[Flaser]

As far as I know, regarding the deep penetration strike capabilities, there is a FB-22 concept thats being worked on thats been mentioned in a variety of places.  Its basically a F-22 with a full delta wing with greater internal capacity for fuel/armament.  Probably sacrifices some of the F-22's fighter capabilities but it sounds like a good idea...you keep parts commonalities up so replacements are cheaper and you get an already capable platform and give it bigger bombs and more range.

It might have been canceled but they seem to waffle on these decisions.

EDIT: Here we go...Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-22

Also...those Russian Su-27 derivatives are some serious customers.

I heard they will still go with a wing geometry similar to the F/A-22's.
IMHO the whole program looks eerily like, how the Su-34 "Fullback"/"Playtypus" was born.

[Janos]

Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?

In production. 

Raptor was in production in 1990?

No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production a couple of years ago.

No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.

Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.

[Ghostavo]

Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?

In production. 

Raptor was in production in 1990?

No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production a couple of years ago.

No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.

Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.

Because it is in construction? And the final design has already been made? I'm not saying that it will be ready by 2009 with a fleet of 500.

Hell, I've only answered your question of where the Russian "vaporware jet", as you called it, that is going to be compared to the F-22 is, either it is in production or in development or in conception.

[Janos]

Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?

In production. 

Raptor was in production in 1990?

No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production a couple of years ago.

No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.

Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.

Because it is in construction? And the final design has already been made? I'm not saying that it will be ready by 2009 with a fleet of 500.

Hell, I've only answered your question of where the Russian "vaporware jet", as you called it, that is going to be compared to the F-22 is, either it is in production or in development or in conception.

PAK-FA's scheluded maiden flight is in 2009.

Not a single ready PAK-FA exists.

If maiden flight were any indication, then Raptor would have been in production in 1989 and Eurofighter Typhoon in 1993.

PAK-FA is not in production. It's in development. The final thing will probably be quite different, if not externally then internally, from the product we may see in late 2008. If it was in production then production lines would be pumping the finalized type A products, but noooo they aren't.

Maiden flight does not mean production. Usually it's one plane which will fly and then it's taken apart and things progress slowly.

[Ghostavo]

Then clear this doubt for me.

(...)The Russian Federation has approved the final PAK FA design, this remains secret but we will have to wait till late 2007.
(...)
The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) has begun construction of the fifth generation multirole fighter.(...)

From the article I linked in wikipedia.

What does this mean exactly? Construction = development? Final design = draft?

[Janos]

Then clear this doubt for me.

(...)The Russian Federation has approved the final PAK FA design, this remains secret but we will have to wait till late 2007.
(...)
The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) has begun construction of the fifth generation multirole fighter.(...)

From the article I linked in wikipedia.

What does this mean exactly? Construction = development? Final design = draft?

They construct a working "final" prototype. It will then fly. This is called the maiden flight of the plane. It's either A) oh it works quite well nothing dramatical or more likely B) ....**** return to drawing boards pronto. Usually.

Then the small problems are cleared and finally, after months and years, the production version is roughly ready (yes there will be more flights here and there but they're not very dramatical).

And then the real production starts. And then all the small errors and faults are fixed.


PAK-FA, whatever it's designation is, Su-XX, is not a ready product. Far from it. 4th and 5th generation fighters take usually more than 15 years to put into use, and that's with a lot of spending guaranteened for every year. Even Russia's own plans differ - in 2002, they said that they would have the ready PAK-FA in 9 years (insanity)! So I have no idea how anyone can say that because PAK-FA's working prototype is scheluded to fly next year, it means it's in production now. It does not work that way!
 
Also suspicious to those familiar with Russian arms sales is the silence around this plane. Su-35BM, "The Last Flanker", which is considered to be last Flanker variant before PAK-FA (which doesn't really have a name yet, except T-50), is heavily advertised, meaning Su-35BM is much closer to ready product than the secretive pakfa (unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe). This, of course, does not prove anything.

[Ghostavo]

Thanks for clearing that up. 

Just one last point, why are you so rilled up about the russians? 

[Janos]

Thanks for clearing that up. 

Just one last point, why are you so rilled up about the russians? 

hahaha I AM A FINN I HATE THEM RAARGH

Nyah. I just find it completely mid-boggling that despite all evidence to the contrary Internet is filled with people who believe "cheap and high-quality Russian technology" is a solution to all problems and whatever the Russians plan is immediately in use and far superior to technology that has been developed for decades with ridiculous budgets. It's very weird form of fanboyism, and after more than enough years in the internet I've become to despise it as a phenomenon.

[Roanoke]

...unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe....

retaining their best tech would be pretty consistant with the Ruskies though

[Davros]

Back on topic sort of
if i was the aussie defence minister i would consider talking to northrop
and saying "do a deal with us and the f23 will live"
the problem with the jsf is that america wont give anyone acess to to software ie: source code
so maybe the gripen would be a better choice

[Janos]

...unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe....

retaining their best tech would be pretty consistant with the Ruskies though

Since 1990s Russia has always aimed their top-notch products at the export market. It has paid them well. You just have to look at their top products - their best tanks, apcs, planes and naval assets have quite consistently been aimed at export. It pays them well. Until lately Russian army itself has been unable to fund necessary assets, so Suhoi especially has been getting money from exports. Just look at India!

[jr2]

I thought they always stripped the electronics, etc out & dumbed it down for export?

[Nuke]

i wouldnt doubt it, they just dont tell anyone they did

[Janos]

I thought they always stripped the electronics, etc out & dumbed it down for export?

Yup. Until lately, because now Sukhoi needs money (who cares about MiG anyways). It doesn't matter though, most customer countries install their own electronics or build their own versions under licence.

[IceFire]

As far as I know, regarding the deep penetration strike capabilities, there is a FB-22 concept thats being worked on thats been mentioned in a variety of places.  Its basically a F-22 with a full delta wing with greater internal capacity for fuel/armament.  Probably sacrifices some of the F-22's fighter capabilities but it sounds like a good idea...you keep parts commonalities up so replacements are cheaper and you get an already capable platform and give it bigger bombs and more range.

It might have been canceled but they seem to waffle on these decisions.

EDIT: Here we go...Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-22

Also...those Russian Su-27 derivatives are some serious customers.

I heard they will still go with a wing geometry similar to the F/A-22's.
IMHO the whole program looks eerily like, how the Su-34 "Fullback"/"Playtypus" was born.

Interesting...no doubt its something they are considering.  Given how much the F-22 cost and how "easy" it would be to create a medium bomber off the same platform.  Economically it could make sense and the F-22 is such a hot performer that it might make sense militarily as well.  Yeah the similarities are pretty shocking.

[Nuke]

didnt the article reference an extended range extended payload version of the f22 to allow it to perform a deep penetration role.

[AlphaOne]

Well to clear up something. People seem to forget that russians have a very diferent way of dooing things when compared to theyr western counterparts. They do not spen a s*** load of money in testing in labs each and every component. they usualy take something they know that work and try to imptove it as they build the blasted thing. This has enabled them to produce planes and not just planes at far cheaper costs then western powers . Also because they do not sped a lot of time on the drawing boards by the time the plane is ready to leave the prototipe stage and go into production most of its testing has already been done. Why? Beacause the engeniers are give the blueprints and they work out each and every bug they find on the grounds so to speak no time and money wasting sending the blueprints back etc etc.

Also as far as roket tech goes the russians beat the s*** out of every other nation out there. Not even NASA with all of its hundreds and hundreds of billions of dolars of buget managet to make a ...well.......basicly a turbocharged rochet to put it bluntly.

So Russia in order to gather up some more money for they space programs decided to sell a couple of these imposible to acieve tech to the US leaving them shoked that such a tech not only was developed but it actualy worked.

The only reason why russia has such a bad image in terms of space flight goes is mostly because of bad publicity and lack of funds to maintain theyr equipment. ISS is up ther because the russians gave they oxigen purifing tech for its developement among lots of other things.


So enough about bashing them cuz well its not exactly fair.

Also why does the US and errr.....allies decided to go short range planes? I believed they were aiming to have theyr fighters as far back as posible and sheling them missiles. I mean what they sudenly decided to reintroduce old style dogfighting up in the skyes of battlefields?

[Nuke]

as i understand it the russians are far comfortable with taking risks. rather than spend lots of money testing the aircraft every time they change a rivit, the russians try to make sure the systems are as bug free as possible then hope for the best. that way they can build one plane which works well enough to test the crap out of it. testing is performed and many adjustments are made. now this may just be a common stereotype. im not exactly sure what techniques the russians are using. but the fact of the matter remains that their stuff is pretty good considering what they spend in development.

the us designed their next gen planes for the us. we really dont need range as it stands. it would be nice but its a comprimise made  to give some other advantage that we think we need more. we have of long range hardware, we have bases all over the world we can use. so range wasnt important for us. note that they didnt consult other countries what they wanted in the jsf, they just did what their militarys wanted. we simply dont give a damn about anyone else.

and dont jump to the conclusion that dogfighting is obsolete. we assumed that back during nam, and that didnt seem to work out too well. its better to have a gun when you dont need it. than to be missing one when you do. the old rules of air combat have always applied and never was there a situation where they didnt.

[jr2]

Heck, they were trying to assume that dogfighting was over at the close of WWII.  #$@!ing bomber generals in TAC. 

[Janos]

Well to clear up something. People seem to forget that russians have a very diferent way of dooing things when compared to theyr western counterparts. They do not spen a s*** load of money in testing in labs each and every component. they usualy take something they know that work and try to imptove it as they build the blasted thing. This has enabled them to produce planes and not just planes at far cheaper costs then western powers .

Yes you can build a cheap plane but the point is that they are usually not as good as expensive planes.

Also because they do not sped a lot of time on the drawing boards by the time the plane is ready to leave the prototipe stage and go into production most of its testing has already been done. Why? Beacause the engeniers are give the blueprints and they work out each and every bug they find on the grounds so to speak no time and money wasting sending the blueprints back etc etc.

what the ****?

Of course they test their material. What are your examples? Now you give us sources. What the hell are you talking about? Are we talking about original designs or refits of already existing ones?

Also as far as roket tech goes the russians beat the s*** out of every other nation out there. Not even NASA with all of its hundreds and hundreds of billions of dolars of buget managet to make a ...well.......basicly a turbocharged rochet to put it bluntly.

When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?

So Russia in order to gather up some more money for they space programs decided to sell a couple of these imposible to acieve tech to the US leaving them shoked that such a tech not only was developed but it actualy worked.

What are these? Sources?

The only reason why russia has such a bad image in terms of space flight goes is mostly because of bad publicity and lack of funds to maintain theyr equipment. ISS is up ther because the russians gave they oxigen purifing tech for its developement among lots of other things.

I think that the lack of funds to maintain their equipment is a pretty damn good reason to have bad publicity. I do not believe it's true, either - among other things Baikonur has supplied ISS quite a few times when shuttles have been rendered unoperational for whatever reason, like exploding.


So enough about bashing them cuz well its not exactly fair.

Also why does the US and errr.....allies decided to go short range planes? I believed they were aiming to have theyr fighters as far back as posible and sheling them missiles. I mean what they sudenly decided to reintroduce old style dogfighting up in the skyes of battlefields?
[/quote]