The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Ulmita]

Hence why almost all "Su-27" derived aircraft are called Flanker by NATO. They are just upgrades of the same aircraft.

The AL-41F1 is a decent engine nevertheless. Not in the same league as the Raptors F119 but meh, its better than the F110. As i said the Russians and the Indians have acknowledged that they need a new engine.

[Kellhound]

The AL-41F1 is a decent engine nevertheless. Not in the same league as the Raptors F119 but meh, its better than the F110. As i said the Russians and the Indians have acknowledged that they need a new engine.

Saying you need a better engine is not the same as producing a better jet engine. Russia is not known for engine reliability or fuel efficiency, just raw power at the expense of everything else.

[Skroe]

Skroe, Russia was flying in outer space when u were flying around in your father's sweaty balls.

And type some moar Lol

And while you were in your father's sweaty balls, the United States was landing man on the moon.

What's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

Saying you need a better engine is not the same as producing a better jet engine. Russia is not known for engine reliability or fuel efficiency, just raw power at the expense of everything else.

Including, we can't forget, service life. US jets cost more, but also last way longer.

- - - Updated - - -

1: The engines are not the same, the Su-35S uses the 117S the T-50 prototype uses the 117.
2: The Su-35S engines are better than the F-22's anyway so I don't see how you can use the similarity to call the T-50 engines 4th gen.
3: The 117 used in the T-50 prototype and first production planes isn't even the final design, it will be used until 2020 when it will be replaced by the 30 model.

The rest of your post is just padding and not related to anything I said but this bit caught my eye:

(1) Hence upgraded versions. The point is, they are the AL-41F1, the latest version of the AL-31, and not the differen AL-41F, which is also terrible compared to the F119 in any event
(2) That's just a joke now and you're trolling. Under what metrics do you claim this.
(3) Perhaps... I even stated this... but it's still a pair of engines well behind what the US has been flying for years.

The problem with that theory is that the Su-35 thrust vectoring demonstrator (AKA Su-37) had both the thrust vectoring later employed on the Su-35S and the canards of the Su-27, they literally tested both methods on the same plane and decided to ditch the canards. Given the extra cost/maintenance of TV do you really think they would have dropped the better performing option for a laugh?

Depends on the implimentation of the control systems and the economics? The Russians have been playing with canard foreplanes for years. So has the US for that matter. It's dabbled. You should go check out the F-15 ACTIVE testbed. THis:



That's both Canard Foreplanes (actually F/A-18 vertical stabilizers) and thrust vectoring nozzles on the F100. 25 years ago. Canard foreplanes were considered for the F-22 and F-35 at various points. In the end, simplicity won out.

Countries drop better performing options for reliability and maintence reasons all the time. I'll give you a really good example. Russia, about a decade ago, had a few Typhoons (the largest ballistic missile submarine) in service. THey were much more capable and modern than the Delta IIIs and Delta IVs, it's predecessor, that make up the backbone of Russia's undersea deterrent. They've rapidly retired the Typhoons though, despite being newer, stealthier and better performing than the Delta IIIs and Delta IVs. Why? Cost. They were extremely expensive to own and not built in great numbers.

How about a more recent US example. FOr all the talk about railguns, there is a good chance that Railguns won't ever be retrofitted on much of the existing US Navy and instead added to new designs that replace the existing fleet as they are retired over the next few decades. Why? Because instead of dropping billions retrofitting the entire fleet with a new gun, plus powerful new generations to make them fire, they've found that the Hypervelocity Projectile, the Railgun's slug, can be fired from any 5 inch gun (including by the way, howitzer artillery). The HVP has half the range and half the speed fired from a five inch gunc ompared to a rail gun, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of anything else in the arsenal or the world, and with over 100 such guns already in the fleet (and hundreds more on ground vehicles), it's a way to cost effectively spread new capability at low cost.

The most advanced ships and the next round of ships will have railguns. Because the unit is undergoing sea trials. The existing fleet will be just fine armed with HVP and their old standbys.

Is that you can't stand the idea that anyone but 'Murica could make a fifth generation plane and so will produce walls of text to try and convince people the experts are wrong.

NONSENSE. Utter nonsense. I've written on these forums - enthusastically mind you - about Japan's 5th generation program, India's, Chinas and others. One of my person favorite posts I've written ever was comparing and contrasting the design philosophy Japanese ATD-X / X-2 to the F-22, which at one point was mooted to export to Japan (and because that didn't happen, the X-2 program exists).

I've even excoraited the F-22 for being a technological dinosaur compared to the F-35. People not in the know all hail the F-22 because it is the world's most capable air superiority fighter - very true, but it is also comparatively primitive when compared to F-35 tech, the F-35 being maligned for performance (while the tech behind it is the most important part).

But I don't engage in bullshit, and if something is capable, I say it's capable. I've paid, for example, Russia compliments for it's hypersonic re-entry vehicle design, while making clear it is a very different system than the prompt global strike systems the US is working on. And as I've said before, Flankers are dangerous in close.

But pretending the PAK FA is anything other than a fourth generation fighter in a fith generation costume is dishonest when - and we even whent over them from an authoritative source, the PAK FA fulfills none of the requirements. Where is the sensor fusion? Where is the network centric warfare approach?

The T-50 has a 5th gen airframe, it has 5th gen engines (it doesn't matter if they are somewhat similar to ones that were used to create a 4++ gen plane, they are 5th gen engines), it has 5th gen tech. Every generation list considers it a 5th gen plane except the list in your mind.

They aren't considered 5th gen engines or tech. You're opinioning.

And unless I'm mistaken, you deleted a reference to that Janes site. Well I'm sorry friend, but Jane is the authority. If anyone is situated to render an authoritative opinion, it's them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%2...ormation_Group

"Jane's was founded in 1898 by Fred T. Jane who had begun sketching ships as an enthusiast naval artist while living in Portsmouth. This gradually developed into an encyclopaedic knowledge, culminating in the publishing of All the World's Fighting Ships (1898).[1] The company then gradually branched out into other arenas of military expertise. The books and trade magazines published by the company are often considered the de facto public source of information on warfare and transportation systems."

Jane's Defense Weekly? Janes All the World's Aircraft? The last one there has had annual editions going back to 1909 for crying out loud.

[Kellhound]

And while you were in your father's sweaty balls, the United States was landing man on the moon.

What's your point?

- - - Updated - - -



Including, we can't forget, service life. US jets cost more, but also last way longer.

- - - Updated - - -


(1) Hence upgraded versions. The point is, they are the AL-41F1, the latest version of the AL-31, and not the differen AL-41F, which is also terrible compared to the F119 in any event
(2) That's just a joke now and you're trolling. Under what metrics do you claim this.
(3) Perhaps... I even stated this... but it's still a pair of engines well behind what the US has been flying for years.



Depends on the implimentation of the control systems and the economics? The Russians have been playing with canard foreplanes for years. So has the US for that matter. It's dabbled. You should go check out the F-15 ACTIVE testbed. THis:



That's both Canard Foreplanes (actually F/A-18 vertical stabilizers) and thrust vectoring nozzles on the F100. 25 years ago. Canard foreplanes were considered for the F-22 and F-35 at various points. In the end, simplicity won out.

Countries drop better performing options for reliability and maintence reasons all the time. I'll give you a really good example. Russia, about a decade ago, had a few Typhoons (the largest ballistic missile submarine) in service. THey were much more capable and modern than the Delta IIIs and Delta IVs, it's predecessor, that make up the backbone of Russia's undersea deterrent. They've rapidly retired the Typhoons though, despite being newer, stealthier and better performing than the Delta IIIs and Delta IVs. Why? Cost. They were extremely expensive to own and not built in great numbers.

How about a more recent US example. FOr all the talk about railguns, there is a good chance that Railguns won't ever be retrofitted on much of the existing US Navy and instead added to new designs that replace the existing fleet as they are retired over the next few decades. Why? Because instead of dropping billions retrofitting the entire fleet with a new gun, plus powerful new generations to make them fire, they've found that the Hypervelocity Projectile, the Railgun's slug, can be fired from any 5 inch gun (including by the way, howitzer artillery). The HVP has half the range and half the speed fired from a five inch gunc ompared to a rail gun, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of anything else in the arsenal or the world, and with over 100 such guns already in the fleet (and hundreds more on ground vehicles), it's a way to cost effectively spread new capability at low cost.

The most advanced ships and the next round of ships will have railguns. Because the unit is undergoing sea trials. The existing fleet will be just fine armed with HVP and their old standbys.








NONSENSE. Utter nonsense. I've written on these forums - enthusastically mind you - about Japan's 5th generation program, India's, Chinas and others. One of my person favorite posts I've written ever was comparing and contrasting the design philosophy Japanese ATD-X / X-2 to the F-22, which at one point was mooted to export to Japan (and because that didn't happen, the X-2 program exists).

I've even excoraited the F-22 for being a technological dinosaur compared to the F-35. People not in the know all hail the F-22 because it is the world's most capable air superiority fighter - very true, but it is also comparatively primitive when compared to F-35 tech, the F-35 being maligned for performance (while the tech behind it is the most important part).

But I don't engage in bullshit, and if something is capable, I say it's capable. I've paid, for example, Russia compliments for it's hypersonic re-entry vehicle design, while making clear it is a very different system than the prompt global strike systems the US is working on. And as I've said before, Flankers are dangerous in close.

But pretending the PAK FA is anything other than a fourth generation fighter in a fith generation costume is dishonest when - and we even whent over them from an authoritative source, the PAK FA fulfills none of the requirements. Where is the sensor fusion? Where is the network centric warfare approach?


They aren't considered 5th gen engines or tech. You're opinioning.

And unless I'm mistaken, you deleted a reference to that Janes site. Well I'm sorry friend, but Jane is the authority. If anyone is situated to render an authoritative opinion, it's them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%2...ormation_Group

"Jane's was founded in 1898 by Fred T. Jane who had begun sketching ships as an enthusiast naval artist while living in Portsmouth. This gradually developed into an encyclopaedic knowledge, culminating in the publishing of All the World's Fighting Ships (1898).[1] The company then gradually branched out into other arenas of military expertise. The books and trade magazines published by the company are often considered the de facto public source of information on warfare and transportation systems."

Jane's Defense Weekly? Janes All the World's Aircraft? The last one there has had annual editions going back to 1909 for crying out loud.

Janes is even used by intelligence services. Outside of governments, you will find no better source for military information.

[Skroe]

Janes is even used by intelligence services. Outside of governments, you will find no better source for military information.

I feel kind of depressed we're talking detailed military and aviation technology stuff with people that think Janes is some random blog some guy from Tulsa runs or something.

Sometimes I just shake my head at the arrogant presumption of some folks.

[Grosbill]

Sometimes I just shake my head at the arrogant presumption of some folks.

Rather ironic coming from you

[Hhavok]

[I]"In the unlikely event of a direct confrontation between Nato and RUS, we must acknowledge that RUS currently has a significant capability edge over UK force elements," the report says.

Key things here being "unlikely event" and "edge over UK force elements". All it's really saying is the UK would need NATO/U.S. support, and that it's unlikely to happen anyways.

[Ulmita]

I
Sometimes I just shake my head at the arrogant presumption of some folks.

I just shake my head when you come to these forums claiming that Janes knows closely kept government secrets like details about 5th gen aircrafts, subs, etc, because, you know, its Janes...

[Skroe]

The AL-41F1 is a decent engine nevertheless. Not in the same league as the Raptors F119 but meh, its better than the F110. As i said the Russians and the Indians have acknowledged that they need a new engine.

The metrics I posted it earlier had the AL-41F1/117 is very similar to F110-GE-132 or F100-PW-232 engines in specs and performance

The AL-41F1 also runs much hotter.


The problem that Russia has is the US "new engine" is going to be game changing so even if a new Russian engine achieves parity with the F119 in the mid 2020s, it'll still be behind.



Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology, or ADVENT engine program. It's a variable cycle engine.

How it works:



Basically it allows for the engine shift between a Fuel Efficient and High Performance mode by changing it's internal configuration dynamically to optimize it for that mode of flight. The goal is an engine that can be both highly efficient (they are targeting 25%+ improved efficiency and 30%+ range improvement) and high performance (20% above the F119) when needed.

GE got the contract on July 6th.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d...d-6cc9e9de7a24

The United States Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), based at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, awarded GE Aviation a $1 billion contract to continue maturing its three-stream adaptive cycle engine via the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). AETP is scheduled to run through 2021 with extensive component, rig and engine testing.

AETP technology has undergone initial development under the auspices of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) through the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program that began in 2007 and the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program that began in 2012.

"For nearly a decade, GE Aviation has successfully partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) to effectively design, manufacture and test our revolutionary combination of engine architecture, compression technology, cooling technology and material technology advancements," said Dan McCormick, general manager of GE Aviation's Advanced Combat Engine programs. "We are honored to continue our work with AFRL while initiating the next phase of the technology maturation with the AFLCMC, transitioning our learnings as the only engine manufacturer to have successfully tested a full three-stream adaptive cycle engine. We will continue to work to deliver engines that meet the DoD's aggressive performance and cost targets. We believe GE is best positioned to integrate the adaptive suite of technologies into existing and next-generation combat aircraft."

GE Aviation completed its AETD Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in March 2015. This key review was held with leaders from the US Air Force, Navy and NASA following testing of the industry's first and only adaptive-cycle, three-stream engine in 2014. GE's adaptive cycle, three-stream engine extends aircraft operating range by more than 30%, improves fuel consumption by 25% and increases thrust by more than 10%. With the AETP and follow-on development programs, GE's engine could be ready to power the US military's most advanced combat jets.

For the record this is the third time the US has done this kind of major top-down engine program.

The first time was with what became the GE F101 in the mid 1970s for the (then planned to be revolutionary) B-1A. The F101, used now on the B-1B, became the F110, the hugely successful CFM56 (the A320, A340, 737 and many other aircrafts engines), the F118, and many other derivatives over the decades... both aircraft and as industrial gas turbines. The F101 legacy continues with the CFM LEAP (the CFM56 successor).

The second time was with the toint Advanced Fighter Engine in 1982 to develop an engine for what would become the F-22 years later (envisioned as a replacement for the F-15 Tomcat as well as the F-15). The result was the F119 engine and the more advanced (but much more risky) variable cycle YF120. The F119 and YF120 engine tech evolved into the F135 (which is a modernized, simplified, larger, different performing F119), the canceled F136, but also retrofitted onto the CFM56, the CFMLeap, various gas turbines and the F100 / F110. The next round of Gas Turbines are drawing from YF120 (considering GE made that and is the turbine company), buch as the F101 did.

ADVENT is the third go. Advent will likely find itself in the F-22 successor, mid-life and late-life F-35 new builds (which, speculating here, I bet will evolve into a F-35D/E/F), and perhaps even the B-21 at some point (it was originally envisioned for the 2018 bomber, which was the B-21's predecessor program before the Iraq War delayed it).

Once again, this is something I've been talking about for a while. As RUssia moves into 5th generaiton tech over the next decade, the US will be sliding into 6th generation tech. Especially if, as the Air Force plans, a sixth generation air superiority aircraft may look more like a B-21 with a massive clip of extremely long range air to air missiles, rather than a super-performance fighter, all these investments into the PAK FA (or for China, into the J-20) could be for naught.

[Direpenguin]

how the hell is that even a surprise ? the only reason hitler didnt took over britain in WW2 was because it was an island and not worth the hassle

History iz hard.. derp derp.

[Kellhound]

I feel kind of depressed we're talking detailed military and aviation technology stuff with people that think Janes is some random blog some guy from Tulsa runs or something.

Sometimes I just shake my head at the arrogant presumption of some folks.

Most of them have never likely even seen a Jane's book, let alone read through one.

- - - Updated - - -

I just shake my head when you come to these forums claiming that Janes knows closely kept government secrets like details about 5th gen aircrafts, subs, etc, because, you know, its Janes...

History has shown they are more often then not correct. They are THE non-classified authority on military matters.

[Marcellus1986]

You sound tilted my little American dude =)
The question is why would you reply to a comment that you find retarded and what does that say about yourself. Lastly, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, which btw you never have, please refrain from spamming it.

Calling you out on your idiotic bullshit, conspiracy nonsense, and complete lack of knowledge on anything military related that isn't regurgitated Kremlin propoganda is constructive feedback.

I'm sorry you can't take the heat, but those are the ropes child.

[Crispin]

I just shake my head when you come to these forums claiming that Janes knows closely kept government secrets like details about 5th gen aircrafts, subs, etc, because, you know, its Janes...

I just shake my head, when you write anything, considering you're even lying about where you're from, as if it would give you more credibility.

Also quite cute coming from the google nuke "expert"

[Deleted]

This thread makes no sense. Maybe Russia is "catching up" with the us in military terms. Maybe it isn't.

Neither country, nor the UK seems capable of actually winning a war. I'm not sure what a comparison would serve.

[Wyrt]

It's not like Russia is going to attack the UK so I'm not sure why it matters.

[Imbalanced]

In Russian society, even under current pseudo-democratic regime (which is still way more liberal than the Russian Empire or USSR have ever been), the needs of many have always prevailed over the needs of one. This is one of few most important "Russian traditional values". Russian governments of the past were always ready to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve their goals; not much have changed since.

You remember the whole thing with the japanese flying planes into USA ships because they were fanatically loyal? Yeah they were still getting rocked up until the USA dropped the 2 i win buttons. Sacrificing yourself doesnt win wars, killing the other guys wins wars.

[Ripster42]

Your opinion as well as Janes or any other site's its irrelevant since none and i mean no one knows the exact specificatiosn of the aircraft besides some very basic stuff like the 3D vectoring etc. So most deal in speculations besides what Russia publicly displayed in the France air show and in its latest video. In your case you couldn't even get its engines right so you should refrain from commending more on this topic.

- - - Updated - - -



No. These ARE the PAK-FA's engines. The temporary solution that is until they finish developing the new ones. These engines although less thrust than the F-22's are much better than anything else.

Looking at your link, (here it is again) that's not the engine.

PAK FA to Use 117S Engine as Interim Solution Due to Problems with AL-41 Development

Sounds like they'd like for that to be the engine, but it's not. Again, correct me where I'm wrong, but it seems like they're using the 117S, or the
AL-41F1S, not the AL-41F1 you linked.

[Ulmita]

Looking at your link, (here it is again) that's not the engine.



Sounds like they'd like for that to be the engine, but it's not. Again, correct me where I'm wrong, but it seems like they're using the 117S, or the
AL-41F1S, not the AL-41F1 you linked.

I think the 117S is another name for the AL-41F1. PAK-FA does use indeed two of them.

[Kellhound]

I think the 117S is another name for the AL-41F1. PAK-FA does use indeed two of them.

AL-41F1S=117S, Su-35
AL-41F1=117, Pak-FA

[Ulmita]

Listen to put this subject to rest one and for all.

The PAK-FA uses two heavily upgraded AL-31F engines, the AL-41F1s.