
While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage
That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.Kashi wrote:PAK-FA - in its current form - is unlikely to come up against F-22 in its present form, or F-35 for that matter.
No need to get yours in a twist. I simply meant that as things stand, these jets are unlikely to face each other in a combat scenario, especially in the Indian sub-continent. While, we will be getting Su-57s sometime in the next decade, Pakis and Cheenis are unlikely to get their hands on F-22 or F-35.Austin wrote:That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.
Well with eye ball gazing you can easily figure out the J-20 is bigger than any 5th gen fighter flying out there , Likely the Chinese want larger persistance without the need to refuel.Singha wrote:is there a pic of the J20 flying together with Flanker. to me it looks bigger then flanker with a hefty mig31ish side profile due to internal bay and large air intakes. its role may be to cruise at high speed and release ASMs and ALCMs rather than a2a ACM. due to lack of F135 class engine tech, its combat radius is probably 20% less due to Al31 engine.
That's true, but China could potentially buy the Su-57, maybe just 24 to take a look.Kashi wrote:No need to get yours in a twist. I simply meant that as things stand, these jets are unlikely to face each other in a combat scenario, especially in the Indian sub-continent. While, we will be getting Su-57s sometime in the next decade, Pakis and Cheenis are unlikely to get their hands on F-22 or F-35.Austin wrote:That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.
It carries two engines and has 30% higher combined thrust in Afterburner. That will impact vehicle size and internal fuel requirements given a particular mission radius.Austin wrote:
IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?
Thanks I was more looking at SFC at Military power for both engines .brar_w wrote:It carries two engines and has 30% higher combined thrust in Afterburner. That will impact vehicle size and internal fuel requirements given a particular mission radius.Austin wrote:
IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?
Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Finally figured out the secret behind the Su-57 designation.
1x F-22+ 1x F-35= 1x Su-57
![]()
Add CNN , Janes ( excluding Richard Fisher ), Defense News to the list too most horrible reporting or a deliberate mischievous one ......some of them are Indian authors like Rahul Bedi and Raghuvanshi writes absolute trashbrar_w wrote:^ Honestly IMHO, Business Insider, Sputnik, National Interest, or the Drive do not really belong on a forum dedicated to military matters and defense technology etc unless they are directly quoting a source or managed to get an important scoop.
Say whatever about their free content side (or their Aviation desk) and the digital magazine but it wouldn't be smart to put them in the same class as a Sputnik or National Interest.Briefing will examine the systems employed by the Russian SAM network, assess the capabilities of the network as a whole, and explore future capabilities as forthcoming systems are brought into service. Specifically, Jane's experts will cover the following:
- Current geographic disposition of forces within the strategic SAM network, highlighting recent developments noted over the past year
- An overview of the tactical SAM systems available for network expansion
- A brief examination of new developments in the early warning network supporting the SAM force, including 55Zh6M deployment
- Network capabilities including system locations and coverage gaps
- Forthcoming systems including the S-350 and 40N6
- Potential impact on the export market.
Then I expect some good stuff, Sean did a great write up on row GBAD systems on his blog not too long ago, wonder if it's still there.brar_w wrote:Perhaps on the open and free side but their technical briefings are still high quality. It is just that they cater to a different customer given the price point and the sort of audience that is likely to pay for their content. Back in the Cold War days their publications could afford retaining high end analysts...but not anymore. People just aren't buying magazines anymore. There isn't a legacy aerospace and defense publication out there that hasn't seen a decline in quality.
It is different on their briefings side and with their other products I mentioned in my earlier post. Outside of specialty publications they are the only large publication I know that retains naval officers and electronic attack operators as part of their analysis team. They know in the age of digital they can’t survive by selling a magazine anymore, and definitly not when they still have a specialized market focus (like specialized radar analysts, C4ISR analysts, Military Vehicle Analysts etc etc).so they focus their investment on the paid assessment and analysis side where they are in a unique position given the breadth of what they cover.
This year alone they have produced some really good briefings covering Counter UAS technology, Active protection systems, 7 Missile and defense procurement forecast and analysis, Iran's air defense capability, and the fighter trainer market. I'm looking forward to their end of the month briefing and analysis on Russia's SAM capability that follows up on a similar one they did in 2014/15. This time Sean O'Connor is leading the effort.
True but the flanker has a noticeably wider wingspan too, and is a lot taller.Austin wrote:Comparision Photo : Su-34 , PAK-FA , Su-35S
While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage
That is because of SOC effort , SOC already did good work as independent analyst before joining Janes .......Janes has few bright spot in authors like SOC , Richard Fischer but beyond that they just put what is there in brochurebrar_w wrote:Perhaps on the open and free side but their technical briefings are still high quality. It is just that they cater to a different customer given the price point and the sort of audience that is likely to pay for their content. Back in the Cold War days their publications could afford retaining high end analysts...but not anymore. People just aren't buying magazines anymore. There isn't a legacy aerospace and defense publication out there that hasn't seen a decline in quality.
It is different on their briefings side and with their other products I mentioned in my earlier post. Outside of specialty publications they are the only large publication I know that retains naval officers and electronic attack operators as part of their analysis team. They know in the age of digital they can’t survive by selling a magazine anymore, and definitly not when they still have a specialized market focus (like specialized radar analysts, C4ISR analysts, Military Vehicle Analysts etc etc).so they focus their investment on the paid assessment and analysis side where they are in a unique position given the breadth of what they cover.
This year alone they have produced some really good briefings covering Counter UAS technology, Active protection systems, GCC Missile and defense procurement forecast and analysis, Iran's air defense capability, and the fighter trainer market. I'm looking forward to their end of the month briefing and analysis on Russia's SAM capability that follows up on a similar one they did in 2014/15. This time Sean O'Connor is leading the effort.
Say whatever about their free content side (or their Aviation desk) and the digital magazine but it wouldn't be smart to put them in the same class as a Sputnik or National Interest.Briefing will examine the systems employed by the Russian SAM network, assess the capabilities of the network as a whole, and explore future capabilities as forthcoming systems are brought into service. Specifically, Jane's experts will cover the following:
- Current geographic disposition of forces within the strategic SAM network, highlighting recent developments noted over the past year
- An overview of the tactical SAM systems available for network expansion
- A brief examination of new developments in the early warning network supporting the SAM force, including 55Zh6M deployment
- Network capabilities including system locations and coverage gaps
- Forthcoming systems including the S-350 and 40N6
- Potential impact on the export market.
Again, I would have to disagree with this based on my personal experience. From the limited briefings I have seen (6-8 a year for the last many years) they are usually of good quality with plenty of information and more importantly good quality analysis by subject matter experts who either have an operator and/or an industry background (plus they take questions as well). I guess it also depends upon what one is interested in. I'm usually looking for market forecasts and to see where technology in certain areas is heading and what the subject matter experts have to think about those trends, potential roadblocks etc etc..but beyond that they just put what is there in brochure
Time to jump off this train (the Russians are not treating us in first class by any means) and concentrate on getting the F-35.SaiK wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-s ... ent-2017-8
Russia's new Su-57 'stealth' fighter already looks like a disappointment
My experience with Janes dates back to 80's and comparing to where it is now , I find the general quality of report compared to what they did in the 80's as poor . Janes used to be The Source then for any defence related issue back then Defence reporting was not so wide and depth as it is now nor was then any thing like internet , Today most major countries have their own local defence publications atleast India has quite a few now compared to then when only Vayu was available once in 3 month !brar_w wrote:For example, If I'm looking for a smart analysis on the global Ground Based Radar market over the next decade, I sure as hell won't be looking for something on Sputnik -
https://s2.postimg.org/erzzxpi21/GBRada ... utlook.png
https://s2.postimg.org/yb4l72gtl/hud2_Radars.png
https://s2.postimg.org/p4majsbl5/fhr_GBR.png
I'll give you another example. Let's take missile range. Of course what they put up will be sourced from what the OEM or operator puts out but the analysis covers beyond that. A few years ago while doing an analysis on Ballistic Missile Defense interceptors, they spent a good amount of time on SRM and the cost curves associated with that. Try looking for that in a brochure.
As I said, I am not speaking of their magazines per say (I think I made that pretty clear) which I too have been following since the early 80s. I have said as well that much like other A&D publications they have also seen a reduction in quality of their content due to the changes on the print and digital side of things and reading habits of the consumer. Folks just don't spend money on content anymore and as a result more and more publications have reduced their subject matter experts and specialized analysts. Aviation Week probably has 3-4 folks left now that can legitimately claim deep insight in the content they report on (On the defense side). This is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.My experience with Janes dates back to 80's and comparing to where it is now , I find the general quality of report compared to what they did in the 80's as poor .
You're assuming them to be humans, they are as AI BRAR UB shivgaurav_w wrote:How old are u guys^^^?
The committee recently submitted a report on the programme to the ministry and as per it, the cost of developing four prototype fighter jets would cost around $6 billion, which is very high according to officials in the Defence Ministry.
That is not the cost of developing 4 prototypesGaur wrote:India-Russia fifth generation fighter project appears to be stuck: Def Min Report
http://www.timesnownews.com/india/artic ... port/77069
The committee recently submitted a report on the programme to the ministry and as per it, the cost of developing four prototype fighter jets would cost around $6 billion, which is very high according to officials in the Defence Ministry.