The Russian T-50 PAK FA is trash, and India wants out.

[Radaney]

Pretty surprised India were in a contract with Russia tbh.

Then again they hate the US but surprised they don't get stuff from the rest of the EU i.e Germany, France and the UK.

[Mormolyce]

Maneuverability is fine, but when your avionics package is 30 years behind.....yeah.

I hear they come with the latest Kaspersky antivirus though.

[Mafic]

For those that want a real comparison



Watch this video first.

As for India they want to develop their own plane so this isn't surprising. This is the same reason why the Turks are not so high on F35 as they want their own plane.

[Theinquisition]

I hear they come with the latest Kaspersky antivirus though.

One of the few times we can joke and laugh at someone else's expense together.

Cheers

[Mafic]

Its funny that you mention that, but didnt USA lost stealth plane over Serbia, until then a plane that was never shot in combat, shot down by a shitty air defense and radar from 60s?!

Tridant II has like 100m accuracy while R-36 has lets say 300m, but its faster and carries 4x more payload and has better range. What cargo plane that can carry 200t+ can land on less than <1km landing strip and than fully loaded take off?

You are correct so older technology still has value especially against "stealth".

Anyways, what makes the F22 better than the Nighthawk is that it is simply a superior all around air craft. But the F22 still is heavily reliant on stealth like the nighthawk.

The F22 simply doesn't work in a vacuum by itself and the same was true with the Nighthawk. All aircraft have weaknesses in some fashion.

[lockedout]

I think the point, that Russia can't make or buy anything shiny, still stands.

Don't they make our rockets?

[Masark]

Don't they make our rockets?

Only the motor for the first stage of the Atlas V rocket.

[Kreo]

I linked the source material. In the original post. At the top.

:|

"Senior IAF leadership recently expressed apprehension to the Ministry of Defence, claiming the proposed FGFA program with Russia does not meet desired requirements like U.S. F-35 fighter type capabilities, disclosed a senior IAF official. That official added, that “IAF is not keen to continue with the program.”

What i mean by source is not "someone high up said something".
Press release by IAF would do nicely.
And this quote sums up the entire premise, giving it "legitimacy".

[breadisfunny]

ooh look another anti russia thread made by skroe. how predictable.

[Barnabas]

This one from August disagrees:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017...-fighter-deal/


NEW DELHI — India is going ahead with the acquisition of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft with Russia after an internal committee of the Ministry of Defence recommended that the purchase of the aircraft will duplicate India’s plan to develop a homegrown advanced medium combat aircraft, according to an MoD official.

“The internal committee, headed by retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman, after studying technical parameters, has recommended India to acquire the Indo-Russian FGFA,” the MoD official said, referring to the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

On the road ahead, the official said, a final agreement between India and Russia will be prepared that will pave the way for the release of over $5 billion toward India’s share to develop the FGFA.
...
India opted for the Russian FGFA because “Russia is a better option with the country willing to co-develop on agreed terms apart from comprehensive technology transfer,” the MoD official added.

They want tech, not just jets. And US isn't going to share; Indians tried that option.

That's why PAK FA is better for India. They aren't going to be completely identical to F-35 in capabilities anyway, .

No the problem is the russians want 32 billion in the end and India has sticker shock. We (usa) are building carriers for them currently. To suggest "we won't share" is absurd. India doesn't want to provide the entry fee. The same problem they have with russia at far less entry price than we'd ever charge. If they are crying over 32 billion what makes you think they could ever join in our project that is estimated well over 1 trillion in cost in the end? Do they just want spare parts for no plane at that price?

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/i...1/1039202.html

India could just buy from china instead?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-stealth-14299

[oxymoronic]

Russians should hire german engineers if they ever want to become competetive in that regard.

dont think they need well put together cars, but we'll call you if they do.

- - - Updated - - -

Then again they hate the US but surprised they don't get stuff from the rest of the EU i.e Germany, France and the UK.

they do? had no idea.

[ItsRainingMetal]

Their Su-35S in a F-22/Movie Prop costume has fallen far, far under the performance targets and gone way, way over budget. Doing an F-22 (much less an F-22 beater) on the cheap turns out to be a nonsense proposition.

Sounds kind of like the F35.

[lockedout]

Only the motor for the first stage of the Atlas V rocket.

Much of our ability is dependent on two rocket engines, the RD-180 and the NK-33/AJ26.

[Masark]

Much of our ability is dependent on two rocket engines, the RD-180 and the NK-33/AJ26.

Which are being rendered obsolete by SpaceX.

[Crispin]

You are confused. I think USA payed your engineers and scientists after Germany lost WW2 while SSSR used them as slave labor untill they dropped dead.

And you think Russia's move was the smart one? lmfao

- - - Updated - - -

Fighter jets aren't exactly the countries' forte and as a german I find that comment rather cringe worthy. Frankly at this point I have the feeling that when it comes to renewing military equipment no country seems up to the task, especially aeronautics and space travel devices. Every of those face-lifts seem to be steeped in scandals and general issues.

Yet the Eurofighter is an outstanding jet.

[Independent voter]

Let's be fair, the AK is a splendid rifle. Easy to maintain, doesn't break easily and it's cheap to manufacture. There's only so many ways you can propel a bullet out of a long tube and the Russians have found a rather efficient method of doing so.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, yes, but you gotta respect that rifle. It is reliable as fuck. Unlike the AR15 variants we like to worship in the West. [/QUOTE]





M16 is reliable as fuck too. The jamming thing was a myth.

[lockedout]

Which are being rendered obsolete by SpaceX.

When that happens sure but still in use today. We also have a contract to use them for our satellites for a few more years regardless.

[Crispin]

ooh look another anti russia thread made by skroe. how predictable.

Time to call all threads that isnt praising a country for "Anti-<insert country>", I bet the Americans are sick and tired of all the "Anti-America" threads he's making aswell , do you remember to post in thoose too?

[Skroe]

When that happens sure but still in use today. We also have a contract to use them for our satellites for a few more years regardless.

There is a congressionally mandated hard cap. The Atlas V (which uses the RD-180) is gone in 2020. The Delta IV (which uses the American RS-68 engine) is gone in 2023ish.

ULA "plans" to replace the Atlas V with the Vulcan rocket, which is really an Atlas V with a new first stage that uses Blue Origin BE-4s or Aerojet AR1s instead of the RD-180. But I doubt that Boeing and Lockheed will decided to finance Vulcan beyond study-level work. They're already well behind schedule in that regard. I expect them to dissolve the ULA Partnership in the early 2020s and focus on the SLS, smaller launchers and capsules.

ULA made the historic screw up of a life time by sitting on their government subsidy while SpaceX was innovating. And now they're hopelessly behind.

And meanwhile SpaceX is winning Air Force/NRO contract after NRO contract.

Don't forget lockedout... you doubted SpaceX. And here they are, in late 2017... routinely landing rockets and also the number one launch provider in the world, beating Russia and China. You refused to recognize what was starring you in the face. That ULA was a a monopoly content with it's cashflow, and SpaceX's had disruptive technology it couldn't hope to match.

- - - Updated - - -

Much of our ability is dependent on two rocket engines, the RD-180 and the NK-33/AJ26.

Also one more thing.

The, until the arrival of the Falcon 9, the Atlas V which uses the RD-180 was used for the "routine" payloads because it was cheaper. GPS. Weather sattelites. That kind of thing. The "really special national security launches" generally went on top of the RS-68 powered Delta IV (occasionally the Heavy variant), which costs 30% more than the Atlas V. The Delta IV is considered more reliable, more capable and safer.

The NK-33/AJ26 was used on several Orbital ATK Antares launches. Antares was used exclusively for ISS Commercial resuply-related launches. It was not used for any national security launches. After the failure of the engines on the 5th flight of antares, use of the Nk-33 was discontinued in favor of the Rd-181 (basically an Rd-191). This is interesting because while the RD-180 is essentially half an Energia RD-170, the RD-191 is basically half an RD-180 (or a quarter RD-170). It's still a Russian design, but a much better and more modern one than the 50 year old Nk-33s.

But regardless Antares plays no role in anything other than ISS resuply.

- - - Updated - - -

Its funny that you mention that, but didnt USA lost stealth plane over Serbia, until then a plane that was never shot in combat, shot down by a shitty air defense and radar from 60s?!

Tridant II has like 100m accuracy while R-36 has lets say 300m, but its faster and carries 4x more payload and has better range. What cargo plane that can carry 200t+ can land on less than <1km landing strip and than fully loaded take off?

That was an F-117 and it was shot down through luck and radars operating at longer wavelengths.

The F-117 was a first generation operational stealth design and in 1999 was in the prime of its life. It was however, progressively technologically obsolete and was retired in 2007. The stealth of the B-2, F-22, F-35 and B--21 are designed specifically to counter longer wavelengths as well.

Lastly the original Trident II SLBM had warheads with 90m accuracy. Since 2009 though the US has refitted nearly the entire arsenal with the Life Extension Program that added a "superfuse" and GPS guidance to the wrheads. This has increased accuracy to 5m. You can read about the importance of that here, but it's enormous.

https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nucle...ing-super10578

With respet to the R-36, fist of all, the Trident II typically carries 8-12 warheads while R-36 carries 10... certainly not the "4x" you state. Furthermore since it is landbased, it is largely worthless as it is unlikely any would get off the ground in the event of a US attack. The US has shifted the overwhelming majority of it's warheads to submarines while most of Russia's are on mobile launchers that will not survive attack. The R-36 isn't even mobile. It is a silo-based weapon. The important metric is that the US has 1550 warheads on nearly 700 launchers, while Russia has 1550 weapons on around 400. This means that Russia is heavily mirved, but also the US destroying every Russian launcher on the ground makes a bigger dent in the overall total number of deployable warheads.

Ideally, Russia would do what the US did, which is put the lionshare of its warheads on it's submarines, and have one warhead-per-ICBM land based missiles to act as a "sink". They can't be ignored, so the US would have to spend 500+ warheads to target them, but losing them is no big deal because the real Russian strike capability would be safely deep under water.

This is the US model, but it requires significantly more resources than Russia has at the present. Russophiles have taken to praising R-36, like Bulava and Borei and S-300/S-400 mostly through a severe lack of understanding about what it is. It is the bastard cousin of the "MiG-29 is the best fighter in the world" meme that's never been true but was common "internet knowledge", let's call it, through the 1990s (I always loved it, because even a Russian Su-27 would demolish a MiG-29, nevermind an F-15 or F-22).

[Masark]

And meanwhile SpaceX is winning Air Force/NRO contract after NRO contract.

ULA still has a monopoly on any KH-11/Orion/etc. launches, at least until SpaceX decides to put in the effort to become able to handle satellites of that length.