# Russia unveils new fleet of 'invisible' supersonic fighter jets



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 14, 2017)

The £120million Sukhoi-57, which will have a top speed of 1,615 mph, is said to rival America's F-22 and China's Chengdu J-20,

Kremlin officials say the fifth-generation stealth jet has been 'christened like a baby after its birth' as Su-57 and will undergo another year of testing before it enters military service in 2019







The plane was called 'PAK FA' and 'T-50' during its developmental stage. Russia says the Su-57 will use state-of-the-art stealth technology to make it hard to track on enemy radars.

According to Newsweek, the jet will carry K-77M missiles with a reported range of 125 miles. The U.S. AIM-120D Scorpion has a shorter range of about 100 miles. 














In 2015, it was reported that it will be able to fly at a maximum altitude of 20 kilometers with top speeds of 2,600 kilometers per hour.

Russia's state military aviation manufacturer has previously claimed the jet will be cheaper to produce than its US equivalent with units costing less than £120million.

The country's armed forces will receive an initial batch of 12 of the aircraft, Tass reports. 







The Sukhoi Su-57 is a stealth, single-seat, twin-engine jet multirole fighter aircraft designed for air superiority and attack roles. The aircraft is the product of the PAK FA, a fifth-generation fighter programme of the Russian Air Force. Wikipedia

Top speed: 2,500 km/h
Range: 5,500 km
Length: 20 m
Wingspan: 14 m
Weight: 18,500 kg
Unit cost: 50,000,000–100,000,000 USD
Engine types: Saturn AL-41, Saturn AL-31, Turbofan


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2017)

20 years behind the US. Man I miss old Russian advancements they used to hang/beat American tech. WTF happen.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 20 years behind the US. Man I miss old Russian advancements they used to hang/beat American tech. WTF happen.



When they relied on state sponsored industrial espionage you mean?


----------



## qubit (Aug 16, 2017)

Hmmm, I can't see these invisible jets in the pictures, just blue sky. Can you please clarify Caps?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 20 years behind the US. Man I miss old Russian advancements they used to hang/beat American tech. WTF happen.


20yrs .... really .... 

nonetheless the PAK-FA is not really new, tho the fleet is new indeed .... (production date of the SU-57 PAK-FA : 2009 till present) well at last that one is beautiful (dunno ... i don't like at all the F-22 or 35)

btw it's still called PAK-FA .... it tend to stick to it, but it passed from T-50 to SU-57 as official designation.



qubit said:


> Hmmm, _*I can't see these invisible jets in the pictures*_, just blue sky. Can you please clarify Caps?


bound to happen .... pfahahahahah .... come'on, i know you know why


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2017)

qubit said:


> Hmmm, I can't see these invisible jets in the pictures, just blue sky. Can you please clarify Caps?




if you sit really close to your screen you will see this in the background



Spoiler


----------



## qubit (Aug 16, 2017)

Ah, yes!

That's pretty nifty flying right there.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> if you sit really close to your screen you will see this in the background
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


what the .... is that a cobra-hybrid-barrel-roll?  ..... and that's not even a last gen fighter (Su-27 Sushka?) and has no vectorial thrust ....








no wonder the Sushka is labelled as "supermaneuverable" not bad for a 80s plane .... pfahahahaha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev's_Cobra Russian have always been known to be quite ... crazy in term of plane handling 

oh well i might have a bias for Soviet/Russian planes .... even if my country's main plane is the F/A-18 Hornet


----------



## ne6togadno (Aug 16, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> what the .... is that a cobra-hybrid-barrel-roll?  ..... and that's not even a last gen fighter (Su-27 Sushka?) and has no vectorial thrust ....


this is "su-35". ptototype for testing AL-41F1S.
you cant do this w/o vector


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and will undergo another year of testing before it enters military service in 2019



So they don't plan to combat test it (North Korean Airspace Soon comes to mind )


CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The country's armed forces will receive an initial batch of 12 of the aircraft, Tass reports.


Guess that's not practical to test if there is only an initial batch of 12


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Aug 16, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> this is "su-35". ptototype for testing AL-41F1S.
> you cant do this w/o vector


its pronounced Wector, Vector is someone's uncle.


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2017)

sorry your wrong >>>>Victor is someone uncle
IN English the V is pronounced as V   with some languages ie German   V is Accented into being pronounced as a w
and relevant to thread on Vectored Thrust
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Aug 16, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> sorry your wrong >>>>Victor is someone uncle
> IN English the V is pronounced as V   with some languages ie German   V is Accented into being pronounced as a w
> and relevant to thread on Vectored Thrust
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring


someone missed the joke...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> this is "su-35". ptototype for testing AL-41F1S.
> you cant do this w/o vector


well the Su-27 was capable of cobra thought i wonder if it didn't had vectorial nozzle .... afaik the Su-30 MKM (2002) have them

well yep the Su-30 MKM has it









the Sushka design is still a marvel  (20yrs behind ....LOL...)

the prototype of the Su-35 didn't have the canard wing, i see ....











dorsetknob said:


> sorry your wrong >>>>Victor is someone uncle
> IN English the V is pronounced as V   with some languages ie German   V is Accented into being pronounced as a w
> and relevant to thread on Vectored Thrust
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring


wrong ... Victor is a beauty of the RAF ....  (ok the term beauty is subjective ... tho i find it utterly beautiful )


----------



## ne6togadno (Aug 16, 2017)

su 27 has no vector or wector (pick whatever you like ) and yes it is capalbe of cobra even w/o it.
the one from the caps' gif is "su-35" moded su 27 for testing vector trust engines. show off from gif is not possible w/o vector trust.  
russians made a lot of mods of su 27 for testing aeordinamics and new tech and gave different names of every mod so it looks like they have something new while they acctualy had only same old su 27.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> the one from the caps' gif is "su-35" moded su 27 for testing vector trust engines. show off from gif is not possible w/o vector trust.


yeah i know that now .... i did some research ... i am a warplaneaholic .... (albeit i was affected to "panzer division" during my army time ... yearning to fly .... stuck on the ground ....  ) and indeed if that Su-35 was looking like an actual Su-35 i wouldn't have mistaken it for a Su-27 (since the airframe is the Su-27 original without the canard ) but i forgot about the prototype .... thanks for the heads up 

i'm a sucker for airshows and YEEEEE AWWW one is planed in September at the local military airfield of Sion (the capital of my canton, a bowshot from where i actually live )


as for plane design .... even if i am a huge fan of Soviet/Russian plane design (oh god the Mig 25 and 31 ...) WELL none of the 5th gen has beaten the SAAB JAS 35 Draken


----------



## droopyRO (Aug 16, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> well the Su-27 was capable of cobra thought i wonder if it didn't had vectorial nozzle










After 1:30.
Heard about a Romanian fighter pilot doing it in the MiG-21, but have not seen video proof of it.

As to the SU-57 hope we never see it going against F-22.


GreiverBlade said:


> wrong ... Victor is a beauty of the RAF


Wrong, that is airplane p0rn.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> As to the SU-57 hope we never see it going against F-22.


yep  me too ... i love warplane .... but in airshow and demonstration ... war isn't my blast ... unless in a video game/simulation 



droopyRO said:


> After 1:30.


AYE DRAKEN MY LOVE! i had a full set of airplane card (the one with picture classification on the front and technical data on the back) and the Draken was one i would never put in the box with the other ... 



droopyRO said:


> Heard about a Romanian fighter pilot doing it in the MiG-21, but have not seen video proof of it.


even without video i would believe it .... after all many talented pilots are around the world (i am quite proud of Swiss F/A-18 demo ... i did hear quite some time they are beyond good, by many visitor of the local airshow, and Axalp live demo, from a lot of country )


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Aug 16, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> i'm a sucker for airshows




come to Wales for a free show, its not often you get the chance to look down on a fast jet but you can do it in the northern valleys of Wales


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> come to Wales for a free show, its not often you get the chance to look down on a fast jet but you can do it in the northern valleys of Wales


      

what i always wanted to see is :










in Switzerland free airshow .... is common, funny moment is when my door poped open by a loud bang and vibration .... i thought is was thunder .... but the day was clear.... next day in the newspaper : F/A-18 test above Aletsch glacier at Mach 1+



what i love with Switzerland : we got the DH. 115 Vampire, DH. 112 Venom, Hawker Hunter (i love that one ... the quadruple Aden 30 sound is .... *no words* ) Hawk F-5 Tiger II and now F/A-18 (next one ... i doubt it will be the JAS 37 Grippen but there were talk about acquiring some .... i forgot the other plane it was put against .... iirc the Dassault Rafale was one of them )

thanks to Breitling we have a Super Constellation and a PBY Catalina flying at the airshow (among other legends like the Supermarine Spitfire ... or a duo with a Hawker Typhoon and a Hunter was marvellous ) or the formation with 9 Pilatus PC-7 in delta in front of a F/A-18 during a low speed low pass ...

trailer for the 2017 edition .... GOD i just want to put my life in fast forward ....









my own small sequence at the 2011 edition (crappy digital camera ... Canon SX100iS)









also, did you notice something funny ? the Swiss F/A-18 is the naval version .... i has the tailhook and the front landing gear catapult attachment point

great for our next gen aircraft carrier operating on high altitudes lake.... wait ....

@ne6togadno .... Axalp 2015 ... aka: mountain dancing  i've found a neat section of a video that has a nifty maneuver from a swiss F/A-18 (i suck at chain screenshoting ... tho ... )


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> 20yrs .... really ....
> 
> nonetheless the PAK-FA is not really new, tho the fleet is new indeed .... (production date of the SU-57 PAK-FA : 2009 till present) well at last that one is beautiful (dunno ... i don't like at all the F-22 or 35)
> 
> ...


You're right. 20 years is being kind. Closer to 35 at this point.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 16, 2017)

"if drink enough vodka, can't see plane anymore..."


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You're right. 20 years is being kind. Closer to 35 at this point.


from funny to funnier ... i can't say if serious or sarcastic ...

oh well i guess US army did have thrust vectoring jet beyond prototype stage before the Russian did the Su-30 MK (2002 mass production)

the F-22 and F-35 are actually not really in advance over any other country's concurrent (including France .... the Rafale is actually Stealth capable just as the F-22 and also a upgrade/retrofit type like the Su-35/MiG-29SMT) well they were developed to counter the Su-27 Sushka and MiG-29 Fulcrum (Fulcrum is NATO designation,  unlike Sushka for the Su-27, but was adopted by Russians pilot since the definition "a thing that plays a central or essential role in an activity, event, or situation" is quite adapted to the MiG-29 ) respectively introduced in 1985 and 1982 .... sooooo yep 1985 to 2005 = indeed 20 ... but not for the side you think it is  (being nice i would rather say 3yrs since the Su-30 MK was 2002) obviously they didn't stop with the Sushka and modified the hell out of it (retrofit are cheaper and sometime just as efficient as a totally new design) the Fulcrum also got some upgrades in form of the MiG-29M and MiG-29SMT and MiG-35 (upgrade package, retrofit) both will be replaced by the Su-57

if going be "years behind" in favor of the USA ... well actually the Su-57 is only 12yrs "behind" (rather 5 .... 1st production unit was 2010 )tho the 4th generation could still hold their ground to the 5th (luckily the pilot play a good portion of the plane performances)

actually technologies used on the 4.5th and 5th gen russian jet (Su-35 and Su-57) where developed for and with the Su-47 Berkut in 1997 (first flight .... completed in 1992-3 iirc) too bad it didn't enter in production but, hey, still helped for the Su-35 and Su-57...
 

btw the X-29 doesn't coun't.... it was not in the same league as the Berkut and the only thing they have in common is the FSW

i might have a bias for Russian design (and Swedish) but i consider all planes as equally good, i have more respect for the pilots .... and not only during wartime

your disappointment is unjustified 

talking about pilot ....









and yep US planes are also a piece of work ... our F/A-18 can do marvels

















the famous vid where i took the frames for the gif : at 6:05









last word: F-35 Lightning II : Yakovlev Yak-141 americanised?  (design from 1987)


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 16, 2017)

Wow, the Su-57 is so beautiful :wub:


----------



## Vario (Aug 16, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Wow, the Su-57 is so beautiful :wub:


I agree.  As a whole Russian aircraft are so beautiful


----------



## dorsetknob (Aug 16, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> the jet will carry K-77M missiles with a reported range of 125 miles. The U.S. AIM-120D Scorpion has a shorter range of about 100 miles.



K-77M missiles>>> Combat Unproven
Its Competitor  ( The AIM 120D)has  racked up Confirmed kills in Combat



RejZoR said:


> Wow, the Su-57 is so beautiful


Might be beautiful but its a Combat Unproven plane Armed with combat unproven missiles Where as the opposition have simmer missile's that are combat proven with confirmed kills  On the whole i prefer known working Combat Systems
Its a Brave and nervous pilot that engages in combat in an un proven plane with un proven Weaponry


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 16, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> K-77M missiles>>> Combat Unproven
> Its Competitor  ( The AIM 120D)has  racked up Confirmed kills in Combat
> 
> 
> ...


i rather recognise the beauty of something unproven than the might of a warbird stained by blood .... exception made for WWI and WWII planes and aces (following war were .... glory-less imho ... technically all war are ...)

and the F-22 first kills came from an unproven plane and loadout ... the Su-57 and K-77M are at the same stage ... no issue there


----------



## ne6togadno (Aug 17, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> it was not in the same league as the Berkut


ofc it wasnt in same league. it is 13 years older. that's a lot of time for tech in end of 20th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29
vector trust 1990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31


----------



## erocker (Aug 17, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> When they relied on state sponsored industrial espionage you mean?


Nah, back when they just sucked their people's wallets dry, much like the way the US is doing now!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 17, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> ofc it wasnt in same league. it is 13 years older. that's a lot of time for tech in end of 20th
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29
> vector trust 1990
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31


"PROTOTYPE STAGE" was the key word .... ofc the X-29 was great, but the Berkut was something higher (well it was also a prototype but .... i was closer to a functional fighter if it entered mass production) and the only thing they have in common is the FSW and it's not even the X-29 who featured a FSW first
Belyayev Babochka (1939 prototype)
Belyayev DB-LK (1939, first  flight 1940 1 prototype also)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belyayev_DB-LK
technically the 1st "successful" fighter used in war was the
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (1941)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43 althought the FSW profile was barely noticeable
Junker Ju 287
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287 (still 2 built just like the X-29 iirc flight tested 23 May 1947)
 OKB-1 140
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKB-1_140 (russian Ju 287 .... so it does not really count if they made it fly  nonetheless a little bigger since the real Ju 287 was the OKB-1 EF 131)


and for the Rockwell X-31 .... that's another piece of kit buuuuuuuutttt... woops prototype and the thruster nozzle errrrr paddle are ... *fails for words* (the F-22 is 2D vectorial, Su-30 MK  or Su-57 are 3D )
although interesting (saw a lot of TV reportage from them on Planet+ recently) they look like overexpensives toys (that fails hard when the computer assistance fails  quite shocked of accident report)

first 2D jet vectoring was obviously the Hawker-Siddeley P.1127 Kestrel (1960, meanwhile the US did the Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird 2 yrs later .... and quite a "beauty" compared to the Kestrel /sarcasme), Hawker-Siddeley Harrier (1967), Yakovlev Yak-38 (1971), VFW VAK 191B (technically a German harrier, 1971)then the Yakovlev Yak-141 (1987, which led to the F-35B Lightning II design) and then the Boeing X-32 JSF ( 2000, the unfortunate X-35 concurrent) actually the F-35B derivated from Convair/General-Dynamics Model 200 design (1972, which was only a design, that had a scale model tested in wind tube iirc and lost to the way more unrealistic Rockwell XVF-12 who got 1 flight prototype and was cancelled since unable to hover even with a engine delivering more thrust than his empty weight, 1981 ) tho the airframe is way closer to the Yak-141

3D vectoring ofc there was the F-15 ACTIVE, F-16 VISTA and F-18 HARV but all prototype on the other hand non experimental and entered in active production:

Sukhoi Su-35S
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
Sukhoi Su-30MKM
Sukhoi Su-30MKA
Sukhoi Su-30SM
Sukhoi Su-57
Mikoyan MiG-35 (MiG-29OVT)


oh and btw i did get these 2 wikipedia pages during my posting you quoted.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 17, 2017)

...those are nice but there is still  only 1 king: 










lol


----------



## ne6togadno (Aug 17, 2017)

su 47 was never ment for serial production
it was financed with Suchoi's money with hope they will get government contracts for further development.
su 30 is just old su 27 with upgraded avionics and engines

as for the 2d and 3d vector dont forget that for f22 priority is stealth over high manioverability. vector is added in f-22 so it is easier to keep plaine controllable with simple control sticks pilots got used to.
i strongly doubt su-57 with 3d vector nozles  will be better in stealth then f-117

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 17, 2017)

ensabrenoir said:


> ...those are nice but there is still  only 1 king:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol indeed .... and to say that i loved dearly that movie during my youth ... (albeit being only 1 year older than that movie ...) oh well i guess Clint Eastwood was a good actor ... eh?

well American production... a Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 31 (NATO codename Firefox) that has more in common with the XB-70 Valkyrie (another "good looking" Prototype that did cost 1.5b$ for 2 unit and 5 yrs test ) than a MiG 25 or even the real MiG 31 (which are also awesome machines )

that's a characteristic case of "the book was better than the movie" since in the novel the plane was closer to the MiG-25 in description



ne6togadno said:


> su 47 was never ment for serial production
> it was financed with Sukhoi's money with hope they will get government contracts for further development.
> su 30 is just old su 27 with upgraded avionics and engines
> 
> ...


for the Su-47 i already know that.... i just implied that it was close to a actual fighter rather than just a prototype demonstrator.
also .... what's the issue with old upgraded if they perform close enough to last gen  the Su-27 was already in advance over his time, that what i meant by "sometime upgrades package and retrofit are a better choice than a wholly new design."

F-22 RCS of 0.001
rafale and JAS 37 Gripen  RCS of 1.0 (which is small by the way .... compared to a F-16 or F-15 or even Su-XX series )
F-35 RCS allegedly 0.005
F-117 RCS of 0.003 (well, if the SU-57 has a RCS of a F-117 .... it's not bad at all ...  since it would fall right in between the F-22 and F-35 )
also active and passive ECM/EM can be used on 4th and 4.5th gen and give them enough stealth capability.


the Su-57 is just a stopgap ... the 6th gen will follow soon enough .... you can bet

also Yak-36 .... mmhhhh ?  i know that one but i didn't include it in 2D vector list ... since it was a unsuccessful prototype series  (and post P.1127)

hum, 58 and 36km is close range indeed  (ok the F-22 will spot the Su-35 from further away tho ... many parameter can go awry and put any of the 2 pilots in a dire situation )


----------



## Vario (Aug 17, 2017)

Stealth technology on these fighters is a lot of marketing.  The problem with effective stealth technology is it requires non-aerodynamic shapes to be the most stealthy.  This makes them fly poorly, which is a problem for a combat role.  Stealthy coatings aren't really proven and adding a stealthy coating to an aerodynamic shape rather than a stealthy angular shape won't necessarily make it hidden.   Its a compromise between how well it should be hidden and how well it should fly.  If you end up in the middle you end up with something like the F35 that doesn't fly well and its stealth is overrated.  It is a real shame the F22 was scraped for the F35.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2017)

I don't like how the engine shroud at the rear looks (where it is brown).  I suspect that's a RADAR hot spot.

Thrust vectoring actually isn't good in dog fights because it can cause the real airspeed to fall too much.  The main advantage of thrust vectoring in the F-22 is its ability to supercruise: clamp down on the thrust increasing the force to efficiently cruise at mach 1.3 without afterburning.



GreiverBlade said:


> the Su-57 is just a stopgap ... the 6th gen will follow soon enough .... you can bet


I think the only difference is that 6th generation won't have a pilot.


----------



## Vario (Aug 17, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't like how the engine shroud at the rear looks (where it is brown).  I suspect that's a RADAR hot spot.
> 
> Thrust vectoring actually isn't good in dog fights because it can cause the real airspeed to fall too much.  The main advantage of thrust vectoring in the F-22 is its ability to supercruise: clamp down on the thrust increasing the force to efficiently cruise at mach 1.3
> 
> ...


Yep the NGAD.  Removal of pilot will make such a big difference on design.  Should be very interesting to see what drone fighters are capable of.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2017)

Vario said:


> Stealth technology on these fighters is a lot of marketing.  The problem with effective stealth technology is it requires non-aerodynamic shapes to be the most stealthy.  This makes them fly poorly, which is a problem for a combat role.  Stealthy coatings aren't really proven and adding a stealthy coating to an aerodynamic shape rather than a stealthy angular shape won't necessarily make it hidden.   Its a compromise between how well it should be hidden and how well it should fly.  If you end up in the middle you end up with something like the F35 that doesn't fly well and its stealth is overrated.  It is a real shame the F22 was scraped for the F35.


So much BS in this post.

F-117 Nighthawk was the only stealth aircraft that utilized non-aerodynamic shapes because it was based on the "perfect diamond" with translated into "Have Blue."  Once Lockheed built the technology (mostly CAD tools and a facility to test mockups), they discovered that continuous curves are just as good at reducing cross section as flat panels with sharp angles.  F-22 Raptor is a marriage of both designs: the super structure is continuous curves while the intakes and tail fins use sharp angles.  YF-23 was more stealthy than YF-22 but the Air Force prioritized dog fighting capability over RADAR evasion.

RAM (RADAR Absorbent Material) is a proven technology going back to WWII.  The British built gliders out of wood that had very little RADAR cross section considering their size.  It was that observation that spurred the development of the B-2 Spirit coupled with the knowledge that continuous curves and sharp edges reduce cross section.  RAM is really as simple as the concept of black paint not reflecting as much light back to the source as white paint.  RADAR works on the same principles but in a different spectrum.

Stealth aircraft are a combination of shape and RAM surfaces.  The really stealthy aircraft (especially B-2) also cool and defuse the engine exhaust so infrared can't easily find them as well.

F-35 is a multipurpose fighter/bomber.  F-22 is an air superiority fighter.  F-22 lead the charge clearing the air space while the F-35 and B-2 follow taking care of RADAR installations, SAM sites, and everything else that's a threat to establishing air superiority.  Once air superiority is established, F-22s reconfigure for a support role (kill anything that flies in case something was missed before otherwise hit targets of opportunity on the ground) while the B-2s are replace with B-1B and B-52 for dropping mass ordinance in support of ground operations.

F-22 orders were canceled because F-18 is capable of killing pretty much everything that flies at substantially lower operating costs.  F-22 was built to kill an enemy that doesn't exist.  Let's be honest: the 100 or so F-22s the Air Force already has is enough to kill all of the Su-57's Russia manages to build (a few dozen at the most).  It just doesn't make economical sense to build a massive fleet of F-22s.


Edit: on the subject of cancelations, Zumwalt-class destroyers were supposed to have 32 built.  29 were canceled.


----------



## Gasaraki (Aug 17, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 20 years behind the US. Man I miss old Russian advancements they used to hang/beat American tech. WTF happen.



What do you mean? This looks more advanced than the F-22 is every way.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2017)

YF-22 first flew 29 September 1990.  Production F-22 first rolled out on 9 April 1997.  Yup, 20 years old. USA will debut a 6th generation fighter in less than a decade.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 17, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yup, 20 years old. USA will debut a 6th generation fighter in less than a decade.


actually ... no one care about the 20yrs behind ... because it's a "non true" fact or rather irrelevant .... and also mainly because not only USA will debut 6th gen in a decade (or less who know ... )

i thought we could avoid the warmonger patriotic argument but i was wrong ... (USA is teh best, Russia is Stronk, ok both statement are true)

oh ... sometime 100 versus 12 can have an odd result ... depending on many factor, so the .... "we can destroy them with ease cause we are superior" taste incredibly bad ....

i prefer my point of view as i am from neither side, as i wrote i love all planes equally (might differ on pilot performances tho) and since i am Swiss i rather fond of the F/A-18 over any other american planes (although i had a F-14 Tomcat and F-16 Falcon love syndrome due to "Top Gun" and "Iron Eagle" movies and also for the Grumman A6 Intruder from "The Flight Of The Intruder".... )

as i wrote ... the 4.5th gen can probably take on the 5th gen .... highly situational ofc



Gasaraki said:


> What do you mean? This looks more advanced than the F-22 is every way.


well the F-22 and F-35B are not particularly advanced ... supercruise is not really an exclusivity, and their logical advancement are also found in different design, including stealth profile (without mandatory odd shape).

i rather want to stop any "war competition" comparison ... and focus on the other sides of the performances and raw data


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2017)

Why bother?  The odds of fifth generation fighters duking it out in an actual live fire situation is damn near nonexistent.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 18, 2017)

Been fighting A-G campaigns mainly.

Btw the F-16 is 4th Gen but F-16V make it 5th Gen. F-22 maneuvering was from F-16 VISTA, F-16 was used to test F-35 intake too.
F-16s handle SEAD missions (50/52, 40/42 can as well)

F-16 is the Multirole/Dog Fighter, F-15 is the Air Superiority Fighter, F-35 replaces oldest F-16s, F-22 Replaces Oldest F-15s.  22/35 are used to impregnate enemy defenses and the conventional fighters do the bulk of the work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16


----------



## Gasaraki (Aug 18, 2017)

F-15E Strike Eagles all the way.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 18, 2017)

I know nothing about planes but defense spending is ridiculous.  We build warplanes to fight 3rd world countries (or more importantly to sell to oil rich gulf states, who in turn, fight their own 3rd world neighbours).

The immorality of it all is staggering.  Who needs planes when men now drive trucks into crowds to kill people.  What use is a 100 million dollar plane against that?  Or a cyber attack?  It's all just cock waving nonsense.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2017)

I think it's more about the fact that the threat is present so we keep pushing the technical envelope should an event arise that requires mass production of most recent gen military hardware (e.g. WW3).


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 18, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it's more about the fact that the threat is present so we keep pushing the technical envelope should an event arise that requires mass production of most recent gen military hardware (e.g. WW3).



WW3 will not happen with conventional weaponry.  Europe is at peace with itself and China now favours consumerism.  The only wars now will be small regional conflicts using outdated hardware or that which is sold by the major powers.  With rogue states like North Korea jumping in on the Nuclear club, the threat of conventional war diminishes.  Look at the Russian annexation of Crimea.  A civil skirmish that should not have been a confict at all but one that led to a passenger jet being shot done by a Russian missile (all propaganda of course if you believe the russian side).  Nobody intervened because formally, Russia was not involved.  You can't fight a country that denies responsibility without using the UN as a jump point.  We all stand back because war just sucks and nobody want it in their own back yard.  Best to bomb some sand bunnies because you know, what can happen to us in return? *cough* terrorism.  Despite Trump's bluster and Putin's muscle, neither country wants to fight.  Nor does China or Europe.

Drones, Cyber and anti-terror are where we should be at.  Not massive hardware splurges.  

And Star Wars.  We really need a serious laser based ballistic missile deterrent (and I know they are being worked on).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2017)

You describe a situation USA was in leading up to WWII.  Europe needed help and USA had no means to give it to them, not until FDR mandated the war economy.  Then the technology wasn't there to go toe-to-toe with the Germans either so we basically spammed them to death.  Allies were sending men and machines at the Axis faster than they could fend them off.  That's not a smart way to wage war.

North Korea/Iran could easily be the spark that triggers the WW3.  It may start with a nuke but it will end conventionally.


Oh, and I still think a second US civil war isn't in the too distant future.  What role the US military plays in that remains to be seen.


----------



## Norton (Aug 18, 2017)

*Russia unveils new fleet of 'invisible' supersonic fighter jets
*
That's the thread title- discuss


----------



## Easo (Aug 19, 2017)

The USA has 180 or so F22's plus they are working on 6th gen too. Let's assume that this thing is better than Raptor, but I doubt Russia will be able to manufacture them in comparable quantities by the time the next gen rolls in. There will be 2 thousand of F-35's by then (more than 230 already), which, while not directly comparable in the role, is still 5th gen plane. There will be 12 Su-57 in 2019 compared to some 400 F-35's plus the 180 F-22's.  Disbalance in 5th gen is quite obvious, no?


----------

