Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Stealth Fighter Makes Its First Flight

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-you-see-me-now dept.

The Military 418

An anonymous reader writes "The long-awaited Russian stealth fighter, codenamed PAK FA or T-50, has had its first test flight today. This Google translation of a Russian article has a photo of the jet. Production is supposed to begin in 2015; the AP reports that India is helping with development. It's reportedly designed to compete with America's F-22 (first flight: 1997). Relatedly, according to Wikipedia, Japan is planning to fly its own stealth fighter, the ATD-X, which we have previously discussed, in 2011."

cancel ×

418 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948752)

That changes the whole argument on the F-22 being killed now, doesn't it? We'll see calls coming out to restart F-22 production, but probably an F-22 B where some of the stealth stuff that drives up operational costs gets dropped in the interest of being just a good first line fighter.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948778)

If we ever get into The Big One with Russia, we're going to toss ICBMs at each other, so who cares about fighters anyway?

Aircraft are for our misadventures in small, nearly defenseless countries, and Predator is better at that.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948818)

Except for the fact that Russia is going to be selling these fighters to many other countries.

Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948920)

I live by the F-22 production plant and I want the project to start up because:

  1. We need the jobs. (Armchair economists can kiss my ass about "efficiency" and "utilization")
  2. I love seeing them fly over when they come off of the production line.
  3. Just having such a superior fighter will make other countries think twice about fucking with us (SOL with terrorists though)
  4. The F-35 is for fags
  5. The F-16 is a fat old lady
  6. China will be flexing their muscle more in the near future (now) and we'll need this
  7. China will license the Russian fighter and we'll need the F-22
  8. Air Force pilots need something new to fly

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

baap (1585797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949084)

I live by the F-22 production plant and I want the project to start up because:

  1. We need the jobs. (Armchair economists can kiss my ass about "efficiency" and "utilization")
  2. I love seeing them fly over when they come off of the production line.
  3. Just having such a superior fighter will make other countries think twice about fucking with us (SOL with terrorists though)
  4. The F-35 is for fags
  5. The F-16 is a fat old lady
  6. China will be flexing their muscle more in the near future (now) and we'll need this
  7. China will license the Russian fighter and we'll need the F-22
  8. Air Force pilots need something new to fly

I like your enthusiasm for the F-22 restart - just a little correction. India's participation in developing this aircraft will imply a limitation on licensing, especially to perceived threats such as China. So it'll be interesting - here we have Russia returning to its Soviet - style grande aviation engineering but also India, the world's largest democracy and one of America's most important strategic ally in the region. Id think itd be naive for the US to think of it as a strategic threat. /\ \/

Re:Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949164)

The russian plane is cheaper and better... F-22 is a pig, like most of america.
Fade gracefully..

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949172)

You would be naive to think a few of these fighters won't find their way into China and become reverse engineered.

Re:Who cares? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949180)

5. The F-16 is a fat old lady

I must take issue with this.

The F-18 is a fat old lady. The F-16 is an anorexic old whore.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949340)

Air Force pilots need something new to fly

what, the predator and reaper aren't fun enough?

In all honesty, the few f-22 pilots I've talked to absolutely love the bird, even more than the f-15

imho, the USAF really needs the KC-X program more than additional f-22s or the jsf

Re:Who cares? (2, Funny)

obyom (999186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949468)

For the sake of economizing, maybe the US will outsource and have the F-22 built in China.

Nah, time for a new fighter program (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948864)

to keep Russia bankrupt trying to catch up to it.

1. Come up with super tech military program
2. Fund it until it becomes too costly
3. Wait for the other guy to spin up to compete against it
4. Move the bar further out

considering the US Defense departments budget its an easy game to win. What they spend on one program is more than most can spend on many.

Re:Nah, time for a new fighter program (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949402)

to keep Russia bankrupt trying to catch up to i

The only problem is, we're bankrupt due to entitlements.

Chronic Problem (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949498)

The chronic problem of the West is using the logic they learned in their own countries when analyzing Russia. Russia was never good to its citizens, and it was hardly ever not on the brink of national bankruptcy. But that rarely stopped it from making new weapons... that were largely more robust, if less sophisticated, than their western counterparts.

Getting into another arms race with Russia is a recipe for the US bankruptcy as much as it is for Russian... and while overspending on defense in the US would causes political instability, Russia is quite happy to make new weapons while its population starves.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (2, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948980)

The U.S. made all this noise about the missile defense system, which the Russians said would escalate an arms race and this thing is suppose to compete with the F-22 which the U.S. already created in order to better fight the last war. The question though, if the U.S. hadn't restarted the arms race, would Russia have bothered making this plane? Maybe, maybe not. I agree though, regardless of who started the arms race this time, there will be calls for more planes to compete, more than likely from Republicans or Democrats trying to appear centrist. Not sure if there is really a threat though. I guess I'd prefer it if we'd wait and see how many planes the Russians produce first. If it's just enough to compete with the 187 the U.S. already has procured, why bother making more planes? It'll only escalate the arms race.

federation credits (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949134)

The global arms industry exists just as much because it is profitable, as it is being really necessary. It falls into the ludicrous unreal geez-loweez that's a lot of loot profits range. There's huge bucks/roubles/yen/renminbi/euros whatever in prepping for wars and fighting wars, any size.

It is not just any one nation's fault, in other words.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (2, Insightful)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949030)

Why? Why bother?

How about spending the money on something better? Or do you have the best edjucation, healthcare, housing and schooling already?

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (2, Informative)

wisdom_brewing (557753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949082)

compared to the US?

education - yes
AFFORDABLE healthcare - yes
housing - capable of taking +40C in the summer and -40C in winter
schooling - how is this different to education?

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949374)

When you can explain how we can make cars affordable so that anyone can have as many as they want as often as they want then you'll know exactly how to make healthcare affordable for everyone.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Insightful)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949502)

Somehow they do it at Canada, don't they? US spends on health care more than any other country (per citizen), yet the system is on 37th place, when it comes to effectiveness.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949538)

compared to the US?

education - yes
AFFORDABLE healthcare - yes
housing - capable of taking +40C in the summer and -40C in winter
schooling - how is this different to education?

Education: okay, probably when you take into account the whole student body, not just elite academies.
Healthcare: surely you jest with me.
Housing: your use of communistic units brings your patriotism into question.
Schooling: grammar fail disqualification.

You get 1 out of 4. In MLB you would have a chance if you are a middle infielder with stellar defensive skills, in the NHL you would be a failure as a goalie.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (1)

acalltoreason (1732266) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949034)

Not at all. We are currently replacing the F-22 with the F-35 Lightning II, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]. Rebooting the F-22 would be a giant step back. Furthermore, the F-22 project was ended, in part, due to the fact that it had "old" technology on board. The Wikipedia article also talks about how it has lower cost stealth gear on board, making it less expensive to maintain and use than the F-22.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (1)

bds1986 (1268378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949138)

The F-35 is not replacing the F-22, it is complementing it, in the same way that the cheaper and more flexible F-16 complemented the specialised F-15. F-22 procurement hasn't even completed yet [wikipedia.org] , and most of the aircraft that have been delivered are only a few years old at most.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949244)

Are you serious? While the electronics on board the F22 could stand to be updated, the chassis and power systems on the F22 are second to none.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949478)

Yes I could see an F-22B with improved electronics. If they have simplified the Stealth systems of the F35 I could those being put into the F22B. You may also see an F22J, F22i, and F22k soon for Japan, Israel, and Korea.

F-35 is too slow. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949422)

A lot of pundits think the F-35 is too slow. You need to be in the Mach 2 club these days.

The man behind the curtain... (2, Interesting)

JMandingo (325160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949074)

I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed Martin/Boeing secretly funded Russia's stealth fighter project to justify restarting production on the F-22. That would be business as usual - gotta keep the wheels of the industrial military complex spinning.

Re:The man behind the curtain... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949540)

I thought that’s what the “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan were for, and Bin Laden and his fake shoe-bomber were working hard on...

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949094)

The counter to a stealth fighter would be better radar, not more stealth fighters of your own.

I'm not even sure why there's a supposed role for fighters any more anyway. When's the last time a plane was downed by another plane, rather than being bombed on or shot from the ground?

Uh, wait. We're talking about defence procurement, aren't we? Sorry, I forgot. :(

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949504)

To answer your question for the US the Iraqi war. For Russia they downed a drone just last year with a fighter.
Every time somebody says that Fighters are not needed anymore something happens that prove that idea wrong.
Same with Aircraft Carriers and Tanks.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (4, Insightful)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949520)

The counter to a stealth fighter would be better radar, not more stealth fighters of your own.

Actually, the counter is both on the same platform. You need weapons that can defeat the stealth fighter, since ideally you want to eliminate the target, not just look at it.

So, you want a fighter that has a small enough radar cross-section and sensitive enough radar that you see the other guy first. Then your missile just needs to be pointed in the right direction, it can aquire the lock later when it's close enough to detect their radar cross-section.

I'm not even sure why there's a supposed role for fighters any more anyway. When's the last time a plane was downed by another plane, rather than being bombed on or shot from the ground?

We shot down an Iranian drone [defencetalk.com] over Iraq a few months ago. Before that, seems the last fighter-fighter engagements were Desert Storm, only because we haven't been in an air-war since. It's possible I'm missing some conflict, though. Assuming things were to go south with Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, or North Korea we would need air superiority fighters. Air superiority doesn't win wars on its own, but it's hard to win a conventional war without it.

Re:Well, now we'll restart the F-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949220)

That changes the whole argument on the F-22 being killed now, doesn't it? We'll see calls coming out to restart F-22 production, but probably an F-22 B where some of the stealth stuff that drives up operational costs gets dropped in the interest of being just a good first line fighter.

Judging from previous technological de-classification cycle, UCAVs are already operational. F-22 will be probably the last manned air-superiority fighter produced and is quickly coming obsolete.

Stealth is not a magic bullet. (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949516)

Disclosure: I was an avionics tech on the original Stealth Fighter, the F-117A, back in the late 80's-early '90s. (37th TFW, Tonopah Test Range).

Back then, stealth was achieved by a combination of architecture (the angles), materials, and flying the thing under certain profiles (that is, you avoid flying too close to enemy radar installations, fly at night, etc). The whole idea was to be a literal hole in the sky, or at least make enemy radars less effective - enough to get in, do your job, and get out. The results have been somewhat mixed - during our whole Desert Storm tour, not a single F-117 got so much as a paint chip, let alone a bullet hole - sand and heat was a bigger danger to the things than lead. OTOH, one was shot down over Bosnia during the late 1990's.

When it comes to stealth? You either fly quietly, or you get noticed by enemy A/A and fighters. Modern stealth tech has taken a step back from the looks of it, and appears to have cast aside the whole idea of sneaking around, which IMHO was the whole point to stealth in the first place. Also, the F-117A was, in essence, a small tactical bomber - it has no dogfighting ability to speak of (no guns, and A/A missiles would be damned clumsy to use from one - doing that would make you even less aerodynamic than you already are, and carrying even one air-to-air missile would eat half of your bomb load). Old-school, we snuck around, making sure that the only time you noticed one of our jets was from the explosion its bombs made on your property. The Russian jet and the F-22 take a different tack - they only want to make it a little bit harder for an already-flying missile to find them, without sacrificing speed and maneuverability too much. But - if you load either one with a full bomb load, those round bombs will happily give your position away to the first radar dish that you come even partially close to.

So use them only for air superiority, you say... cool - but the whole point of air superiority is to own the sky, and noticeably so. ;) Any other role besides those two (e.g. ground support), and you face the same big risk as any other aircraft - that of being taken down by the first piece of dumb lead to fly in your direction.

Long story short, stealth is useful in limited circumstances at best, and even at this time doesn't really justify its expense and R&D outside of those circumstances.

In Soviet Russia ... (-1, Offtopic)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948760)

stealth fighter flies YOU!

(sorry, I had to)

Re:In Soviet Russia ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948804)

How about, in Soviet Russia, you hide stealth fighter.

Re:In Soviet Russia ... (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949294)

No, you didn't

Video of the flight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948796)

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Ryzg/4604/

In Soviet Russia, (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948824)

Stealth Fighters Pilot YOU!

and has not been seen since.... (1)

yogibaer (757010) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948832)

D'oh!

do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (3, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948836)

do you have to think in Russian to fly it?

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948876)

Konjeschno!

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948878)

It's interesting - according to the Wiki article cited in the main article, the aircraft will have an "artificial intellect". I wonder if it studies Marxism.

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949096)

i found the nato codename even more interesting.

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949282)

I’m just waiting for it to try downloading the entire internet...

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948904)

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it?

Re:do you have to think in Russian to fly it? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949130)

NATO reporting name: Firefox :)

Firefox, artificial intellect, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/ ...

Coincidence?

What happens in a dogfight? (4, Funny)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948858)

Do they all just collide in midair?

Google translation (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948884)

Is it just me or the google translation engine is a lot better this days?

AI is improving quickly. Of course someone will answer telling me that this is not real AI. It was considered AI when it couldnt be done and as soon as it can be done, it is just a stupid algorithm.

Here come the awful firefox jokes... (2, Funny)

myocardialinfarction (1606123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948894)

(to get started:)
Man, I hope their firefox works better than mine.
They'd have finished it years ago if it wasn't for Gecko and XUL.

Stealthy ? (5, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948908)

has a photo of the jet.

So not *that* stealthy then ? Of course, I guess if it was that good, the pilot would never be able to find where he parked the thing.

Re:Stealthy ? (1, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948994)

Joking aside, the T-50 certainly isn't all-aspect stealthy in the manner of the F-22. The exhaust and nozzles are conventionally shaped. Perhaps the Russians are trying to go for the best mix of stealthiness and affordable price tag.

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949070)

It looks kind of like they glued the front half of an F-22 to the back half of an Su-27.

Re:Stealthy ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Struct (660658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949216)

Yeah, but do you know how many years of research went into that glue? Pretty impressive engineering, wouldn't you say?

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949426)

According to Lenta.ru, the current nozzles will be replaced with thrust-vectoring ones when the plane batch production starts.

Re:Stealthy ? (3, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949012)

I hear the US is working on a fighter so stealthy that once it's in motion, even the pilot doesn't know exactly where it is. The F-6626 Heisenberg.

Re:Stealthy ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949066)

> Of course, I guess if it was that good, the pilot would never be able to find where he parked the thing.

No. Americans would create sophisticated locating system which will automatically turn on while on the ground. Pilot would have special, single purpose PDA which locate the aircraft on the runway. Meanwhile, Russians just paint outline of aircraft on the ground with a chalk.

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949156)

Everyone remember where we parked the ship!

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949204)

Or just put one of those balls on it that people put on their car aerials so they can see where they parked in a busy car park.

Re:Stealthy ? (0, Redundant)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949086)

So not *that* stealthy then ? Of course, I guess if it was that good, the pilot would never be able to find where he parked the thing.

In Soviet Russia, stealth fighters find YOU! Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

nightranger (149267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949104)

I'm sure there's an app for that.

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949126)

Yeah, I can just see Larry Ellison wandering around a huge mall parking lot, trying desperately to remember where he parked his Russian stealth fighter. Damn it, he says to himself, why didn't I just drive the Lamborghini?

Re:Stealthy ? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949240)

There are actually 28 of them in the photo, so it's actually pretty good.

Love the smell of military secrets in the morning (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948924)

I have yet to understand why new military technology is so widely publicized. It's like a magician showing all the secrets of his magic show at the first showing. Pen and Teller being the exception here. Operating a military force like Pen and Teller just sounds like shear idiocy. Is this all because the military weapons market has turned into a mainstream business unit? Or is this a ploy by news outlets to prevent their websites being filtered by the great firewall? Check it out, we relay military secrets, therefore you should let slide our anti-communist propaganda.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30948998)

Operating a military force like Pen and Teller just sounds like shear idiocy.

Why? I think we can count on Teller to keep his mouth shut.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

Vohar (1344259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949020)

That's because it's less about force than show of force. It's "Hey look, we have these now too. Brand new stealth fighters RIGHT HERE BABY."

With global economies so intertwined, there's really not a huge chance these days of needing some kind of secret weapon force to go against other large countries in large-scale war. So they make the new developments public for the sake of national pride and respect among other countries.

Plus, it's always fun to show off new toys.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949182)

I can understand the pride and respect between first-world countries where we'd rather avoid war, but show that we can still defend ourselves if someone decides to take the fight outside. However, I'm not sure the point gets across to second and third world countries operated/controlled by dictators or gorilla-mongers. We show off our bling and the tali/queda/misc extremists decide to yoink our technology and proceed to conceal it to prevent us from knowing exactly what we're dealing with (e.g. nuclear weapons, not that I'm saying they have them; we don't really know).

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

Vohar (1344259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949438)

However, I'm not sure the point gets across to second and third world countries operated/controlled by dictators or gorilla-mongers.

Military force is exactly what third-world dictators would be worried about. Take Iraq, for example: Their military was rolled over by US/allied forces, no contest.

Most of the heavy military equipment isn't worth much against insurgent forces using guerrilla tactics (which I think was the point you were trying to make) but none of that is the purpose of a new fighter aircraft anyway. You gotta replace your 1970's MiGs sometime...

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (4, Insightful)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949076)

To paraphrase Dr. Strangelove: Yes, but the... whole point of the new technology... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

What good would it be to try to sell an airplane that no one knows about?

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949224)

The point of a doomsday device is to make people fear you. For that to happen, they need to know about it.

The point of a spy plane is to spy on people without them knowing you are, or even that you can. They don’t need to know about it.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949230)

If it's a stealth plane that nobody knows about, I'd think that would be a major marketing boon.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949078)

I have yet to understand why new military technology is so widely publicized. It's like a magician showing all the secrets of his magic show at the first showing. Pen and Teller being the exception here. Operating a military force like Pen and Teller just sounds like shear idiocy. Is this all because the military weapons market has turned into a mainstream business unit? Or is this a ploy by news outlets to prevent their websites being filtered by the great firewall? Check it out, we relay military secrets, therefore you should let slide our anti-communist propaganda.

Because, presumably, they will want to sell the aircraft or a derivative of that aircraft.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949196)

shear idiocy

I’m from the department of over-torqued tense compressed wingnuts and I resent that comment!

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949198)

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has been pretty big on foreign military sales. So yeah, a big motivator here is business.

Also, it's not like the specific capabilities of the plane are publicized. It's basically saying, "look at this plane that kicks ass" without specifying exactly how much ass it will kick.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949418)

It's basically saying, "look at this plane that kicks ass" without specifying exactly how much ass it will kick.

For years I've thought someone should introduce an SI unit to help quantify this sort of thing. I figure the unit should be called the Gracie*, with one Gracie representing one ass kicked every second. Hopefully this wouldn't require a big debate over standardizing the "ass" unit.

* After the Gracie brothers.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

GreenTom (1352587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949260)

Don't forget that other nations have internal politics too. The current Russian leadership banks heavly on a "we're making Russia strong again" sort of nationalisim for their support. Showing off something like this is probably as much aimed at their own people as anyone else.

Re:Love the smell of military secrets in the morni (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949304)

In time of war you keep military advancements secrets so they can be used to catch your enemy off guard and destroy them. When strong, appear weak. Draw your enemy in to attack you, and then destroy them. In times of peace, you tout your military strengths to dissuade the enemy from coming at all because you don't want to fight wars. When weak, appear strong. Or when you don't want to fight, appear prepared to.

Oh noes! (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948926)

Hide the women and children and the number 0, they're coming!

Russia finally catching up to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949008)

Not a big deal. This aircraft is 20 years behind ours. In January of 1990, I was stationed at Edwards AFB, at the hangar right behind the YF-22/YF-23 Combined Test Flight. I missed the first flights of the YF-22 and YF-23 because of training at Fairchild, AFB's Survival School.

The F-22 was developed from the YF-22 selection. 20 years later, production is nearing completion, and the F-22 has been deployed and is now operational.

I'd say that Russia has a lot of catching up to do at this point.

BTW, initial photos make their new plane look a lot like the YF-23. Coincidence?

Re:Russia finally catching up to US (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949274)

Wow, alot of planes look alike. Wonder if it has something to do with physics .. The russian plane is cheaper and better... F-22 is a pig, like most of america.
Fade gracefully..

That's nothing! (4, Funny)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949010)

My country has also developed a stealth airplane. It's so stealthy nobody has seen it yet.

Or the tax money used to develop it....

Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (2, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949014)

...or did someone fabricate this part of the Wikipedia article?

The Sukhoi PAK FA... NATO reporting name: Firefox

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949122)

> The Sukhoi PAK FA... NATO reporting name: Firefox

Well, if it's in use and then keeps crashing a lot into electrical switch stations and the like, they might rename it to Internet Explorer. :-)

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (1)

autoevolution (1519077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949152)

Theres other fox named russian fighters: foxbat, foxhount etc...

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949186)

For those who may have never seen it, c.f. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/ [imdb.com]

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (3, Funny)

KH (28388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949208)

Clint Eastwood will steal it in no time...

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949288)

Although if they crash a lot it'll get renamed the IE, after the noise the pilots make on the way down, "AAAAAIIIIEEEEEE........."

Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949360)

Most likely it's the real NATO code name. NATO has a history of giving code names to technology of Soviet Union/Chinese origin. By convention fighters [wikipedia.org] have been named starting with "F".

First flight (0)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949044)

Actually it's been flying for over three years but nobody ever saw it. The plane from the photo is, well, just a carefully chosen look-as-if prop to mislead the world.
There IS, however, a way to see the real plane too, but it involves filtering out the light-/infrared- and radar-blocking emanations this plane sends out. Would love to give you more details on constructing an easy home-made device utilizing commonly available kitchen supplies but I am already late for my Doctor's appointment. And last time the session was too short to present the compelling evidence I have gathered, that this plane does keep hovering right over my trailer... o_O

US Sub-Contractors (0, Flamebait)

the_hellspawn (908071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949108)

I would appear that a US Sub-Contractor sold some information on stealth technology. This is why outsourcing is bad. "the AP reports that India is helping with development", so I say no more outsourcing to foreigners for any portion of Defense contracts period!!!! Just my take on this.

RCS reductions??????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949146)

no chines
no shock ramps/S ramps / hidden inlets
nose cone is very small (small dish or no dish in there at all right now).

missing a lot of '5th gen' LO tech

Question About Radar Development (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949262)

So usually these technology don't progress without the corresponding technology acting in response. Has radar or any detection technology made any progress in detecting stealth aircraft? Just curious.

PAK FA detailed specifications & model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949284)

Check out PAK FA detailed specifications [warfare.ru] , you can also compare it head-to-head with F-22 there. As you can see from the info there, the 1st test flight was completed on schedule.

You can also make a 1:72 PAK FA paper model [paper-avia.com] .

Firefox (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949460)

You have to think in Russian.

--

This thing looks like the F-22 and the Su-27/35 had a baby. i'd like to see how it actually measures against the F-22.

When did we discuss it? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949466)

Relatedly, according to Wikipedia, Japan is planning to fly its own stealth fighter, the ATD-X, which we have previously discussed, in 2011.

Funny I don't remember talking about that. Must still need to do some catching up on /.

AP missed something TASS didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949472)

According to TASS [itar-tass.com] ,

According to official sources, the Russian Defence Ministry plans to buy the aircraft beginning 2015. Until the time, Su-35s of the "four++" generation will be in service. Contracts are signed to supply 48 Su-35 planes to the Air Force.

That is, Russia has at least made an effort to keep up with the USA with "four++" generation aircraft, which according to the above are still ordered even with only four years to go until new stuff comes out. This "fifth" generation aircraft is probably just a formalization of what they already have.

Catching up? (1)

Cyner (267154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949508)

That's great that they can contend with our F-22. But what happens when we have a few dozen pilots each remotely commanding a Squadron of UAV [slashdot.org] ?

Honestly, I don't know why people waste their time trying to catch up with something that's already totally outdated.

I didn't see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30949522)

I guess it works.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>