Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Russia’s latest fighter aircraft flew on 5 December for the first time with the NPO Saturn “Product 30” engine, which will be the production standard for the Sukhoi Su-57.
Dutchy wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10/20/indian-air-force-wants-out-of-fighter-program-with-russia/
An old article - 2017 -, what is the status of India in this project, will they get the Su-57 or will they pass?
Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.
Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.
Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.
Ozair wrote:Some undisclosed source analysis of the stealth characteristics of the Su-57 as well as some poorly researched and inaccurate tactical analysis by Tyler Rogoway...
More at the link.
Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the USRussia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.
Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.
Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... &IR=T&IR=T
Ozair wrote:Some undisclosed source analysis of the stealth characteristics of the Su-57 as well as some poorly researched and inaccurate tactical analysis by Tyler Rogoway...
More at the link.
Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the USRussia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.
Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.
Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... &IR=T&IR=T
keesje wrote:
Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual.
keesje wrote:As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.
neutronstar73 wrote:Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.
keesje wrote:We're back 25yrs, in the good old, clear, cold war. Reason & IQ are out and anything not from here is either inferior or copied.
TranscendZac wrote:Obviously with the introduction of the F-35, no more investment into the F/A-18 was approved.
Balerit wrote:
Are you an expert on stealth? I'd say the Gripen is way better than the F35 and as for the F22, it's old and outdated and technology has moved on.
Balerit wrote:Who knows if the F22 was any good, it never ever went into battle.
Balerit wrote:It can't fly any meaningful distance without huge aux tanks under the wings so there goes the stealth out the window.
Balerit wrote:The SU57 is new state of the art and just because it doesn't look like an F22 doesn't mean it's useless. Sukhoi has never had the money to go big, not like Boeing or Lockheed. There is a nice documentary on Mig and shows how they managed with tiny budgets, I'll post a link if you're interested.
VSMUT wrote:Sure, no more investments apart from the lifetime extensions and the Block III upgrades that were announced a few months ago. Oh, and they keep ordering more of them too.
Balerit wrote:neutronstar73 wrote:Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.
Are you an expert on stealth? I'd say the Gripen is way better than the F35 and as for the F22, it's old and outdated and technology has moved on. Who knows if the F22 was any good, it never ever went into battle. It can't fly any meaningful distance without huge aux tanks under the wings so there goes the stealth out the window.
Ozair wrote:There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits
Balerit wrote:I think you guys are falling for the American propaganda. Stealth aircraft are not invisible, they have reduced radar signatures and only from head on. They can be detected from below and from the side. Have a look at how much smaller the SU 57 vertical stabilizers are compared to the F22, this alone gives it an advantage. Even cell phone technology can detect stealth aircraft.
Balerit wrote:The F22 is 20 years old, that is ancient in terms of technology. Besides the F22 only caught up with the SU27 and Mig 29 in performance and they have been around since the 80's.
Balerit wrote:The F22 still doesn't have the supermaneuverability of the older aircraft.
Balerit wrote:The Gripen E is already touted as 6th generation. Again don't fall for the hype of '5th generation' which is really just a term the Russians invented to catalogue the F22 and doesn't mean anything magical. In fact 5th generation means too expensive and underperforming hence the term 6th generation for light weight highly agile fighters with multi link data systems which Gripen has had from the word go.
rheinwaldner wrote:Ozair wrote:There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits
Your conclusion about Gripen can't have much merits if your starting point is so unqualified...
Merits = capability per price point.
Which Gripen export did not happen based on merits? I know for a fact, that the Gripen was selected based on merits in Switzerland.
ThePointblank wrote:They lack the refinement in the man-machine interface and data collection and processing capabilities Western fighters have enjoyed for decades.
Ozair wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Ozair wrote:There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits
Your conclusion about Gripen can't have much merits if your starting point is so unqualified...
Merits = capability per price point.
Which Gripen export did not happen based on merits? I know for a fact, that the Gripen was selected based on merits in Switzerland.
No mate, the Gripen was not selected for Switzerland on its merits, it was selected on cost. How do we know this? Well a simple review of the released evaluation shows us that the Gripen "did not meet the threshold of "meets minimum expected capabilities"" for every single mission capability set.
rheinwaldner wrote:Oh dear, you are making beginners mistakes. Too bad you missed the end of the story. That report is and was outdated and represents not the final results that lead to the Gripen selection. In that report a vaguely defined version of the Gripen E/F was considered. The final scores from 2012 are in public too and prove that you are wrong. The Gripen did win on merits. So please adjust your anti-Gripen rhetoric for the next time.
As for the Gripen, Saab told the Swiss that it had scheduled 98 upgrade items for the MS21 version of 2015, including AESA radar and infrared search and track. But these were not enough to push the Swedish jet above the MEC level in any of the five roles. The November 2009 report therefore recommended the Rafale as the New Fighter Aircraft.
rheinwaldner wrote:Anyway you still miss the proper definition of wining on merits. Merits are relevant in relation to the price.
rheinwaldner wrote:The number of Rafales Switzerland would have gotten for the budget (that politically had a chance in the public vote) would not have offered more capabilities than the number of Gripens, that could be acquired by the same budget.
rheinwaldner wrote:So beside the fact, that you are principally wrong (Gripen has won based on merits at least in Switzerland)
rheinwaldner wrote:I even challenge you to present any Gripen export, where the Gripen has not won based on merits.
The National Security Agency scandal directly affected a Brazilian government decision to award a multibillion-dollar defence contract to Sweden's Saab over US company Boeing, analysts have said.
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff awarded Saab the $4.5bn (£2.7bn) contract for 36 Gripen NG fighter jets for its its Air Force.
"Dilma had been favouring the Boeing plane and a lot of people thought she would announce her decision during her state visit to Washington," said David Fleischer, a political scientist at the University of Brasilia. "Boeing was very close, but then the NSA booted them out of the air."
Rousseff's visit was cancelled, after leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden alleged that the US spied on Brazilian officials, including her and state-run oil company Petrobras.
The revelation made it politically impossible for Rousseff to go with Boeing, said Carl Meacham, director of the Americas programme at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
keesje wrote:ThePointblank wrote:They lack the refinement in the man-machine interface and data collection and processing capabilities Western fighters have enjoyed for decades.
I see a lot of the pre occupied cold war generation classics coming by. Being there when things changed, I can tell you a different story. Shortly after the fall of the Iron curtain, the west (unified Germany) came into possession of MIG29A's and had a chance to check them out and verify the assumption made in fighter engagement guidelines. Those were not the most advanced Soviet variants. They included an inferior radar, limited navigation and communications equipment and a limited internal fuel range with no air-to-air refuelling capability. The "export versions" the Russian always kept the best for themselves.
Still, direct engagements trails / tests proved a cold shower for NATO. The MIG29's vector queuing helmets & Vympels proved lethal. The rules of engagement of e.g. 4 F16s approaching 4 MIG29 were rapidly "upgraded" from tactical maneuvers into "back-off, come back another day". And AIM-9X was pressed into production.
Another eye opener was the approach of our AWACS coordinated air defense system. They knew where they where all the time. Their mission #1 was, to send in a line of MIG23's as low and fast as possible, pull up and offload a cloud of AAM towards the AWACS. In simulations it became clear some of the MIG23's would probably have been intercepted by fighters & SAM's.. and our crucial AWACS controls centers would have been toast within 20 minutes.
Ozair wrote:Rheinwaldner, please provide said final scores if you think they exist. I have provided source evidence to support my claims. Please do so to support yours.
Ozair wrote:The following article, written in 2013, provides a clear understanding of how the competition was conducted and over what period. One of the highlights of the article.As for the Gripen, Saab told the Swiss that it had scheduled 98 upgrade items for the MS21 version of 2015, including AESA radar and infrared search and track. But these were not enough to push the Swedish jet above the MEC level in any of the five roles. The November 2009 report therefore recommended the Rafale as the New Fighter Aircraft.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ning-point
rheinwaldner wrote:Ozair wrote:Rheinwaldner, please provide said final scores if you think they exist. I have provided source evidence to support my claims. Please do so to support yours.
https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehm ... -entscheid
Gripen final evaluation report:
- Operational effectiveness: 5.81
- Operational ability: 6.87
- Overall rating: 6.36
Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect
keesje wrote:
Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..
keesje wrote:Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect
Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..
ThePointblank wrote:keesje wrote:Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect
Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..
The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.
Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?
How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.
Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.
How about the design tolerances of the various sections?
Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.
Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.
TranscendZac wrote:ThePointblank wrote:The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.
Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?
How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.
Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.
How about the design tolerances of the various sections?
Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.
Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.
Excellent post. In regard to the J-20, I don’t believe this aircraft is significantly stealth, at least not currently. Still flying with a very non stealth engine configuration and non stealth thrust vectoring set up. Nice aircraft, but certainly not in the same league as F-22 and F-35. I think the F-22 bashers on here seem to forget nothing anyone else has is as capable stealth wise as the F-22, and performance wise, and yet we have had the thing flying since the early 1990s. What exactly do these people think the US is currently working on that will replace the F-22? Lessons learned from it and the F-35, not to mention the B-21 program tech will be integrated, and likely already is in the active design studies of the 6th gen fighter. Interesting article that was on popular mechanics (certainly not a bastion of the latest military tech, but interesting info nonetheless).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... placement/
ThePointblank wrote:Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.
ThePointblank wrote:Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.
ThePointblank wrote:The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.
Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?
How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.
Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.
How about the design tolerances of the various sections?
Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.
Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.
Ozair wrote:Thank you. It is nice to have the numbers and given the obscurity of the reference and my lack of German I hadn't seen it. But...
I still don't agree with the assessment. The timing is off and the ability of the Swiss to up the ranking based on some more powerpoint slides, which in 2011/12 was all the Girpen E was, is suspect. Appreciate Saab knew more details but with hindsight the development of the E model to date has shown how off those assessments were.
I am happy to acknowledge the updated numbers although the irony of the whole process is obviously there is still no Gripen in Swiss service and the competition is being restarted. Will be interesting to see what the new evaluation presents on findings.
rheinwaldner wrote:On thing about the timing - if in the 2011 the Gripen E was still very much a Powerpoint-solution (and I can agree with that), how meaningful can then be the 2009 baseline of the evaluation? Surely not enough to judge about the Gripen Es merits.
rheinwaldner wrote:And, if the Gripen E in 2011 was still very much a Powerpoint-solution, it means that Gripen E is a large leap forward vs Gripen Demo (= MS21 from the 2009 evaluation), which flew since 2008.
rheinwaldner wrote:And indeed, there are various indications, that the Gripen E is a big leap forward. One being, that the initial plan to build the Es from older Cs was shelved somewhere in between.
This new contract means that the equipment that should be reused instead will be acquired new,” Saab said in a statement, adding; “This […] is intended to secure availability so that the Swedish Armed Forces can keep the Gripen C/D fleet in operational service while Gripen E is being delivered and put into operational service in the Swedish Air Force.”
According to the officials, the only items able to be cross-decked are the windscreen and canopy, the outer elevons, the ejection-seat, the internal gun and conveyor system, and some other ancillary equipment. As such, it was always the case that the original 2013 contracts would need to be amended to reflect this.
keesje wrote:I'm amazed by the two large side looking EASA antenna's on the sides of the Su-57 next to the big one in front. The amount of data that comes in from those and it's target acquisition, tracking and jamming capability must require huge computer and data integration power. Has this configuration been done before on fighter aircraft?
Slug71 wrote:Another thing to consider, is that Sukhoi never designed the SU-57 to be as stealthy as the F-22. They've openly stated this and said they sacrificed some stealthy elements for maneuverability. The goal (ambitious or not), is for it to be on par with the F-35 when it reaches FOC. Which is not for a few years yet (at least until the id-30 is ready).
VSMUT wrote:It's also the very fine details that cause the price to skyrocket.
2 points though:
1. For a defensive doctrine, they don't need all the fine details. The US F-22s and F-35s aren't going to come barging into Russian airspace with radars alight, so stealth is secondary.
2. We still haven't seen a final production variant, so any talk of ill-fitting panels (something I still don't see as being the case) and poor paint jobs is irrelevant. They were always planning, and did, do structural modifications to the prototypes. Why bother with expensive stealth coatings if you know that it will be ruined anyway? Thats Lockheed Martin levels of wastefulness.
ThePointblank wrote:1. It doesn't matter if you have an defensive or offensive doctrine for the aircraft.
ThePointblank wrote:2. We've seen the level of quality control coming out of Russia for their other combat aircraft.
Remember that the Algerians in the past made such a fuss, rejecting deliveries, followed by cancelling a purchase for MiG-29's in recent memory. One of the reasons cited was lack of quality control.
The Indians have complained about the quality control issues with their MiG-29K fleet, which has lead to poor serviceability rates.
Also, the Chinese in the past have rejected large numbers of Su-30MKK's over quality control issues. We've also heard that in regards to quality control comparing the Chinese to the Russians, it was noted by Russian technicians visiting China to look at Chinese license production of the Su-27, that the Chinese were putting together their copies of the Su-27 with better fit and finish than the Russians were, and made much more extensive use of composites in the airframe itself.
VSMUT wrote:
It does matter. An active radar gives your location away thousands of kilometers away, regardless of how stealthy your aircraft is. A stealth aircraft can't use it's radar if it wants to remain stealthy, hence why it is almost completely useless in this scenario. The intruding aircraft won't be running into Russian airspace with active radars, and hence the Russians won't have to contend with avoiding US radars with expensive stealth technology.
VSMUT wrote:3. The Russian Flankers with worse quality than the Chinese were Su-27SKs/J-11s, not Su-30MKKs. This was 25 years ago, not relevant today. In fact, Russian quality today is good enough that Airbus sources components from several Russian aerospace companies.
You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that the PAK-FA is of "bad quality". You only point to examples of other aircraft a long time ago, and other manufacturers that aren't even involved.
keesje wrote:Using radar is something that makes you visible. Maybe one of the platforms is less dependent on using it's radar for some missions.
jupiter2 wrote:Why do certain posters on this forum believe that it would be Russia being the defending nation in any conflict ?
Since when has NATO, or any Western nation shown any inclination to invade Russia ? The whole purpose of NATO is that it provides a united defensive front against potential adversaries, of which there is realistically only one, Russia, or historically, the former Soviet Union. I could undertsand Russian natives of possibly believing such a scenario, it seems to have been resurrected by the current political leadership to build their profile at home by seemingly standing up to evil west, but there has been no such sign from the west. The only thing that NATO has done is reinforce defensive positions in former eastern bloc countries, which are now members of NATO and our themselves concerned aboout a possible engagement against an increasingly hostile and beligerent Russia.
Simply put, Western nations, NATO, have nothing to gain from a war with Russia and only contemplate a defensive engagement against a Russian agressor. Nobody would be a "winner" and there appears only one nation developing enhanced dooms day weapons (as if convential nukes aren't bad enough) and publically showing them off. These actions only encourage western nations to develop similar weapons or been seen as having a tactical disadvantage. Another arms race isn't required and only hightens the already strained relations between Moscow and the west.
keesje wrote:Where do you think this Su-57 might be superior to the F22?
keesje wrote:I always wonder what's so stealthy about the F22's huge tail.
Obviously it had to be so big at the time.
Ozair wrote:keesje wrote:Where do you think this Su-57 might be superior to the F22?
I'm not sure much is. Some areas may be comparable but again this comes down to the issue of cost. The SU-57 appears to have grabbed all the stealth low hanging fruit but not taken the refinement to the level of F-22/35 and it is that last 20% that gives you the additional order of magnitude reductions. To do that though obviously doesn't come cheap, as you pointed out earlier, the F-22 had a development program that, including post FOC work, is well above US$35 billion. Has Russia spent that much, half that much, even a third that much, we just don't know? While cost is not easy to compare across countries and programs some lessons need to be paid for, you can't gain that knowledge through espionage or visual comparison, it has to be learnt, developed and incorporated.keesje wrote:I always wonder what's so stealthy about the F22's huge tail.
Obviously it had to be so big at the time.
Well that is the YF-22 tail and the size is primarily due to maneuverability. It wasn't necessarily a "have to do at the time" decision, just a design compromise that every fighter aircraft design has to make.
The F-22 tail is smaller, 20% less area, than the YF-22 while the vertical stabilizers are angled intentionally to reduce RCS, use rudders instead of all moving and the height improves high AoA control ability. The SU-57 has smaller vertical stabilizers that are all moving and also compensates with the levcons. I'm not convinced yet the levcons are a good idea for RCS reduction but may be necessary to balance out the smaller vertical stabilizers. I'm also not sure yet how the levcons impact high AoA maneuverability.
Balerit wrote:jupiter2 wrote:Why do certain posters on this forum believe that it would be Russia being the defending nation in any conflict ?
Since when has NATO, or any Western nation shown any inclination to invade Russia ? The whole purpose of NATO is that it provides a united defensive front against potential adversaries, of which there is realistically only one, Russia, or historically, the former Soviet Union. I could undertsand Russian natives of possibly believing such a scenario, it seems to have been resurrected by the current political leadership to build their profile at home by seemingly standing up to evil west, but there has been no such sign from the west. The only thing that NATO has done is reinforce defensive positions in former eastern bloc countries, which are now members of NATO and our themselves concerned aboout a possible engagement against an increasingly hostile and beligerent Russia.
Simply put, Western nations, NATO, have nothing to gain from a war with Russia and only contemplate a defensive engagement against a Russian agressor. Nobody would be a "winner" and there appears only one nation developing enhanced dooms day weapons (as if convential nukes aren't bad enough) and publically showing them off. These actions only encourage western nations to develop similar weapons or been seen as having a tactical disadvantage. Another arms race isn't required and only hightens the already strained relations between Moscow and the west.
Where have you been for the last 20 years and you obviously didn't take history at school? Have you not heard of Napoleon or Hitler and Sweden under Carolus Rex, all in different eras, each little over a century apart. Carolus was in the Great Northern War in the early 1700's, Bonaparte during the early 1800s, and Hitler in the mid 1900s.
Nato has encircled Russia completely and even has warships in the Black Sea. When last did Russia try surrounding America? This has to be the most outlandish post that I've read in a long time.
keesje wrote:Interesting. Maybe the 3D vectoring engines of the SU-57 eliminate the need for large vertical stabilizers.
keesje wrote:I think you don't have to be a specialist to understand one would like them to be as small as possible from a RCS perspective.
keesje wrote:Su-57 directional control seems ok, even at very low speed and AoO of 90 degrees. https://youtu.be/_9Rrim49lFM