
While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage
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.
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.
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.
Kashi wrote: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.
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:
IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?
brar_w wrote:Austin wrote:
IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?
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.
Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Finally figured out the secret behind the Su-57 designation.
1x F-22+ 1x F-35= 1x Su-57
![]()
brar_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.
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.
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.
Austin wrote:Comparision Photo : Su-34 , PAK-FA , Su-35S
While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage
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, 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.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.
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.
but beyond that they just put what is there in brochure
SaiK wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-su-57-stealth-fighter-disappointment-2017-8
Russia's new Su-57 'stealth' fighter already looks like a disappointment
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.
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 .
gaurav_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.
Gaur wrote:India-Russia fifth generation fighter project appears to be stuck: Def Min Report
http://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/india-russia-fifth-generation-fighter-project-appears-to-be-stuck-def-min-report/77069The 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.
Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”
Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 56 guests