Russia Flexes Military Power With 'Futuristic' Fighter Jjet

[Purveyor]

Russia returned to the global stage Friday as a first-rank military and technological power by launching a 'fifth generation' fighter plane, with futuristic characteristics of stealth, sustained supersonic cruise, and integrated weapons.

By Fred Weir Correspondent / January 29, 2010
Moscow

Vladimir Putin is jubilant, the Russian aviation industry is filled with pride, and even normally skeptical military experts say they're truly impressed by reports Friday that Russia has successfully test-flown the first prototype of a "fifth generation" fighter plane.

They all may have good reasons to cheer. Building such a plane is so expensive, complex, and technologically sophisticated that, until now, only the United States has been able to field an operational version of one: the F-22 Raptor.

According to news reports, Russia's venerable Sukhoi company – maker of many famous Soviet warplanes – sent the V-tailed, swept-wing Sukhoi T-50 on its maiden flight for 47 minutes Friday near Komsomolsk-na-Amur in Russia's far east (see video here) and it exceeded all expectations.

"We started flight tests of the fifth-generation aircraft today," Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan told Russian news agencies. "I am strongly convinced that this project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and these planes will constitute the backbone of the Russian Air Force for the next few decades."

A fighter of the "fifth generation" should have futuristic characteristics of stealth, sustained supersonic cruise, multi-role capabilities, integrated weapons and navigation systems that are controlled by artificial intelligence, over-the-horizon radar visibility and other cutting-edge wizardry.

Experts say that the mere fact that Russia can put one into the air announces its return to the global stage as a first-rank military and technological power.

MORE...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0129/Russia-flexes-military-power-with-futuristic-fighter-jet

[unhappycamper]

1. Our delightfully expensive F-22 costs about $355 million a pop.

I wonder how much the Russians are going to pay for their T-50? I'll bet it's less than a third of a billion dollars.

[Statistical]

5. So build more. The flyaway cost of F-22 is a "mere" $127 million.

The more would build the lower the average unit cost is. :)

See currently program total cost is $65 billion / 187 fighters = $347 million each.

Build another say 400 at $127 million = $50 billion.
Now total program cost is $65 + $50 = $115 billion.
$115 billion / 587 fighters = $196 million each.

TAA DAA.

Like magic you can reduce the cost of the aircraft by $150 million a piece by simply building 400 more <in small print> at additional $50 billion in cost.

But seriously part of the high cost of F-22 is because of small number of planes. Lots of the fixed costs like R&D, testing, design, etc are now split over less units. If we had only built one plane before shutting down the program that single plane would have cost about $40 billion. Look at it this way the first plane costs $40 billion and each additional plane is $127 million a piece.

[msongs]

9. don't forget the greed, lies, defects, deceit, scams and theft built into the cost nt

[hunter]

18. You forgot laundered campaign contributions to chicken hawk Republicans.

We have our own special brands of political corruption in the USA.

[Statistical]

21. Yup because no Democrat EVER voted for a weapon system we likely didn't need.

Nope only the big bad Republicans are the who vote for expensive weapon systems especially when it is built in the district.

Did you know the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has components built in 37 of the 50 states and in over 100 Congressional districts. Ever wonder why the Pentagon would spread out distribution of production like that? It has to be more expensive to have production so distributed. Could there be another *ahem* political reson to do that.

[hunter]

22. .

:P

It's truly a bi-partisan issue.

[PacerLJ35]

32. PAK FA flyaway costs are estimated to be about $100 million each

But then again, must Russian-made aircraft have always been a notch or two lower than western equipment as far as build quality, avionics, etc.

[RC]

2. Oh joy. Now the United States can out-source Boeing and put several hundred thousand

more people put of work.

[leveymg]

3. Anything that can be made, will soon be copied.

It's overall dimensions and shape are nearly identical:



If this representation is correct, the T-50 lacks vectored thrust. The engine nozzles appear to be conventional, and don't swivel around for added maneuverability, as do the F-22. But, hey, the thing probably doesn't cost $355 million a copy.

Update: Report here that the representations have been simplified, and the engine-maker produces a vectored thrust powerplant.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=17349

[qazplm]

4. I thought I read somewhere

that because Russia can't afford the special materials required that the stealthy characteristics aren't up to snuff with the Raptor, along with a few other things.

[Statistical]

7. There latest fighter is likely not "up to snuff" with the Raptor.

The issue isn't detecting the raptor it is detecting the raptor before it detects and kills you.

So while Russia fighter likely will be able to detect the F-22 the F-22 saw it minutes ago and fired its missile a long time ago. Shortly after the Russia fighter sees the F-22 and prepares for a lock the missile fired by the F-22 a minute ago hits it.

The newest jet is an improvement over existing Russia aircraft and looks to outmatch all existing us fighters and maybe even the JSF but can't hold a candle to F-22.

[TheLastMohican]

25. And you know this because you are?

1. Working for Lockheed Martin?
2. Aviation engineer who developed F-22
3. Any of the above?

Here is a newsflash for you, "stealthiness" is just a bogus thing that is being marketed as some kind of uber-weapon. The reality is that modern AA systems especially those of Russia use milimeter frequencies (where is supposedly invisible) and meter frequencies (duh, can't use that that's supposedly old tech, right?)

The rest of your post is just science fiction from an interesting book.

[Statistical]

31. lol.

While ground based AA systems may use meter band radar you can't fit one onto a fighter plane and you certainly can't fit one on a missile. Physics being a bitch and all that the size of the waveguide is directly proportional to the wavelength of the signal. milimeter band radar = small waveguide. Meter band radar = huge waveguide.

So that fact alone limits meter band to fixed installations and naval ships.

Beam guided missiles are also antiquated for one obvious reason. While you can use a meter band radar (or any radar) to guide a missle to its target. The target can use a radiation seeking missile to follow the same beam back to your launcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

This isn't even state of the art, it is 1980s era technology. Pretty much fire and forget. Somebody paints you with a radar beam, pop this off and it follows the same beam right back to the target. Nice thing is since it is passive there is nothing to alert the ground crew they got a bunch of hurt riding their beam right back to them.

This fatal flaw is major reason why over last 20 years missile technology has moved from beam guided to semi-active to fully active seekers. The goal now is for the launcher to point the missile in the right direction and then the missile guides itself onto the target. Try fitting a meter band radar on a missile that is 10" wide. When you manage to break the laws of physics let me know.



The point isn't that the F-22 can't be detected, anything can be detected. That is such a simplistic point of view. The point is it is a two way race. The F-22 is racing to find, lock, and launch just as its adversary is. Detecting the F-22 doesn't mean crap if it detected, locked, and launched its missile minutes ago.

The F-22 has received good reviews from our pilots and allies in wargaming. It has been "shot down" by an F-16 but even aginst best US pilots the kills have been heavily stacked against the F-16 & F-18 forces.

An F-16 pilots assessment
"My F-16 is still a formidable weapons system in its own right. But it is not even in the same league as an F-22," Brenton says. "Technology keeps the F-22 a virtually undetectable and untouchable regime. It is fair to say that unless an F-22 driver makes a mistake, or has a critical system failure, I will always lose a fight against him. That is a good thing. As a nation, we want it this way. We also want him to be able to handle two, six or eight of us completely on his own."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4311433.html

Unless you think F-22 performance is some kind of grand conspiracy involving not just DOD, Lockheed and the Air Force but also thousands of individual F-16 & F-18 pilots who "die" in mass against the F-22 (many without ever getting a lock) then the F-22 is currently in a league of its won.

The "stealthiness" you laugh about is precisely what makes it so lethal. Most F-16 & F-18 killed by it are never even able to get radar lock before getting toned.

[PacerLJ35]

34. Stealth isn't just all about flying an airplane straight up the middle of your enemy's air defenses

There's a measure of tactics that goes into it as well to defeat radar threats. The USAF is quite aware of Russian air defense radar system capabilities.

[Strelnikov_]

28. "Russia can't afford the special materials"

And we can?

[fishbulb703]

6. This plane has been shot down with a stinger severeal times in war games. nt

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malaise]

10. Oops

PWNED :applause:

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I have a distinct memory of climbing on board it and destroying it during HALO 3.

It was fucking RAD.

[fishbulb703]

13. You, sir, are living in fairy land. nt

[dems_rightnow]

14. Great retort

If you could just expound on how it's been shot down several times before its maiden flight, we'd all be grateful.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

16. Price check on tin foil. Price check on tin foil.

[dems_rightnow]

17. Oh, PRETEND shot down

Gotcha.

[Ikonoklast]

19. If you think that Russia and China are still allies, you missed the last thirty years or so.

If I was prone to be an idiot on the intrawebs, at least I'd try to hide it; but, kudos to you, sir!

Very brave of you.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Holy Shit! Someone call Clint Eastwood!

That is, Clint Eastwood circa 1982.

[hunter]

20. I predict the next "victor" in a major war will be the side without fighter aircraft.

These expensive flying cow pies are the product of corrupt empires and have very little or negative strategic value in the extremely fragile and finely structured economies of the modern world.

[Statistical]

23. The side without fighters will find itself on the receiving end of bombs.

Lose air superiority and the other side will pound you relentlessly with never ending sorties.

Economies have nothing to do with modern warfare. We don't try to take the high ground anymore.

Opening salvo destroys both sides ability to produce new weapon systems.
Both teams play with the toys they got.

Goal of US ground forces is to force enemy into direct decisive engagments where they can be destroyed.

[hunter]

24. Um, yeah, okay.

Just like Vietnam.

[Strelnikov_]

29. Think they climaxed

as they were posting that?

[PacerLJ35]

33. Vietnam was a low-intensity conflict...

The NVAF didn't have the numbers of fighters sufficient to conduct any real bombing raids into the south...they were primarily for air defense of the northern cities and harbors. I think the poster above was talking about a REAL war, like WWII or even Korea (in the beginning, before the USAF gained air superiority, the NKAF was conducting bombing raids on the south). Make no mistake, if we ever wind up in a conflict with a real power like China, the side that gains the upper hand in the air will likely win. In those kinds of wars, with nation-states opposing each other, political victories are possible (ie, China backs down or calls for a cease fire, or the US sails away, etc). That kind of war, while not as common as low-intensity wars (insurgencies, guerilla warfare, civil war, etc), do happen and there is still potential for such conflict.

[Strelnikov_]

30. Weapons are toys? n/t

[Orsino]

26. Ufimtsev was Russian.

His countrymen finally getting around to exploiting the consequences of his seminal works was probably inevitable.

[L0oniX]

27. Just in time to bolster the 700+ US military budget.