PAK FA, T-50: News #1

NickM wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Unfortunately this will not happen as the population of local Russians are declining very rapidly and most young Russians are traveling to the West . In their place you are getting wretched people from China , India and such third world countries who will only take Russia through the highway to hell .

TR1 wrote:Nobody ever planned to re-start An-225 production.
An-124 as far as military is concerned is just as good modernized as new build.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s. even if russia's budget is smaller how can it only operate less than 1/3 of the current US heavy transport and strategic bomber forces?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Man your unitopic blathering about

TR1 wrote:
Russian AF is planning to have 25 combat ready An-124 by 2020, which is plenty. Do you see how much more nations have (or rather, LACK) in terms of air-lift capability, with the kind of budget that Russia has?
16 Tu-160s arr flying just fine, I am not sure where you get this "barely" business. It is hard to take your posts seriously with all the panic mongering.

Russia has a budget that is anywhere from 10% to 15% of the American military budget.
So it seems like they are doing very well if we compare the budget ratios.

If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s.

Mindstorm wrote:B-2 ,clearly, is NOT the counterpart of TU-160 ; in facts the unique real role that strategic bombers would have, in the very unlucky event of a full scale conflict between very powerful opponents not involving ICBM (in this instance relevance of any branch of Air Forces of both side would be next to ZERO and the only elements at count would be efficiency of ICBM and strategic IADs elements) , would be to take-off ,reach in the lesser time possible useful point of delivery for strategic range cruise missiles -with conventional or nuclear warheads ,at second of the typology of conflict- aimed at the most critical enemy assets (C-4 nodes, main airfields, main radar stations, satellite's data relay) land ,reload and repeat the sequence with the shortest cycle possible.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:integrated ground-space system ( Project "Aquarel")

Austin wrote:What ever they do from PAK-DA i hope its as stealthy if not better as US NGB under development and its supersonic atleast as good as Tu-160.

Sujoy wrote:Russia's air lift capability is huge but I really don't think Russia needs that because maintaining a huge air lift capability is an extremely expensive exercise. More importantly the rail network around Russia is so very extensive that supplies can reach every nook of the country at short notices .

Huge air lift capabilities are generally maintained by countries that plan on invading foreign countries thousands of miles away or as in the case of India and China due to the inhospitable terrain that limits rail transport making it imperative for the armies to depend on air transport.

"I opened the secret and say that we actually already have two engines of the 5th generation. Second, which is conventionally called the" Type 30 ", has been tested in flight on a fighter" T-50 ". Later he probably will the name of "Al-...". By its parameters it a 15-25 percent superior to the "117th

GarryB wrote:Well we knew they were making a 5th gen fighter engine... I am more interested in the other 5th gen engine... do they mean that PD-14 engine they were working on for big aircraft?