Thread: New Russian Fighter

I think the ''old'' Sukhoi 35 would give any of the Yank wonder planes a serious scare so this one would give them heart burn.With stealth there is only a few ways to do it so you'll find all the planes will start looking the same,that will make it very hard in a swirling fight. Pat

Its got two engines where the yank plane has one.(correct me if Im wrong ) but I bet the russian is cheaper and more relieable.

Originally Posted by Zute

Its got two engines where the yank plane has one.(correct me if Im wrong ) but I bet the russian is cheaper and more relieable.

thanks funny, well said..

Originally Posted by Zute

Its got two engines where the yank plane has one.(correct me if Im wrong ) but I bet the russian is cheaper and more relieable.

The American F35 that Austrailia may buy in the future, as our mainline fighter is only a single engine fighter. We have already put in big dollars for the development of this American fighter. But I think the Super Hornets that we are buying at the moment as a stop gap measure are twin engine fighters.

Cheap and relibaly are not the only criteria in a fighter. Availability of parts if you go to war is also important. Israel was flying French Mirage III figters some years ago when it went to war with Egypt. Egypt was buying French goods, so France refused to sell parts to Israel. After that time and because of this, Israel started to manufacture their own fighters. In other words you cannot go to war with someone who is a friend of who supplies your fighters, unlss you have abig stock of spare parts [Not that I agree with war].

Certainly some Russian Planes have had an edge on American planes in the past. Russia still has the fastest Jet fighter in the world. America had an edge only by having so many more planes in the sky than the Russians had.

Main worry for Australia is if we ever go to war we may find ourselves fighting against planes that the Russians have sold to our enemies, as Russia is after the big dollars from the sales of fighter planes.

And we in Australia do have have such good fighter capacity.

For example we have retired or are retiring the F111 fighter bomber. In war games with America it did very well, but our current fighters have only half the range.

For example years ago Indonesia drew a map of Australia with a line drawn across it a bit north of Brisbane marking the northern part of Australia as Indonesia. From northern Australia the F111 could fly to Indonesia on a tank of fuel; if Indonesia, the third biggest Country in the world as far as population goes, ever went to war with Australia.

But our Hornets and the Super Hornets which are to replace the F111 can only fly to Indonesia only if they are refueled half way by tanker planes, with a big bulls eye target drawn on the side. Then they have almost no air time over Indonesia before they have to turn around to go back to the tanker to refuel again, assuming the enemy has not shot down the tanker, in which case they ditch one of our few fighters into the sea and swim home to Australia.

So if we ever go to war with Indonesia without the F111, without allies like the USA, we could be in very big trouble. Especially if Indonesia was flying some of the very good Russian planes against Australia.

Years ago we were to buy one of the British Aircraft Carriers, I think it was the Invincable, with a fleet of Harrier jump Jets and that was a good move by the Australian Government. But the Fauklands' war broke out so Britain decided to use the Aircraft Carrier in that war, and no longer sell it to Australia.

After a couple of losses, Argentina was not willing to risk its planes against the slower, but extremely manoverable Harrier Jump Jets. So by using Harriers Britain had Air Superiority in that war.

And they hired Cargo Container ships to take loads of Harriers to the war zome, as they can fly vertically of a normal cargo ship, but without a fullload of Fuel and weapons.

Also as the Harrier only needs 300 feet run to get airborne using a ski ramp with a full load, it an be hid in a forrest ready to use a forrest road to take off.

The United States Marines Flew Harriers of their Aircraft Carriers, and I think Spain & Italy, and may be France also have Harriers--but not sure without reading up on it. I do know India did want to buy Harriers.

There a American planes like the F-22 Raptor that can outfly most planes in the air, but America will not sell this to Australia, and at something like a Billion dollars a plane, without ground support costs, they are probably way too expensive for Australia anyway.

I d hope Australia dos not scrap the F111, but puts them in storage in case in the future they need to ressurect them for our defense. America put its F111 into storage and Australia has been buying parts from these stored F111's for many years.

Don't forget, like many things, with fighter planes it's not always what it is that counts, but how you drive it!

much as I usually keep abreast of military aircraft developments, I missed this one. Althoguh it looks like it's been in the pipeline since at least 2007 according to Janes.

It's one thing to have a super fighter mind you, but another completely to have enough to make a difference. The magnificent aircraft produced by the germans towards the end of WW2 taught us that lesson.

The lessons of the benifit of a long range strike aircraft are also one learnt back even as far as WW1. Hopefully the australian commanders, or pencil pushers have not forgotten that. And as JohnF mentioned, tankers are big targets in a war, and the F-111 was a might hard to hit target, and still is today.

I heard rumours only 5 years ago about Mirages still in strage in Nth Australia, don't know abotu their accurace, but I hope they do keep some F-111's in reserve just in case, because magnificent as the F-18E/F is, it just doesn't have the legs or payload of the F111.

And Jamo really has one of hte biggest points, the winner is always the one who knows how to use (and fly) their weapons best.

The U.S. Marine Corps owns the Harrier now. They bought the design from the Poms when the Poms could not afford to update the aircraft, particularly the electronics and were going to consign it to the scrap heap. Agree with all preceding comments regarding range. We are a big country between two big oceans and range is possibly the most important design factor.

In spite of all the hype written about the Spitfire its range was its Achilles heel. It was strictly a home defence fighter and the early Marks could only stooge around over northern France for 20 minutes before having to head home to bases in southern England which were not much more than a short walk and a swim away. No chance of it ever escorting bombers to Strasbourg, let alone Berlin.

The current Sukhoi's strong suit is its amazing agility, great for wowing the crowds at air shows.
Is this ability relevant in a modern air battle?
The last two wars that had any air-to-air element showed that superior look-first-shoot-first capability won the day. Part of that look-first ability comes from outside the fighter aircraft, like the AWACS and JSTARS.
Sukhoi vs US planes may turn out to be a kungfu expert vs sniper kind of comparison.