's not forget that we are still talking about the MKI and not the superior Su-35. Then again, let's not forget that the PAKFA is touted to be "significantly" superior to the Su-35.

It is clear you have no idea how Russian aircraft and industry has evolved along with the American and European industries Because if you did, you won't be talking nonsense of this level.

I am not surprised that you haven't read APA's analysis on F-35.
Why the F-22 and the PAK-FA have the "Right Stuff" and why the F/A-18 and the F-35 do not

PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and "Capability Surprise"

While it may or may not be true, at least you will be a little wiser reading his works especially considering his works have been used in Lockheed Martin's briefings to export customers.

So, can we come back to the real world?

 

[ice berg]

Naaa, it's just a pain in the butt to counter his points when he does not know anything about the history of American air wars or their enemies capabilities.

There was a similar timeframe when the Flanker was introduced after the Eagle. The Americans kept talking about how great the Eagle is compared to the Flanker. After the Raptor was introduced the Youtube Karnal(Colonel) had no issues saying the Flanker was a "tad bit" better than the Eagle, with hand signs to boot. Thirty years down the line, history may repeat itself, with another Youtube Karnal saying the PAKFA was better than the Raptor, even if it is a "tad bit" with more hand signs involved.

I am not really bothered though. The final configuration of the version India is going to get will be way better than what's on the Raptor currently or what's planned for the F-35.

What sets US fighters leagues ahead of others are not the planes in itself. But the situation awareness across the whole spectrum. And that, will not be changed with or without PAKFA .

 

[p2prada]

I think air warfare is not going to be decided solely by technical specifications of fighter aircrafts. Maybe the genius in the American air military strategy is not only in the technological superiority of their weapons but also in their tactics.

Tactics agreed. But, why discard other forces capabilities in training or improvising during a fight?

The point being killing Iraqi Air force does not mean the Russians will keel over so easily. It was the same with their tanks in the ground war.

Let's not forget also that the AMericans have already evaluated most USSR/Russian made weapons and aircrafts.

Only old and obsolete frames have been evaluated, and not all of them in their best capability. So, the ones they have evaluated have already been phased out, in the process of being phased out, or will soon be.

 

[p2prada]

What sets US fighters leagues ahead of others are not the planes in itself. But the situation awareness across the whole spectrum. And that, will not be changed with or without PAKFA .

This is where they are indeed ahead in and not in platform to platform specifics that average american wants to indulge in.