Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA takes flight

[CorporalClegg]

So is this really going into production?

I seem to remember them saying the same thing about the Terminator (Flanker-F) and Berkut.

 

[MANT!]

Just remember, the F-22's jigs have not been destroyed, Lockheed can easily dust em off and crank em out if required..

You mean if the POTUS lets them.

Actually, this decision is between the SECDEF and Congress..
And Congress has overridden the SECDEF often enough..

 

[Colonel Midnight]

I hope they do start up the production line for the F-22 again, or at least keep it going with more orders.

God knows when the F-35 JSF will be ready -- Gates fired the PM the other day due to cost overruns and delay. *oy*

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Yes, but Mr. "Ears even bigger than W's" has declared the F-22 no-go via veto.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24892.html

The administration has gone so far as to have an F-22 parked behind the POTUS podium fora speech on an airforce base to be replaced with an F-15.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...isted_f_22_be_removed_from_obama_speech_venue

 

[TheBrew]

Yes, but Mr. "Ears even bigger than W's" has declared the F-22 no-go via veto.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24892.html

The administration has gone so far as to have an F-22 parked behind the POTUS podium fora speech on an airforce base to be replaced with an F-15.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...isted_f_22_be_removed_from_obama_speech_venue

Which has what to do with the T-50?

 

[Marc]

Yes, but Mr. "Ears even bigger than W's" has declared the F-22 no-go via veto.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24892.html

The administration has gone so far as to have an F-22 parked behind the POTUS podium fora speech on an airforce base to be replaced with an F-15.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...isted_f_22_be_removed_from_obama_speech_venue

Which has what to do with the T-50?

nothing - certain elements are trying to drag politics into this forum.

 

[Rii]

And the F-35 can take on this aircraft as well...

 

[Rii]

Take Japan, for example. The US refused to sell them F-22s (even cut-down export versions) and there's no guarantee the Mitsubishi ATD-X will work out. If the T-50 becomes a viable production model, and the Russians and Indians are willing to sell, would the JASDF be willing to fly them?

As with Australia - which should've dumped the JSF program long ago in favour of the Su-35BM - I suspect there would be too many political hangups involved. Good news for Lockheed Martin.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I suspect the US's best defense against this thing would be a Growler.

 

[Marc]

I suspect the US's best defense against this thing would be a Growler.

As in the EA-18s?

 

[Alpha_Geek]

nothing - certain elements are trying to drag politics into this forum.

Not really, just wishing that we had the best aircraft possible on our front line. It's possible that we (The US, not Marc's Canukifuck) would have to go against the pride of Sukhoi and MiG.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I suspect the US's best defense against this thing would be a Growler.

As in the EA-18s?

Yup.

 

[Marc]

I suspect the US's best defense against this thing would be a Growler.

As in the EA-18s?

Yup.

But I guess that that could go for for any combat aircraft The Russians could just deployed what ever their EW aircraft is at the moment though I guess it's probably not as upto date as the EA-18s.

I wonder - are HARM missiles suitable to air to air use? though I guess a something like the Growler would be a bit to nimble and avoid by shut down it's jammers but then again if they turn off the jammers, even if they are still flying their primary mission is defeated.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Nope, HARM is air to surface, specifically for radar sites, although it could probably be used to take out a troposcatter comm station if the carrier approached the site from downrange of the tropo shot.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

nothing - certain elements are trying to drag politics into this forum.

Not really, just wishing that we had the best aircraft possible on our front line. It's possible that we (The US, not Marc's Canukifuck) would have to go against the pride of Sukhoi and MiG.

Wasn't my intention either -- just thought the article about the F-35 PM being fired would be a bit relevant to the discussion on the T-50, and that the former probably didn't have enough "legs" to warrant a thread of its own.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[MANT!]

Nope, HARM is air to surface, specifically for radar sites, although it could probably be used to take out a troposcatter comm station if the carrier approached the site from downrange of the tropo shot.

Actually a HARM did hit an airborne target...

During the Gulf War , the HARM was involved in a friendly fire incident when the pilot of an F-4G escorting B-52s mistook one of the latter's tail gun radar for an Iraqi AAA site. (This was after the tail gunner of the B-52 had targeted the F-4G, mistaking it for an Iraqi Mig ). The pilot launched the missile and then saw that the target was the B-52, which was hit. It survived with shrapnel damage to the tail. The B-52 was subsequently renamed "In HARM's Way".

 

[T'Girl]

^ Good thing the B-52's tail gunner is no longer in the tail.

 

[Marc]

^ Good thing the B-52's tail gunner is no longer in the tail.

I'm wonder who ended up morning the shit - the gunner or the pilot.

Not sure if the incident says much about the B-52's construction or the destructive power of the HARMs. Would of expected a hit to to have pretty much taken the tail off.

 

[STR]

I wonder - are HARM missiles suitable to air to air use? though I guess a something like the Growler would be a bit to nimble and avoid by shut down it's jammers but then again if they turn off the jammers, even if they are still flying their primary mission is defeated.

AIM-120 AMRAAM's are programmed to home in on jamming sources during the terminal phase.

^ Good thing the B-52's tail gunner is no longer in the tail.

I'm wonder who ended up morning the shit - the gunner or the pilot.

Not sure if the incident says much about the B-52's construction or the destructive power of the HARMs. Would of expected a hit to to have pretty much taken the tail off.

AGM-88A HARM's don't have a large warhead. Just a burster charge that propels large pieces of shrapnel (which are designed to destroy fairly sensitive radar antennae) like a giant shot gun shell. Basically, the missile is blown apart a half-second before impact and the target is showered with the warhead shrapnel and whatever is left of the booster. Such a warhead is not the most effective weapon against a high-subsonic aircraft flying away from the point of detonation.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

*nod* there are apocryphical tales of an F-15 strike eagle taking out an airborne helicopter with a laser guided bomb during Desert Storm. Aircraft are still outside the target criteria of both weapons systems though. That being said, they can be amazingly flexible.