The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Skroe]

What do you think war is about exactly?

Highly variant. Actually holding terriroty certainly isn't the overriding goal in the modern era.

A conflict between the West and Russia would a punitive conflict. Nobody would try to invade. We wouldn't hold a fundraiser to get the international community to pitch in for the rebuilding of St. Petersberg or something. It would be about breaking their ability to make war.

This is why the US is spending huge amounts of money developing next generation high tech weaponry, and not surging it's army to 750,000 or something. Because a conflict between NATO and Russia, or the US-alliance and China would be mostly about military-industrial complexes battering each other and not trying to occupy cities. The US would likely launch attacks against mainland China from air and sea, for example. But it won't send the 2nd infantry division to occupy Beijing.

[Hottage]

That's why we have NATO, duh.

[Skroe]

OMG next they will be saying we're no match for the USA either :O

Seriously though we are never getting into a conventional war with Russia, they know we have enough nukes to do significant damage to them so backing us into a corner conventionally would be a really cab move.

Regardless of that, the UK has foolishly cut it's military power to the bone to pay for the NHS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk...-idUSKCN10L1AD

What the U.S. should learn from Britain’s dying navy
By David Axe
Britain used to boast the most powerful navy in the world. No more.

That’s a serious problem for allies like the United States.

Traditionally, Britain’s Royal Navy has been the U.S. Navy's closest partner. The two have fought together against most every foe. So any weakening of the Royal Navy also erodes Washington's naval power.

Today, however, the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self. Government budgeteers have repeatedly, and excessively, cut the numbers of its ships, planes and manpower. It can barely patrol the United Kingdom’s own waters, much less project British influence abroad.

Though London officials now vow to reverse the decline, it might be too late. With morale plummeting, and its few remaining ships frequently malfunctioning at sea, the Royal Navy’s suffering might be terminal.

The timing couldn’t be worse. The West is mobilizing to defeat Islamic State, deter an increasingly aggressive Russia and manage China's meteoric rise as a world power. The British fleet's collapse is an object lesson for cash-strapped governments struggling to balance competing budgetary needs in a seemingly ever more volatile world.

Yes, navies are expensive. They require long-term planning, work and funding. In peacetime, the fleet’s benefit is often invisible, marked by the absence of overt conflict.

Yet navies remain crucial to national defense. Patrolling international waters with sophisticated sensors and powerful, long-range weaponry, they can respond more quickly to crises and bring more firepower to bear than can air forces (which require nearby runways) and armies (which move slowly).

Navies that die from neglect leave a void that rogue states, terrorists and criminals can quickly fill. It takes navies to keep an eye on vast ocean regions. Remove what was once the world's leading fleet, and you create a virtual security vacuum.

During World War Two, the British fleet was still dominant. On D-Day in 1944, it was able to send more than 900 British warships across the English Channel to escort the Allied troops who would liberate Europe from Nazi Germany.

As recently as 1982, the Royal Navy could quickly muster no fewer than 115 ships — including two aircraft carriers carrying jet fighters, plus 23 destroyers and frigates — to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina.

Today, the British navy doesn’t even have jet fighters. It mothballed its last Harriers in 2010. It possesses just 89 ships. (By comparison, the U.S. Navy and Military Sealift Command, the Pentagon's fleet of support ships, have roughly 400.)

Britain’s fleet has declined amid steady defense budget cuts, from 4.1 percent of gross domestic product in 1988 to 2.6 percent in 2010. Reductions in 2010 sliced another 8 percent in real terms. As part of a defense review in 2015, London vowed to stop cutbacks on the fleet. But the damage has been done.

On paper, the Royal Navy's 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard's small patrol ships.

Only the six destroyers, 13 frigates and seven attack submarines can be considered true frontline vessels, with adequate sensors, weapons and protection to fight and survive in a battle with a sophisticated foe. The other ships require escort through dangerous waters.

Roughly half the ships are in routine maintenance or training at any given time. Several others are committed to small standing patrols, which leaves just a handful of vessels to respond to emergencies.

But that's assuming there are enough sailors to operate the ships. The Royal Navy has shed people faster than ships. Britain had 39,000 sailors in 2000. It now has a little more than 29,000, at least 2,000 short of its authorized strength.

Fleet planners tried to address the personnel shortage by sidelining two of its most powerful ships. This summer, for example, the Royal Navy placed the large Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster in “extended readiness”: It was tied up pierside, its crew assigned to other vessels.

Meanwhile, the new Type 45 destroyer HMS Dauntless suffered serious problems with generators and entered port for repairs that could last at least until 2019. As with Lancaster, the fleet dispersed Dauntless' sailors to other vessels.

With those vessels out of action, the Royal Navy's real strength dropped from 26 fighting ships to an unprecedented modern low of 24.

Last month, the new attack submarine HMS Ambush collided with a merchant vessel off Gibraltar. The sub suffered serious damage and limped back to Britain for repairs that could take months, if not longer.

That accident reduced the Royal Navy's undersea combat strength by nearly 15 percent. It was a stark reminder that Britain has almost no naval strength in reserve.

As budget reductions cut deeper, the British fleet withdrew from much of the world. Before 2010, the Royal Navy played a leading role in efforts to curb piracy off the Somali coast. British frigates formed the core of various international task forces that patrolled the Indian Ocean and Red Sea.

But in 2012, London quietly ended its permanent role in the counter-piracy efforts. Britain also felt the dearth of ships much closer to home. In January 2014, the resurgent Russian navy, which under President Vladimir Putin has embarked on an extensive modernization program, sailed a missile-armed cruiser through the North Sea.

The Russian ship approached to within 30 miles of Scotland. The Royal Navy's crucial job is safeguarding British home waters. But the only available warship, the destroyer HMS Defender, was at Portsmouth on England's southern coast. Defender took 24 hours to make the 600-mile journey to Scotland. It eventually located the Russian ship and, after the two crews exchanged a few radio messages, Defender escorted the cruiser away from British territory.

A few months later, Islamic State fighters swept through northwestern Iraq. The world mobilized air and sea power to help Baghdad push them back. The U.S. and French navies deployed aircraft carriers to launch air strikes on the militant forces. The U.S. Navy even occasionally positioned two flattops in Middle East waters.

But for the first time in a century, Britain could do little to help. It had no aircraft carriers capable of supporting fixed-wing planes. London had decommissioned its last — HMS Illustrious — in August 2014. Illustrious' Harrier strike jets had preceded the vessel into retirement.

Perhaps most damning, in 2016 the Royal Navy withdrew from the South Atlantic after 34 years of deploying at least one large warship to deter Argentina from again trying to seize the Falklands Islands.

Under successive Labour and Conservative governments, London has consistently cut the Royal Navy for more than a decade, while denying that the cuts were detrimental to national security. The government pointed to several multibillion-pound shipbuilding programs for new frigates, destroyers and submarines, as well as an ambitious plan to build two new large aircraft carriers and outfit them with F-35 stealth fighters.

But the new ships are too few, too late. They are also too lightly armed to adequately replace older vessels. Much less to expand and enhance the fleet.

In recent years, the Royal Navy has replaced 12 old Type 42 destroyers with just six new Type 45s, which are larger and more heavily armed than the Type 42s but mechanically unreliable. In addition, there are too few to handle all the missions the older vessels once undertook.

The fleet is getting just seven new Astute-class attack submarines, to replace 12 old Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class subs. As with the Type 45 destroyers, the Astutes are bigger and pack more firepower than the ships they're replacing. But like the Type 45s, the Astutes have proved difficult to operate. In any case, there aren't enough to cover all the areas the older submarines once patrolled.

Today there are 13 old Type 23 frigates in the fleet. The government has approved just eight new Type 26 frigates. Meanwhile, it is promising to build at least five smaller Type 31s to help keep up the fleet's strength. But the lighter Type 31s could lack the firepower and protection to be a credible deterrent to Russia's far heavier vessels.

Indeed, many of Britain’s newest ships are remarkably light. London has placed orders over the past two years for several small, lightly equipped patrol vessels. The net effect is a Royal Navy that's increasingly made up of small, underarmed vessels that maintain the official ship count, but continue the hollowing-out trend that has steadily sapped its real strength.

The new aircraft carriers are perhaps the best examples. The two Queen Elizabeth-class ships, which are 920 feet long and displace more than 60,000 tons of water, are the biggest warships Britain has produced. When they enter frontline service in 2020, they should restore the at-sea aviation capability that the Royal Navy lost when it retired its Harrier jets in 2010.

The Queen Elizabeths, however, were planned for a larger fleet. An aircraft carrier requires more planes and escorts than Britain can provide. The U.S. Navy, for example, never deploys a carrier without 60 aircraft aboard and a convoy of three or four destroyers and cruisers, a submarine and several supply ships.

The Royal Navy expects to deploy just one carrier at a time and keep the second at home. It projects that its new carriers will deploy between 12 and 24 F-35s — too few to use the ships to their full potential. In addition, assigning the vessels needed to accompany and supply the carrier — three or four frigates and destroyers as escort and a several supply ships to sustain it — would monopolize the Royal Navy's entire deployable strength.

A 60,000-ton carrier can accommodate 50 or more aircraft. London plans to buy just 48 F-35 fighters, which means many could be in maintenance or training at any given time.

Navies are indeed complex and expensive. Stop paying attention to your fleet, and it will go away. For Britain’s allies, there’s a powerful lesson in that.

I've written about this extensively here because the Royal Navy is the living model of what not to do. Replace 12 ships with 6. Don't make the expensive big carrier CATOBAR to save a little bit of money. Cut ships that have 15+ years of service life left in them.

I mean look at the new carriers. The Queen Elizabeth can carry 50+ aircraft, but will have about 12-24. Why? Just to save a little cash. Not even a lot of cash. A little.

Donald Trump is a damn fool and everything he has said about NATO is wrong, but shit like this gives clowns like him oxygen. It makes it easy to ask "what's the damn point of you anyway?"

The UK should either fully retreat from the world it played a huge role in building, and drop the pretense that it's half-baked expenditures make it worthwhile, or it needs to actually follow through.

Shit like this is why the American President increasingly calls the German Chancellor rather than the British Prime Minister was our first-contact in Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why we have NATO, duh.

Of course. And the UK shouldn't be expected to fully take on Russia.

But at the same time the living nightmare that is European defense procurement has got to change. Can all you guys buy ONE model of frigate already so you can actually have more than single-digit numbers of surface combat ships? Because the current model of spending $12 billion to recreate a ship that already exists - this time with domestic shipbuilders - and as a result only buying like 3-6 ships, is beyond the absurd.

THe UK and Germany are just starting the Tornado-replacement program. Germany, France and maybe Poland are all working together on a Next-Gen tank. Everybody in Europe should buy these things.

[Hottage]

Of course. And the UK shouldn't be expected to fully take on Russia.

But at the same time the living nightmare that is European defense procurement has got to change. Can all you guys buy ONE model of frigate already so you can actually have more than single-digit numbers of surface combat ships? Because the current model of spending $12 billion to recreate a ship that already exists - this time with domestic shipbuilders - and as a result only buying like 3-6 ships, is beyond the absurd.

THe UK and Germany are just starting the Tornado-replacement program. Germany, France and maybe Poland are all working together on a Next-Gen tank. Everybody in Europe should buy these things.

Unfortunately this is almost entirely due to the politics in defense contracts. The governments want the contracts to build the weapons on their own turf so their economy recoups some of the cost.

[Blobfish]

Mother Russia now has a new and Glorious fighter Jet

http://sputniknews.com/military/2016...-military.html

he Russian Defense Ministry reports that since the beginning of the year the Russian Aerospace Forces have received over
30 new advanced aircraft along with over 30,000 units of aircraft weapons.

These are to protect the Motherland from Socialist Western advances

On Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement regarding upgrades to the Russian Aerospace Forces fleet as Moscow looks to enhance its military to contend with an environment of growing security challenges ranging from increased hostility from the West in addition to regional dangers from Ukrainian (CIA) saboteurs in Crimea.

[Ulmita]

You do realise this plan is one of the main reasons the UK is leaving the EU right? lol.

Good fucking riddance! The army is already being planned.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-policy-chief

Lastly, as much as i liked Brits, you were always a US puppet state, always blocking EU from progressing further by blackmailing us one way or the other.

[Skroe]

Mother Russia now has a new and Glorious fighter Jet

http://sputniknews.com/military/2016...-military.html

What that Russian propaganda site doesn't tell you is that the 50km range of the SU-35's IRST is utterly useless against the 160km range of the AIM-120D that the F-22 and F-35 will carry.

If the F-22 or F-35 let the SU-35 get in close, they did something wrong.

Also that Russia is buying SU-35s is an admission of failure of the the T-50 PAK FA program, as I've stated on many occasions. What kind of country simultaneously builds up a 4th Generation fighter program en-masse while ALSO buying a fifth generation fighter? You want to know why that's stupid? Because now RUssia will have to support a fleet of SU-35s, likely for 30 years, regardless of what happens with the PAK FA.

And let's not forget the PAK FA is really just a SU-35 in a stealthy-looking costume. It's not a real fifth generation fighter.

The US for it's part, has been retring F-16s and F-15s en-masse for years to make room for the F-22 and F-35. Some of both those 4th generation will be maintained until sufficient numbers of F-35s are stood up, but the US hasn't bought an F-15 since the late 1980s or an F-16 since 1994, despite the fact that the export models (the F-16E Block 60 and the F-15SA specifically) are far more advanced.

And once again... "SU-35". Were it a US aircraft, it's name would be "SU-27E". It's the F-15SA of the old soviet era SU-27 design.

Russia and it's military bullshit knows no bounds. It's all about looking the part to them, to show the power of the state, rather than to be effective.

- - - Updated - - -

Good fucking riddance! The army is already being planned.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-policy-chief

Lastly, as much as i liked Brits, you were always a US puppet state, always blocking EU from progressing further by blackmailing us one way or the other.

German-US partnership and German-French partnership are every bit as deep.

You'll never be rid of us Ulmita. Which makes sense if you think about it. The US and EU is family. Quite literally. The largest segemtnf by far of the German Diaspora, for example, is in the United States with 47 million German-American citizens. The cultural and familial linkages are deep and real.

Hell my brother's wife, my brother and her parents visit their grandmother, who lives in Belgium (they're Belgian) every summer.

And the EU and US are only each other's largest trading partners by far ($694 billion per year compared to $660 billion with Canada and $590 billion with China).

[Jaransan]

UK is One Single Country.

Look at map. Look at size of UK. Look at size of Russia.

In Europe there are tens of countries. UE has GDP(PPP) of 19 trillion. UK has GDP(PPP) of 2.5 trillion. Still, GDP(PPP) of Russia is 3.6 trillion. So, OF COURSE its stronger than UK. Stronger than the rest of Europe? Jokes on you. The point is EU countries spend very little of military, as they don't feel the need to act like world police. Russia could gain advantage if it striked first and with surprise massive attack, but when the war industry kicks in, they are destined to be crushed.

Your not gonna get very far making sense on the internet boss - the only answer people actually want to this post is "See, you need America" or "This is bullshit, we could manage"

[minteK917]

People seem a bit confused, thinking that the size of a country equates to it's military capabilities. If that were the case then we'd all be speaking Russian.

...and Japan would never have been a threat to anyone.

But, of course, it doesn't work that way.

Size of an economy and population has more to do. Japan being a island does not matter, its a huge economy packet with a huge population.

[Blobfish]

I Love Skroe
He knows his stuff

[caervek]

Mother Russia now has a new and Glorious fighter Jet

Good to see the production version of the Su-37 finally hitting the skies, was one of my fav model plane kits back in the 90's :P

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of that, the UK has foolishly cut it's military power to the bone to pay for the NHS.

In bizzaroland yes, but in reality it's the other way round sadly

- - - Updated - - -

I've written about this extensively here because the Royal Navy is the living model of what not to do. Replace 12 ships with 6. Don't make the expensive big carrier CATOBAR to save a little bit of money. Cut ships that have 15+ years of service life left in them.

Don't forget wasting money on F-35's instead of just buying our own naval Typhoons >.>

[ArguesWithStrangers]

In other news, the Earth is round, circles around the Sun, and Canada has realized it would be unsuccessful in a conflict with the United States.

[caervek]

Canada has realized it would be unsuccessful in a conflict with the United States.

Didn't they win their last conflict with the USA? :P

- - - Updated - - -

And let's not forget the PAK FA is really just a SU-35 in a stealthy-looking costume. It's not a real fifth generation fighter.

Not sure you really have an argument here, the Su-35 is a 4th gen Su-27 airframe with 5th gen avionics/engines/etc bolted on, if they build a new 5th gen airframe and start bolting all the 5th gen components onto that then the result is a 5th gen aircraft...

[Skroe]

Not sure you really have an argument here, the Su-35 is a 4th gen Su-27 airframe with 5th gen avionics/engines/etc bolted on, if they build a new 5th gen airframe and start bolting all the 5th gen components onto that then the result is a 5th gen aircraft...

I'm entirely correct and the Su-35s internals are Generation 4+, not 5th generation.

This is Jane's assement.

http://www.janes.com/article/58166/s..._source=Eloqua

Russian industry has consistently referred to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA as a fifth-generation aircraft, but a careful look at the programme reveals that this is an 'in-name-only' designation. What qualifies a fighter aircraft as being a next-generation design is more than just having a stealthy-looking shape, said Lockheed Martin representatives.

Previously, Russian defence think-tanks had been projecting that the T-50 would be purchased by Asian nations that were already operating some model of the Sukhoi Su-27/30 'Flanker'-series. This would include Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. China, another major operator of Sukhoi aircraft is developing its own next-generation aircraft in the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang FC-31.

Russian specialists familiar with the T-50 programme state that the aircraft will have trouble gaining traction in the Asian market as the on-board systems offer very little fifth-generation technologies despite what is projected to be a considerably higher price tag than the latest Su-35 'Flanker-E', ordered by China and Indonesia.

Both the T-50's NIIP Irbis radar and the NPO Saturn 117S engine that are two of the major subsystems of the T-50 are the same as those installed in the Su-35. Also, a number of the avionics on-board the T-50 and Su-35 are common. Those that will be part of the production-configuration of the T-50 will more likely than not be only incremental or evolutionary improvements over their analogues on-board the Su-35, say the same specialists.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...me-only-2016-2

Reporting from the Singapore Airshow 2016, IHS Jane's reports that "Russian industry has consistently referred to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA as a fifth-generation aircraft, but a careful look at the program reveals that this is an 'in name only' designation."

This is largely because of a lack of evolutionary technology aboard the plane compared with previous jets that Russia and the US have designed. Indeed, the PAK FA's engines are the same as those aboard Russia's 4++ generation (a bridging generation between fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft) Su-35. Additionally, the PAK FA and the Su-35 share many of the same onboard systems.

And even when the PAK FA's systems are different from the Su-35's, the plane's specifications are still not up to true fifth-generation standards.

RealClearDefense, citing Indian media reports that are familiar with a PAK FA variant being constructed in India, notes that the plane has multiple technological problems. Among these problems are the plane's "engine performance, the reliability of its AESA radar, and poor stealth engineering."

The question of stealth is one of the largest factors influencing perceptions of the PAK FA. In 2010 and 2011, two estimates from individuals close to the program estimated that the plane's radar cross section would be 0.3 to 0.5 square meters, RealClearDefense notes.

In comparison, the US Air Force has hinted that the radar cross section of the F-22 is as small as 0.0001 square meters. The F-35's RCS is larger, but it is still minuscule when compared with that of the PAK FA, as it has an RCS of roughly 0.001 square meters.

It is helpful to bear in mind, however, that actual RCS numbers are classified. Neither Russia nor the US has released the actual RCS of its aircraft. Nevertheless, if the estimations are anywhere near accurate, the PAK FA is significantly less stealthy than its US equivalents.

Currently, Russia is planning on purchasing 12 PAK FA, down from an initial order of 52 because of problems with the plane, rising costs, and problems facing Russia's economy.

A true fifth generation fighter is simply beyond Russia's technical, industrial and financial means. It's no different from Buran really. The fantastically complex, fantastically expensive space shuttle design was just too much for a middle income at best, technologically laggard country to employ.

I think we can look forward to ever more evolutions of the Su-27, and a cleansheet design basically never happening. That's the right call for Russia undoubtedly. It'll get them the most bang for the buck. But let'snot pretend for an instant that any Su-27 variant would be anything but cannon fodder in the face of a fully armed US Fifth Generations squadron.

And hell, scarier than the US and the AIM-120D, might be British or German F-35s armed with the MBDA Meteor, which is a lot better (well different... but better probably in the ways that count... its complicated) than the AIM-120D. The Meteor is probably the best air to air missile in the world. You team it with an F-35's stealth+sensors, and suddenly the F-35 becomes a rather dangerous counter-air platform. Of course, you could do the same on Eurofighters as well.

[caervek]

I'm entirely correct and the Su-35s internals are Generation 4+, not 5th generation.

Well in that case so are the F-22s... >.>

Seriously though, a 5th gen airframe with 5th gen components is a 5th gen plane, it doesn't matter if some of the 5th gen components were previously installed on a 4th gen airframe to extend it's lifespan. Hell if they Su-35BM's engines are not really 5th gen then that makes the F-22's 3rd gen lol.

[Ghostpanther]

No need to admit that really. It never was a match for Russia.
Well, maybe in the British Empire days I guess. But certainly not after WW2.

There is no other European country that can match Russia either. Not even the combined forces woud be enough, no matter if Russia has old material or not.
The only country that can beat it is the USA.

At the moment. But that may not be true if things continue as they have been with the US military in terms of keeping it strong. But I am referring to a conventional war. In a Nuclear war, no one would win. Everyone would lose.

But your point is well taken. Without the US intervention, Russia could easily take over the rest of Europe. Because over the decades they ( Europe countries ) have invested most of their resources into social programs, while the US has kept them safe from invasions.

[Melkorr]

Is this the caveman version of asserting dominance in terms of making up hypothetical war scenarios?

"MY ARMY COULD TOTALLY BEAT YOURS!" "NUH-UH!"

Hhahah, exactly what I was thinking.

[Ghostpanther]

Didn't they win their last conflict with the USA? :P

- - - Updated - - -

The US could have took over Canada. Same for Mexico. But did not have the desire to. In a conventional war today against the US, Canada would be steam rolled in a few days.

[Skroe]

Well in that case so are the F-22s... >.>

I would love to know how you figure that....

Seriously though, a 5th gen airframe with 5th gen components is a 5th gen plane, it doesn't matter if some of the 5th gen components were previously installed on a 4th gen airframe to extend it's lifespan. Hell if they Su-35BM's engines are not really 5th gen then that makes the F-22's 3rd gen lol.

Christ this is nonsense from top to bottom. Where to begin. Let's start with the engines.

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/...e-comparision/


The SU-35's engines are the Saturn AL-31 117S which is a modern production run of the 40 year old Saturn AL-31 line. It features a 3% larger fan than it's predecessor. It's internal design features 13 compressor and 2 turbine stages, and is incredibly complex to maintain (leading to low reliability rates). It also features a thrust-to-weight ratio of 7.97:1 and produces 27,560 lbf per engine.


The F-22's engines are the F119. The first production F119 debuted in 2000. It's fifth generation features, none of which the AL-31 has, is a three-stage fan, a six-stage high-pressure compressor, a 2D pitch-vectoring exhaust nozzle, and high-pressure as well as low-pressure turbines. The F-119 features an ttw ratio of 9.49:1 and produces 37000 lbf, 10,000 lbf more powerful than the AL-31.


The Fuel consumption of a AL-31 at dry thrust is 6.590 kg/h while the F119 it is 9.968 kg/h. On the list on the link above above, that makes the F119 the third most fuel efficient engine and the AL-31 the least fuel efficient.


Let's talk Bypass ratio and supercruise. The F119 has a 0.2:1 bpr while for the AL-31, it is 0.59:1. Lower is better. The F119 can supercruise, the AL-31 cannot.

Now let me just post the conculisons:

Overall, the F-119 is the best engine where performance is concerned, followed rather closely by the EJ200 and F-414-400. EJ-230 is better than the F-119. RM-12 is the second worst and F-135 is the worst Western engine while the AL-31F is the worst engine overall (not surprising considering its age; AL-41F does match modern Western fighter engines in at least some performance parameters, but at cost of the service life).

Janes defines fifth generation aircraft as featuring the following:
http://www.janes.com/article/43616/a...ation-fighters

It is useful to define the core characteristics of a fifth-generation fighter that distinguish it from predecessor generations. IHS Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft: Development & Production analysts highlight five key features that typically characterize a fifth-generation aircraft:

> A reduced radar cross section, and reduced visibility to infrared sensors

> Sensor fusion with scanned array radar

> Linked electronics to share data with other aircraft

> Supersonic cruise capability

> Advanced avionics and engines

These new capabilities, when combined together in one platform, provide a significant improvement in establishing and maintaining air supremacy in the early stages of a conflict. Fifth-generation aircraft are therefore considered invaluable to a leading power like the United States and its primary allies – as well as other states such as Russia and China – that require the ability to establish air dominance against peer competitors.

According to the most recent IHS forecast, the United States alone is projected to purchase 2,616 fifth-generation aircraft; a mixture of F-22s to be used by the Air Force and F-35 variants for the Air Force, Marines and Navy. NATO allies, specifically the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Turkey and Canada, are forecast to purchase more than 600 of these advanced planes. Other U.S. allies such as Japan, South K

another good defintion
https://theaviationist.com/tag/pak-fa/

Anyway, comparing the US and Chinese fighters, everybody referred to “fifth generation planes” bringing once again the concept of “fighter generation” under the spotlight.

Generations are a common way to classify jet fighters. Often, generations have been “assigned” to fighters in accordance with the timeframes encompassing the peak period of service entry for such aircraft.

The best definition I’ve found so far of fighter generations is the one contained in an article published in 2009 by Air Force Magazine, that proposes a generations break down based on capabilities:

Generation 1: Jet propulsion

Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles

Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond visual range.

Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shoot-down missiles.

Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures.

Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced signatures or some “active” (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise.

Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise.

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes (subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins; highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed energy weapons.

So let's get this right. The Su-35 and PAK FA aren't stealthy by comparison, so that's off.

The PAK FA and Su-35 features the most barebones sensor fusion, because Russia has no companies that can devlop AESA radars as advanced as Western ones.

While the Russians have made enormous leaps in their sensor capabilities, U.S. warplanes still hold the edge in terms of sensor and data-fusion, which is critical for modern warfare. “The real question is can the Russians achieve the same degree of data fusion and networking capabilities of the F-22A and F-35—right now I’d put my money on the U.S. and our allies in that regard,” Deptula said.

A senior U.S. industry official agreed with Deptula’s assessment. In terms of its avionics, the PAK-FA is closer to a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or F-16E/F Block 60 than an F-22 or F-35. “Some may claim that the PAK-FA is a 5th gen. fighter, but it's more of a 4.5 gen. fighter by U.S. standards,” the industry official said.

In fact, the PAK-FA’s lack of true sensor fusion and comprehensive data links that are on par with its American counterparts may prove to be its Achilles’ heel. U.S. strategists are moving towards an approach where every aircraft or surface ship can act as a sensor for any aircraft, ship or vehicle that carries a weapon. The launch aircraft might not even guide the weapon once it has been fired. The U.S. Navy is already implementing a construct called the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) that would do just that. The Air Force, too, is working on something similar.

“In the future—while aerodynamic performance will continue to be important—speed, range and payload to a greater degree than maneuverability. Even more important will be the ability to ubiquitously share knowledge to the point that we have faster decision advantage than any adversary,” Deptula said. “This is the notion of the ‘combat cloud.’ It’s more about how we integrate the sensor-shooters that are resident in systems coming online, more than it is about new platforms.”

The senior military official agreed with Deptula’s assessment, but added that the PAK-FA has another vulnerability, too. The Russians generally do not have a requirement to fight inside a dense, highly advanced integrated air defense system (IADS) like a U.S. jet would. As such, while the PAK-FA does have stealthy features, it places far less emphasis on low observables technology than does the F-22 or F-35. “Its failure to prioritize stealth and sensor fusion make it vulnerable to both Western fifth-gen. fighters, certainly the F-22,” the official said. “When you look at the concept the USAF [U.S. Air Force] will apply with the F-22/F-35 team, the PAK-FA will run in to significant challenges.”

So from that, you can cross of comprehensive data links too. That leaves full supercruise ability and advanced engines, neither of which the PAK FA or the SU-35 have, as we discussed above.

So you were saying caervek? Why are you trying to pull shit out of your ass? You wanting the Su-35 or the PAK FA to be something it isn't, doesn't make it that thing. On the metrics alone, the Su-35 CERTAINLY isn't comparable to the F-22 or any true fifth generation aircraft, and the PAK FA doesn't do it much better.

[Ulmita]

This is the engine of the PAK-FA

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircra...001454001.aspx