1 mechanical failure every 1.7h flight, pretty usefull in time of war...
but lets calculate: have to return to base after 1.7h : 2 because has to return
so it's 0.85h flight effectiveness, BUT it's supersonic, so mach 2 (+-2000km/h) => 2000*0.85= 1700km effectiveness. USA= 4500km from east to west so by placing them in the center, CANT even reach to coast, planes can't even cover whole of US!!!!!!!!!!! very usefull program... and we are in debt...
@hotpocketpoison u are perhaps right, but my point is , the palne is far too costly 350 000 000 per plan!!!, to defend us u need a bit more than hundred planes, but it s only what we can get for this money, and lets not speak about the f-35 which is not even worth speaking about it
@hotpocketpoison but in that video the USAF states that the fly away cost for each F-22 is $142million, the only way you could come up with $350million is if you include design costs but that would not be correct because the country is not loosing $350million every time a plane is built. also 187 planes is enough to handle any AF on the planet. and the F-35 is tricky, if all the new tech works as well as it is said it will be the most effective plane ever built, if they dont, then it is a lemon.
@hotpocketpoison 187 enough??? what if invaders come in 4 different directions=> 187 : 4 = 46 planes!!!! and against massive formations of new sukoys, it s going to be hard... and for the f-35 watch : "why the f-22 is useless" or something like that, aircraft specialist comment the aircraft, not very optimistic... watch the vid very interesting
@albr00700 first of all how many new sukhois do you think russia has??? the T-50 is going to be inferior to the F-22 and the russians will only buy 200 max(due to new cuts this may be drastically lowered)and they are only going to buy 48 Su-35s. how can they attack from 4 directions with less than 248 planes??? 1 F-22 could take on 6(thats how many AIM-120Ds it can hold internally)of any aircraft on the planet, that means russia would have to attack with AT LEAST 1130 fighters to overwhelm-
@hotpocketpoison wow i cant believe i found you in here as well doing the same thing. your such a dumb bimbo. we had this argument. What cuts is Russia facing? Their defense budget has skyrocketed, especially with that 686 billion dollar bonus, so please explain where the cuts are????? and for the last time almost all Mig-29's, SU-27's Mig-31's are ALL upgraded. ALL!!!!!!! Your hardheaded dude...damn
@sovietskies69 first of all this is a video about an american airplane, secondly russias fleet of Su-27s consists almost entirely of Su-27S(and its 2 seat counterpart)which is inferior to the F-15C. their fleet of MiG-29s consists of mostly standard MiG-29s(which are inferior to the F-16C). and most of their MiG-31s consist of the standard MiG-31...which arnt particularly good at anything. so no, they are not"ALL"upgraded, in fact, 85% are not...lol. and we already talked about this"686billion".
@hotpocketpoison no almost all their fleet is upgraded. (fuck its so hard when you look on wiki for your facts), Russia has 0 planes from the 80's(original dates of those planes made) with 80's tech. most mig 31 have upgrades from the early 90's mig 29's were upgraded in 02. and Su-27 are almost all upgraded and are right now in the process being upgraded to Su-27SM(3).(very low RCS) and yes we talked about the 686 billion dollar BONUS. its a BONUS not TOTAL. fucken moron
@hotpocketpoison like I said their defense industry is getting wealthy, their officers are recieveing more pay. they got a lot more projects going. their upgrading a lot of their current fleets of planes. their in the process of building 2 new air craft carriers. their 5th gen is almost done. their building missile factories to start s-500...just where are these cutbacks?
@sovietskies69 WHERE did you find that they have 0 aircraft from the 80s??? THAT IS ABSURD beyond anyones wildest imagination. again you claim MY info is wrong then you come up with these COMPLETELY idiotic"stats"that make me fear for your sanity. russia does NOT have enough money to modernize every Su-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31, so they kept most of them at their base design, and is why they are building the Pak-Fa(to retire them for one effective deign instead of multiple less effective ones).-
@hotpocketpoison you misread my post. they have 0 air craft from the 80's using just 80's tech(according to your theory of no upgrades at all, and just where do you get the 85% from) first of there is about 6 upgrades for the mig-29. 2 upgrades for the mig-31. and about 5 for the SU-27. Almost all are upgraded. Even the 2nd and 3rd gen fighters have been upgraded. And its funny you never bring up the SU-30 in the conversation(another plane that has been upgraded)
@sovietskies69 just because there have been many upgrades done to at least one of the planes does not mean that they all receive the upgrade the second one does,NOW who thinks it is some strategy game? its not like you unlock a new upgrade and POOF every airplane is upgraded...lol. and i find the Su-30 irrelevant to this conversation seeing as though russia only operates 12 of them. and sold them"all"? what is this"all"? they have had only one aircraft carrier for the past 35 years(Kuznetsov).-
@hotpocketpoison first off their 2 NEW nuclear air craft carriers set to launch in the 2025 frame(research please). And the reason I know mist Mig-29's are upgraded is because as of today there is under 50 Mig-29A in service. However there are a couple hundred flying. simple logic states that the rest are all different, with different upgrades. Same with SU-27, as a matter of fact I dont think there is any SU-27A flying anymore. the only place you can find those is a museum
@sovietskies69 there is no"Su-27A", it goes Su-27(production variant), Su-27S(the overwhelming majority of russians Su-27 fleet with upgraded engines T10P engines). the russians have different lettering than the US because their alphabet translation is vastly different. also the only MiG-29s in wide use with the russian AF are the MiG-29, MiG-29UB(two seater version), and the MiG-29SMT(modern version), and since less than 50SMTs have been produce that means most are MiG-29s and the UB variants.-
@hotpocketpoison the thing you dont get is you dont understand the VVS...they never make the exact same thing on the production line. they do not make the exact same fighter, over and over and over again for 15+ years. they make variants for everything. Even the SU-35 now has 2 variants and its only 2 years old...all our jets have had upgrades...even our old ass TU-22 which have become TU-22M3's and are still in the process of being upgraded further. (until Pak-DA comes out)
@sovietskies69 -also the russian parliament has not yet accepted the plans for these new aircraft carriers you are speaking of, it is just as likely they could be denied rather than accepted, you cant count something that has not been verified to a 100% certainty, even the T-95 was scrapped even after all the money and effort put into it, so how can you possibly saw you WILL have 2 new aircraft carriers when neither are being built. one of our G.R.F class carriers is already under construction.-
@hotpocketpoison T-95 and air craft carriers are a horrible example. T-95 prototype got out performed badly by the T-90 so they decided to fund a program to upgrade the T-90. compared to the air craft carriers that the need in order to restore their navy. and yes I do understand the problems with having that many variants. but then again im not the one that decided on this, im just telling you how they do it over there and why your statement of, "none are upgraded" is very false
@sovietskies69 the Su-27S IS an upgraded version of the production model Su-27, but it is still inferior to the F-15C, and most of the MiG-29s truly are the original production models because they are the cheapest kind, and that is what the MiG-29 was designed to be: a light, cheap aircraft. the rest of the upgrades you are referring to are all technological demonstrators, but are not in actual military service(or in extremely limited service).
@hotpocketpoison nope. your dead wrong. send me links or show me proof of this because its all BS. Most Mig-29's that are in service are not the original. That would mean that the VVS 3rd gen planes use newer avionics than the Mig-29 which makes no sense. do yourself a favor and stick to the US army only. you dont know a damn thing about russia. and wiki will never help you(i dont know how many times i can explain this to you)
@sovietskies69 look at websites like warfare ru, or Globalsecurity org. but i wouldnt waste my time, wikipedia has information pulled directly from these websites and many others. now that i have told you my sites...tell me...WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR BEWILDERINGLY ASININE INFO FROM! and most russian 3rd gen planes are upgraded, but still have TERRIBLE tech. terrible radars,engines,avionics, so no. they are NOT"better"than the production models of MiG-29s,but the production models ARE the most used.
@hotpocketpoison both those sites do not list individual models used. you really dont get the whole "wiki is not accurate about russian tech" thing dont you? even after i proved to you that wiki is wrong. haha wow your stubborn. most mig-29's are upgraded, like I said VVS does not build the same exact thing on the production line for 15+ years. and like I said i got my sources and their a lot better than yours.
@sovietskies69 those sites were just examples. also you have yet to prove anyone wrong besides yourself, all you do is repeat yourself and pretend you are correct when in reality you have put forward some of the dumbest"facts"i have ever seen. your sources are COMPLETELY wrong and most likely are just you refusing to leave your fantasy world. its time to wake up friend, the russian AF is not as"advanced"as you think it is.
@hotpocketpoison fantasy world? dude i proved to you wiki is wrong. you admitted it. are we going back to being bipolar are we? your the one living in fantasy land, the fact that you THINK you know so much about VVS is absurd. you get your facts from wiki kid, cmon thas bad. oh btw remind me to tell my dad when i visit him in June, that people in the US believe that wiki has an accurate database of russian tech, he will get a very good laugh.
@hotpocketpoison and my sources are foreign. in russian. i can link them all to you and prove you wrong, but you would need google translator to translate it.
@sovietskies69 and what makes you think they are correct? what makes them any more correct than any other web site??? because it is in russian? your sources are no more reliable than wiki. and you have YET to prove wiki wrong, and i have not admitted wiki is wrong because the people who edit these articles get their information from sites all over the internet, they link them at the bottom of the page, and someone from wiki verifies it, you cant just post random nonsense on wiki anymore.
@hotpocketpoison you did admit you were wrong. because wiki still right now says mg 25 altittude is 80k...wrong. and Russian sites are correct because they actually talk to companies like KNAAPO in person I have yet to see an English site interview a Russian engineer or VVS personal. Russian sources do this all the time. that's how i know im right and you wiki boy are full of shit.btw the average SU-27 is Su-27P, and the average Mig-31 is Mig-31B which is set to be upgraded soon
@sovietskies69 you fucking moron, i said i skipped that section and did not read that the prototype flew over 123000ft, if you payed the fuck attention you would have seen that, jesus you are starting to piss me off at this point with your repetitive comments. and HOLY SHIT if you actually knew anything about the jets you would know that the Su-27P IS the Su-27S without A-G weapon control systems...THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT DUMBASS!!! also many MiG-31s are the originals, the rest are B and M.
@hotpocketpoison i never said anything about A-G capabilities,i still disproved your point of saying "none are upgraded".and im the moron? dude all mig25's can go way over 80k feet.all of them.thats what they were designed to do. not just the prototype. and here another correction for you...many mig-31's are B's and will also soon be upgraded. haha and dude learn to control you bipolar disorder, they have medication out there for that.its gona be ok. you will get through this XD
@sovietskies69 it doesnt matter if you never said anything about A-G capabilities, the fact of the matter is THE Su-27P IS THE Su-27S so WHO was correct? you JUST proved my point you moron! also there are just as many MiG-31s as there are B and M models. also the average operational ceiling of the MiG-25 is 80000ft,it CAN go much higher but most of the time the plane will stay at 80000ft because its weapons are still effective at this altitude,meaning there would be no need to travel any higher.
@hotpocketpoison no im pretty sure im right here. you originally said that 85%(btw where are u getting this number from) are not upgraded. that means its the same plane with no mods since its been made...very wrong. and their still in the process of being upgraded farther than they already are. and mig-25 was made to intercept high altitude jets like SR-71 and U-2's...so yeah..lol damn dude u really hate russia...just wait till pak-fa is out. you will love them more XD
@sovietskies69 i hate ignorant people such as yourself. even when you are incorrect you dont have the balls to admit to it...that is a PATHETIC quality. also HOW ARE YOU CORRECT??? if you are talking about when you said most Su-27s are Su-27Ps then yes, you are correct...BUT THAT STATEMENT ONLY PROVES MY POINT!!! just get the hell out of here, you obviously have no damn clue what you are talking about, so next time i suggest you dont stalk my comments and start another loosing battle. USAF>vvs
@hotpocketpoison nah im not ignorant. you are. you still believe wiki is right about VVS. and lmao i never lost anything to you. you get your facts from wiki HAHA! you originally said most russian planes have no upgrades. this means if a Su-27 was made in 85(random year) that means its still flying today with NOTHING done to it. the fact that now there are S's and P's and about 3 other letters proves that they have been alerted, which once again proves as always, you fail
@sovietskies69 is that all you can fall back on??? that wiki is wrong? well it seemed to be very correct about most Su-27 being old ass P models. and the S, P and UB ARE the original models(the others before them are all prototypes). i am done with you unless you can say something logical for once.
@hotpocketpoison lol wow this is too easy.UB for your info is a TRAINER. nor for combat. and S and P are not original, not even close, where are you now getting this info from? and another thing your ignoring is KNAAPO is going to overhaul them to SM3's, similar to the overhaul their doing to India's Su-30MKI SS(super suhkoi).and you want logical? whos the jackass that blurts random shit like "almost all VVS fighters are originals" or "Russia is facing a severe defense cut" lmao
@sovietskies69 how about this, go on the internet and research the Su-27S and P models...you will find that the only difference between them and the first production Su-27 is the upgraded engines(T10P)and the fact that the Su-27S has A-G capabilities. and i know the UB is a 2 seat trainer but those are the first 3 variants. and only 12 SM3s are on order, AGAIN these are just stopgaps(i hope you even know what that word means)until the Pak-Fa is released.
@hotpocketpoison ok your still proving me right. im just getting real technical is all. the fact that engines have been upgraded proves that they are not all originals like you said. and there will be more SM3's on order. and their will probably be 50-80 SM3's flying by 2015 because Pak-FA will not replace 2 classes of fighters overnight
@sovietskies69 ok, fine, they are not the originals...but they are still inferior to their american counterpart, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT I AM GETTING AT! also there is not an order for 50-80 SM3s by 2015, PLEASE stop making shit up.
@hotpocketpoison its a prediction. and unlike you its a educated prediction. General Kornukov, head of the VVS made this prediction and said their going to try real hard to push that order through....cmon dude im not you. i don't say random shit, like 85%(still dont know where you got that number from), is all original, or that russia is facing defense cuts....oh and another thing wiki has incorrect is they claim that a mig-31 cost is 60 million...thats more than a super hornet
@sovietskies69 how much do you think a MiG-31 costs? they have enormous,extremely expensive engines, a large radar, reconnaissance technology, semi-modern avionics, and many other technologies, not to mention the materials needed to build the airframe to survive at the speeds and altitude they are capable of operating in. $60million is most likely correct.
@hotpocketpoison not even close. russia has always been good at price control. 60 million is the estimated cost of pak-fa.....no way in hell the mig can cost 60 mill per unit. su 35 and mig 35 are both around that cost...
@sovietskies69 then HOW MUCH DOES IT COST,seriously,all you do is say things like"nope" and "thats wrong" yet you NEVER actually put any REAL information forward,then claim you know what no one else besides russian military brass knows XP seriously dude,with all its advancements the MiG-31M could DEFINITELY cost $60million. and i hate to break it to you but a cheap aircraft will perform like a cheap aircraft,its not like russia just magically produces cheaper equipment that is as good as ours.
@hotpocketpoison their equipment is cheaper. the cost starts at labor,resources and parts. 3 things that in Russia are cheaper. and i find it hard to believe that the mig-31...and 80's plane can cost WAY more than an f-15E/f-16C/D.....and to take it one step further an f-18 super hornet that was made in the late 90's, way more advanced than mig-31...and 60 million is the cost of pak-fa. get real dude. look at all that, and quit defending your beloved wiki.
@sovietskies69 do you even realize what the single most expensive pice of an aircraft is? THE ENGINE, the MiG-31 has 2 massive and EXTREMELY expensive engines, coupled with its modern reconnaissance technology(also very expensive)and modern radar, its avionics(the second most expensive pice to an aircraft)are also modern. and the F-18 has some of the most modern avionics and multi role targeting technologies available(next to the F-22 and F-35), thats what makes it so expensive. also the F-15E-
@hotpocketpoison f-18 does have some of the most modern stuff right next to the f-22, and your telling me the mig31 from the 80s is going to cost more.do you seriously believe that?or are you just to proud to say,wiki may have fucked that up,because they also have no source for that cost and ya the enignes do drive the cost up but not to 60 million.the TU-22m3 cost is 65 million per unit(i know this for sure) and they have a pair of the strongest supersonic engines in the world
@sovietskies69 the MiG-31M has some of the most modern russian tech inside of it. also it has many different kinds of technologies to fill the roles it is designed to perform. obviously the original and the B models will be cheaper but the M model could DEFINITELY cost $60million, if you would just do research and see all the shit they put into that plane you would know why it is so expensive.
@hotpocketpoison ya your too proud to say it. because the SU-35 DOES have the most advanced russian tech and it costs that same amount and so will Pak-Fa..
@sovietskies69 BUT the Su-35 has much weaker and cheaper engines, no reconnaissance technology, a smaller radar, AND only one seat(so there is only 1 set of avionics). seriously dude, use your damn brain for once.
@sovietskies69 the Pak-Fa has little the Su-35 doesnt have, its only going to be a "5th" generation fighter in the minds of its creators, when in reality(because of its complete lack of stealth)it is as much a 4.5 generation fighter as the Su-35 is.
@sovietskies69 first of all, its shaping, the Pak-Fa has no purpose shaping whatsoever. second, its price, you cant possibly incorporate high tech jammers or RAM at that low of a price.
@hotpocketpoison when you talk about price its an automatic fail. china makes the cheapest jets in the world. their J-20 i believe is somewhere from 20-40 million. and despite shaping, pak-fa will have a extremely low RCS still.
@sovietskies69 no, it wont, it was not designed to be a "stealth" aircraft, it was designed to have a SMALLER RCS than its predecessors but not to be "stealthy". in fact, the Pak-Fa was designed like all other russian fighters, to be maneuverable NOT stealthy. and the chinese J-20??? how many things that have a "made in china" label on them have EVER been good XP
@hotpocketpoison look up J-10B and actually look it up if you want to see a real good Chinese fighter. And Pak-FA will have a strong radar, stronger than most in the world and it will track other plane before it gets tracked. the Indian version said when fully loaded with bombs it has a RCS of less than 0.1....gimmie a break id like to see a radar that can track that
@sovietskies69 the RCS of the T-50 is said to be 0.5m2(with no external weapons),while the RCS of the F-22 is said to be 0.001m2(the size of a marble). and the Radar of the F-22 could track a 1m2 target over 150miles away,which means the F-22 would easily detect the T-50 beyond the range it could detect the F-22. but now if we get into weapons the F-22 can carry 8 missiles internally,the T-50 can only carry 4,so to equal the fire power of the F-22 the T-50 would have to carry missiles externally
@hotpocketpoison who ever gave that RCS is wrong because India's Air Force commander said otherwise. and why compare it to the f-22? Pak-FA is a multirole fighter, not air superiority. F-35 would be better comparison. BTW India rejected F-35 when it was offered to them
@sovietskies69 even the stealthiest plane on the face of the earth would have an RCS higher than 0.1 when fully loaded with external ordinance...its just simple physics buddy. also the T-50 was designed to be an air-superiority aircraft, but since it can carry A-G weapons it is called a multirole fighter. and india is controlled by russia, russia decides what they buy and what they dont. india is to russia as israel is to the US.
@hotpocketpoison WHOA!!!!! WHAT???!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? Dude India is NOT and i repeat NOT controlled by anyone. we just have a good alliance. For your info India just took the AH-64 over the Mi-28 and in their MRCA deal they took the EF over the SU-35....trust me India is a free nation. They just like Russia because their equipment is reliable and cheap. And I know, but trust me Pak-FA does not have an RCS of 0.5
@sovietskies69 first of all the indians do not operate the AH-64. second the Su-35 was not in the MRCA, the MiG-35 was, but the MiG-29k is already in use with the Indian Navy.
@hotpocketpoison They just had a bid to buy a big order of attack helicopters and they chose the AH-64 over the MI-28. And the Mig-29K is for their air craft carrier...whats that have to do with the MRCA deal? Bottom line is Russia does not control India..
@hotpocketpoison but why do you say K??? K only means its fitted for air craft carriers. and Mig-35 is way better than Mig-29k..and besides all that Russia has no control over India
@hotpocketpoison lol i keep trying to tell you even the most advanced mig 29 is not as good as Mig 35. and all that still shows russias has no control over india
@sovietskies69 even the Israelis have foreign equipment that is not US made, yet we pretty much control israel. and another reason the F-35 was rejected is not because it is a"bad plane"it is a beyond excellent plane(12 countries are already confirmed buyers, with potentially 8 others), but since the IAF spent over $5.5billion on the FGFA and since every FGFA is expected to be $20million cheaper than the F-35A there is no point in buying the F-35, because all that money will gave gone to waste.
@hotpocketpoison but IAF lately has been looking to purchase quality equipment. and FYI most countries that are into the F-35 are NATO countries. now THOSE are on US's sack.
@sovietskies69 but the role the F-35 would fill(a stealthy multirole aircraft)is already being filled, there is no point in having 2 new aircraft for one role while having extremely old aircraft for another. and australia, singapore, and japan are NATO countries? well thats the first i am hearing about this XD the reason the F-35 is wanted by so many countries is because it is VASTLY superior to everything it is going to replace in those countries(F-16,F-18C,F-4,F-111,AV-8B,A-10,GR-4,and more).
@hotpocketpoison you know what I mean dont be stupid. The majority of the countries are NATO. And a lot of those countries did not want the f-35, they kept asking if they can purchase f-22 instead thats why US put a ban on international sales for the raptor
@sovietskies69 every country that signed up for the F-35 program wants it, none are being forced. i am certain they would rather have the F-22 but thats because it is the best fighter in the world, and will stay that way even after the T-50 and J-20 are released. and the reason the F-22 is not for sale is because we want it to be impossible for the russians/chinese to get their hands on that kind of technology, not because we want countries to buy the F-35.
@sovietskies69 dont flip tech??? how the hell do you think they were able to get the T-50 out so fast? skill??? BAH! the T-50 was a failed attempt to make their own F-22, using as much stolen tech as possible. the russians are confirmed to have stolen tech as recently as 1992(when the F-117 was downed in serbia russian officials salvaged the reck and took much of it back to russia, and WHAT DO YOU KNOW shortly after that the S-300 came online). you are right about the last part, CHINA DOES TO!
@hotpocketpoison your so ignorant. Russia never copied the f-22. think about what your saying. for that to happen Russia would have to 1)steal and f-22, 2)hack the pentagon and steal designs. did those 2 things happen?. Russia never intended to copy the f117, even the chinese said that the stealth tech on it was too old to make into a 5th gen plane. anyways. and FYI the mig 1.44 and the su-47 was the test bed for pak-fa so it did not come out as fast as you think.
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
@hotpocketpoison the f-35? can guarantee you that wasn't Russia since they sold the US the original design, it would make no sense to copy that. And J-20 has actually decent stealth. And you swear like stealth is a hard thing to make. Its all about shape and coating. You and every other youtube fan boy can say Pak-FA is a copy, however no military analyst has ever said that about pak-fa...same thing cant be said about j-20
@sovietskies69 the VTOL engine designe was bought from YAK nothing more, which means the F-35A and C have nothing russian in them, the russians WISH they had the F-35 design. also it is impossible to make a stealthy fighter based ONLY on shaping and coating, you need high tech jammers and RAM, neither of which the chinese have ever even shown the capability of producing(only scavenging old ass obsolete wrecks like the F-117). so it most likely will NOT have decent stealth, just like the Pak-Fa.
@hotpocketpoison The Yak-141 was the testbed of the X-35 and X-32 which went on to become f-35,yak-141 was a vital piece in the project,you US fan boys hate to admit this. Just look at pics, the Yak-141 looks just like the F-35, IF the F-35 was built in the 80's. And for the last time Pak-FA is not a copy of F-117. Russia had their own stealth fighter program started in the 80's(back then it was on paper). The Pak-FA is 100% theirs. China, IDK because their NOTORIOUS of stealing
@sovietskies69 the Yak-141 airframe has nothing to do with the F-35s, the first designs of the F-35 were drawn on a napkin by the lead designer, the only thing similar in the 2 is the VTOL system, nothing else looks even remotely the same(aside from both having wings and one engine). and the russians only started looking into stealth in the mid 90s(after the F-117 crashed and they examined it...coincidence? highly unlikely). also the Pak-Fa is not related to any russian 1980s fighter projects.
@hotpocketpoison You dont know what they had in the 80's...like I said back then it was all on paper. and LM invested $385 million into the yak-141....thats a shit load of money. for that much you dont think they could develop their own plane? like I said you youtube fan boys have a hard time admitting this. check your inbox
@sovietskies69 the F-35 has NO large gap in the empennage, its engine inlets are NOT separate from the front end of the fuselage, the F-35 has a COMPLETELY different wing and horizontal stabilizer design and slanted vertical stabilizers, the F-35 has a much larger nose to accommodate the advanced radar, and the F-35 has a much more sleek design. they are NOTHING alike! compare pictures side by side and see for yourself.
@hotpocketpoison u gota remember they had to make it stealth...so obviously its not going to be EXACTLY the same(plus yak-141 is 30 years old...)all you youtube fan boys are the same, you always try to compare it exactly the same. The american version is stealth, brought into the 21st century with a western touch to it. and after all that you got the f-35
the main concept is the same. there is no excuse for LM paying THAT much money and then shortly after the X-35/32 comes out.
@sovietskies69 but if the basic design is"similar"(as you are saying)then they would not have spent as much money as they did building something that just looks a little different. also what parts do you even consider somewhat similar? not a single part of those airplanes shares even one common feature(aside from 2 wings and an engine), they are literally NOTHING alike. also by your logic i can say the Pak-Fa was a direct copy of the F-22s and YF-23s airframe(they have 2 wings and 2 engines).
@hotpocketpoison ya but did Sukhoi pay LM 385 million to take partnership in the YF-23? NO? so its not a copy. However LM did pay a shit load of money. THATS my argument. They took the designs back and built the f-35 out of it. Like i said you would be stubborn(i already knew this), they look very similar i dont know how you cant see it(unless your fan boy vision is blocking your view)
@sovietskies69 no, they didnt...WHICH IS STEALING! the F-35 and YAK-141 look about as similar as the F-18 and the MiG-29...some features look slightly similar but NONE were copies off the other, nor do they look close enough to even consider that.
@hotpocketpoison Lmao. so now were back to stealing? Pak-FA is Russian. get that thorught ur head. they never came to the US and took the YF-23. And its different from 2 planes that look similar and made in different times, to 2 planes looking similar where 1 company invested a shit load of money and shortly after made a similar plane.
@sovietskies69 the F-18(in this case the YF-17)and the MiG-29 flew around the same time. also lockheed martin bought the STOVL ENGINE PATENT!!! they did not buy the design for the airframe,in fact,not event the entire engine is the same,only the lift fan,nozzle,and the lift vents in the wing roots. also just look up pictures of the F-22 and the Pak-Fa,also from the front and the sides the Pak-Fa looks just like the YF-23. also look at the link i sent you,THAT proves the russians stole F-35 info.
@hotpocketpoison it does not say what they purchased, it just says they investes 385 million into the program(thats a lot...) and pak-fa is freaking russian. what proof do you have besides the one every youtube fan boy uses of "looks"?
@sovietskies69 $385 million out of a $40+ billion program is less than 1% so no, that isnt a lot. also just look online at the massive numbers of news programs talking about the hack, if your plane was just hacked and there was a potential security risk involved would you tell people about it and start panic? i doubt it. the russian MiG-LMFS is the russians light multi-role stealth fighter, just like the F-35, and this program started AFTER the hacks took place. so all evidence points to russia.
@hotpocketpoison while it may not be a lot, its too much to spend on 1 thing....it must have been a vital component. and no evidence points to Russia. I dont think US would just let anyone get away with that. and FYI it looks more of the concept body India drew up a few years back for a 5th gen single engine plane...and Russia and India DO work together. And last but not least I will believe the Pentagon than new paper. Didn't the paper also say a raptor value is 350 million?
@sovietskies69 WP said the F-22 value is $350million then they had that utterly retarded segment on Rachel Meadow about it. the reason so many people think the F-22 is valued at $350million per plane is because that is what the development cost added to the price would be, but since the country is not loosing $350million every time a plane is built this is NOT the price per plane(it is actually $142million). also look up the LMFS program, it is a few years old, but is predated by the F-35.
@hotpocketpoison you just proved my point. I will believe Pentagon any day over the media. So I dont believe the F-35 files were ever hacked. And there is no pics of Mig's 5th gen its all on paper. On paper, all 5th gen single engine planes will look very similar since their shaped for stealth. Look up Japans 5th gen single engine concept, it looks more similar to the f-35 than anything else(this was made before they agreed to join JSF)
@sovietskies69 the japanese have not ever ventured to create a 5th gen plane with one engine, type in "japanese ATD-X" this is the only 5th gen plane the japanese are developing, or have thought of developing, and ill be damned if it looks even remotely like the F-35(it looks more like the F-22). also did the F-117 and the F-22 look alike??? no??? well by your logic, since they are both 2 engine stealth planes they should...lol. your point is non existent. they dont HAVE to look the same at all.
@sovietskies69 but you said and quote"all 5th gen single engine planes will look very similar since their shaped for stealth"so just add another engine and your comment basically says that because of stealth shaping all stealth planes look the same,which is wholly incorrect,there are many ways to go about stealth,the russians just dont want to waste time and money and(as their pitiful excuse goes)"dont want to reinvent the wheel"yet every time the US"reinvents the wheel"we always make it better.
@hotpocketpoison dont want to waste time and money? their program for stealth has been around since the 80's. and still a bomber and a fighter are very different. And Russians are perfecting stealth. You still dont know how stealthy the Pak-FA is, all you can do is guess by looking at it. And maybe Mig's stealth plane will be even better. Or maybe the Russian Pak-DA(that shit looks stealthy) will also prove you wrong.
@sovietskies69 the russians have NOT even experimented with a stealth aircraft before the Pak-Fa. the MiG-1.44,Su-37,and Su-47 were NOT stealthy. also it has been stated by Sukhoi themselves that the Pak-Fa was not designed to be as stealthy as the F-22,it was designed to be more maneuverable(how typical of the russians and their bewilderingly obsolete mentality on fighters). also at a cost of $57million a pice it will NOT have good RAM and will NOT have good jammers,its not monetarily possible.
@hotpocketpoison AS the F-22. notice the AS part. just like the F-35 is not AS stealthy as the f-22 as well. and russia always has price control. their jets will always be cheaper because of where their made. if you were to make a mig-29 in a US plant it would probably be 2 or 3 times the cost. and it really kills you inside to admit that Russia has made and is making some pretty good planes huh?
@sovietskies69 LOL! not really, the price of the Su-27 and F-15A were rather close when they were first released despite the F-15A being utterly superior. russia has cheap stuff because they are so much less advanced than their american counterparts, THATS HOW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN! and it obviously is not changing anytime soon. and in regards to your"AS"statement i will repeat myself, THE PAK-FA IS TOO CHEAP!!! it is cheaper than the Su-35S which has extremely poor stealth itself...JESUS!
@hotpocketpoison not really. example...the Iribis E radar is superior to RBE2(in the Rafale) but yet the RBE2 price is almost double....Russia has maintained price control. Everything their is cheaper ESPECIALLY for the military. China does the same thing. They can easily put out a 4.5 combat competitive jet under 30 million(not even Russia is that good), just look at J-10B or the JF-17........talking about prices in air craft comparisons is weak son
@hotpocketpoison and the SU-35S was not made for stealth, so why would you even go and make a statment saying it has poor stealth. thats like me saying F-16 has poor stealth
@sovietskies69 first of all the Irbis-E is NOT superior to the REM2. the RBE2 can track 40 targets and engage 8 while the Irbis-E can only track 30 targets and engage 8. the Irbis-E also has very limiter A-G capabilities whereas the RBE2 can track multiple ground targets and engage multiple simultaneously(im not sure what the exact number is but it is higher than the Irbis-E). also the Irbis-E is a PESA radar whereas the RBE2 is a AESA radar, this makes them far more progressive and nearly-
@sovietskies69 -impossible to jam. also the range of the RBE2 may not be as high as the Irbis-E but it gets a clearer picture from the AESA. detection range is not everything, also it is not half the price, i cant even find price for either, but even if it was double it is twice as good. also the Su-35 uses extensive RAM, but because of its poor quality, it still has a 1m2 RCS. so as you can see, russian shit isnt just magically cheaper...it is cheaper because IT IS INFERIOR!!!
@hotpocketpoison haha and you forgot most import fact...range. Iribis is is almost DOUBLE. Range is everything dude when it comes to air to air combat. I can see you before you see me. its that simple. and they had prices up last year on f-16 forums.com, i tried to find the thread but i think its not around anymore. they had the iribis E listed about 40% cheaper.....thats not magical dude. thats price control. its not like iribis E is extremely obsolete or something
@sovietskies69 the range of the Irbis-E is not 40% more than RBE2,maybe 30% but remember,the irbis-E is inferior in every other category(as i have showed you),are you saying you would want to be able to detect an enemy plane just a few seconds before they detect you,even without any weapons that can strike them before they can detect you??? man,you wouldnt last long if you chose your own plane XP and then you go back to the price. RANGE IS CHEAP! its the cheapest thing you can achieve with radar
@hotpocketpoison dude first of quit doing your troll faces to me, its homo. And 40% is more than a few seconds. You have more time to prepare....and once again your steering way off topic and I have no idea what point your trying to make(besides the obvious, you cant stand Russia). so let me steer you back on subject. Do you think Iribis E is extremely obsolete to the RBE2?(even thought I would rather have Iribis E)
@sovietskies69 well,with more trackable targets,AESA, A-G capabilities,great range,and being MUCH more difficult to jam(nearly impossible to jam AESA radars,only with the most advanced jammers,but NOTHING the Su-35 has can do that)YES id say it IS better than the Irbis-E and all those features explains the higher price. also where the fuck are you getting these price figures from?? and since russia has no weapons that can take advantage of that kind of range your"preparation"argument is invalid.
@hotpocketpoison i told you they were posted on f-16 forums.com last year. someone scanned a brochure from a aero show they went to, and it had all kinds of radar in there.(i think it was MAKS). and the K-100 missle can reach anything in the radar range. and one more question..at what range can the RBE2 track the F-22A?
@sovietskies69 first off the K-100 is not designed to take out fighters, it is an AWACS killer, meaning it has virtually no maneuverability(it would be incapable of shooting down even a plane with the P-51s maneuverability, but since AWACS cant maneuver anyway it doesnt need maneuverability),just huge range. the only true A-A missile with a range of over 100miles is the AIM-54 Phoenix. also with an RCS of at most 0.001 the F-22 would need to be within probably 15miles to be detected the RBE2.
@hotpocketpoison my bad I completely forgot thats the wrong missle class. And still a pilot can prepare for an attack if he sees the other plane sooner. shooting a missle as soon as you see them does not guanrtee a hit. Flares...and super maneuverability of the SU-35 makes it harder to hit. and cool...the RBE2 can detect the F-22 at aprox, 35km while the Iribis can detect the F-22 at 90km.....
@sovietskies69 the irbis-E can detect a 0.01m2 target from 90km away, the F-22 is said to have an RCS anywhere from 0.001 to as low as 0.0002m2, so the range you said is more like 25km max(if we are talking about 0.001)my number of 15miles was supposed to be 15km, typo.
@hotpocketpoison no, see that statement is not by me. thats directly from engineers at Tikhomirov, and I will take their words over yours any day(or should I say Wiki)
@sovietskies69 ugh...YES! they said it can detect a 0.01m2 TARGET at 90km, which is true. but with an RCS as low as 0.0002m2 the F-22 can NOT be detected farther than 25km(thats still using the larger estimate of 0.001m2).
@sovietskies69 how the hell do they expect to obtain an F-22 to do tests on??? im sorry, but i just HAVE to at this point XD XD they most likely said it can detect super low observable planes LIKE the F-22 or F-35, if they actually said F-22 or F-35 than you are a victim of propaganda my friend.
@hotpocketpoison seriously quit with the homo faces. and FYI if you-a youtube fanboy(and nothing else) have the RCS of an f-22, dont you think actual educated aerospace scientists can calculate how much RCS their radar can track.......? and what propeganda? as much as you want it to be so, Russia does not hate US and does not create any propaganda against them.
@sovietskies69 STOP REPEATING YOURSELF!!! i already said their 0.01m2 RCS was true BUT THAT IS NOT THE RCS OF THE F-22(OR the F-35)!!! what are you NOT understanding...or better yet, are you understanding ANY of what i am saying??? you have just repeated the same statement for the 3rd time in a row and it is starting to piss me off. if you have NOTHING logical to say than do some goddamn research on the subject. JESUS! and russia doesnt hate the US??? thats laughable at best, we hate each other.
@hotpocketpoison only one hating is you(its sad). how are you going to tell me we hate each other? I got ties all over the military branches in Russia and im in USAF....how the fuck can you tell me? You play too much strategy games. fucken kid...and once again..control your bi polar...there's help out there for you. you can get through this, its going to be ok
@hotpocketpoison -because according to price, its almost like a 80's radar...price control. price control.....Russia is good at it and the more they work with China the better they become at it. Once again prices for air craft...not a good argument. SHITS WEAK SON!
@sovietskies69 -it is much more expensive to make an AESA radar, with A-A AND A-G capabilities with the ability to track more targets than it is to get better range.
@hotpocketpoison And China probably did hack the pentagon. Pakistan about 2 years back did request a 5th gen fighter to counter India. the only thing is PAF only messes with single engine planes, and the only one in the world is F-35. China agreed to start building one called the FC-20 or 25(i forgot) but right now its still in drawing board stages. so stealing a single engine stealth plane to boost their FC-25 program would actually make sense...
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
@sovietskies69 -and do you even understand the problems associated with making so many different variants of one plane??? you claim to be USAF yet you dont even understand the importance of interchangeable parts, and the problems associated with having fewer of them? not to mention the multiple different systems engineers would have to memorize to keep the entire fleet in the air. you are completely delusional. like i said, the few new Su-35Ss and MiG-35s are just stopgaps, not the full fleet.
@hotpocketpoison and please get your facts from somewhere besides wiki. i already proved to you once their info is wrong. all the numbers of fighters your putting down are very wrong. reason I know is, they do not give out their official count of jets to anyone outside the country, yet alone news agencies. when it comes to Russian military, wiki fails...like you
@sovietskies69 they are also only upgrading a handful of MiG-29s into MiG-35s and Su-27s into Su-35s as a stopgap until the Pak-Fa is released. after that they are going to retire most of their MiG-29s and Su-27s. also russia is not even in the process of building a new aircraft carrier,they plan on modernizing their already existing one,WE are building 2 new Gerald R Ford class aircraft carriers but russia has yet to build one since the Kuznetsov. and it will be some time till we see the S-500.
@hotpocketpoison no. their building 2 new ones. they cant upgrade their old ones because they sold them all but 1. China on the other hand is upgraded their purchased old soviet carrier. and some time untill s-500? the factories are almost done and the order has been inked in contract to be done by or before 2015....and SU-27 are not being retired. the UPGRADED versions are enough to keep the combat competitive at least till 2025.
@hotpocketpoison my point is, they are too few to be decisive, they are more of a gadget that helps and is very advanced for sure, but that's not the key. Look in WWII germans had superior armor compared to the sherman (like the tiger, panther etc nobody can say otherwise) but they were too few build to face the tons of shermans... i think numbers matters too. So the F-22 is more of a gadget, the real backbone of the army will still be the f-16, f-18 etc (for some time at least)
@albr00700 but remember, tanks such as the Tiger 1 were outnumbered nearly 20-1 in most of its battles. to outnumber the 187 F-22s 20-1 you would have to combine every fighter in the russian, chinese, indian, and north korean AFs and still most likely not outnumber the F-22 20-1. and at a time of war the F-22 program could be reactivated, and new F-22s could be built...its not like it is physically impossible to build more, it would just be completely unnecessary during peace time.
@albr00700 our fleet of F-22s, but russia only has at max 600 fighters(the overwhelming majority of those being old versions of the MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31...all completely inferior to the F-22 and can be taken on easily by our legacy fighters). secondly people are saying the same things about the F-35 as they did about the F-22...and see how wrong they were. the F-35 is not designed to dogfight, it will use the EODAS system to gain air superiority where it is deployed.
@hotpocketpoison lllooooolll! stop talking shit in youtube! you're misinforming! rafale has supercruise even loaded with several weapons and full of fuel,as does the eurofighter
@frizstyler no, the Rafale has yet to perform supercruise. and the Eurofighter can supercruise at mach 1.2 clean and with 50% fuel. with weapons and 75-100% fuel it would weigh far to much and suffer from to much parasitic drag to be able to perform supercruise.
@hotpocketpoison we're talking about supercruise taking place at appropriate altitude.not near sea level what you say is unofficial. where did you learn this?
@frizstyler search the internet and you can find all the info you need. the Rafale can cruise at mach 1.1 but the term supersonic technically means an aircraft traveling at least Mach 1.2, which means the Rafale is not able to supercruise. and with a full combat load it would be physically impossible for even the Eurofighter that can supercruise at mach 1.2 to supercruise. the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.8+, which means it can still supercruise with a full combat load.
@frizstyler that is ridiculous. mach 1.3 may be a reasonable assumption for a clean Eurofighter or Rafale with 25% fuel but with full fuel and weapons? that is absurd, the engines are not powerful enough. a realistic speed would be about mach 1.2 cruise speed for both but even if that was true they would still lose that ability when fitted with even a light combat load.
@hotpocketpoison why do you doubt it so much?these engines are very powerful. and these planes have a very aerodyamic profile. rafale for example has 1.1 thrust/weight ratio in combat load.what makes you think it can't supercruise with that same load? did you do calculations?
@frizstyler a high T/W ratio does not necessarily mean a fast plane,just like a low T/W ratio does not mean a slow plane. the F-4 had a T/W ratio of 0.56 fully loaded yet could still exceed speeds of Mach 2.2. it all depends on wether the engines were designed for speed or power. and with the small engines of the rafale the possibility of supercruise with a full load of fuel and missiles seems unlikely if not impossible(the amount of drag externally mounted missiles would produce is astounding).
@hotpocketpoison modern jet engines are optimised,they can achieve their power at both low and high speeds efficiently
if you think they're wrong ,why don't you email eurofighter gmbh and dassault and tell them their planes perform worse than what they say? lol. don't forget to mention you're american and you've never even seen these planes.
you obviously believe that fat-belly 35 ton cow you have that has no A-G capabilities and consumes fuel like shit is worth its money?
@frizstyler no A-G capabilities??? are you talking about the F-22 or the F-35? because they both have A-G capabilities. and even the official speed of the Eurofighters supercruise is Mach 1.2, and in the indian MRCA competition the Rafale was incapable of performing supercruise even once thus far.
@hotpocketpoison you have no clue of what you're talking about. what are you,lockheed's dog? look it up! f16 has better A-G than f22! but f22 never uses A-G capability anyway. it's just air "superiority". if only nato did some really competitive exercises,then we would SEE what it would do in A-A because all you americans do is CLAIM. i bet it would eat DUST from european & russian fighters
@frizstyler the F-22 can carry the same bombs and missiles the F-16 can carry and can carry more of them. but since the F-22 is primarily and air superiority fighter there is no reason to risk the plane in ground attacks when a cheaper alternative(F-16)is readily available. also the F-22 can only be detected from 25miles away by the Irbis-E(russias most advanced radar)which is far better than any european radar(and even close to the AN/APG-77A1 on the F-22)from this range the F-22 could still-
@frizstyler -engage its target with its missiles and destroy them before they even know the F-22 is there. this means that the F-22 would win in an air-air engagement with any aircraft almost 100% of the time. if we are talking about dogfights then the F-22(with its thrust vectoring engines)is more maneuverable than the Rafale or the Eurofighter at low speeds, and equal to the T-50, Su-35S and the J-20.
@hotpocketpoison my main disagreement about f22 is that it's too big scale for what it needs to do.its supposed to be stealth,but they haven't proven that. it may have that paint absorbing some microwave radiation but its size betrays it and you will see it some time. IMO they should have made it way smaller,single engined and without thrust vectoring shit.it would be faster and do its job properly.what they ve made is a showoff plane
@frizstyler the F-22 does not only utilize RAM and RAP but also electronic devices that dampen radar waves as they approach the jet. the F-22 also features a specialized radar that is very difficult to intercept. the F-22 needs to be large to carry the amount of weapons and fuel it can, and without the thrust vectoring it would not be nearly as effective in a dogfight.
1h flight= 30h for maintenance
1 mechanical failure every 1.7h flight, pretty usefull in time of war...
but lets calculate: have to return to base after 1.7h : 2 because has to return
so it's 0.85h flight effectiveness, BUT it's supersonic, so mach 2 (+-2000km/h) => 2000*0.85= 1700km effectiveness. USA= 4500km from east to west so by placing them in the center, CANT even reach to coast, planes can't even cover whole of US!!!!!!!!!!! very usefull program... and we are in debt...
albr00700 2 months ago
@albr00700 watch?v=RgiThPPnIcY this should help you.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison u are perhaps right, but my point is , the palne is far too costly 350 000 000 per plan!!!, to defend us u need a bit more than hundred planes, but it s only what we can get for this money, and lets not speak about the f-35 which is not even worth speaking about it
albr00700 2 months ago
@albr00700 damn, i accidentally responded to myself :P
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison but in that video the USAF states that the fly away cost for each F-22 is $142million, the only way you could come up with $350million is if you include design costs but that would not be correct because the country is not loosing $350million every time a plane is built. also 187 planes is enough to handle any AF on the planet. and the F-35 is tricky, if all the new tech works as well as it is said it will be the most effective plane ever built, if they dont, then it is a lemon.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison 187 enough??? what if invaders come in 4 different directions=> 187 : 4 = 46 planes!!!! and against massive formations of new sukoys, it s going to be hard... and for the f-35 watch : "why the f-22 is useless" or something like that, aircraft specialist comment the aircraft, not very optimistic... watch the vid very interesting
albr00700 2 months ago
@albr00700 first of all how many new sukhois do you think russia has??? the T-50 is going to be inferior to the F-22 and the russians will only buy 200 max(due to new cuts this may be drastically lowered)and they are only going to buy 48 Su-35s. how can they attack from 4 directions with less than 248 planes??? 1 F-22 could take on 6(thats how many AIM-120Ds it can hold internally)of any aircraft on the planet, that means russia would have to attack with AT LEAST 1130 fighters to overwhelm-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison wow i cant believe i found you in here as well doing the same thing. your such a dumb bimbo. we had this argument. What cuts is Russia facing? Their defense budget has skyrocketed, especially with that 686 billion dollar bonus, so please explain where the cuts are????? and for the last time almost all Mig-29's, SU-27's Mig-31's are ALL upgraded. ALL!!!!!!! Your hardheaded dude...damn
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 first of all this is a video about an american airplane, secondly russias fleet of Su-27s consists almost entirely of Su-27S(and its 2 seat counterpart)which is inferior to the F-15C. their fleet of MiG-29s consists of mostly standard MiG-29s(which are inferior to the F-16C). and most of their MiG-31s consist of the standard MiG-31...which arnt particularly good at anything. so no, they are not"ALL"upgraded, in fact, 85% are not...lol. and we already talked about this"686billion".
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison no almost all their fleet is upgraded. (fuck its so hard when you look on wiki for your facts), Russia has 0 planes from the 80's(original dates of those planes made) with 80's tech. most mig 31 have upgrades from the early 90's mig 29's were upgraded in 02. and Su-27 are almost all upgraded and are right now in the process being upgraded to Su-27SM(3).(very low RCS) and yes we talked about the 686 billion dollar BONUS. its a BONUS not TOTAL. fucken moron
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison like I said their defense industry is getting wealthy, their officers are recieveing more pay. they got a lot more projects going. their upgrading a lot of their current fleets of planes. their in the process of building 2 new air craft carriers. their 5th gen is almost done. their building missile factories to start s-500...just where are these cutbacks?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 WHERE did you find that they have 0 aircraft from the 80s??? THAT IS ABSURD beyond anyones wildest imagination. again you claim MY info is wrong then you come up with these COMPLETELY idiotic"stats"that make me fear for your sanity. russia does NOT have enough money to modernize every Su-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31, so they kept most of them at their base design, and is why they are building the Pak-Fa(to retire them for one effective deign instead of multiple less effective ones).-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you misread my post. they have 0 air craft from the 80's using just 80's tech(according to your theory of no upgrades at all, and just where do you get the 85% from) first of there is about 6 upgrades for the mig-29. 2 upgrades for the mig-31. and about 5 for the SU-27. Almost all are upgraded. Even the 2nd and 3rd gen fighters have been upgraded. And its funny you never bring up the SU-30 in the conversation(another plane that has been upgraded)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 just because there have been many upgrades done to at least one of the planes does not mean that they all receive the upgrade the second one does,NOW who thinks it is some strategy game? its not like you unlock a new upgrade and POOF every airplane is upgraded...lol. and i find the Su-30 irrelevant to this conversation seeing as though russia only operates 12 of them. and sold them"all"? what is this"all"? they have had only one aircraft carrier for the past 35 years(Kuznetsov).-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison first off their 2 NEW nuclear air craft carriers set to launch in the 2025 frame(research please). And the reason I know mist Mig-29's are upgraded is because as of today there is under 50 Mig-29A in service. However there are a couple hundred flying. simple logic states that the rest are all different, with different upgrades. Same with SU-27, as a matter of fact I dont think there is any SU-27A flying anymore. the only place you can find those is a museum
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 there is no"Su-27A", it goes Su-27(production variant), Su-27S(the overwhelming majority of russians Su-27 fleet with upgraded engines T10P engines). the russians have different lettering than the US because their alphabet translation is vastly different. also the only MiG-29s in wide use with the russian AF are the MiG-29, MiG-29UB(two seater version), and the MiG-29SMT(modern version), and since less than 50SMTs have been produce that means most are MiG-29s and the UB variants.-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison the thing you dont get is you dont understand the VVS...they never make the exact same thing on the production line. they do not make the exact same fighter, over and over and over again for 15+ years. they make variants for everything. Even the SU-35 now has 2 variants and its only 2 years old...all our jets have had upgrades...even our old ass TU-22 which have become TU-22M3's and are still in the process of being upgraded further. (until Pak-DA comes out)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -also the russian parliament has not yet accepted the plans for these new aircraft carriers you are speaking of, it is just as likely they could be denied rather than accepted, you cant count something that has not been verified to a 100% certainty, even the T-95 was scrapped even after all the money and effort put into it, so how can you possibly saw you WILL have 2 new aircraft carriers when neither are being built. one of our G.R.F class carriers is already under construction.-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison T-95 and air craft carriers are a horrible example. T-95 prototype got out performed badly by the T-90 so they decided to fund a program to upgrade the T-90. compared to the air craft carriers that the need in order to restore their navy. and yes I do understand the problems with having that many variants. but then again im not the one that decided on this, im just telling you how they do it over there and why your statement of, "none are upgraded" is very false
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the Su-27S IS an upgraded version of the production model Su-27, but it is still inferior to the F-15C, and most of the MiG-29s truly are the original production models because they are the cheapest kind, and that is what the MiG-29 was designed to be: a light, cheap aircraft. the rest of the upgrades you are referring to are all technological demonstrators, but are not in actual military service(or in extremely limited service).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison nope. your dead wrong. send me links or show me proof of this because its all BS. Most Mig-29's that are in service are not the original. That would mean that the VVS 3rd gen planes use newer avionics than the Mig-29 which makes no sense. do yourself a favor and stick to the US army only. you dont know a damn thing about russia. and wiki will never help you(i dont know how many times i can explain this to you)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 look at websites like warfare ru, or Globalsecurity org. but i wouldnt waste my time, wikipedia has information pulled directly from these websites and many others. now that i have told you my sites...tell me...WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR BEWILDERINGLY ASININE INFO FROM! and most russian 3rd gen planes are upgraded, but still have TERRIBLE tech. terrible radars,engines,avionics, so no. they are NOT"better"than the production models of MiG-29s,but the production models ARE the most used.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison both those sites do not list individual models used. you really dont get the whole "wiki is not accurate about russian tech" thing dont you? even after i proved to you that wiki is wrong. haha wow your stubborn. most mig-29's are upgraded, like I said VVS does not build the same exact thing on the production line for 15+ years. and like I said i got my sources and their a lot better than yours.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 those sites were just examples. also you have yet to prove anyone wrong besides yourself, all you do is repeat yourself and pretend you are correct when in reality you have put forward some of the dumbest"facts"i have ever seen. your sources are COMPLETELY wrong and most likely are just you refusing to leave your fantasy world. its time to wake up friend, the russian AF is not as"advanced"as you think it is.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison fantasy world? dude i proved to you wiki is wrong. you admitted it. are we going back to being bipolar are we? your the one living in fantasy land, the fact that you THINK you know so much about VVS is absurd. you get your facts from wiki kid, cmon thas bad. oh btw remind me to tell my dad when i visit him in June, that people in the US believe that wiki has an accurate database of russian tech, he will get a very good laugh.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison and my sources are foreign. in russian. i can link them all to you and prove you wrong, but you would need google translator to translate it.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 and what makes you think they are correct? what makes them any more correct than any other web site??? because it is in russian? your sources are no more reliable than wiki. and you have YET to prove wiki wrong, and i have not admitted wiki is wrong because the people who edit these articles get their information from sites all over the internet, they link them at the bottom of the page, and someone from wiki verifies it, you cant just post random nonsense on wiki anymore.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you did admit you were wrong. because wiki still right now says mg 25 altittude is 80k...wrong. and Russian sites are correct because they actually talk to companies like KNAAPO in person I have yet to see an English site interview a Russian engineer or VVS personal. Russian sources do this all the time. that's how i know im right and you wiki boy are full of shit.btw the average SU-27 is Su-27P, and the average Mig-31 is Mig-31B which is set to be upgraded soon
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 you fucking moron, i said i skipped that section and did not read that the prototype flew over 123000ft, if you payed the fuck attention you would have seen that, jesus you are starting to piss me off at this point with your repetitive comments. and HOLY SHIT if you actually knew anything about the jets you would know that the Su-27P IS the Su-27S without A-G weapon control systems...THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT DUMBASS!!! also many MiG-31s are the originals, the rest are B and M.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison i never said anything about A-G capabilities,i still disproved your point of saying "none are upgraded".and im the moron? dude all mig25's can go way over 80k feet.all of them.thats what they were designed to do. not just the prototype. and here another correction for you...many mig-31's are B's and will also soon be upgraded. haha and dude learn to control you bipolar disorder, they have medication out there for that.its gona be ok. you will get through this XD
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 it doesnt matter if you never said anything about A-G capabilities, the fact of the matter is THE Su-27P IS THE Su-27S so WHO was correct? you JUST proved my point you moron! also there are just as many MiG-31s as there are B and M models. also the average operational ceiling of the MiG-25 is 80000ft,it CAN go much higher but most of the time the plane will stay at 80000ft because its weapons are still effective at this altitude,meaning there would be no need to travel any higher.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison no im pretty sure im right here. you originally said that 85%(btw where are u getting this number from) are not upgraded. that means its the same plane with no mods since its been made...very wrong. and their still in the process of being upgraded farther than they already are. and mig-25 was made to intercept high altitude jets like SR-71 and U-2's...so yeah..lol damn dude u really hate russia...just wait till pak-fa is out. you will love them more XD
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 i hate ignorant people such as yourself. even when you are incorrect you dont have the balls to admit to it...that is a PATHETIC quality. also HOW ARE YOU CORRECT??? if you are talking about when you said most Su-27s are Su-27Ps then yes, you are correct...BUT THAT STATEMENT ONLY PROVES MY POINT!!! just get the hell out of here, you obviously have no damn clue what you are talking about, so next time i suggest you dont stalk my comments and start another loosing battle. USAF>vvs
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison nah im not ignorant. you are. you still believe wiki is right about VVS. and lmao i never lost anything to you. you get your facts from wiki HAHA! you originally said most russian planes have no upgrades. this means if a Su-27 was made in 85(random year) that means its still flying today with NOTHING done to it. the fact that now there are S's and P's and about 3 other letters proves that they have been alerted, which once again proves as always, you fail
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 is that all you can fall back on??? that wiki is wrong? well it seemed to be very correct about most Su-27 being old ass P models. and the S, P and UB ARE the original models(the others before them are all prototypes). i am done with you unless you can say something logical for once.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison lol wow this is too easy.UB for your info is a TRAINER. nor for combat. and S and P are not original, not even close, where are you now getting this info from? and another thing your ignoring is KNAAPO is going to overhaul them to SM3's, similar to the overhaul their doing to India's Su-30MKI SS(super suhkoi).and you want logical? whos the jackass that blurts random shit like "almost all VVS fighters are originals" or "Russia is facing a severe defense cut" lmao
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 how about this, go on the internet and research the Su-27S and P models...you will find that the only difference between them and the first production Su-27 is the upgraded engines(T10P)and the fact that the Su-27S has A-G capabilities. and i know the UB is a 2 seat trainer but those are the first 3 variants. and only 12 SM3s are on order, AGAIN these are just stopgaps(i hope you even know what that word means)until the Pak-Fa is released.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison ok your still proving me right. im just getting real technical is all. the fact that engines have been upgraded proves that they are not all originals like you said. and there will be more SM3's on order. and their will probably be 50-80 SM3's flying by 2015 because Pak-FA will not replace 2 classes of fighters overnight
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 ok, fine, they are not the originals...but they are still inferior to their american counterpart, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT I AM GETTING AT! also there is not an order for 50-80 SM3s by 2015, PLEASE stop making shit up.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison its a prediction. and unlike you its a educated prediction. General Kornukov, head of the VVS made this prediction and said their going to try real hard to push that order through....cmon dude im not you. i don't say random shit, like 85%(still dont know where you got that number from), is all original, or that russia is facing defense cuts....oh and another thing wiki has incorrect is they claim that a mig-31 cost is 60 million...thats more than a super hornet
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 how much do you think a MiG-31 costs? they have enormous,extremely expensive engines, a large radar, reconnaissance technology, semi-modern avionics, and many other technologies, not to mention the materials needed to build the airframe to survive at the speeds and altitude they are capable of operating in. $60million is most likely correct.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison not even close. russia has always been good at price control. 60 million is the estimated cost of pak-fa.....no way in hell the mig can cost 60 mill per unit. su 35 and mig 35 are both around that cost...
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 then HOW MUCH DOES IT COST,seriously,all you do is say things like"nope" and "thats wrong" yet you NEVER actually put any REAL information forward,then claim you know what no one else besides russian military brass knows XP seriously dude,with all its advancements the MiG-31M could DEFINITELY cost $60million. and i hate to break it to you but a cheap aircraft will perform like a cheap aircraft,its not like russia just magically produces cheaper equipment that is as good as ours.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison their equipment is cheaper. the cost starts at labor,resources and parts. 3 things that in Russia are cheaper. and i find it hard to believe that the mig-31...and 80's plane can cost WAY more than an f-15E/f-16C/D.....and to take it one step further an f-18 super hornet that was made in the late 90's, way more advanced than mig-31...and 60 million is the cost of pak-fa. get real dude. look at all that, and quit defending your beloved wiki.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 do you even realize what the single most expensive pice of an aircraft is? THE ENGINE, the MiG-31 has 2 massive and EXTREMELY expensive engines, coupled with its modern reconnaissance technology(also very expensive)and modern radar, its avionics(the second most expensive pice to an aircraft)are also modern. and the F-18 has some of the most modern avionics and multi role targeting technologies available(next to the F-22 and F-35), thats what makes it so expensive. also the F-15E-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
Comment removed
sovietskies69 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hotpocketpoison f-18 does have some of the most modern stuff right next to the f-22, and your telling me the mig31 from the 80s is going to cost more.do you seriously believe that?or are you just to proud to say,wiki may have fucked that up,because they also have no source for that cost and ya the enignes do drive the cost up but not to 60 million.the TU-22m3 cost is 65 million per unit(i know this for sure) and they have a pair of the strongest supersonic engines in the world
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -and F-16C have much less expensive engines and no reconnaissance technology, that is why they are cheaper than the MiG-31.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the MiG-31M has some of the most modern russian tech inside of it. also it has many different kinds of technologies to fill the roles it is designed to perform. obviously the original and the B models will be cheaper but the M model could DEFINITELY cost $60million, if you would just do research and see all the shit they put into that plane you would know why it is so expensive.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison ya your too proud to say it. because the SU-35 DOES have the most advanced russian tech and it costs that same amount and so will Pak-Fa..
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 BUT the Su-35 has much weaker and cheaper engines, no reconnaissance technology, a smaller radar, AND only one seat(so there is only 1 set of avionics). seriously dude, use your damn brain for once.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison and pak-fa? thats a 5th gen fighter....
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the Pak-Fa has little the Su-35 doesnt have, its only going to be a "5th" generation fighter in the minds of its creators, when in reality(because of its complete lack of stealth)it is as much a 4.5 generation fighter as the Su-35 is.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison not even close. what makes the pak-fa not stealth?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 first of all, its shaping, the Pak-Fa has no purpose shaping whatsoever. second, its price, you cant possibly incorporate high tech jammers or RAM at that low of a price.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison when you talk about price its an automatic fail. china makes the cheapest jets in the world. their J-20 i believe is somewhere from 20-40 million. and despite shaping, pak-fa will have a extremely low RCS still.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 no, it wont, it was not designed to be a "stealth" aircraft, it was designed to have a SMALLER RCS than its predecessors but not to be "stealthy". in fact, the Pak-Fa was designed like all other russian fighters, to be maneuverable NOT stealthy. and the chinese J-20??? how many things that have a "made in china" label on them have EVER been good XP
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison look up J-10B and actually look it up if you want to see a real good Chinese fighter. And Pak-FA will have a strong radar, stronger than most in the world and it will track other plane before it gets tracked. the Indian version said when fully loaded with bombs it has a RCS of less than 0.1....gimmie a break id like to see a radar that can track that
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the RCS of the T-50 is said to be 0.5m2(with no external weapons),while the RCS of the F-22 is said to be 0.001m2(the size of a marble). and the Radar of the F-22 could track a 1m2 target over 150miles away,which means the F-22 would easily detect the T-50 beyond the range it could detect the F-22. but now if we get into weapons the F-22 can carry 8 missiles internally,the T-50 can only carry 4,so to equal the fire power of the F-22 the T-50 would have to carry missiles externally
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison who ever gave that RCS is wrong because India's Air Force commander said otherwise. and why compare it to the f-22? Pak-FA is a multirole fighter, not air superiority. F-35 would be better comparison. BTW India rejected F-35 when it was offered to them
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 even the stealthiest plane on the face of the earth would have an RCS higher than 0.1 when fully loaded with external ordinance...its just simple physics buddy. also the T-50 was designed to be an air-superiority aircraft, but since it can carry A-G weapons it is called a multirole fighter. and india is controlled by russia, russia decides what they buy and what they dont. india is to russia as israel is to the US.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison WHOA!!!!! WHAT???!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? Dude India is NOT and i repeat NOT controlled by anyone. we just have a good alliance. For your info India just took the AH-64 over the Mi-28 and in their MRCA deal they took the EF over the SU-35....trust me India is a free nation. They just like Russia because their equipment is reliable and cheap. And I know, but trust me Pak-FA does not have an RCS of 0.5
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 first of all the indians do not operate the AH-64. second the Su-35 was not in the MRCA, the MiG-35 was, but the MiG-29k is already in use with the Indian Navy.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison They just had a bid to buy a big order of attack helicopters and they chose the AH-64 over the MI-28. And the Mig-29K is for their air craft carrier...whats that have to do with the MRCA deal? Bottom line is Russia does not control India..
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the indians would not need the MiG-35 because they already have the tech used in the MiG-29K, thats what it has to do with the MRCA.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
Comment removed
sovietskies69 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hotpocketpoison but why do you say K??? K only means its fitted for air craft carriers. and Mig-35 is way better than Mig-29k..and besides all that Russia has no control over India
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 because there would be no need for the indians to purchase the MiG-35 if they already have an advanced MiG-29 variant of their own.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison lol i keep trying to tell you even the most advanced mig 29 is not as good as Mig 35. and all that still shows russias has no control over india
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 even the Israelis have foreign equipment that is not US made, yet we pretty much control israel. and another reason the F-35 was rejected is not because it is a"bad plane"it is a beyond excellent plane(12 countries are already confirmed buyers, with potentially 8 others), but since the IAF spent over $5.5billion on the FGFA and since every FGFA is expected to be $20million cheaper than the F-35A there is no point in buying the F-35, because all that money will gave gone to waste.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison but IAF lately has been looking to purchase quality equipment. and FYI most countries that are into the F-35 are NATO countries. now THOSE are on US's sack.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 but the role the F-35 would fill(a stealthy multirole aircraft)is already being filled, there is no point in having 2 new aircraft for one role while having extremely old aircraft for another. and australia, singapore, and japan are NATO countries? well thats the first i am hearing about this XD the reason the F-35 is wanted by so many countries is because it is VASTLY superior to everything it is going to replace in those countries(F-16,F-18C,F-4,F-111,AV-8B,A-10,GR-4,and more).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you know what I mean dont be stupid. The majority of the countries are NATO. And a lot of those countries did not want the f-35, they kept asking if they can purchase f-22 instead thats why US put a ban on international sales for the raptor
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 every country that signed up for the F-35 program wants it, none are being forced. i am certain they would rather have the F-22 but thats because it is the best fighter in the world, and will stay that way even after the T-50 and J-20 are released. and the reason the F-22 is not for sale is because we want it to be impossible for the russians/chinese to get their hands on that kind of technology, not because we want countries to buy the F-35.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison lol except Russians dont flip technology anymore and havent since the late 60's.
Chine on the other hand IDK
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 dont flip tech??? how the hell do you think they were able to get the T-50 out so fast? skill??? BAH! the T-50 was a failed attempt to make their own F-22, using as much stolen tech as possible. the russians are confirmed to have stolen tech as recently as 1992(when the F-117 was downed in serbia russian officials salvaged the reck and took much of it back to russia, and WHAT DO YOU KNOW shortly after that the S-300 came online). you are right about the last part, CHINA DOES TO!
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison your so ignorant. Russia never copied the f-22. think about what your saying. for that to happen Russia would have to 1)steal and f-22, 2)hack the pentagon and steal designs. did those 2 things happen?. Russia never intended to copy the f117, even the chinese said that the stealth tech on it was too old to make into a 5th gen plane. anyways. and FYI the mig 1.44 and the su-47 was the test bed for pak-fa so it did not come out as fast as you think.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison the f-35? can guarantee you that wasn't Russia since they sold the US the original design, it would make no sense to copy that. And J-20 has actually decent stealth. And you swear like stealth is a hard thing to make. Its all about shape and coating. You and every other youtube fan boy can say Pak-FA is a copy, however no military analyst has ever said that about pak-fa...same thing cant be said about j-20
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the VTOL engine designe was bought from YAK nothing more, which means the F-35A and C have nothing russian in them, the russians WISH they had the F-35 design. also it is impossible to make a stealthy fighter based ONLY on shaping and coating, you need high tech jammers and RAM, neither of which the chinese have ever even shown the capability of producing(only scavenging old ass obsolete wrecks like the F-117). so it most likely will NOT have decent stealth, just like the Pak-Fa.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison The Yak-141 was the testbed of the X-35 and X-32 which went on to become f-35,yak-141 was a vital piece in the project,you US fan boys hate to admit this. Just look at pics, the Yak-141 looks just like the F-35, IF the F-35 was built in the 80's. And for the last time Pak-FA is not a copy of F-117. Russia had their own stealth fighter program started in the 80's(back then it was on paper). The Pak-FA is 100% theirs. China, IDK because their NOTORIOUS of stealing
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the Yak-141 airframe has nothing to do with the F-35s, the first designs of the F-35 were drawn on a napkin by the lead designer, the only thing similar in the 2 is the VTOL system, nothing else looks even remotely the same(aside from both having wings and one engine). and the russians only started looking into stealth in the mid 90s(after the F-117 crashed and they examined it...coincidence? highly unlikely). also the Pak-Fa is not related to any russian 1980s fighter projects.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison You dont know what they had in the 80's...like I said back then it was all on paper. and LM invested $385 million into the yak-141....thats a shit load of money. for that much you dont think they could develop their own plane? like I said you youtube fan boys have a hard time admitting this. check your inbox
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the F-35 has NO large gap in the empennage, its engine inlets are NOT separate from the front end of the fuselage, the F-35 has a COMPLETELY different wing and horizontal stabilizer design and slanted vertical stabilizers, the F-35 has a much larger nose to accommodate the advanced radar, and the F-35 has a much more sleek design. they are NOTHING alike! compare pictures side by side and see for yourself.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison u gota remember they had to make it stealth...so obviously its not going to be EXACTLY the same(plus yak-141 is 30 years old...)all you youtube fan boys are the same, you always try to compare it exactly the same. The american version is stealth, brought into the 21st century with a western touch to it. and after all that you got the f-35
the main concept is the same. there is no excuse for LM paying THAT much money and then shortly after the X-35/32 comes out.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 but if the basic design is"similar"(as you are saying)then they would not have spent as much money as they did building something that just looks a little different. also what parts do you even consider somewhat similar? not a single part of those airplanes shares even one common feature(aside from 2 wings and an engine), they are literally NOTHING alike. also by your logic i can say the Pak-Fa was a direct copy of the F-22s and YF-23s airframe(they have 2 wings and 2 engines).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison ya but did Sukhoi pay LM 385 million to take partnership in the YF-23? NO? so its not a copy. However LM did pay a shit load of money. THATS my argument. They took the designs back and built the f-35 out of it. Like i said you would be stubborn(i already knew this), they look very similar i dont know how you cant see it(unless your fan boy vision is blocking your view)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 no, they didnt...WHICH IS STEALING! the F-35 and YAK-141 look about as similar as the F-18 and the MiG-29...some features look slightly similar but NONE were copies off the other, nor do they look close enough to even consider that.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison Lmao. so now were back to stealing? Pak-FA is Russian. get that thorught ur head. they never came to the US and took the YF-23. And its different from 2 planes that look similar and made in different times, to 2 planes looking similar where 1 company invested a shit load of money and shortly after made a similar plane.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the F-18(in this case the YF-17)and the MiG-29 flew around the same time. also lockheed martin bought the STOVL ENGINE PATENT!!! they did not buy the design for the airframe,in fact,not event the entire engine is the same,only the lift fan,nozzle,and the lift vents in the wing roots. also just look up pictures of the F-22 and the Pak-Fa,also from the front and the sides the Pak-Fa looks just like the YF-23. also look at the link i sent you,THAT proves the russians stole F-35 info.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison it does not say what they purchased, it just says they investes 385 million into the program(thats a lot...) and pak-fa is freaking russian. what proof do you have besides the one every youtube fan boy uses of "looks"?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 $385 million out of a $40+ billion program is less than 1% so no, that isnt a lot. also just look online at the massive numbers of news programs talking about the hack, if your plane was just hacked and there was a potential security risk involved would you tell people about it and start panic? i doubt it. the russian MiG-LMFS is the russians light multi-role stealth fighter, just like the F-35, and this program started AFTER the hacks took place. so all evidence points to russia.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison while it may not be a lot, its too much to spend on 1 thing....it must have been a vital component. and no evidence points to Russia. I dont think US would just let anyone get away with that. and FYI it looks more of the concept body India drew up a few years back for a 5th gen single engine plane...and Russia and India DO work together. And last but not least I will believe the Pentagon than new paper. Didn't the paper also say a raptor value is 350 million?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 WP said the F-22 value is $350million then they had that utterly retarded segment on Rachel Meadow about it. the reason so many people think the F-22 is valued at $350million per plane is because that is what the development cost added to the price would be, but since the country is not loosing $350million every time a plane is built this is NOT the price per plane(it is actually $142million). also look up the LMFS program, it is a few years old, but is predated by the F-35.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you just proved my point. I will believe Pentagon any day over the media. So I dont believe the F-35 files were ever hacked. And there is no pics of Mig's 5th gen its all on paper. On paper, all 5th gen single engine planes will look very similar since their shaped for stealth. Look up Japans 5th gen single engine concept, it looks more similar to the f-35 than anything else(this was made before they agreed to join JSF)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the japanese have not ever ventured to create a 5th gen plane with one engine, type in "japanese ATD-X" this is the only 5th gen plane the japanese are developing, or have thought of developing, and ill be damned if it looks even remotely like the F-35(it looks more like the F-22). also did the F-117 and the F-22 look alike??? no??? well by your logic, since they are both 2 engine stealth planes they should...lol. your point is non existent. they dont HAVE to look the same at all.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison ones is a fighter, one is a bomber. bad example. at least keep it the same class
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 but you said and quote"all 5th gen single engine planes will look very similar since their shaped for stealth"so just add another engine and your comment basically says that because of stealth shaping all stealth planes look the same,which is wholly incorrect,there are many ways to go about stealth,the russians just dont want to waste time and money and(as their pitiful excuse goes)"dont want to reinvent the wheel"yet every time the US"reinvents the wheel"we always make it better.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison dont want to waste time and money? their program for stealth has been around since the 80's. and still a bomber and a fighter are very different. And Russians are perfecting stealth. You still dont know how stealthy the Pak-FA is, all you can do is guess by looking at it. And maybe Mig's stealth plane will be even better. Or maybe the Russian Pak-DA(that shit looks stealthy) will also prove you wrong.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the russians have NOT even experimented with a stealth aircraft before the Pak-Fa. the MiG-1.44,Su-37,and Su-47 were NOT stealthy. also it has been stated by Sukhoi themselves that the Pak-Fa was not designed to be as stealthy as the F-22,it was designed to be more maneuverable(how typical of the russians and their bewilderingly obsolete mentality on fighters). also at a cost of $57million a pice it will NOT have good RAM and will NOT have good jammers,its not monetarily possible.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison AS the F-22. notice the AS part. just like the F-35 is not AS stealthy as the f-22 as well. and russia always has price control. their jets will always be cheaper because of where their made. if you were to make a mig-29 in a US plant it would probably be 2 or 3 times the cost. and it really kills you inside to admit that Russia has made and is making some pretty good planes huh?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 LOL! not really, the price of the Su-27 and F-15A were rather close when they were first released despite the F-15A being utterly superior. russia has cheap stuff because they are so much less advanced than their american counterparts, THATS HOW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN! and it obviously is not changing anytime soon. and in regards to your"AS"statement i will repeat myself, THE PAK-FA IS TOO CHEAP!!! it is cheaper than the Su-35S which has extremely poor stealth itself...JESUS!
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison not really. example...the Iribis E radar is superior to RBE2(in the Rafale) but yet the RBE2 price is almost double....Russia has maintained price control. Everything their is cheaper ESPECIALLY for the military. China does the same thing. They can easily put out a 4.5 combat competitive jet under 30 million(not even Russia is that good), just look at J-10B or the JF-17........talking about prices in air craft comparisons is weak son
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison and the SU-35S was not made for stealth, so why would you even go and make a statment saying it has poor stealth. thats like me saying F-16 has poor stealth
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 first of all the Irbis-E is NOT superior to the REM2. the RBE2 can track 40 targets and engage 8 while the Irbis-E can only track 30 targets and engage 8. the Irbis-E also has very limiter A-G capabilities whereas the RBE2 can track multiple ground targets and engage multiple simultaneously(im not sure what the exact number is but it is higher than the Irbis-E). also the Irbis-E is a PESA radar whereas the RBE2 is a AESA radar, this makes them far more progressive and nearly-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -impossible to jam. also the range of the RBE2 may not be as high as the Irbis-E but it gets a clearer picture from the AESA. detection range is not everything, also it is not half the price, i cant even find price for either, but even if it was double it is twice as good. also the Su-35 uses extensive RAM, but because of its poor quality, it still has a 1m2 RCS. so as you can see, russian shit isnt just magically cheaper...it is cheaper because IT IS INFERIOR!!!
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison haha and you forgot most import fact...range. Iribis is is almost DOUBLE. Range is everything dude when it comes to air to air combat. I can see you before you see me. its that simple. and they had prices up last year on f-16 forums.com, i tried to find the thread but i think its not around anymore. they had the iribis E listed about 40% cheaper.....thats not magical dude. thats price control. its not like iribis E is extremely obsolete or something
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the range of the Irbis-E is not 40% more than RBE2,maybe 30% but remember,the irbis-E is inferior in every other category(as i have showed you),are you saying you would want to be able to detect an enemy plane just a few seconds before they detect you,even without any weapons that can strike them before they can detect you??? man,you wouldnt last long if you chose your own plane XP and then you go back to the price. RANGE IS CHEAP! its the cheapest thing you can achieve with radar
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison dude first of quit doing your troll faces to me, its homo. And 40% is more than a few seconds. You have more time to prepare....and once again your steering way off topic and I have no idea what point your trying to make(besides the obvious, you cant stand Russia). so let me steer you back on subject. Do you think Iribis E is extremely obsolete to the RBE2?(even thought I would rather have Iribis E)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 well,with more trackable targets,AESA, A-G capabilities,great range,and being MUCH more difficult to jam(nearly impossible to jam AESA radars,only with the most advanced jammers,but NOTHING the Su-35 has can do that)YES id say it IS better than the Irbis-E and all those features explains the higher price. also where the fuck are you getting these price figures from?? and since russia has no weapons that can take advantage of that kind of range your"preparation"argument is invalid.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison i told you they were posted on f-16 forums.com last year. someone scanned a brochure from a aero show they went to, and it had all kinds of radar in there.(i think it was MAKS). and the K-100 missle can reach anything in the radar range. and one more question..at what range can the RBE2 track the F-22A?
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 first off the K-100 is not designed to take out fighters, it is an AWACS killer, meaning it has virtually no maneuverability(it would be incapable of shooting down even a plane with the P-51s maneuverability, but since AWACS cant maneuver anyway it doesnt need maneuverability),just huge range. the only true A-A missile with a range of over 100miles is the AIM-54 Phoenix. also with an RCS of at most 0.001 the F-22 would need to be within probably 15miles to be detected the RBE2.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison my bad I completely forgot thats the wrong missle class. And still a pilot can prepare for an attack if he sees the other plane sooner. shooting a missle as soon as you see them does not guanrtee a hit. Flares...and super maneuverability of the SU-35 makes it harder to hit. and cool...the RBE2 can detect the F-22 at aprox, 35km while the Iribis can detect the F-22 at 90km.....
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 the irbis-E can detect a 0.01m2 target from 90km away, the F-22 is said to have an RCS anywhere from 0.001 to as low as 0.0002m2, so the range you said is more like 25km max(if we are talking about 0.001)my number of 15miles was supposed to be 15km, typo.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison no, see that statement is not by me. thats directly from engineers at Tikhomirov, and I will take their words over yours any day(or should I say Wiki)
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 ugh...YES! they said it can detect a 0.01m2 TARGET at 90km, which is true. but with an RCS as low as 0.0002m2 the F-22 can NOT be detected farther than 25km(thats still using the larger estimate of 0.001m2).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison they did not say range, the said the raptor. ur getting that fact from wiki
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 how the hell do they expect to obtain an F-22 to do tests on??? im sorry, but i just HAVE to at this point XD XD they most likely said it can detect super low observable planes LIKE the F-22 or F-35, if they actually said F-22 or F-35 than you are a victim of propaganda my friend.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison seriously quit with the homo faces. and FYI if you-a youtube fanboy(and nothing else) have the RCS of an f-22, dont you think actual educated aerospace scientists can calculate how much RCS their radar can track.......? and what propeganda? as much as you want it to be so, Russia does not hate US and does not create any propaganda against them.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 STOP REPEATING YOURSELF!!! i already said their 0.01m2 RCS was true BUT THAT IS NOT THE RCS OF THE F-22(OR the F-35)!!! what are you NOT understanding...or better yet, are you understanding ANY of what i am saying??? you have just repeated the same statement for the 3rd time in a row and it is starting to piss me off. if you have NOTHING logical to say than do some goddamn research on the subject. JESUS! and russia doesnt hate the US??? thats laughable at best, we hate each other.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison only one hating is you(its sad). how are you going to tell me we hate each other? I got ties all over the military branches in Russia and im in USAF....how the fuck can you tell me? You play too much strategy games. fucken kid...and once again..control your bi polar...there's help out there for you. you can get through this, its going to be ok
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison If we hate each other why do we train together in Europe? We've been training together since 2004.
AeroSharkTech 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison -because according to price, its almost like a 80's radar...price control. price control.....Russia is good at it and the more they work with China the better they become at it. Once again prices for air craft...not a good argument. SHITS WEAK SON!
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -it is much more expensive to make an AESA radar, with A-A AND A-G capabilities with the ability to track more targets than it is to get better range.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison And China probably did hack the pentagon. Pakistan about 2 years back did request a 5th gen fighter to counter India. the only thing is PAF only messes with single engine planes, and the only one in the world is F-35. China agreed to start building one called the FC-20 or 25(i forgot) but right now its still in drawing board stages. so stealing a single engine stealth plane to boost their FC-25 program would actually make sense...
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sovietskies69 actually, terabytes of information was stolen about the F-35 not to long ago, look it up. who else but russia or china has the capability, or need to do this??? no one! also why do you think the Pak-Fa and J-20 have such poor stealth? easy, they are using what they were able to steal from the F-117 crash(and the chinese have also personally viewed the wreckage of the stealth chopper crash at the Bin Laden compound...courtesy of the fucking paki government).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -and do you even understand the problems associated with making so many different variants of one plane??? you claim to be USAF yet you dont even understand the importance of interchangeable parts, and the problems associated with having fewer of them? not to mention the multiple different systems engineers would have to memorize to keep the entire fleet in the air. you are completely delusional. like i said, the few new Su-35Ss and MiG-35s are just stopgaps, not the full fleet.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison and please get your facts from somewhere besides wiki. i already proved to you once their info is wrong. all the numbers of fighters your putting down are very wrong. reason I know is, they do not give out their official count of jets to anyone outside the country, yet alone news agencies. when it comes to Russian military, wiki fails...like you
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 they are also only upgrading a handful of MiG-29s into MiG-35s and Su-27s into Su-35s as a stopgap until the Pak-Fa is released. after that they are going to retire most of their MiG-29s and Su-27s. also russia is not even in the process of building a new aircraft carrier,they plan on modernizing their already existing one,WE are building 2 new Gerald R Ford class aircraft carriers but russia has yet to build one since the Kuznetsov. and it will be some time till we see the S-500.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison no. their building 2 new ones. they cant upgrade their old ones because they sold them all but 1. China on the other hand is upgraded their purchased old soviet carrier. and some time untill s-500? the factories are almost done and the order has been inked in contract to be done by or before 2015....and SU-27 are not being retired. the UPGRADED versions are enough to keep the combat competitive at least till 2025.
sovietskies69 2 months ago
@sovietskies69 -seriously, WHERE are you getting your info from???
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sovietskies69 -seriously, WHERE are you getting your info from???
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison my point is, they are too few to be decisive, they are more of a gadget that helps and is very advanced for sure, but that's not the key. Look in WWII germans had superior armor compared to the sherman (like the tiger, panther etc nobody can say otherwise) but they were too few build to face the tons of shermans... i think numbers matters too. So the F-22 is more of a gadget, the real backbone of the army will still be the f-16, f-18 etc (for some time at least)
albr00700 2 months ago
@albr00700 but remember, tanks such as the Tiger 1 were outnumbered nearly 20-1 in most of its battles. to outnumber the 187 F-22s 20-1 you would have to combine every fighter in the russian, chinese, indian, and north korean AFs and still most likely not outnumber the F-22 20-1. and at a time of war the F-22 program could be reactivated, and new F-22s could be built...its not like it is physically impossible to build more, it would just be completely unnecessary during peace time.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@albr00700 our fleet of F-22s, but russia only has at max 600 fighters(the overwhelming majority of those being old versions of the MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31...all completely inferior to the F-22 and can be taken on easily by our legacy fighters). secondly people are saying the same things about the F-35 as they did about the F-22...and see how wrong they were. the F-35 is not designed to dogfight, it will use the EODAS system to gain air superiority where it is deployed.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
whats a song it background, starting at 1:08
zmenabdishvili 2 months ago
the raptor will have shot down any plane that has detected it, by the time has detected it especially at supercruise
CROYHILL 2 months ago
I'm still in awe by the fact that they can do supersonic cruise without using afterburners... O.o
riflebore 5 months ago 4
@riflebore eurofighter and rafale have it too
frizstyler 3 months ago
@frizstyler the Rafale does not have supercruise, and the Eurofighter can not supercruise with a combat load.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison lllooooolll! stop talking shit in youtube! you're misinforming! rafale has supercruise even loaded with several weapons and full of fuel,as does the eurofighter
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler no, the Rafale has yet to perform supercruise. and the Eurofighter can supercruise at mach 1.2 clean and with 50% fuel. with weapons and 75-100% fuel it would weigh far to much and suffer from to much parasitic drag to be able to perform supercruise.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison we're talking about supercruise taking place at appropriate altitude.not near sea level what you say is unofficial. where did you learn this?
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler search the internet and you can find all the info you need. the Rafale can cruise at mach 1.1 but the term supersonic technically means an aircraft traveling at least Mach 1.2, which means the Rafale is not able to supercruise. and with a full combat load it would be physically impossible for even the Eurofighter that can supercruise at mach 1.2 to supercruise. the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.8+, which means it can still supercruise with a full combat load.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you're wrong.official info is they can both go supercruise at about 1.3+mach at altitude with some external weapons and full fuel
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler that is ridiculous. mach 1.3 may be a reasonable assumption for a clean Eurofighter or Rafale with 25% fuel but with full fuel and weapons? that is absurd, the engines are not powerful enough. a realistic speed would be about mach 1.2 cruise speed for both but even if that was true they would still lose that ability when fitted with even a light combat load.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison why do you doubt it so much?these engines are very powerful. and these planes have a very aerodyamic profile. rafale for example has 1.1 thrust/weight ratio in combat load.what makes you think it can't supercruise with that same load? did you do calculations?
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler a high T/W ratio does not necessarily mean a fast plane,just like a low T/W ratio does not mean a slow plane. the F-4 had a T/W ratio of 0.56 fully loaded yet could still exceed speeds of Mach 2.2. it all depends on wether the engines were designed for speed or power. and with the small engines of the rafale the possibility of supercruise with a full load of fuel and missiles seems unlikely if not impossible(the amount of drag externally mounted missiles would produce is astounding).
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison modern jet engines are optimised,they can achieve their power at both low and high speeds efficiently
if you think they're wrong ,why don't you email eurofighter gmbh and dassault and tell them their planes perform worse than what they say? lol. don't forget to mention you're american and you've never even seen these planes.
you obviously believe that fat-belly 35 ton cow you have that has no A-G capabilities and consumes fuel like shit is worth its money?
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler no A-G capabilities??? are you talking about the F-22 or the F-35? because they both have A-G capabilities. and even the official speed of the Eurofighters supercruise is Mach 1.2, and in the indian MRCA competition the Rafale was incapable of performing supercruise even once thus far.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you have no clue of what you're talking about. what are you,lockheed's dog? look it up! f16 has better A-G than f22! but f22 never uses A-G capability anyway. it's just air "superiority". if only nato did some really competitive exercises,then we would SEE what it would do in A-A because all you americans do is CLAIM. i bet it would eat DUST from european & russian fighters
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler the F-22 can carry the same bombs and missiles the F-16 can carry and can carry more of them. but since the F-22 is primarily and air superiority fighter there is no reason to risk the plane in ground attacks when a cheaper alternative(F-16)is readily available. also the F-22 can only be detected from 25miles away by the Irbis-E(russias most advanced radar)which is far better than any european radar(and even close to the AN/APG-77A1 on the F-22)from this range the F-22 could still-
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@frizstyler -engage its target with its missiles and destroy them before they even know the F-22 is there. this means that the F-22 would win in an air-air engagement with any aircraft almost 100% of the time. if we are talking about dogfights then the F-22(with its thrust vectoring engines)is more maneuverable than the Rafale or the Eurofighter at low speeds, and equal to the T-50, Su-35S and the J-20.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison my main disagreement about f22 is that it's too big scale for what it needs to do.its supposed to be stealth,but they haven't proven that. it may have that paint absorbing some microwave radiation but its size betrays it and you will see it some time. IMO they should have made it way smaller,single engined and without thrust vectoring shit.it would be faster and do its job properly.what they ve made is a showoff plane
frizstyler 2 months ago
@frizstyler the F-22 does not only utilize RAM and RAP but also electronic devices that dampen radar waves as they approach the jet. the F-22 also features a specialized radar that is very difficult to intercept. the F-22 needs to be large to carry the amount of weapons and fuel it can, and without the thrust vectoring it would not be nearly as effective in a dogfight.
hotpocketpoison 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison IF that's true and effective then i admit the f22 is good programme.
anyway,you have no knowledge on other countries fighters and you should not talk BS about them
frizstyler 2 months ago