Russia gets 200 new aircrafts in 2015, 55 Stealth fighters in 2016-2020

[Ldkon]

Russian technology has proven to be as reliable as Lebanese whisky. These "cutting edge" 'aircraft' have most likely been built from parts cannibalized from an older fleet. Besides, Russia is a nation of gypsies and horse thieves, so any aircraft they've produced - with a few exceptions - will most likely fall from the sky after their wooden airframes have been undermined by woodworm.

I'm sure we will be able to beat the pants off English airforce.

 

[DrainBamage]

These "cutting edge" 'aircraft' have most likely been built from parts cannibalized from an older fleet.

You're 100% correct, the fancy new SU-35s are just improved SU-27Ms, which were based on SU-27 from the early 1980s. New cockpit, some new avionics, and thrust vectoring... viola a new airplane! Russia has been doing this for a long time, instead of adding a new letter nomenclature with an improved versions (like USA with F-15E, B-1B, A-10C, F-16D, F-18G, etc.) they decide it is in fact a new airplane so we get SU-27, SU-30, SU-35, SU-37 etc. which are mostly retreads of 40 year old design. Remember when they unveiled the MIG-35 and when it showed up at an airshow everyone was like hey that's a MIG-29 with a better radar.

The huge multi-billion dollar cutting edge stealth fighter has become a big joke with India considering pulling out amidst cost overruns, poor performance, and shitty stealth characteristics.

 

[DrainBamage]

I'm sure we will be able to beat the pants off English airforce.

Hah I remember when people used to talk up MIG-29 because of how maneuverable it looked in air shows with the fancy inverted stalls and tight turns.

Then when it was used in wars in Iraq and the Balkans it got decimated by western fighters, all that super maneuverability proved worthless against superior c&c and good BVR weapons and tactics.

 

[Ldkon]

I'm sure we will be able to beat the pants off English airforce.

Hah I remember when people used to talk up MIG-29 because of how maneuverable it looked in air shows with the fancy inverted stalls and tight turns.

Then when it was used in wars in Iraq and the Balkans it got decimated by western fighters, all that super maneuverability proved worthless against superior c&c and good BVR weapons and tactics.

There weren't Rissian pilots there. You forgot SU-57.

 

[DrainBamage]

There weren't Rissian pilots there. You forgot SU-57.

Russians pilots are great at flying air show routines, the only thing we know about their air-to-air combat capabilities is that they don't have much combat experience either as individual pilots or as a tactical force.

So far SU-57 has been a big disappointment, that's why India wants out.

 

[Ldkon]

There weren't Rissian pilots there. You forgot SU-57.

Russians pilots are great at flying air show routines, the only thing we know about their air-to-air combat capabilities is that they don't have much combat experience either as individual pilots or as a tactical force.

So far SU-57 has been a big disappointment, that's why India wants out.

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium

 

[Ldkon]

We have old saying: "every Sandpiper praises its swamp".

Don't read morning newspapers.

 

[Litwin]

Russian technology has proven to be as reliable as Lebanese whisky. These "cutting edge" 'aircraft' have most likely been built from parts cannibalized from an older fleet. Besides, Russia is a nation of gypsies and horse thieves, so any aircraft they've produced - with a few exceptions - will most likely fall from the sky after their wooden airframes have been undermined by woodworm.

I'm sure we will be able to beat the pants off English airforce.

LOL, bamboo ulus of juchi ))) "precious metals from rocket engines were stolen in Rasia."

UAWire - More than 70 defective engines for the Proton rocket were ...
www.uawire.org/.../more-than-70-defective-engines-for-the-pr...
Översätt den här sidan
31 mars 2017 - ... and third stages of the Russian Proton-M rocket, will be re-assembled. ... that precious metals from rocket engines were stolen in Russia.

'Stolen' Russian missile explodes after being sold for scrap - BBC.com
www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-40900219
Översätt den här sidan
11 aug. 2017 - A Soviet-era missile that was 'stolen' from a military base exploded at a ... workers later found another intact rocket from the S-200 missile system. ... "What was a missile doing at a non-ferrous scrap metal collection point?
Saknas: parton

Roscosmos calls off all Proton-M rocket engines - PravdaReport
www.pravdareport.com/.../russia/.../136698-rocket_engines_pr...
Översätt den här sidan
25 jan. 2017 - Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos has withdrawn all engines of ... metals that should be used for this time of rocket engines had been ...

 

[Ldkon]

I'm lazy to read it because of my English (it'd take too much time for me) but I see what you mean. I admit that some crap happens now and then. But no one in this world is afraid of going to the open space by Russian rockets. I don't boast here or like that because space the common heritage of mankind and we need common efforts to discover it now and in the future.

 

[DrainBamage]

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium

Has been debunked, it was a pre-production F-35 they were using to test software limits on flight performance.

How about from an actual F-35 pilot instead of out-of-context heresay, via Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

In the defensive role, the pilot can "whip" the F-35 around while simultaneously slowing down, Hanche wrote. The plane can actually slow down more quickly than a driver is able to emergency brake a car. At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s "pedal inputs," which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

"This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent," Hanche wrote. "This 'pedal turn' yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the 'pedal turn' provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely."

Hanche did have several critiques of the F-35's performance, including a shaking or "buffeting" at high g-loadings and high angles of attack. In comparison, the F-16 hardly shakes at all, he noted. This buffeting has made it difficult for several F-35 pilots to read the information displayed on the heads-up display. However, Hanche has not found this to be an issue while using the third-generation helmet.

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."



Or just go with actual results from air combat:

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Every aviation enthusiast knows about Red Flag, the large-scale aerial combat training exercises held four times per year at Nevada’s Nellis AFB just north of Las Vegas.

The historical highlight of the recent Red Flag 17-1 was the very first inclusion of the U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II in the exercise. F-35As of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah, launched large multi-aircraft sorties during Red Flag 17-1.

Three words summarize the role of the F-35A during this Red Flag exercise; stealth, integration and flexibility. To a greater degree than any previous aircraft in U.S. Air Force history the F-35A Lightning IIs from Hill AFB acted as sensors, guidance platforms and strike assets almost simultaneously, and they did so in a threat environment that would have been previously impenetrable without significantly greater loses. They also performed in an air-to-air role: although we don’t know the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in place for the drills nor the exact role played by the F-22 Raptors that teamed up with the Lightning II throughout the exercise, the results achieved by the F-35, appear to be impressive, especially considering the 5th Gen. aircraft’s additional tasking during RF.

Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft.

During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.

 

[Ldkon]

What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter? June 14, 2017

One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality.

In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons.
As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system.

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

And it's only the US sources...

 

[Ldkon]

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium

Has been debunked, it was a pre-production F-35 they were using to test software limits on flight performance.

How about from an actual F-35 pilot instead of out-of-context heresay, via Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

In the defensive role, the pilot can "whip" the F-35 around while simultaneously slowing down, Hanche wrote. The plane can actually slow down more quickly than a driver is able to emergency brake a car. At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s "pedal inputs," which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

"This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent," Hanche wrote. "This 'pedal turn' yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the 'pedal turn' provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely."

Hanche did have several critiques of the F-35's performance, including a shaking or "buffeting" at high g-loadings and high angles of attack. In comparison, the F-16 hardly shakes at all, he noted. This buffeting has made it difficult for several F-35 pilots to read the information displayed on the heads-up display. However, Hanche has not found this to be an issue while using the third-generation helmet.

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."



Or just go with actual results from air combat:

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Every aviation enthusiast knows about Red Flag, the large-scale aerial combat training exercises held four times per year at Nevada’s Nellis AFB just north of Las Vegas.

The historical highlight of the recent Red Flag 17-1 was the very first inclusion of the U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II in the exercise. F-35As of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah, launched large multi-aircraft sorties during Red Flag 17-1.

Three words summarize the role of the F-35A during this Red Flag exercise; stealth, integration and flexibility. To a greater degree than any previous aircraft in U.S. Air Force history the F-35A Lightning IIs from Hill AFB acted as sensors, guidance platforms and strike assets almost simultaneously, and they did so in a threat environment that would have been previously impenetrable without significantly greater loses. They also performed in an air-to-air role: although we don’t know the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in place for the drills nor the exact role played by the F-22 Raptors that teamed up with the Lightning II throughout the exercise, the results achieved by the F-35, appear to be impressive, especially considering the 5th Gen. aircraft’s additional tasking during RF.

Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft.

During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.

Do you think Army would has told you true if they had any problems?

P.S. Did I make any mistakes in the sentence above? I spent lots of time on it. Thank you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium

Has been debunked, it was a pre-production F-35 they were using to test software limits on flight performance.

How about from an actual F-35 pilot instead of out-of-context heresay, via Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters Controversial ‘Dogfighting’ Report

In the defensive role, the pilot can "whip" the F-35 around while simultaneously slowing down, Hanche wrote. The plane can actually slow down more quickly than a driver is able to emergency brake a car. At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s "pedal inputs," which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

"This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent," Hanche wrote. "This 'pedal turn' yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the 'pedal turn' provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely."

Hanche did have several critiques of the F-35's performance, including a shaking or "buffeting" at high g-loadings and high angles of attack. In comparison, the F-16 hardly shakes at all, he noted. This buffeting has made it difficult for several F-35 pilots to read the information displayed on the heads-up display. However, Hanche has not found this to be an issue while using the third-generation helmet.

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16," Hanche wrote. "So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? ... To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."



Or just go with actual results from air combat:

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Every aviation enthusiast knows about Red Flag, the large-scale aerial combat training exercises held four times per year at Nevada’s Nellis AFB just north of Las Vegas.

The historical highlight of the recent Red Flag 17-1 was the very first inclusion of the U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II in the exercise. F-35As of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah, launched large multi-aircraft sorties during Red Flag 17-1.

Three words summarize the role of the F-35A during this Red Flag exercise; stealth, integration and flexibility. To a greater degree than any previous aircraft in U.S. Air Force history the F-35A Lightning IIs from Hill AFB acted as sensors, guidance platforms and strike assets almost simultaneously, and they did so in a threat environment that would have been previously impenetrable without significantly greater loses. They also performed in an air-to-air role: although we don’t know the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in place for the drills nor the exact role played by the F-22 Raptors that teamed up with the Lightning II throughout the exercise, the results achieved by the F-35, appear to be impressive, especially considering the 5th Gen. aircraft’s additional tasking during RF.

Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft.

During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.

Do you think Army would has told you true if they had any problems?

P.S. Did I make any mistakes in the sentence above? I spent lots of time on it. Thank you.

The Army does not fly fighter aircraft. The Air Force, Navy and Marines do.

 

[DrainBamage]

Do you think Army would has told you true if they had any problems?

Well yes, the Air Force would.

They told us there were problems with the oxygen system.
They told us there were problems with engine, including a fire that severely damaged an aircraft.
They told us there were problems with the tension on the catapult launch.
They told us there were problems with the helmet working at night with green glow.
They told us there were problems with the mission data files still being way behind.
They told us there were problems with the software needing frequent reboots.
They told us there were problems with ejection seat being unsafe for lighter pilots.
They told us there were problems with shared sensors showing duplicate targets.
List goes on and on....

If you think there is some big conspiracy to cover up issues with F-35 quiet you haven't been paying attention, the program has been quite transparent.

 

[DrainBamage]

One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversarie

]
20-1 kil ratio against some of the best pilots in the world flying some of the best fighter aircraft. Saying that isn't adequate requires a suspension of common sense.

The F-15Es it was going against have upgraded AESA radars that are among the best in any fighter aircraft flying, and detection is the key to beating an F-35. Yet again and again they'd get shot down without even being able to find the target.

In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons.

Nope. Detecting and tracking are two different things, you've obviously read some talking points but don't actually grasp what you're trying to talk about here. Stealth aircraft are optimized to be hard to track in the x-band, which is the radar used most commonly by aircraft, missiles, and SA sites. VHF radar can detect a stealth aircraft better, but it has to be huge (physical size) because that is how you would create wavelengths effectively on VHF to detect an aircraft any at distance. Problem with VHF it doesn't have the accuracy to effectively track and target an aircraft, and they are aren't going to fit on an aircraft or missile because of size.

That F-117 was shot down after flying the exact same route over and over, they used an x-band radar that they could fix on the narrow expected route thus solving the detection challenges. F-117s were quite primitive SA-wise, not only would an F-35 be harder to target (it's a lot smaller RCS than F-117) it would have detected that radar from quite far and taken a route to avoid it.

“In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Same thing they said about MIG-29, and look where that got them. Splashed by single engine F-16s, over and over.

Go look at statistics on how aircraft are shot down in the modern era, SA and LO are far more advantageous than aircraft performance, that is why top speed for fighter aircraft topped out in the 1970s. If speed/climb/altitude were king then every new fighter design would be racing to increase those parameters, this clearly isn't the case.