Russia's first line fighter?

[Texas Star]

I've tried to sort out Russian fighters from photos of those in Syria. Is the SU-34 their primary equivalent to our F-22, F-15 and F-16?

What became of MiG's? Are they still a big player?

And what is the main RAF fighter now?

 

[les.b]

Texas Star:

One of my visits to Russia, I was able to visit a giant Air Force Museum. They had an outdoor display of every plane used by the Russian Air Force up to that time. I have some photos I'll try to post. Latest back then was the MIG 29, IIRC.

Best Regards,mLes

 

[427mach1]

Their latest fighter was called the T-50; they recently renamed it the Su-57.

From Wikipedia, "In 2006, the Russian government merged 100% of Mikoyan shares with Ilyushin, Irkut, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and Yakovlev as a new company named United Aircraft Corporation.[2] Specifically, Mikoyan and Sukhoi were placed within the same operating unit."

I believe the RAF is now flying the Eurofighter as their primary multi-role fighter but they are one of the larger customers buying the F-35.

 

[bigwheelzip]

And what is the main RAF fighter now?

The Eurofighter Typhoon is their main frontline fighter. Their Navy has 11 F35B. Interestingly, they now have an agreement to temporarily base US planes and crewmen on their new aircraft carrier because the don't own enough planes themselves.

 

[427mach1]

I was recently at a conference where I had the opportunity to meet a Russian engineer from TsAGI, their Institute for Hydrodynamic and Aerodynamic Research. We were at the Cosmosphere Museum near Wichita one evening for a banquet. He said that his first job out of university working for TsAGI was to perform wind tunnel testing on the F-22. He said, "Your F-22 can do some amazing things. Then we found a Soviet-era model of your F-117, so we tested it, too. We did not copy your F-22 while designing our T-50, we had a Lego-model that we did configuration development on and we converged on a similar design. The Chinese did the same thing when they developed the J-20 but they converged on a design that we believe is inferior."

It was very interesting to hear his version of the space race while looking over the space exhibits. There were photos of German scientists in the USSR and the caption referred to "Kidnapped German scientists". He took offense to this, stating, "You have to remember, this was just after World War 2 and the Germans killed 20 million Russians. This was not kidnapping, this was PAYBACK!"

Note that the Americans also had many, many German scientists after the war, too.

 

[les.b]

On my first trip to Russia, I flew nonstop from JFK to Sheremetyevo in Moscow. I had heard horror stories about Russian aircraft, and was a little concerned, as I was booked on Aeroflot, the Russian airline. Not to worry, though, when I boarded, the Russian plane was a brand new Boeing!!! Wearing Aeroflot livery. All signage and lettering in Cyrillic text, all Russian crew.

Cultural note...when the plane gets off the tarmac successfully, all the passengers applaud!!! Then start a party with plenty of водка, of course!!

Best Regards, Les

 

[Texas Star]

I'll look for photos of the T-50/SU-57.

I'm amazed the Royal Navy needs US planes and crews! Well, if it gives NATO greater striking power, I'm for it. But we sometimes go to war when the UK doesn't, as in Vietnam. That could lead to some conflicts of interest.

 

[427mach1]

It looks similar to the F-22 but has round engine exhaust nozzles rather than rectangular.

 

[Texas Star]

I was recently at a conference where I had the opportunity to meet a Russian engineer from TsAGI, their Institute for Hydrodynamic and Aerodynamic Research. We were at the Cosmosphere Museum near Wichita one evening for a banquet. He said that his first job out of university working for TsAGI was to perform wind tunnel testing on the F-22. He said, "Your F-22 can do some amazing things. Then we found a Soviet-era model of your F-117, so we tested it, too. We did not copy your F-22 while designing our T-50, we had a Lego-model that we did configuration development on and we converged on a similar design. The Chinese did the same thing when they developed the J-20 but they converged on a design that we believe is inferior."

It was very interesting to hear his version of the space race while looking over the space exhibits. There were photos of German scientists in the USSR and the caption referred to "Kidnapped German scientists". He took offense to this, stating, "You have to remember, this was just after World War 2 and the Germans killed 20 million Russians. This was not kidnapping, this was PAYBACK!"

Note that the Americans also had many, many German scientists after the war, too.

Where'd the Russians get an F-22 to test?! I'd think we'd keep that plane in our hands ad Allied air forces only.

 

[LVSteve]

The SU-57 is the closest thing the Russians have to the F-22

The SU-35 is the front line fighter in the same vein as the updated F-15 with the AN/APG-82 radar.

The SU-27 is the progenitor of the SU-35.

The SU-34 is a long range strike aircraft that can also turn and burn. Think F-15E.

The MiG-29 is the closest thing to the F-16 or the F-18 in terms of capability.

The MiG-31 is an outlier. Some say it was a specialist cruise missile killer, sitting up at altitude and picking them off with its massive phased array radar and multiple missiles.

 

[427mach1]

Where'd the Russians get an F-22 to test?! I'd think we'd keep that plane in our hands ad Allied air forces only.

Wind tunnel tests on airplanes typically use scale models, 1/15 to 1/12 scale is common for fighters, 1/25 to 1/10 scale for transports. They probably designed and built their models using photographs. The F-22 is US only by law. It would literally take an act of Congress to allow us to sell it to any other country.

 

[bigwheelzip]

I'm amazed the Royal Navy needs US planes and crews! Well, if it gives NATO greater striking power, I'm for it. But we sometimes go to war when the UK doesn't, as in Vietnam. That could lead to some conflicts of interest.

I've been reading about this arrangement for some time, and other than cross-training, I fail to understand what we gain, unless it's to encourage the planes sales to the Brits.

British seaman and pilots have been stationed with US Navy crews for over a year, learning to support the US Marine aircraft once they come aboard the British carrier.

The US planes will be under British command.

Interesting trivia: The new British carriers don't use catapults, that's why they get the Marine's short take-off variation of the plane.

US F35 fighters to deploy from Royal Navy aircraft carrier - BBC News

 

[LVSteve]

Interesting trivia: The new British carriers don't use catapults, that's why they get the Marine's short take-off variation of the plane.

US F35 fighters to deploy from Royal Navy aircraft carrier - BBC News

Yes, a major cheap out on the part of the British government and a major blow the overall capability IMHO.

As for the F-35A being bought by the USAF, I saw one at the big Nellis show last year. It doesn't turn, it doesn't climb and it doesn't accelerate. It does make a whole bunch of noise while not doing those things. I consider it as a stealthy F-105 with a better radar and avionics.

The Marine variant, the F-35B has the same small wings as the A and likely more weight, so I'll bet it's a real slug. I hope for the Navy's sake that the F-35C variant with the bigger wings is a better aircraft.

 

[Onomea]

F-35A doesn't turn? "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?!"

Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Flying Display at Paris Air Show 2017 – AINtv Express - YouTube

F-35A seems to be okay at climbing, too: F-35A Lightning II spectacular take off into the clouds - YouTube

 

[OLDSTER]

SU 57

This is the SU 57 as listed in post number 10 as the closest to our F-22

 

[LVSteve]

F-35A doesn't turn? "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?!"

Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Flying Display at Paris Air Show 2017 – AINtv Express - YouTube

F-35A seems to be okay at climbing, too: F-35A Lightning II spectacular take off into the clouds - YouTube

The first video is a far better display than we got at Nellis. Even so, the aircraft still looks oddly sluggish compared to the F-16 and F-18 displays I have seen. The F-35 doesn't appear to have the raw agility of the others. Pitch up maneuvers are slow and the rate of roll looks meh. The aircraft also "skids" in level turns. It doesn't turn close to a constant radius like a F15/16/18 or a MiG 29. The turn attitude is there, the but aircraft is always sliding outwards. The F-4 was the same. Symptom of too small a wing for the weight if I recall my Paul Sprey quotes.

In the second video the climb is impressive but with a few caveats. I noticed that both aircraft cleaned up then made a longish level run to accelerate before pulling up. I would call that more of a zoom climb. If you watch a F15/16/18, Typhoon, or a MiG 29, the gear comes up and the aircraft immediately pitches up and goes. Combination of raw power and enough wing.

I have expressed my unbiased opinion to a USAF friend. He looked rather sad and said he couldn't really refute my assessment. As to how it performs in mock combat combining all its modern toys and stealth I cannot say, and I'm sure the USAF ain't saying either.

 

[427mach1]

Be careful when comparing airshow demonstrations. Often the aircraft will be lightened as much as possible and fueled just enough to complete the show. This will allow quicker maneuvers and make it appear more agile and much more impressive. Other times, they limit the maneuvers so as not to show all their cards.

That being said, while both the F-16 and F-35 are designated as multi-role fighters, the F-16 was originally designed as a light air superiority fighter with an emphasis on maneuverability and was later adapted to the ground-support role. The F-35 was designed from the start as a multi-role fighter with more emphasis on the ground support mission and stealth, and as such is probably not as maneuverable as the F-16. It is definitely more of a bomb truck with "advanced sensors and information fusion", meaning it can detect more targets and threats and communicate with friendly forces better.

While it is very easy to armchair quarterback the F-35 mission, it won the competition by satisfying the requirements set forth by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. I would like to think they knew what they needed and defined the mission requirements properly. If you don't think they defined the proper missions or selected the right airplane, feel free to contact the AF, USN, or USMC - I'm sure they would love to have your opinion!

 

[Tyrod]

Soviet/Russian air defense is very different than ours. First and foremost in Russian air defense is numbers. They learned the lesson of WWII tank defense. While it can be said that any number of German tank designs were technologically superior to most allied tanks both on the western or eastern front, what the allies had were numbers. Such that while German tanks were disabled either through combat or fuel shortages the allies were able to overwhelm them through vastly superior numbers.

The Russians have been playing the same game with planes. For any given class or category of plane the western version will be superior to it's Russian analog. However, the Russians will have some ratio of more analog planes than the west has. I don't know what the ratio is, but it's substantial. The Russians don't spend as much money per unit on a specific class of plane than the west. Less $$ per plane = more planes, albeit the plane is less capable. Another thing the Russians do that the west doesn't is build interceptors. Speed and altitude are the primary concerns of an interceptor, maneuverability is not. The purpose of an interceptor is to shoot down bombers, vanguard fighters invading their airspace, incoming ICBMs and other missiles targeting ground sites. The Mig 31 is such a plane as was the Mig 25. The interceptor concept also prevents the west from converting 747s or C5s into cruise missile platforms. Just park a large plane with many cruise missiles a couple hundred miles off shore and fire away. So, trying to compare a Mig 31 to a western plane is somewhat futile. One of the results of this type of thinking is that the loss of one Russian plane is fairly inconsequential to the Russians, while the loss of one plane from the west is costly, both in money and pilot. Currently, the USAF is suffering a deep deficit in pilots. To make another WWII comparison. This is similar to the problems the Luftwaffe suffered near the end of WWII. They had planes, but they didn't have drivers. The Japanese had the same problem. Two days of basic flight training and bye bye kamikaze.

I think history shows us that numbers outweigh technology in the long run.

 

[427mach1]

Stalin was credited with the quote, "Quantity has a quality all its own". I believe the US still has at least a 2:1 advantage concerning numbers of aircraft:

Total Aircraft Strength by Country

Total Fighter / Interceptor Aircraft Strength by Country

Total Attack Aircraft Strength by Country

Total Military Transport Aircraft Strength by Country

 

[Cardboard_killer]

The Germans and Japanese didn't have trained pilots because they didn't have fuel to train them. They had plenty of planes and pilots up to the end, and they were remarkably easy to shoot down when they had fuel to fly, because they had no training.