Is USA's military using Russia to get more money for research?

[alhoon]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1638419/rus...-super-weapon/

The gist: Russia claims their new stealth fighter is as good as F-22 and F-35. Important USA officials, like an airforce former intelligence head lt general, say that the Russian claims seem true.

Personally, I don't believe Russia, with a far smaller budget on warplane research, has managed to close a 10-15 years gap with USA in terms of technology.

What I think is that Russia makes those claims to find buyers and that the USA military and companies that work on research jumped on the wagon happily, to capitalize on renewed fears of Russia and get more money and projects.

[Heathen Hammer]

Russia doesn't have a problem with developing modern technology - it has a problem with its implementation. Especially given how the newest equipment is more likely to be exported then to reach the armed forces.

[alhoon]

Yes, but we're talking about warplanes here, the pride and power of the USA army. Not satellite technology, communications, cars, medicine. Warplanes.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, but we're talking about warplanes here, the pride and power of the USA army. Not satellite technology, communications, cars, medicine. Warplanes.

So? Russia's problem is not being able to develop warplanes on par with US, it is its ability (mainly lack of) to mass-produce them.

[Stavroforos]

And also of not being able to develop planes on par with the US, unless you have some plane that isn't experimental that matches the F-22 in capabilities.

Also, inb4 the F-22 hate.

[Heathen Hammer]

And also of not being able to develop planes on par with the US, unless you have some plane that isn't experimental that matches the F-22 in capabilities.

Also, inb4 the F-22 hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

[Vanoi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

Still isn't as stealthy as a F-22. More maneuverable, but not as stealthy.

[Dick Cheney.]

F-22 is overrated. Buy Drones.

[Sire Brenshar]

F-22 is overrated. Buy Drones.

Drones are overrated

[Holger Danske]

F-22 is overrated. Buy Drones.

Drones will not be able to fully replace manned combat aircraft for the forseeable future. There are simply too many technical difficulties to tacle. They will be supplementary tools for sure. The General Atomics Avenger is a good example of this.

And I don't see the T-50 getting past the experimental phase and actually become the backbone of the Russian Airforce. They would be far better off upgrading their SU-27 fleet.

[Pielstick]

@ OP yes of course.

Increasing performance of Soviet fighters led to the development of the XB-70, which led to the MiG-25, which led to the F-15, which led to the Su-27, which led to the F-22, which led to the PAK-FA, which will now lead to NGAD.

Of course vested interests are going to play up the threat so they can continue to develop/sell/procure the very best/most expensive shiny new toys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

Ah yes, even at the end of the Cold War when the Soviet aviation indutry was behind the West's in many key areas, even after over a decade and a half on life support with minimal investment, even after needing 16 years to get a modernised Flanker in limited service, the Russians have leap frogged the West and made an F-22 killer in next to no time and will have it in operational service in a couple of years.

What's more, it bursts into flames when being demonstrated for the guys who are bankrolling its development:



Oops.


Don't even get me started on the flying hours combat pilots in the Western Military District are getting annually compared to their NATO counterparts, the UK and US especially.

[Condottiere 40K]

Bomber gap, so we've been down this road any number of times.

The Soviets were able to produce equipment that worked within the limits of how they they believed they'll be fighting. We're hitting the wall on the development of manned jet fighters, so any new advantage becomes a case of diminishing returns in in regard to the time and money spent to eke it out. The difference being that the United States can afford to bankrupt the Russians if they want to have an arms race, and they're way ahead of the Chinese who might be willing to play the game.

The real danger to American supremacy would be if weapon programmes became affordable, one reason they're tempted to pursue bleeding edge.

[alhoon]

The difference being that the United States can afford to bankrupt the Russians if they want to have an arms race

Worked the last time after all... But to pull out an expensive arms race and shove it down the voters' throats the USA military needs to make Russian advances seem credible.

[Mementomoridc]

That Russian fighter is crap. The Indians who are bankrolling it even think so at this point. As for more agile than a F-22 so what. The Euro fighter is as well and every time one of it's pilots does a interview about war games they say the same thing. It takes the F-22 on in dog fights competitively, pilot skill basically wins every time. However when they do not impose restrictions to where combat only happens at WVR they get shot out the sky by the truck load before contact is made. Something tells me by this assessment the F-22 does what it is suppose to do just right. And that is win the fight before your opposition knows there is a fight.

[Sire Brenshar]

It doesn't really matter if the PAK FA is superior in dog fighting, which I seriously doubt, as its not even in service yet and still dealing with crippling engine issues, plus who knows what else. Its still years away from entering service, and when it does it'll be a few dozen at most, in the same way Russia could only modernize 40 Su-35s from lack of funds. In cotrast 200 F-22 fighters have been flying for half a decade now, all built and fielded by the US alone where Russia needs India to fund for it's fighter projects and will have to share it with them. Hardly the mark of a superior highly competitive air industry

The whole point of stealth is to avoid being intercepted especially by air defenses. That means the F-22 and F-35 will actually be able to perform combat duties better relative to other aircraft, while Russian and as well Euro fighters will be limited in where they can be used.

[Mementomoridc]

It doesn't really matter if the PAK FA is superior in dog fighting, which I seriously doubt, as its not even in service yet and still dealing with crippling engine issues, plus who knows what else. Its still years away from entering service, and when it does it'll be a few dozen at most, in the same way Russia could only modernize 40 Su-35s from lack of funds. In cotrast 200 F-22 fighters have been flying for half a decade now, all built and fielded by the US alone where Russia needs India to fund for it's fighter projects and will have to share it with them. Hardly the mark of a superior highly competitive air industry

The whole point of stealth is to avoid being intercepted especially by air defenses. That means the F-22 and F-35 will actually be able to perform combat duties better relative to other aircraft, while Russian and as well Euro fighters will be limited in where they can be used.

great post but I think we only made around 130 of them, I could be vastly wrong. The F-22 is still by far and away the best aircraft flying right now. There is a reason we willing to export the f35 but the F-22 is ours alone.

[Sire Brenshar]

great post but I think we only made around 130 of them, I could be vastly wrong. The F-22 is still by far and away the best aircraft flying right now. There is a reason we willing to export the f35 but the F-22 is ours alone.

187 F-22s.

[Pielstick]

187 built, and nine years after entering service it achieves a mission capable rate of 67%. That's not a lot of F-22s available on any given day.

Be very careful about trumpeting stealth capability. It's not an invisibility cloak. There are some very valid concerns about the efficacy of stealth when the other guy has a modern IRST on his fighters.

Given it's cost, limited numbers and availability along with the potentially disastrous political consequences of actually losing one in combat... I'd argue the F-22 is actually the more limited type whereas the Eurocanards are the more practical solution.

[Mementomoridc]

187 built, and nine years after entering service it achieves a mission capable rate of 67%. That's not a lot of F-22s available on any given day.

Be very careful about trumpeting stealth capability. It's not an invisibility cloak. There are some very valid concerns about the efficacy of stealth when the other guy has a modern IRST on his fighters.

Given it's cost, limited numbers and availability along with the potentially disastrous political consequences of actually losing one in combat... I'd argue the F-22 is actually the more limited type whereas the Eurocanards are the more practical solution.

Most nations that fly the Euro fighter have just as bad if not worse capability rates. I will give you the expense factor but that is only one piece of the puzzle. As for loosing one, it is not like they cost what a B-2 does so the loss of one is not a big deal. The only reason it would be is the manufacturing line is closed so it wold cost a lot to get it going again but it is there.

[Sire Brenshar]

Be very careful about trumpeting stealth capability. It's not an invisibility cloak. There are some very valid concerns about the efficacy of stealth when the other guy has a modern IRST on his fighters.

No believe me I am aware. But I dont expect F-35s to be carrying air strikes or dogfighting with modern Russian or European fighters, I expect stealth aircraft will see use bombing 2nd and 3rd rate militaries equipped with anti aircraft defenses and unmodernized 4th generation or older air interceptors.
Thats what I mean by achieving mission objectives better relative to, as in the same situations non stealthy fighters or limited stealth like PAK FA will be less capable and will take heavier casualties. Overall I dont expect the F-22 will ever need to enter a dog fight.