Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Backman wrote:Its just funny that at the same time, they are quietly reintroducing a 4th gen aircraft in the F-15x.

True, they are mocking Russians and their 4++ gen planes and then... they decide to practically substitute the F-22 with its predecessor. Now that is some champion fuck-up for the world to learn how it is done

The more F-35s the west makes and puts into production the more the west will have to spend to fix them and keep them flying.

Stealth has made the F-35 expensive to buy and to operate... but she is no looker.

Essentially an F-35 has to be used the same way as a 4th gen fighter is used... from as much standoff range as possible and with jammer aircraft support... the only difference is that it costs way more to buy and to operate than any 4th gen fighter and its carrying capacity is tiny in comparison as its its top speed and range performance.

Everything is sacrificed to stealth, yet it clearly is not stealthy enough to be used on its own.

If you believe the makers the Israelis should be able to fly over Syrian airspace with impunity and drop cheap dumb bombs on their targets... as long as they don't fly within 30km of the S-300 there they should be perfectly safe... and if they could you could probably say they were worth every dollar spent on them... but they clearly can't...

They start a new and updated f-15EX not the old one. Just like su-35 on your picture is an highly updated su-27.

The US plan was to replace all their F-15Cs with F-22s but that ended when the cold war ended, so plan B was to replace all their aircraft with F-35s... the performance increase with stealthy fighters and the money saved by everyone just using the same fighter would make it super cheap.

The Russian plan was to upgrade existing fighters... Su-27 and MiG-29 as far as they could go, and design a stealthy replacement for each which would allow continued development of systems for upgrading the older fighters and also create work on next generation equipment and systems for the new aircraft to come.

Once those next gen systems matured they could be installed on the latest model 4th gen fighters for testing and commonality and bug correction... you end up with Su-35s with 5th gen type avionics and systems which increases production and irons out issues with performance and reliability and also adds lots of sales for the makers of the kit so they are not just making a few systems for a few stealth aircraft. It improves the Su-35 and will improve the MiG-35s equipment over time too while increasing the reliability and performance of the equipment and of course larger production batches actually reduces costs and risks as well...

The US plan was an all stealth fleet. The Russian plan was to upgrade the fleet and introduce some stealth aircraft to see if it has value and is worth the cost.

The US experience is that the value is not there to justify the cost but now the cost of reintroducing production of older aircraft actually costs rather more because it needs to be totally resurrected.

The Russians never wanted an all stealth fleet... lots of jobs don't need the extra cost of stealth... just like in their navy they still use conventionally powered submarines, while the US had a policy of all nukes... something they are also considering rolling back after some modern allied SSKs have embarrassed them on exercise...

GarryB wrote:
The US plan was to replace all their F-15Cs with F-22s but that ended when the cold war ended, so plan B...

It was an abject lie made by US leaders because they never hesitated in the past to produce as long as it is possible all means to reach air supremacy. It was planned to replace all F-14, F-15, F-111's fleet with the F-22. The F-16, A-10, Harrier's fleet with F-35. It was planned to build around 2.000 F-22, but when they realized that the S-400's radar can detect any stealth, they decided to stop the F-22 by 10% of their initial plans.

GarryB wrote:
The Russian plan was to upgrade existing fighters... Su-27 and MiG-29 ...The Russian plan was to upgrade the fleet and introduce some stealth aircraft to see if it has value and is worth the cost.

Indeed, because Russians more than any others understood quickly the uselessness -around the 70's- of stealth aircraft, the best example was during the Serbian war in 1999. When 2 F-117 and one B-2 were downed. Recently, last year when Iran attacked US air basis in the Middle East they sent a fleet of F-22, and F-35 to retaliate, when US realized that their fighters were all detected, US leaders decided to give up any retaliation against Iran. Iran detected stealth aircraft with Chinese, and Russian radars origin.
Moreover, the Russian radars system evolved very quickly, and now the radio photonic radars are putting a definite end to stealth's myth.
https://russiadaily.news/russia/1063-russia-completes-tests-of-a-photonic-radar-to-search-for-stealth-targets
US are aware, and they don't know how to deal with, because, at this stage, they could not give up the F-35, then they continue to upgrade F-16, and A-10. Nowadays the F-35 cannot mass-produced.
And now Russia went ahead, they are introducing radio photonic radar on SU-35, and Mig-35, waiting for -soon- hypersonic amnutions inside these two fighters.

nemrod wrote:It was an abject lie made by US leaders because they never hesitated in the past to produce as long as it is possible all means to reach air supremacy. It was planned to replace all F-14, F-15, F-111's fleet with the F-22. The F-16, A-10, Harrier's fleet with F-35. It was planned to build around 2.000 F-22, but when they realized that the S-400's radar can detect any stealth, they decided to stop the F-22 by 10% of their initial plans.

Yes, first flight of the F-22 happened in 1997 and IOC on 2005, far after the Cold War had finished. And nothing prevented them from keeping upgrading the plane and have ways of restarting production again if seen necessary, Russia managed that even in the worst years of the 90's.

F-35 is not in the class of F-16. The engine has a lot more power output. Thus the maximum usable payload is higher.
The main problem with the F-35 in my opinion is how it was designed for the air support mission. It can't supercruise properly and it has limited agility compared with modern aircraft.
The first batches had trouble competing with an F-16 in clean configuration let alone an aircraft with thrust vectoring or with canards.

The F-22 has severe issues with maintenance costs as does the B-2. They are not cost effective aircraft. F-35 is supposed to be more cost effective. But no one knows the long term costs of the platform. Also the first batches of F-35 are basically unusable for frontline service and will quite likely end up either as either trainers or in rear guard duty.

Now that Russia has multiple layers of radar networks at long wavelengths I think it is pretty much safe from stealth aircraft.

The F-35 has half the range of the F-18. So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.

The F-35 is a committee design that only works for attacking small countries surrounded by bases and from
aircraft carriers. The whole stealth shtick is part of this colonial suppression force role.

In Canada there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the limited range of the F-35 does not make
it a proper replacement for the CF-18. Canada is operating its CF-18 in a defense mode and not
imperial adventure mode and the F-35 was not really designed for defense especially of large territory.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnaukatehnika.com%2Fradiolokacionnaya-ten-stelsa.html&usg=ALkJrhhF3n3UUOyI0YT2BFfaF4kIFdXoow

Old news, just different source. I hope the radar shadow calculation gets added to the software to be displayed in their screens. Nothing wrong for a air to air missile to chase an aerial objects shadows because shadows are not too far away from the stealth object that made them and air to air missiles do have host radars after all for self-autonomous tracking. They said this is done by SAR and ground terrain mapping so I wonder if photonic radars are required for that to work because of their resolution capabilities being way higher than conventional radars.

The question is when will this radar shadow fixation calculation be added to the software of their aircrafts to display shadows, the maturity of photonic radars and stealth transparency metamaterial.

lancelot wrote:F-35 is not in the class of F-16. The engine has a lot more power output. Thus the maximum usable payload is higher.
The main problem with the F-35 in my opinion is how it was designed for the air support mission. It can't supercruise properly and it has limited agility compared with modern aircraft.
The first batches had trouble competing with an F-16 in clean configuration let alone an aircraft with thrust vectoring or with canards.

The F-22 has severe issues with maintenance costs as does the B-2. They are not cost effective aircraft. F-35 is supposed to be more cost effective. But no one knows the long term costs of the platform. Also the first batches of F-35 are basically unusable for frontline service and will quite likely end up either as either trainers or in rear guard duty.

Now that Russia has multiple layers of radar networks at long wavelengths I think it is pretty much safe from stealth aircraft.

The rumor mill says that the reason they decided to make a F-35 aggressor squad was because they need a place to dump some of the early F-35's. Because they have too many problems for frontline service

kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18.   So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.

I don't know why this notion has spread so much, the F-35 has much more fuel than any F-18, at least internally:

F/A-18C: 4930 kg
F/A-18E: 6667 kg
F-35A: 8278 kg

Having a huge engine and weapons ways in parallel with it, the cross section is very big and that allows to accommodate a lot of fuel. At least they were smart enough to take that advantage from the design compromises they made.

The F-35 is a committee design

Yeah this is maybe the shortest and most precise way of defining it. Politics grew so large in this program that no amount of money or ingenuity could save it... absolutely contradictory requirements in the same plane just for the sake of making it too big to fail and an endless money source for a nation wide welfare system. As Gandhi (supposedly) said, in the world there is wealth for everybody's needs, but not for everybody's greed... that pretty much defines the differences between Russian and US MICs I think.

More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

This design is shitty as hell. It's more than compact. They could have made something bigger for the same money with better caracteristics.

Best way to fight this aircraft is GCI with mig-29 equiped with jammers and r-73. Its small range allows also to hit them on their airports with 1000km ballistic missiles.

Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

The "fat" factor is relevant in supersonic, not so much in subsonic flight. The wings with little sweep are actually the best to generate lift and the loading similar to a F-16, so not very good but not bad either. The plane is well thought by the engineers that received the order to design it, it was just political level that screwed them with requirements impossible to reconcile in the same aircraft.

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:The F-35 has half the range of the F-18.   So its more powerful engine is fed by smaller fuel tanks.

I don't know why this notion has spread so much, the F-35 has much more fuel than any F-18, at least internally:

F/A-18C: 4930 kg
F/A-18E: 6667 kg
F-35A: 8278 kg

Having a huge engine and weapons ways in parallel with it, the cross section is very big and that allows to accommodate a lot of fuel. At least they were smart enough to take that advantage from the design compromises they made.

I have to admit I swallowed BS over the CF-18.   It does not have anywhere near the range claimed in the Canadian "debate" on this issue.
The F-35A looks much better in this regard.   The F-18E has better specs than the CF-18.   So I am just another MSM lemming  

The F-35 is a committee design

Yeah this is maybe the shortest and most precise way of defining it. Politics grew so large in this program that no amount of money or ingenuity could save it... absolutely contradictory requirements in the same plane just for the sake of making it too big to fail and an endless money source for a nation wide welfare system. As Gandhi (supposedly) said, in the world there is wealth for everybody's needs, but not for everybody's greed... that pretty much defines the differences between Russian and US MICs I think.

This is an upside to all the economic hardship.   The US MIC has been coddled for way too long and its greed has become unbounded to the
point that they are warping US foreign policy to have perpetual wars for perpetual profit.

Its problem is the jack of all trades problem when you try to get it to do too many things.

The replacement of the harrier was the death blow.

The body shape to allow a large internal fan means it is chunky where it should be sleek.

LMFS... it was not that long ago we were discussing single engine or twin engine for light fighters and you seemed to suggest a single engined fighter can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with much better aerodynamics...

It seems you can make a single jet plane as expensive as you like...

The F-35 was supposed to be a stealthy F-16, but as one pilot commented... it became a stealthy Buccaneer.

It would be a useful strike aircraft if the stealth worked as advertised.

Experience in Syria suggests it does not.

Nothing wrong with the Bucc... I actually rather like that aircraft... as a strike aircraft with two nuclear bombs under its wings it was faster and longer ranged than the F-16, and unlike the F-16 it was carrier capable... but it was no dogfighter... it was not intended for that...

The ability to have an enormous internal fan for hovering ruined the entire shape of the aircraft... they should have made two types that had different body shapes... one subsonic VSTOL and one supersonic and a real fighter.

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:More fuel but a fat design. It looks like a bix hitten with a hammer to make it look like a jet. The wings are as nice as the ones on yak-38 or harrier.

The "fat" factor is relevant in supersonic, not so much in subsonic flight. The wings with little sweep are actually the best to generate lift and the loading similar to a F-16, so not very good but not bad either. The plane is well thought by the engineers that received the order to design it, it was just political level that screwed them with requirements impossible to reconcile in the same aircraft.

I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

And since it carries only 4 AA missiles you can easily beat it with 4th gen fighter equiped with good jammers.

Isos wrote:I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

And since it carries only 4 AA missiles you can easily beat it with 4th gen fighter equiped with good jammers.

The EM diagram says something different, but in airshows each plane is flown the way it suits it best. Sukhois do a lot of slow speed tricks, without necessarily showing highest g loads, because they are amazing even without them. The program for the F-35 tries to use what the plane can do best, that is, good noise control and good subsonic acceleration, so they fly (apparently at least) it quite fast and hard on the corners. I don't think it is disappointing but it is IMHO far from what LM has tried to make it look. As said, all that was needed to leave their over-hyped ITR in the dust was a Flanker going a bit beyond their normal program at MAKS. But let us not fool ourselves, the F-35 has arguments that a good pilot and good commanders can use, also in short range combat. The engine is very powerful, the FCS tuned for post stall control, the wings are very effective producing lift (in general the fuselage is well optimized in that regard) and the very big, rear placed elevators make for a plane that can manoeuvrer vertically very well and has a lot of aero authority.

kvs wrote:So I am just another MSM lemming  

You wouldn't be one, even if you tried!

Sorry but from what I saw it sucks. Its speed is not better than others. Its U turn takes a very long time and it couldn't follow other jets.

Sure it would keep more energy and will be faster than the other one that turns harder but then it will have an r-73 on his ass so he will need to escape the missile while the other jet regain its speed and keeps launching r-73s and then use canons if it need to.

And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.

Isos wrote:...
And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.

The AIM-9X Block II is supposed to have "lock-on after launch" capability via a datalink.
But AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet. Also the AIM-9X failed miserably in Syria.

I think you can have a single engine stealth fighter with decent agility and performance.
They just had to not put the space for the large vertical lift fan in the center of the aircraft.

GarryB wrote:Its problem is the jack of all trades problem when you try to get it to do too many things.

The replacement of the harrier was the death blow.

Yeah I can agree. It was already bad without the STOVL requirement, with it it could not be saved.

The body shape to allow a large internal fan means it is chunky where it should be sleek.

The fan establishes a minimum section but that alone is not the main problem. It removes the prime location for the weapons bays, centered and before the engine, so they need to be taken to the sides of the main engine, massively increasing the cross sectional area, in turn demanding a bigger engine in turn increasing weight etc. Then payload requirements were increased. Additional requirements about max size for the lifts of carriers and the fact that the fan needs to compensate for the power of the engine forced to the engine forward, further making a fuselage which is short and thick.

LMFS... it was not that long ago we were discussing single engine or twin engine for light fighters and you seemed to suggest a single engined fighter can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with much better aerodynamics...

Smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better aero than F-35, no doubt. That is why I made my layout exercise and I stand by what I got. The main lesson is to keep cross sectional area down, bays in front of the engine and to satisfy the unquestionable weight/volume increase demands of the 5G (weapons bays & range) by extending the middle section of the fuselage. Maybe my model is too ambitious in terms of payload but I think it is a workable approach while F-35 is a fighter just in the name.

they should have made two types that had different body shapes... one subsonic VSTOL and one supersonic and a real fighter.

Or they should have waited for the unmanned version where cockpit can be substituted by the fan with great advantages of all orders. Bays return to its right position, lifting force is taken forward as much as possible, allowing the main engine in turn to move rearwards too. That solves most of the problems with the STOVL layout or at least reduces its downsides to the unavoidable volume and weight needed for the lifting devices without further compromising other aspects of the plane.

lancelot wrote:

Isos wrote:...
And I'm not sure it can carry internally IR missiles for dogfight.

This plane is a total failure. It small size + 5th gen tech (stealthy shapes, weapon bays, powerfull engine) are limiting it too much. 5th gen aircraft need to have the size of a su-57/f-22 to be effective.

The AIM-9X Block II is supposed to have "lock-on after launch" capability via a datalink.
But AFAIK it hasn't entered service yet. Also the AIM-9X failed miserably in Syria.

I think you can have a single engine stealth fighter with decent agility and performance.
They just had to not put the space for the large vertical lift fan in the center of the aircraft.

Modern jet will detect the launch of the missile directly in dogfight situation and release automatically flares.

Lock on after launch increase the probability that the missile locks onto flares. The pilot can't know what the missiles is locking onto. The locking will happen with the flares around.

Locking before launch means you are sure to lock on the real target and it's easier to keep the track.

The fan establishes a minimum section but that alone is not the main problem. It removes the prime location for the weapons bays, centered and before the engine, so they need to be taken to the sides of the main engine, massively increasing the cross sectional area, in turn demanding a bigger engine in turn increasing weight etc. Then payload requirements were increased. Additional requirements about max size for the lifts of carriers and the fact that the fan needs to compensate for the power of the engine forced to the engine forward, further making a fuselage which is short and thick.

The problem is the requirement for vertical takeoff and landing and of course hovering.

Even someone who doesn't know anything about aircraft will know that to hover you need to balance lift along the length of the aircraft and its width... the main wing generates the lift that holds the aircraft in the air in normal flight but in hover it means nothing... but it is where wing mounted ordinance is stored... the main jet engine nozzle is at the rear of the aircraft well behind the wing so the balancing lifting fan needs to be in front and the internal weapon bay needs to be between those two as well. The fan and jet nozzle need to balance the weight of the aircraft from take off with full fuel and weapons right through to full weapons and tiny fuel load or no weapons and almost no fuel... it is a variety of fuel and payload states where it needs to be able to balance... bloody nightmare with a subsonic plane that can have a huge high lift wing that gives positive lift on rolling takeoffs to allow higher weights in fuel and weapons, but super high lift wing is hard to combine with thin profile supersonic wing.

The biggest problem with the Yak-38 was its tiny wing because they wanted it to fly as fast as possible. The wing on the Harrier was vastly better and made it a much better plane... but still not better than something like an F-16 or MiG-29.

Smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better aero than F-35, no doubt. That is why I made my layout exercise and I stand by what I got. The main lesson is to keep cross sectional area down, bays in front of the engine and to satisfy the unquestionable weight/volume increase demands of the 5G (weapons bays & range) by extending the middle section of the fuselage. Maybe my model is too ambitious in terms of payload but I think it is a workable approach while F-35 is a fighter just in the name.

My position is that you focus too much on cross section area like the US focussed too much on stealth and nothing else and ended up with a dog.

5th gen fighters need internal volume for fuel and weapons so they are never going to be the sleek super low drag cheap and simple fighters you want them to be. That ship has sailed... the closest anyone got was probably the F-5 in the west or the MiG-21 in the east.

If you want a good 5th gen fighter make two big planes... make one with all the expensive high tech super components that will give it an edge in combat and fill the other with proven trusted good but not great equipment and stuff that will get the job done and be affordable.

Or they should have waited for the unmanned version where cockpit can be substituted by the fan with great advantages of all orders. Bays return to its right position, lifting force is taken forward as much as possible, allowing the main engine in turn to move rearwards too. That solves most of the problems with the STOVL layout or at least reduces its downsides to the unavoidable volume and weight needed for the lifting devices without further compromising other aspects of the plane.

The VSTOL model is such a niche aircraft it was a terrible waste that compromised the design of all the different types... if you are making them unmanned then launch them vertically like a rocket and recover them in a net and make them more conventional without lifting fan crap... just a tail mounted thrust vectoring engine... should be enough to get them airborne from a short takeoff run...

Modern jet will detect the launch of the missile directly in dogfight situation and release automatically flares.

Lock on after launch increase the probability that the missile locks onto flares. The pilot can't know what the missiles is locking onto. The locking will happen with the flares around.

Locking before launch means you are sure to lock on the real target and it's easier to keep the track.

The claims for teh X model Sidewinder suggested the IIR seeker allows the operator to lock on to a specific part of the aircraft and that flares and jammers will be ineffective... yet an Su-22 evaded it in Syria with some Flares which should not have been effective.

Previous generation missiles use much more basic IR sensors that see hotspots and patterns but not shapes or images, so if you saw what it locked on to you could not identify it as an aircraft, which is why modern procedure is to release large numbers of flares to generate patterns of hotspots to fool the missiles seeker.

With IIR that should not be possible because no pattern of hot dots is going to look like the thermal heat map image of an aircraft.

Something is not quite right here...

Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a  technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.

For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote: I saw that jet performing at Le Bourget air show from my window. It is as manoevrable as a boeing 777. It's a shitty design.

From the same window I saw su-35, rafale, mirage 2000-5 and f1, jf-17 performing and I can tell you they are all at least 3 times more manoeuvrable than this piggy f-35.

F-35 has shortcomings (like issues related to supercruise) is true. But to suggest that Russian fighter are a  technological marvel is absolute drivel. The Rafale is almost half the size of the Su-30 and yet for its size it carries far more weapons.

For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter. Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ

I'm not saying they have better technology, only better philosophy.

Rafale is 3 times more expensive than a sukhoi and is doing all the tasks that 3 or 4 russian jets do. I would better love to have 3 sukhoi than 1 rafale.

A full loaded rafale intercepted is dead meat since its small engines won't allow a good manoeuvrability.

Max load is not relevent for russians.

Rafale, f-18, typhoon, f-15 and f-22 also have 2 engines...

RTN wrote:For the same weight class most U.S/Western fighter carry far more weapons than Russian fighter

Western fighters need to carry two and three fuel bags that make their real performance a shadow of the values on paper in terms of payload carrying capacity and excess power / range / overloading . A plane like the F-35 carrying > 8 t payload is a purely theoretical possibility and is essentially irrelevant in real world. Meanwhile all the payload capability and suspension points on a Sukhoi are usable in real operations.

Besides, western engines are more advanced. Explains why Russian fighter have two engines.

The engines carried by most the the US (the overwhelming majority of the fleet are F-16, F-15 and F-18) are more advanced than an izd. 117S, really? I don't think you have evidence to say that Russians are afraid to do single engines due to the low technology of their engines, there are plenty of examples of recent Russian fighters that were using or planned to use just one engine.

Even CAST head Ruslan Pukhov accepts the superiority of Western fighter in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxXijL9_BQ

Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece. In any case, Putin says the Su-57 is the best fighter in the world, so what?

I don't think you have evidence to say that Russians are afraid to do single engines due to the low technology of their engines, there are plenty of examples of recent Russian fighters that were using or planned to use just one engine.

I remember seeing a documebtary about Rafale where its conceptors said the two engine solution was better for such aircraft because of security. If one engine dies then you can still fly the aircraft home.

Mirage 2000 had a very good and powerful engine that could have been used for Rafale with a new version.

The choice is understandable because modern fighters cost much more than 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation which were produced in thousands. So you don't want to loose aircraft because of engine failures that can happen on any engine no matter how good it is or because of foreign object damages that can also happen any time they fly.

Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece. In any case, Putin says the Su-57 is the best fighter in the world, so what?

Best means nothing. Any fighter can loose against any other if you fly it the wrong way.

And fighters like tanks or any other piece of equipment needs to be used with the help of other asstets to be good.

Syria can buy 50 su-57 they will still loose against israel that is much better trained and have everything to use their aviation (ELINT, AWACS, AD, radars, datalinks...).

LMFS wrote: Maybe you can point out the time point where this is discussed, I would not like having to watch a full 50 minute propaganda piece.

From 10:45.

Propaganda piece? Ruslan Pukhov is a employee of the Russian government. You think Russian government employees are carrying out propaganda against the Russian MIC?

Isos wrote: I'm not saying they have better technology, only better philosophy.

Why do you think Russians have better philosophy?

Isos wrote:Rafale is 3 times more expensive than a sukhoi and is doing all the tasks that 3 or 4 russian jets do.

Off the shelf price yes. But Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) of Russian fighter, helos is almost 2x as expensive as western ones. Russian after sales support is below average compared to U.S and Germany.

That's the reason why countries like Egypt, India etc who purchases Russian fighter also procure western fighter.

Isos wrote:I would better love to have 3 sukhoi than 1 rafale.

How does that help? Unless you want to spend 3x more money on servicing these Sukhois. Rafale is a beast. It has EW systems a generation ahead of anything that Su 35 has.