Russian Stealth Fighter Makes Its First Flight 418
An anonymous reader writes "The long-awaited Russian stealth fighter, codenamed PAK FA or T-50, has had its first test flight today. This Google translation of a Russian article has a photo of the jet. Production is supposed to begin in 2015; the AP reports that India is helping with development. It's reportedly designed to compete with America's F-22 (first flight: 1997). Relatedly, according to Wikipedia, Japan is planning to fly its own stealth fighter, the ATD-X, which we have previously discussed, in 2011."
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:2, Informative)
education - yes
AFFORDABLE healthcare - yes
housing - capable of taking +40C in the summer and -40C in winter
schooling - how is this different to education?
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:5, Informative)
To answer your question for the US the Iraqi war. For Russia they downed a drone just last year with a fighter.
Every time somebody says that Fighters are not needed anymore something happens that prove that idea wrong.
Same with Aircraft Carriers and Tanks.
Stealth is not a magic bullet. (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: I was an avionics tech on the original Stealth Fighter, the F-117A, back in the late 80's-early '90s. (37th TFW, Tonopah Test Range).
Back then, stealth was achieved by a combination of architecture (the angles), materials, and flying the thing under certain profiles (that is, you avoid flying too close to enemy radar installations, fly at night, etc). The whole idea was to be a literal hole in the sky, or at least make enemy radars less effective - enough to get in, do your job, and get out. The results have been somewhat mixed - during our whole Desert Storm tour, not a single F-117 got so much as a paint chip, let alone a bullet hole - sand and heat was a bigger danger to the things than lead. OTOH, one was shot down over Bosnia during the late 1990's.
When it comes to stealth? You either fly quietly, or you get noticed by enemy A/A and fighters. Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also, the F-117A was, in essence, a small tactical bomber - it has no dogfighting ability to speak of (no guns, and A/A missiles would be damned clumsy to use from one - doing that would make you even less aerodynamic than you already are, and carrying even one air-to-air missile would eat half of your bomb load). Old-school, we snuck around, making sure that the only time you noticed one of our jets was from the explosion its bombs made on your property. The Russian jet and the F-22 take a different tack - they only want to make it a little bit harder for an already-flying missile to find them, without sacrificing speed and maneuverability too much. But - if you load either one with a full bomb load, those round bombs will happily give your position away to the first radar dish that you come even partially close to.
So use them only for air superiority, you say... cool - but the whole point of air superiority is to own the sky, and noticeably so. ;) Any other role besides those two (e.g. ground support), and you face the same big risk as any other aircraft - that of being taken down by the first piece of dumb lead to fly in your direction.
Long story short, stealth is useful in limited circumstances at best, and even at this time doesn't really justify its expense and R&D outside of those circumstances.
Must be a joke... (Score:5, Informative)
You must be kidding.
Education - teachers and college professors get paid barely enough to literally survive, when they get paid at all. After the exodus of the Jewish scholarly elite, and the subsequent evacuation of any non-Jews that had academic credentials, Russian education is barely starting to recover...
Healthcare - hospitals are in shambles. If I remember correctly, you would have to bribe every nurse and orderly in turn to get clean(er) sheets and non-expired medication. Better to bring your own, bought on the black market.
Housing - it is not lacking in strength, but it's barely above the level of trailer parks in amenities
Moscow and St. Petersburg city centers are not a good indicator of the conditions in Russia. They are about as sophisticated as the West, at Western (or higher) prices. Given that a chief physician of a large hospital makes about $1000-1500/month while paying New York prices for groceries and only about 1/2 as much for housing, it should give you a lot of pause before making these ridiculous comparisons.
Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/
Someone at the DOD has a sense of humor.
Re:Nah, time for a new fighter program (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Question About Radar Development (Score:1, Informative)
I've heard of systems that look for an absence of radar returns (look for the "hole" in the sky that's not reflecting), but I think this [wikipedia.org] probably answers it better than anything else.
So yeah, I'm sure the technology has come a long ways. But like the F-117, which flew in 1981, you won't hear about it years later.
Re:Nah, time for a new fighter program (Score:5, Informative)
to keep Russia bankrupt trying to catch up to it.
1. Come up with super tech military program
2. Fund it until it becomes too costly
3. Wait for the other guy to spin up to compete against it
4. Move the bar further out
The story of the F-15, as related to me by an Air Force guy. The Russians come out with a new interceptor, the MiG-25. In reality it's a lead sled, can go really freakin' fast in one direction and fire off some missiles but it has very little flexibility and is not that good of an aircraft. But since we don't have good intel on it, we start guessing as to what it's capabilities would be, making up all sorts of shit. The Air Force freaks out and demands we build a counter and that eventually became the F-15, fully capable of doing everything the Foxbat was supposed to do. Total overkill.
Doublechecked wiki, this story is confirmed there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-25 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Chronic Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Very good observation. As a person who has lived in Russia some 10 years in total, I can say that Russian government even though one of the people (for better or worse) has traditionally been one that will pursue bold objectives without taking notice of the more at-hand problems, such may be criminality, morale, education (well that one may be an exception now, and thank gods for that) etc. Too many older folks or their trusted descendants sit in the corridors of power in Kremlin that do not want to deviate from old style of doing things - still envisioning grand Mother Russia not only very potent but in fact aiding the rest of the world. Whether it does so at the cost of its own citizens, is of no concern to these few individuals in power - to them it is the image and glory that counts. Russia's ambitions cover as much ground as its whole land and more. In time, they will learn to see be realistic, only despotic communism could handle (and did so for limited time, as history shows) the kind of progress seen there until '89. New Russia must understand that it has to choose between happy people and happy but overambitious leaders. When the balance is restored, it perhaps can become productive without using its people. As someone who has seen a lot of misery there but also a lot of absolutely ingenious minds, I would say it has what it takes, but is still with one foot in the mess that was left after the last "party" collapsed. That's nothing new though...
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:2, Informative)
Like they've always done. Their economics is going down the tubes like everyone else. This is just another way for them to put money back in their coffers again. They can't sell their old nuclear subs, they're too worn out and a hazard, and selling nuclear power plant technology is just too obvious.
Re:Stealth is not a magic bullet. (Score:5, Informative)
Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also,
No idea why you think that. The F117 was basically designed during the 70s and heavily based on prototypes developed during the late 60s. Its shape is heavily derived based on computational limitations of the period. Keep in mind, much of the math was still done on slide rules and less computing power than a 386. Because of this, specific flight profiles are required to maintain radar stealth. In certain aspects, the aircraft is visible on radar. In short, it is not an all aspect stealth aircraft. And once you get close enough, even a radar lock becomes possible.
Modern stealth is designed with new materials and supercomputers. These aircraft maintain stealth at all aspects. Outside of afterburners, even their heat signature is lower than that of the F117. Simply put, the F117 is a dinosaur by modern equivalents. Hell, the F117 basically has clusters of 486s and the F22 has a couple of "super computers." Even from on-board computational capabilities, there's not comparison.
As far as I know, all F22 pilots are F15 pilots. One F22 can take out a squadron of F15s and typically never be seen. Its greatest limitation is weapon payload. Which is to say, a single F22 will run out of ammo before it can even become a target. IIRC, the best public record indicates a 14+:1 kill ratio, or better, with the F22:F15. And keep in mind, the F15 has NEVER been shot down in actual air to air combat. And yes, there has been air to air engagements.
The F15 pilots, after their mock engagements made it very clear that even after they were able to get directly on the tail of the F22, they generally couldn't obtain a lock or after doing so, the lock was quickly lost. Furthermore, because of the huge maneuverability advantages of the F22, it was almost impossible to stay on the F22's tail for any length of time. Some F22 kills were scored but by far, that was the exception rather than the rule. And keep in mind, we're talking about the creme de la creme of fighter pilots sitting in those F15s.
As for your bomb comment, that too is not accurate. That's exactly why all munitions are carried internally. Modern aircraft maintain stealth throughout all stages of flight EXCEPT for actual weapon release. The F22 is capable of releasing missiles inverted and in high G turns because they are mounted on hydraulic rams. They are basically catapulted off the aircraft. This means they can engage targets in aspects and during maneuvers which are impossible with other aircraft. And its only during the actual release that the weapon bay opens. So the window in which stealth is compromised is extremely limited. And the fact that they can super cruise away immediately after engagement means within seconds they are once again phantoms.
Simply put, the number of counties which can even offer an F15-quality of air resistance is extremely tiny and most of them are our allies. Make no bones about it, modern stealth aircraft are light years beyond the poky F117's capabilities in every measurable way possible. To say they have taken a step backwards is completely baseless and in no way accurate.
Re:Foolish assumption. (Score:2, Informative)
Way to go with the strawman argument. How about if there's 1 dollar, and the choice is either split it between healthcare, education and a little defence, compared to just handing 99c to the Dod?
Ok, 1 cent for a shot to put the baby boomers to sleep, 10 cents for education, 20 cents for medical care, 30 cents for dod, 10 cents for nasa, and the rest to pay off boomer debt.
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you are. I've watched documentary of the F15 pilots which engaged the targets. They were retreating the aircraft to Iran.
a few helicopters were seen but no fighters flew to fight against coalition aircraft.[citation needed]
Basically the statement is only half correct. And note, its stating a quotation is needed; which I absolutely agree because it misleads idiots like you. There was also some question about the pilot's origins. Which is to say, some believed it possible the pilots were actually Iranian, but I don't believe that was ever confirmed one way or the other.
Also note, there is a difference between, "flew to fight against" and "retreating to Iran."
Dipshit.
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:3, Informative)
Dude are you too lazy to use Google or do just never listen to the news?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle [wikipedia.org]
"According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, mostly by missile fire: five MiG-29 "Fulcrums", two MiG-25 "Foxbats", eight MiG-23 "Floggers", two MiG-21 "Fishbeds", two Su-25 "Frogfoots", four Su-22 "Fitters", one Su-7, six Mirage F1s, one Il-76 cargo plane, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mi-8 helicopters. "
I left out Bosnia
"USAF F-15Cs shot down four Yugoslav MiG-29s using AIM-120 missiles during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.[48]"
And that is just the F-15 in US service. The F-16 has a few kills as does the F-18 and the A-10 even has an aerial kill to it's credit.
As I said this is just the US.
Here is the YouTube video of the Russian's shooting down a drone over Georgia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNpABtIKERg [youtube.com]
And the BBC Story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7358761.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Just get off the internet if you really expect people to do all your work for you.
You make a statment like "When's the last time a plane was downed by another plane, rather than being bombed on or shot from the ground? " and I tell you the answer but your too freaking lazy to Google it yourself to see if it is valid?
What the heck....
Horse Catastrophe? (Score:1, Informative)
The Poles kept cavalry units up until WWII. They finally were disabused of the idea by Germans with panzers. I think it's going to take a similar catastrophe to move us past the idea of manned combat aircraft.
The Poles weren't disabused of using horses in WW2. The Germans, had mounted units during WWII, and the Italians conducted a cavalry charge as late as August 1942 (and won!)
The Polish unit you mention was successful also, and a Free Polish Unit apparently conducted the last Cavalry action of the war in March 1945.
Re:Can aircraft keep ahead of missile tech? (Score:3, Informative)
"The rise of the SAM's made things trickier for land-attack craft. A multi-million dollar jet is risked attacking tanks that are worth maybe $200k".
Tanks cost more than 200k.
True ground attack aircraft such as an A-10 are dramatically different from the a standard high flying fighter. An A-10 may have some vulnerability to SAMs, but they are much harder to shoot down than say an attack helicopter. Generally when A-10s are operating, it is as a close air support, so they have some measure of security on the ground already. The A-10 will supposedly be retired for a lack of speed vs the newest SAMs though.
Air forces have a significant number of measures they take against ground radar and SAM sites. Cruise missiles, ecm birds, and anti-radiation missiles, paired with spy satellite data feeds and drones make operating a SAM a short lifespan occupation against an advanced military. Manpad SAMs have limited ranges and low effectiveness so it isn't like they will fill in the gap either.
Your conclusion that we are near the death of the manned fighter due to advanced SAMs is highly suspect.
The reduction of the manned fighter to a minimal role is more likely because:
Every private can potentially fly a drone
Drones are not casualties
It is pretty easy to have drones sitting around waiting for target sightings, loitering over an area of operations.
Re:Nah, time for a new fighter program (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on the missile, speed and height of the fighter and where it is in its flight envelope.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
J-10 is definitely at least 4th generation, and the upgraded (J10-B) variety is almost certainly 4.5-gen - and that should be finalized really soon.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
The J-10 is considered to be a 4th generation fighter, but the Chinese did not engineer the plane themselves - it is based heavily on the IAI Lavi, Russian engines, and Israeli flight controls (not the same as the Lavi.) The J-10 is the second attempt at the J-9 which was cancelled long long ago and even as such took nearly 20 years of development to get to where it is, even though it is basically a foreign born aircraft. Needless to say, the Chinese will be buying their PAK-FAs, just likey they do their other Sukhois (and engines, and electronics, and flight control systems...)
Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (Score:1, Informative)
Hmm... I love Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't try to speak with authority on a topic if Wikipedia represents the sum total of my knowledge.
I have worked as an engineer on both JSF and F-22 (spending about 5 years on each program.) The U.S is not "replacing" the F-22 with the F-35: they will operate together over basically their entire lifespan as a classic "High/Low" approach much like F-15 and F-16 did before them. To be clear: F-22 is the "High" and F-35 is the "Low". And I don't think you'll find any one knowledgeable at Lockheed Martin or USAF who would argue differently. The air superiority and air defense penetration of the F-22 is far superior to F-35. And while it's electronics are older than F-35s, the key piece - the radar - is far more capable. The older electronics mostly show up in cost: they are harder to maintain, and with the highly integrated architecture, they are more expensive to upgrade. The F-35 avionics architecture was designed to be more "open" system (not the same as FOSS! Think more like "modular") and hence should be easier to upgrade... although time will tell how much benefit is reaped.
The only downside to the F-22 really is it's cost. The current Unit Recurring Flyaway cost for the F-22 (the much bandied $150M) is much higher than the current *projected* mature F-35 URF cost (~$60M depending on who you believe.) Of course, back at a similar stage of the F-22 program, the URF was projected to be lower. But then reality sets in, additional capabilities are required, optimism proves in vain, production quantities are cut, and costs creep upwards. The $60M for the F-35 is already a substantial increase over the $30M (in 1994 dollars) that was the target at the start of the JSF program. So how much cheaper it will turn out to be is anyone's guess. At the end of the day, it will be cheaper since it's got cheaper electronics, only one engine, and will be built in far greater quantities (even in the most dismal of projections.)
But realize the calculation that led to the termination of the F-22 production wasn't really a comparison of F-22 vs. F-35 costs. It's simply that the F-35 is here to stay: it can't practically speaking be canceled due to the USN/USMC operational demands and international partner country obligations. So if you want to save money, what can you do? You cut the F-22.
As I said, I worked both airplanes and am quite attached of them both. FWIW, I would say I probably was more vested and made more of a contribution to the JSF since I was involved in the early architecture development and definition phase. But I think it's a damn shame to cut the F-22 production quantities since it is clearly the dominant fighter in the world and will be for a long time. Limiting it to 187 will mean that those airplanes will lead hard, short lives as they fulfill the operation requirements of 3 times that number of aircraft and need to be replaced before their time. And so, in 20 years we'll need to replace them with something. And so we'll pay another $20B to engineers like me to design and develop a replacement. (Remember the arithmetic of aircraft procurement: $20B buys you 1 airplane. $40B buys you 100 airplanes. $60B buys you 300. Buying 187 aircraft is great as an engineering welfare program, but not really the best solution for maximizing the tactical assets available to the warfighter.) And since the development of these most-complex of man's machines takes 10-20 years, we better get the engineers started up ASAP... I'm no longer in the military side of the business so I have no direct knowledge, but I would guess that the preliminary architecture/capability studies are already started.