India's First Stealth Fighter To Fly In 4 Months 611
xmpcray writes "Less than four months from now, India's first stealth fighter will fly for the first time. It is called the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, or FGFA, and is being developed in Russia by Sukhoi. Several of the technologies being developed for the stealth fighter have evolved from those used in the Sukhoi 30 MKI. Considered the most maneuverable fighter in the world, the Sukhoi 30 MKI uses thrust vectored engines, which deflect the exhaust from its engines to extreme angles, enabling the jet to pull off violent maneuvers like a flat spin — where the jet literally spins around on its axis."
"where the jet literally spins around on its axis" (Score:5, Funny)
That would be one way to mix a martini, yes.
Re:"where the jet literally spins around on its ax (Score:5, Funny)
Which axis? Probably the axis of evil for all the editor knows...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
The end of last year, a couple videos came out with an American F-15 pilot talking about what it was like going up against the Indian Air Force Su-30MKI. It was quite interesting, as the vectored thrust did offer additional maneuverability but it came at a cost. That isn't to say that this new jet and training wont overcome that advantage, but it was a glimpse into the world of air to air combat I don't think makes it out into the civilian world all that often. The clips were put up on youtube - I'll link to both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w [youtube.com]
Basically if I understand it correctly the vectored thrust allowed them to turn, but they would lose airspeed and altitude in the process. As the fighter types say - speed is life - and once it happened they were apparently easy pickings. This FlightGlobal writeup about it [flightglobal.com] may do a better job of explaining.
But I wonder is how much longer this will matter. The Lockheed video on their DAS [youtube.com] for the F-35 pretty much asserts that the system makes maneuverability irrelevant. I realize that it's a vendor sales presentation, but at the same time I know off-bore-sight missiles are pretty much a done deal. Stealthiness helps some, but I doubt it would be enough as these systems keep improving. It seems soon the primary factor in air to air combat will be the quality of radar and missiles that are available.
When I bring this up with current military folks, they say they think rules of engagement will keep it from going that far. I can see that in situations where one side has complete air superiority - but if it comes to evenly matched sides, I think ROE will be out the window when sticking to it means losing. The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
But I wonder is how much longer this will matter. The Lockheed video on their DAS [youtube.com] for the F-35 pretty much asserts that the system makes maneuverability irrelevant. I realize that it's a vendor sales presentation, but at the same time I know off-bore-sight missiles are pretty much a done deal. Stealthiness helps some, but I doubt it would be enough as these systems keep improving. It seems soon the primary factor in air to air combat will be the quality of radar and missiles that are available.
Something Lockheed makes makes India's planes' maneuverability irrelevant? How so? We're going to be fighting each other or something? Is Lockheed going to be selling their stuff to Pakistan?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the paragraph you quoted, there is no mention of India. It says "makes maneuverability irrelevant." India isn't the only ones looking at this sort of capability.
Dangerous Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Something Lockheed makes makes India's planes' maneuverability(sic) irrelevant? How so?
I very much doubt that maneouverability will become irrelevant. The last time someone put all their trust in weaponry at the expense of maneouverability it did not go so well [wikipedia.org] for them.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Carrier groups are prime targets for short ranged nukes.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me be a little more verbose. If by "reasonably equipped enemy" you mean "enemy that a) has nuclear weapons and b) has a delivery system that can reliably penetrate the Aegis air defenses", I think there are very few "reasonably equipped enemies" to worry about.
Let me put this another way: The people who actually think about carrier deployment for a living have probably at least a passing familiarity with the notion of weapons that might go boom near carriers, and some rudimentary notions about how to prevent such a scenario.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's the point - the carrier doesn't need maneouverability because it has all the other ships in the battlegroup plus its own aircraft to defend it. If you reach the situation where your carrier is needing to dodge and weave then ur doin it toterli rong, and you've probably already lost.
A fighter plane doesn't have that luxury, which is why interkin3tic's comparison is not just invalid but irrelevant.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not so sure. You seem to forget that carrier fleets are as much a result of political posturing as necessity and are a direct outgrowth of US experiences in the WWII in the Pacific, which is to put it diplomatically a classic case of "fighting the last war". Also the US has never been truly tested on the seas against anyone but militarily 3rd-rate, impoverished countries. I seem to recall a saying the submariners are rather fond of, to the effect that in case of a serious modern naval conflict there would be only two classes of ships at seas: submarines and ... "targets"!
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think? Or do you suppose they were all idiots, far beneath the American Super-Men, The Masters of the Universe?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The US had no real risk of invasion and warm-water ports on two oceans. It therefore could become a real two-ocean navy (and, with the u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiots? No, but they couldn't afford it, so they went to the next best thing. They do have one carrier now I believe, but could never afford to field as many as the US can.
I know this is the internet, were bashing Americans is what all the cool kids do, but if you're going to insult Americans, try not to do so from a position of ignorance. I know, its
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the US has never been truly tested on the seas against anyone but militarily 3rd-rate, impoverished countries.
Japan was a militarily 3rd-rate impoverished country?
I seem to recall a saying the submariners are rather fond of, to the effect that in case of a serious modern naval conflict there would be only two classes of ships at seas: submarines and ... "targets"!
Submarines are historically the biggest threat to aircraft carriers (the Wasp and Yorktown come to mind) but they aren't invulnerable. Submarines have several drawbacks:
1) They can't keep up with a fast moving surface task force without giving away their location and losing sonar effectiveness. The best way for them to engage such a task force is to lie in wait for it but this isn't always possible if your enemy doesn't cooperate and go where you think he's going to go.
2) They can't communicate in real time with their base and thus have a harder time taking advantage of other sensor platforms (aircraft, satellites, etc) that would help them locate their targets.
3) They can't take advantage of long range stand-off weapons (missiles) without giving away their location.
4) Their primary sensor platform (passive sonar) requires a fair amount of time to develop a targeting solution (see target motion analysis). This process is rendered much harder when tracking a target that is taking evasive action (random changes in course or speed) to complicate the process. Active sonar removes this limitation but gives away their location and subjects them to counter-attack.
In summary, it's a mistake to dismiss the submarine threat but it's also a mistake to assume that they will rule the waves in a future conflict. Submarines can only dominate the oceans in the absence of an effective ASW strategy (see the Pacific in WW2). When such a strategy is implemented they are certainly manageable (see the Atlantic in WW2). We have a competent ASW strategy and the best technology in the world for the task. We also have the most effective ASW weapon available -- our own submarines.
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think?
The Soviets had a completely different strategy than NATO did. It's the difference between sea control [wikipedia.org] and sea denial [wikipedia.org]. The Soviets didn't have to control the shipping lanes to win WW3. They just had to close them to NATO shipping and choke off supplies and reinforcements from North America. It's much cheaper to build a sea denial force than it is to build a sea control force and doesn't require the same level of institutional experience.
It should be noted that every power that's ever tried a sea denial strategy ultimately failed and lost whatever war they were fighting. Germany in the World Wars is the best known example but there are others from history. Unless you can win command of the sea you are going to have an awfully hard time defeating a Western military power. Command of the sea has been the secret to our success since the beginning. If it wasn't for Salamis [wikipedia.org] there probably wouldn't even be such a thing as Western civilization.
Re:tactics and weapons (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How exactly do you plan to strike a carrier?
A group of 10-15 Stim-Pack equipped Marines and 5-10 Medics should do the trick nicely. Take out the drones and the carrier itself is nigh defenceless.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
British vs US spellings
Let's get ready to roeumble!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the F22 didn't appear to have all the hallmarks of a lemon, there would be no problem.
The US had it right in the 50s and 60s by not putting all its eggs in one basket, so if some of the aircraft turn out to suck, at least you have something else to fall back on. The F22 is a monumental gamble, and all we get from Lockheed is talk and more talk.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Funny)
"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"
Do you know a better way to make more virgins ?
Classic quote gets classic rebuttal...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And a tank costs a lot more than a pickup truck. So what? If the F-22 can maintain, say, a 20:1 kill ratio against other aircraft, then the 5:1 cost disparity is more than justified. Not to mention the fact that you can reduce operating costs since you no longer need to maintain such a large fleet, so you long-term costs may be more like 2:1 or even lower.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First, we had the shift from hunting/gathering to agriculture.
You know, its not always necessary to start at the beginning.....
Re:Now Entering the Third Stage of Military Histor (Score:4, Insightful)
You overreach.
Technology will continue to be a giant advantage for the next 30 years or so, at least. I question your understanding of military technology portfolios.
World War I was a war of attrition. WWII, also, but to a lesser degree.
IT is not so predominant among the worlds' armies that it dominates. Understanding a technology doesn't mean the ability to solve engineering/production challenges, weaponize it, train troops, and then operate the new capability.
In fact, we are coming to a moment in time where the sophistication of our capabilities may render obsolete various styles of warfare. The "fog of war" is dying a slow death.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
The F35 is a global project with several countries footing the development bill, and many US allies purchasing it for their own air forces...
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like the Harrier. Against the Argentinians the British pilots would effectively slam on the brakes and attack the other aircraft from behind.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
An F-16 pilot friend refers to this as "getting stuffed", and they train to counter the technique. It would be foolish to assume that it's like in "Top Gun" where "slamming on the brakes" totally surprises an opponent.
In air to air combat, killing your opponent before they get anywhere close to you is the goal. Aviation Week wrote years ago about the ratio of losses "at the merge" (i.e. when the two opposing forces actually pass each other and engage at close range). The goal of the F-22 is to end the battle before the merge. Launch radar guided missiles from well outside the opposing force's missile range, clean up the remnants with infrared missiles at closer range, and not need to deal with a messy knife-fight. All the while, your stealth prevents the opponent from getting a good missile shot.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
In air to air combat, killing your opponent before they get anywhere close to you is the goal. Aviation Week wrote years ago about the ratio of losses "at the merge" (i.e. when the two opposing forces actually pass each other and engage at close range). The goal of the F-22 is to end the battle before the merge. Launch radar guided missiles from well outside the opposing force's missile range, clean up the remnants with infrared missiles at closer range, and not need to deal with a messy knife-fight. All the while, your stealth prevents the opponent from getting a good missile shot.
What if enemy also has stealth?
Also, keep in mind that stealth didn't prevent one F-117 from getting shot down by a missile in combat. It can't be 100% stealthy in the end, so there's always a way around.
So far as I know, AA missiles are the end-all-be-all mostly in theory so far; in practice, even in more recent conflicts with fighter jets on both sides, most air fights tend to end in close-range dogfights using cannons mostly (well, unless you have a major generation gap - like a MiG-15 on one side and an F-16 on another).
Still, when all is said and done, F-22 is 5th gen, while Su-30 is "4.5". I've no doubt which one would win a dogfight - missiles, cannons, whatever.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Funny)
What if enemy also has stealth?
I'll have to check but I don't think he's allowed to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that you might draw to many conclusions from your game playing - but you certainly make one very good point. Television and movies are total bullshit. There have been precious few movies that portrayed the use of cover and concealment in a combat situation. The heroes always strut around the battlefield like a bunch of banty roosters, the enemy can't hit the heroes with anything, and the heroes can't miss the most difficult shot. Oh yeah, no one ever runs out of ammo either - each soldier must have a pickup truck keeping up with him to shoot up as much ammo as our heroes do.
Anyway - addressing the more important part of your post: I think there will always be manned fighter and attack craft, for the same reasons that there will always be grunts on the ground. The machines and the technology are cool, but they can't occupy a territory, they can't impose their will on the occupants of a territory, and in fact, they lack any will to be imposed.
No matter how advanced warfare gets, the grunts, the sailors, and the pilots will still be out there.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Informative)
That's the urban legend - but not only is that virtually impossible, it was never done in the Falklands.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I recall reading about it at the time. The pilots called it "VIFFing".
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
VIFF is the correct term, and yes it was widely bandied about during the Falklands war... But postwar research hasn't discovered a single instance of it being used in combat during the war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is correct. VIFFing, or vectoring in forward flight, is rarely used in air combat, because it results in a complete loss of airspeed, leaving the Harrier a sitting duck. The RNAF cleaned the Argentinian's clocks using AIM-9L missiles, which did not require being anywhere near the enemy aircraft's six o'clock. They could hit them head-on. (The Argentines, on the other hand, still needed to engage from behind)
Modern missiles are so lethal that dogfights today are the exception, not the rule. Our pilots s
Argenties are bad pilots? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which only worked because the Argentinians weren't very good. Against a proper adversary, slamming on the brakes in a fight is an extremely bad idea and will get you killed rapidly. As they say, speed is life. It doesn't really help all that much to be behind the other guy when he has a couple hundred knots on you and is zooming away.
That's an outrageous claim. The Argentineans were not bad pilots in fact considering their equipment and the ineptitude of some of their leaders they gave the Royal Navy a proper spanking. The Argentines would not have succeeded in inflicting such heavy losses on the Royal Navy if they were bad pilots. The British were plan lucky they didn't loose any carriers. These guys were flying from bases on mainland Argentina to the Falklands which was at the very limit's of their range. The Argentine strikers were laden down with bombs, they had no effective ECM assets and very few air to surface missiles which meant they had to go in with dumb bombs and that made them fairly easy meat for SAMs. Since they didn't have any escorts either they also suffered heavily at the hands of the Harriers. Any attempt by the Argentines to operate fighters over the islands failed because once they got there the supersonic Mirage couldn't use the considerable speed and power advantages it had over the subsonic Harriers (read: the Harrier had no afterburners and the Mirages couldn't use theirs) because if they had done that the MIrages would have run out of fuel before getting home. Effectively the Argentinean Mirage pilots had 10 minutes max over target area before they had to return to base. All of this gave the more maneuverable Harrier a huge advantage. If the junta had actually had the brains to land heavy construction equipment along with the initial invasion forces and extended the Port Stanley runway ASAP (which foreign observers considered to be the obvious thing to do) the boot would have been on the other foot since it would have allowed for the forward deployment a portion the sizable fleet of Argentine AF Mirage fighters to the Falklands and they would have had no performance or patrol time restrictions. It has been argued that extending the runway would have been impossible because of local conditions. However, the British extended the Port Stanley runway after the war to allow F-4 operations out of Port Stanley so that argument is BS.
Re:Argenties are bad pilots? (Score:5, Informative)
The British shortened the runway with a Vulcan bomber sent from the UK. I doubt that the runway could have been kept operational for any length of time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I bring this up with current military folks, they say they think rules of engagement will keep it from going that far. I can see that in situations where one side has complete air superiority - but if it comes to evenly matched sides, I think ROE will be out the window when sticking to it means losing. The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
Do you think the world will see serious war against major powers in the near future? When was the last time we had real out-and-out dog fights? Gulf War I? I keep thinking that the future of warfare is basically going to be these anti-terrorism wars, where global powers are fighting villagers getting financed by someone.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the beginning of the Cold War, people have kept predicting the end of dogfighting ... and they've kept being proven wrong.
More generally, people keep predicting that whichever type of war is being fought at the moment is the future of warfare and all other types are obsolete ... and they keep being proven wrong.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Trench warfare was once the future of warfare. Standing in a line firing muskets at each other was once the height of battle tactics. Weapons and tactics become obsolete in warfare all the time. Virtually every war is fought differently than the previous ones. So, while people may be wrong about any particular thing becoming the "future of warfare", they're very often right about tactics and weapons becoming obsolete. If you hold on to old and outmoded battle tactics and weapons and prepare for the next war as if it will be fought like the last one, you get run over.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Funny)
"When was the last time you saw two armies face each other across a field in two long lines and start firing at each other?"
The Democratic caucus factions have been doing that for the last 30 years.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember my old history teacher saying "Old technology becomes obsolete, until someone figures out a better way to kill with it."
Yeah he was right, sure the battleship is obsolete now because of what it was designed for at the time. Surface, and fleet engagement. You can knock a billion dollar ship out of the water with a $400k missile. That doesn't make surface fleets obsolete either. I figure oh 10 years, and you'll see the reintroduction of battleships in long-range bombardment and support. As the use of missiles will become obsolete from surface ships. Easier to shoot down a missile with a laser, than it is to shoot down a metal slug traveling 50x the speed of sound hurtled by a battleship's railgun.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Put it this way, despite the might of the US military, they still haven't found/dealt with some arab dude by the name of Obama living in a cave. Advanced weaponry is not the be all and end all of combat. Another example is Vietnam - the ROE simply did not permit the more advanced hardware to be fully utilized due to BS political reasons (i.e. air-air required visual ID, thus totally negating the USAF's BVR missiles and forcing pilots into close range dogfights to which the MiGs were generally better suited)
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you think the world will see serious war against major powers in the near future? When was the last time we had real out-and-out dog fights? Gulf War I? I keep thinking that the future of warfare is basically going to be these anti-terrorism wars, where global powers are fighting villagers getting financed by someone.
The lack of a world war since 1945 isn't exactly stunning evidence, two in ~30 years had better be an exception. Maybe we should at least outlast the Roman empire [wikipedia.org] with 200+ years of essentially peace first. I don't see many credible scenarios for WWIII though as the US and EU won't, Japan, Russia and India I think can't and that really only leaves China and some kind of pebbles-into-avalanche Muslim vs Christian war. Sure, India and Pakistan might have another go, Israel and the Arabs likewise and there's r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
A lot of people feel this way, but fortunately it is not true. Sure there are some isolated conflicts, but consider what the world was like 25 years ago: a couple different wars in Central American countries, an arms escalation war with between the US an Soviet Union which sometimes became violent in places like Afghanistan, England had just finished a war with Argentina, Africa was in war all over the place, South Africa had apartheid, the specter of global thermonuclear warfare still hung over our heads.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
And... sends troops across borders, and provides weapons and cash to murderous FARC militants, and jails his political opponents, and provides support to places like Cuba (who jail their own people for trying to leave). Chavez is a lot more than an election-rigger. He's a totalitarian socialist thug who has oil cash to play with.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, come on, has he destroyed entire villages? Has he tied up his own son in a bag and thrown him in the river as punishment for insubordination? Has he killed nuns? These are the kinds of things you expect from a good latin American dictator. I don't even think there's any evidence of him torturing people. The dictators have gotten soft.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Hahaha! Spoken like a true gringo! Dude, get your head out of your arse for just a second and ask, well, just about ANYONE from just about anywhere in South or Central America who was born before 1980, about your country's wonderful record in that region over say the last 100 years. From arming, funding and training murderous bastards to propping up dictators that "disappeared" thousands of their own people, to rigging elections, to assassinating elected leaders. Oh yeah, Hugo has a wonderful precedent, in fact, almost "template" to follow that was created by your country.
Tthere's only so much hypocrisy the rest of the world can handle. Or is this yet another case of do as I say, not as I do?
Jeez Louise!
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, they may have been murderous bastards, but they were our murderous bastards.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever one thinks of Chavez, your post is seriously misleading.
1. "OK for the dictatorial head of a murderous socialist regimes to name himself president for life."
(a) It's a strange dictator who wins by free and fair elections, multiple times.
(b) Who has he had killed?
(c) I know he calls himself a socialist, but he's more of a New Dealer.
(d) In what universe is changing the law so that you can run for election any number of times the same as making yourself president for life? Not everyone thinks term limits are a good idea. The US did not used to have them.
2. "shut down not-propogandizing-for-him media, "disappear" elected officials that disagree with him"
(a) If a major US television station had (i) collaborated in the (unconstitutional) attempted military overthrow of the United States government, and (ii) consistently referred to Obama as "the nigger" on air, do you think that such a station would be allowed to continue to broadcast? I have a bridge for sale if you think so.
(b) What credible reports are there of Chavez having people offed? I haven't seen any.
If you don't like the guy, then fine. There's no need to make shit up.
And more to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it matter if it is "worse"? I get really tired of this more equivalence people try to pull. "Oh there were bad thugs in the past so that excuses this thug now!" No, it doesn't. NEITHER is excusable. Did the US do some bad shit in central america? You bet your ass. However that doesn't mean that it is a good thing that there are now people doing bad shit there that aren't associated with America. They are still thugs, still assholes.
I mean this would be like saying you can't criticize Bush for his spying on Americans because people like Putin, Kim Jong Il, and so on do it worse. Ummm, just because they do it worse doesn't make it ok.
What amazes me are the people suckered in by his "socialist" stance. The guy is NOT a socialist. He's a totalitarian thug. He just uses socialist propaganda to get power. However because he spews rhetoric people like, they completely overlook what he actually does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but he *is* a socialist, in fact given socialisms now solid one hundred year track record he is the perfect REAL socialist. What I mean by that is not the socialist that only exists in the minds of sheltered academics and western middle class over priviliged youth but the real rubber hits the road meat space traditional Socialist. He and all those who have come before him that have followed the "socialist playbook" to a tee where the middle class agitates the lower class to help stage a revolution a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is only one problem. UAVs on their own are pretty useless or we are talking about skynet teritory, but any kind of remote control is pretty easily distracted by good old white noise. Lots of it. And I am rather sure that good ol boys in their hidden cities have long ago figured out how to drown out all those fancy frequency-hopping/multi-modulation/line-of-sight radio signals that these things do rely on.
No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought his head smashings against the cockpit canopy was what killed him.
Re:No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
A flat spin killed Goose.
Compressor turbine stall killed Goose.
Not to be pedantic, but a rather nasty blow to the head during ejection killed Goose.
Re:No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to be really pedantic, it was the script writer, in the office, with a typewriter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you're really going to be that pedantic, Goose is a fictional character and is not alive, and therefore can never die.
Are we done yet? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that's stranger than fiction.
In Flight School (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In Flight School (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for US overall (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I'd rather everybody were coming to American companies for such technology — rather than to Russia, as the Indians did for this fighter — a strong India is good for US.
Their values are the closest to ours in that neighborhood and it is good to have a counterweight to the ambitious China.
And, hey, maybe, the Indians will share some of the load world-wide, that Americans (and the British) are currently managing almost entirely on our own. Perhaps, people will even begin blaming them (and burn their flag), when they screw up [umb.edu]...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, hey, maybe, the Indians will share some of the load world-wide, that Americans (and the British) are currently managing almost entirely on our own.
I really don't think it will be all that great. It could just as easily check our power in the region. Personally, I think we need to be checked. We really need to start thinking about our budget priorities. Just because we can project power around the world doesn't mean we can afford to keep doing it. Aircraft like that would be a threat to our very
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well it all starts with Indian Independence, at first they make do with leftover British stuff, but then they want their own, better stuff. But really don't have the capacity to make it. So they ask around. The US stuff costs too much so the they go with mostly Russian stuff that they can afford, and repair themselves. The also let Russian advisors in (just to teach them what they need to know, that was it), which really pisses off the US, enough for the US to become all buddy buddy with Pakistan and su
Actually, they are just *saying* they have them (Score:4, Funny)
And if no one can see them, that means they are extra stealthy.
It's certainly a lot cheaper than actually making them.
Stealthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stealthy? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stealthy? (Score:5, Informative)
Me, I've been hearing about the PAK-FA for years, and I had almost given up hope of ever seeing it fly.
Re:Stealthy? (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well say first fighter (Score:5, Informative)
Almost all new fighter jets (and indeed most military vehicles) incorporate stealth elements. It's one of the considerations you have when designing a combat aircraft these days. It would be unusual for an aircraft to be designed that WASN'T stealthy. "Stealth Fighter" is really just a term used by the media.
Vectored exhaust (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vectored exhaust (Score:5, Informative)
I hate when people mention amazing feats captured on video, which may or may not exist, and then force others to find [youtube.com] them [youtube.com].
Long term (Score:5, Interesting)
Long term, are manned aircraft going to be still used for air superiority?
Cost effectiveness might be a key factor. Drone aircraft don't need to be manufactured to fly for years and thousands of missions. They could be made just good enough to survive 10 to 100 or so sorties, with a 10% failure rate considered acceptable for the first mission. Drone operators could train using simulators and a small number of better quality drone aircraft. For the missions needing drones to loiter over an area for a prolonged period, a different model of drone would be used - you don't need high speed jet interceptors if the enemy has no aircraft left. Also, drones wouldn't need to have the dogfighting performance of an F-35. They could be slower and less maneueverable - but packed with missiles and with a radar system capable of defeating stealth aircraft.
Drone aircraft wouldn't need to be "recalled" or inspected. If a fault is found that might cause a crash, no point in fixing it unless the problem is severe. You could manufacture thousands of them and leave them stored in special packing canisters. Unpack a few every few years and use them testing them to get empirical measurements of average 'shelf life'.
I think that with these and other cost saving measures, you could probably manufacture 3 to 5 drone aircraft for the cost of one manned aircraft with similar capabilities. The MQ-9 Reaper is about 1/3 the cost of the Apache helicopter it supplants. As long as you could guarantee that the drones would always work despite enemy jamming (possible with mesh networking, phase array communication antenna and one time pad encryption, I think) then they would be the only game in town.
Re:Long term (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as you could guarantee that the drones would always work despite enemy jamming (possible with mesh networking, phase array communication antenna and one time pad encryption, I think) then they would be the only game in town.
You can't guarantee that the drones would always work despite enemy jamming.
But then again, you don't really need to as long as the drone can stay airborne long enough to send off a missile which will home in on the jammer.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you say that? Directional antenna would mean that the drone would only "listen" for communications coming from the positions of other nodes in the mesh network. Unless the enemy can put jammers all around, including in the air and above the drone aircraft, at least some comm would get through. One time pad encryption means the enemy can't hijack the drone. (since the only copies of the encryption key would be one flash drive aboard the aircraft, and it's pair inside the command module for the dro
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. I agree with your point but developing a drone program will take years and cost millions before it starts to produce, India needs aircraft now and has been involved with Sukhoi to make this fighter for well over a decade now. Their fighter is almost done, no point abandoning it for a project that is a decade away from getting off the ground.
Manned aircraft are going to be around for a while longer, drones are new tech
Re:Long term (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, these drones are drones. There's still a pilot - who isn't in the plane.
Second, you can get MORE piloting skill using drones. AND you can push the aircraft much harder. The reason is obvious. Your ace pilots won't get killed. Morover, even in a hot shooting war, a fighter pilot won't be in an actual dogfight more than a few minutes of a mission (most of the time is taken up getting to the combat zone, finding a target, etc). So, you could have your weaker, less talented pilots handle flying the drone fighters to the battle and have your ace pilots take over when the aircraft is in range of an enemy fighter.
Finally, the cost difference
Imagine a piloted aircraft up against 5 or 10 to one odds (because the country that pays for drones and doesn't have to pay for all those costs I mentioned in the post above can spend that money buying more drones). Every one of those drone aircraft has a pilot at the stick just as good as he is, or better. The drones can pull as many Gs as their airframe can take.
Outcome is obvious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They said the same thing about parachutes in WWI.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong headline (Score:5, Informative)
What the headline should say:
India will fly it's first Russian stealth fighter in four months.
Re:Wrong headline (Score:5, Funny)
5th Gen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:5th Gen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains it! (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody accidentally hit the prototype stealth button, and POW, satellite gone.
Re:Saw it Coming (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Saw it Coming (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure about the Australian Over THe Horizon radar being unable to be used by SAM's for targeting.
My uncle used to be SAM commander (or whatever it's called) and he said there were plenty of times when they would lock on and fire at aircraft way over the horizon, when engaging in war games with the US. This was despite AWACS and similar.
Though he did say that most of these were with active radar, however when they (the US) started running stealth fighters in the games, they weren't able to track them. However, almost straight away all of the SAM sites were quickly sent down to the DSTO for upgrades, and each one came back with a special little switch which they would flick when ever certain conditions were met. He surmised that this allowed them to track and lock on aircraft using stealth technology using the OTH system.
They get taught about every single switch, how it works and what it does, so that they can fully understand the system, and ensure that it operates no matter what, or can recognize when somethings wrong. However, when this new switch was installed, it was kept quiet, they weren't told anything but "When this happens. Flick this.", and so they did, and from then on it was able to track and lock on any of these stealth fighters.
I could have my information wrong, but it sounds valid to me. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows any details or has any other information on this system.
Radar analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Most SAM systems use a different radar to "identify" that a target exists in their missile engagement zone (you can identify these by their constantly rotating nature) and a different radar to actually track & lock a target. The tracking radar does not spin but rather follows the locked target as the target flies. Depending on the SAM system and technology, you CAN use multiple tracking radars for better triangulation and/or to combat ECM or other anti-tracking technologies. You can even use multiple fire batteries if they are spread far enough for even better than better triangulation. The caveat is that of all the fire batteries interconnected, only the Master battery can do this, the slaves can't. Additionally, the slave fire batteries must not be currently tracking and/or engaging other targets for this to work.
The importance of stealth technology is to remain unseen by the radar that identifies a valid signature in the sky and then passes the target to the tracking radar. If you are identified as an aircraft but can't be tracked by the tracking radar, then usually the target is assigned to airborne forces to intercept or ground small arms (including stinger missiles and manual tracking flak cannons). Remaining completely undetected is what stealth technology is all about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Take pictures ?
Re:Guess what the Mig-31 can do? (Score:4, Interesting)
You have a poor understanding of the systems.
Datalink is capable of two way communication, yes. But that is by no means it's main strength. It's main strength lies in it's ability to work with other aircraft, while one or more aircraft cruise undetected at a higher "stealthiness" level. They can get their data from other F22s, AWACS, ground stations, or other aircraft with similar systems once they come online.
So picture a CAP flight of four F-22s. Two are flying forward, with a 5-10 Nautical mile separation from the trailing pair of aircraft.
The lead planes are radio silent, they are on passive sensors only, and all the other features that make an F-22 as stealthy as possible are in use.
Meanwhile the two trailing aircraft are lit up like Christmas trees. Active radar, data link, talking to each other, talking to AWACS, ect, etc, etc.
The "stealthed" planes aren't blind. They have a composite of their passive sensors, the uplink from both of their flight mates, AWACS, and possibly dozens of data points. They don't *need* radar, they can see just as well without it, through the (for them) passive data link.
The flight sees a flight of four unfriendlys off somewhere and vectors to engage. The unfriendlys see this, and figuring they have numerical advantage turn to engage.
Meanwhile, the two aircraft they do see are cruising toward them nice and slow at say, 400 knots or so, while the two stealthy aircraft have gone supersonic. They're in weapons range before the enemy aircraft even know they exist. With a little luck, they're out of the sky before with know they exist too.
This is just one very simple, basic tactic that uses this concept. There are many more tactics you can build on this new technology.
As it comes into it's own, Air Forces will adapt, and come to expect these tactics, and they will have to evolve further. But it's still an edge.
To answer your point about the MiG-31: Data links have existed in American inventories for years as well. The F-22s use a new standard called Link 22, which replaces a roughly 10 year old standard called Link 16. Link 4 was introduced in the 1950s... But they've never been this mature, nor well integrated, or "smart". I don't know much about Russian MiG-31 data systems, but I believe you may be referring to the MiG-31BM [globalsecurity.org] variant. It's only about 10 years old, and exists in very few numbers. It's possible the Russians have had data link capability longer than that, but again, the existing of data links themselves are not what people who understand this plane are excited about.
Even so, the West has trailed behind the Soviets / Russians in other ways in the past. The passive sensor suites on the MiG 29 for example shocked western analysts when we finally got our hands on them. They weren't out of our capability to produce, but they far outstripped anything we had deployed. Vectored thrust is another area they've lead. The F-22 is the first serious production attempt at vectored thrust by the U.S., where the Russians have had several aircraft in production for years that utilize it.
All this is besides the point though. Data link is nice. Stealth is really nice. Having both in a well integrated package along with well trained pilots who understand how it works, who can coordinate attacks together to exploit it's advantages? That's a potential game changer.
Re: (Score:3)
BRIC [wikipedia.org] an economic bloc of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). There is already a great deal of co-operation between India and Russia, and India and China