Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter

Considering we were still building F-22's in 2009, there is literally zero point to you bringing that up.

The claim was made that Obama cancelled the F-22 to pay for food stamps.

 

I applaud your snooping and pooping and quick researching capabilities Quester.

I confirm, I was referring to Obama's cancellation of the F-22.

The first major blunder of the Obama administration.

The USA only has two air superiority fighters today, the F-22 and the F-15C.

The U.S. Navy has no air superiority fighters today, the F-14 being the last Navy air superiority fighter they flew.

The Marine Corps doesn't need an air superiority fighter because the Marine Corps isn't in the air to air combat business, only supporting the Marine grunt on the ground.

I don't see the F-35 filling the vacuum of the cancled F-22's since the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter.

 

Except Obama didn’t cancel the F-22. The procurement of the F-22 line to its limit of ~180 aircraft in 2011 was a decision made by George W Bush in 2006.

 

Obama Wins Crucial Senate Vote on F-22
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.html

Remember, it happened on Obama's watch not Bush's watch.

I still stand by my claim, the first major blunder of the Obama administration.

 

And look at how the US has totally lost the ability to use its Air Force since we didn’t buy 50 more incredibly expensive aircraft as a bailout to Lockheed.

 

I was surprised that after Obama was reelected in 2012 that Lockheed's F-22 production line didn't show up at the Locheed surplus store like all Lockheed's production lines go when a production line is closed.

The Locheed surplus store in Burbank, California was one of the best in the country back when the Skunk Works was still in Burbank.

Welcome to Lockheed Martin Corporate Surplus Sales

We manage the sale or other disposition of surplus equipment and other items made available by company units worldwide. We display our offerings organized into the categories below for easy finding and comparison.
http://lockheedmartinsurplus.com/

 

Not really. Remember, Air Defense in most cases is an area deterrent system. Those are static locations, and all you have to do is stay away from them. And there are a great many other techniques that can be used to eliminate the threat of ground to air missile systems.

And the S-500 system is not really that much of an improvement in stealth acquisition than the earlier versions that came before it.

 

Any other links, except Business Insider?
Can't find any announsment of Su-57 being cancelled coming from, well, anybody with the authority to do this type of claims.
It is true that currently there is only one contract sighned for 12 vehicles. Apparently the overall delay is caused by 2nd stage engine program going faster then expected with last two planes from the first batch getting them instead of AL-41. Consequently it makes no sense to mass-produce first-gen engine variant.
And, according to Business Insider, that somehow equals the whole program being cancelled.
Sounds wishful thinking to me.

 

You have to know how to read the "Business Insider"

You have to click on all of the links in the article.

There were nine links on this Business Insider article.

When you went to the other sources linked too you saw more links.

The first link (as reported by The Diplomat.) took you here,-> https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-will-not-mass-produce-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/

Russia Will Not Mass-Produce 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Jet
Mass-production of the Su-57 is not needed now, according to Russia’s deputy defense minister.

 

There is even a direct quote, made by the official:

The plane has proven to be very good, including in Syria, where it confirmed its performance and combat capabilities,” Borisov said. “You know that today the Su-57 is considered to be one of the best aircrafts produced in the world. Consequently, it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft."

There is also a piece in the interview, which didn't make it into the article:
«Испытания идут в соответствии с планами. Никаких срывов нет. В этом году будет законтрактовано два самолета для опытной партии. Вообще у нас в планах ГПВ 12 самолетов. Две эскадрильи»

"Tests are going as expected, no delays yet. We are going to sign up a contract for 2 more planes in this year as a test batch. So far 12 planes are planned in the state defence programm. That is two squadrons."

I am struggling to understand how that transforms into

See what I am talking about? Apparently someone is eating a large piece of bullcrap, spoonfed by the media. I hope that, at least, it is tasty.

 

You would have to email or call lAlex Lockie the author of the article and ask him.

But usually it's not the author of a news story who comes up with the title or banner of a news story but someone else.

Large newspapers like the WaPo, NYT, WSJ, L.A. Slime have a few individuals who only job is just writing up titles for news stories.

The title is suppose to catch your interest so you read the story.

Matt Drudge is considered the best in the industry of coming up with news story titles so you click on to the link and read the story.

Matt Drudge was a protege of Andrew Breitbart.

On the internet today we see "clickbait"

click·bait
ˈklikbāt/
noun
informal

1. (on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.

 

I know very well what it is.

However, clickbait is only a proper term, when the headline was blown out of proportion, not the story.

When the autor starts to support bullshit headline with bullshit in the text itself, like:
-pushing the reader to certain beliefs by bringing up "autorities" in the subjext:

-pushing the reader to certain beliefs by providing false argumentation:

-giving irrelevant or biased comparisons;
-giving fitting opinions instead of facts;
the other terms are being used to desribe this.

Pick the one you like the most:
-lazy journalism
lazy journalism happens when journalists don’t do their homework, and don’t check the accuracy of the information they find
-propaganda
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

 

Well, you are actually taking many things and mashing them together here.

As for which is "better", this is often a matter of perspective. Soviet-Russian equipment has generally been cheaper (as in "lower cost" more than "lower quality"). And this is on purpose, this is part of their critical strategic philosophy since the Soviet Union was founded. In general they know they lack the capability to compete with the US by technology, so they do it with sheer numbers. Building a piece of equipment "almost as good", then fielding them in significantly higher numbers.

For the Ka-50 HOKUM, this is seen clearly. Not only is it a decade newer than the US equivalent (AH-64 APACHE), it is also half the cost. An APACHE runs $35 million each, the Ka-50 HOKUM is only $16 million each. So by their philosophy, even if it is only 75% as good, they come out ahead because of the larger numbers they can deploy to the field.

As for the AH-1 COBRA, it is not even close. That is a mid-1960's era helicopter that was retired by the Army, and was literally just a redesign of the UH-1 IROQUOIS (HUEY). The Army phased them out 20 years ago, they are now only used by the Marines because it is the only Attack Helicopter we have that can operate from amphibious ships.

So you just can not compare a helicopter fielded in 1965 with one in 1990, and expect to be taken seriously.

Let alone compare anything in the US inventory to the Mi-24 HIND. Quite literally the Mi-24 HIND is a heavy modification of the Mi-8 HIP. They took a transport helicopter, added armor and weapons, and turned it into a flying Armored Personnel Carrier. It would be akin to the US making the original AH-1 COBRA, but not removing the troop carrying capacity of the original aircraft.

The US could always have created a similar aircraft, but simply never did. Differing strategic ideals. The Soviets-Russians always loved bolting guns and armor to almost anything and trying to make it indestructible, the US tended more towards specific use equipment, with clear differences between the two.

However, interestingly enough, the US Army did look into making such a beast even before the Soviets did. In 1964 they asked for designs for an advanced Fire Support helicopter. And Sikorsky submitted the S-67 Blackhawk. It would have had armor protection for the crew, a 30mm cannon along with TOW and ZUNI rockets, as well as the capability to transport 16 soldiers.

But it looked significantly different than the Mi-24. More resembling an upsized AH-1 COBRA, it was a sleek and slender aircraft, much different than the "Flying Tank" that the Soviets designed.



But ultimately the design was rejected, as not fitting into the Army's strategic mission. So many of the concepts designed into it were later incorporated into the AH-64 APACHE, and the name was recycled to the UH-60 Black Hawk.

But the T-90? You are aware that that is simply a T-72 that has been upgraded, right? In the mid-1980's the Soviets had 3 proposals for their next generation tank. Object 184 was an upgrade to the existing T-72. Object 188 was a new tank, that was an upgrade to the T-72 as it was built. Object 187 was a completely new tank, having little in common with the T-72 at all. New gun, new hull, new engine, new suspension, new turret, essentially new everything.

But the design the Soviets decided on for cost was Object 188. The cheapest of the designs for "new tanks", and only a generational advancement form the T-72. And once again, the T-90 is over a decade newer than the M-1 ABRAMS, so there will be areas where it is better. But there are still areas it is much worse (like the Soviet-Russian love of the auto-loader).

You keep trying to focus on a single thing, and ignoring everything about a piece of equipment. So what that the Su-35 Flanker is more maneuverable than the F-22 RAPTOR? The aircraft was designed to be super-maneuverable. But it lacks the stealth of the F-22, and there are very few of them. Only 19 of the Su-35 exist, yet there are 187 operational F-22s (plus an additional 8 built and used for testing purposes).

 

Except when we don't.

Like say, 73 Easting. Where with almost no air support, over 160 tanks (many of them the best that the Soviets exported at the time) were destroyed, with no friendly tanks killed.

No Apache helicopters, no Warthogs, a good old-fashioned tank duel on the ground.

You are a pilot, I guess you do not realize that those of us that operate on the ground generally train and plan as if the sky jockeys did not exist. If there is CAS available, great. But we do not really depend on it all that much, because we know all to well that it simply may not be available.

Except the problem in many areas is more than using "30 year old technology", it is that we are using "30+ year old equipment".

A great amount of our military equipment today dates back to the Reagan administration. The running joke when I was still in PATRIOT was that I was the only person in our Battalion that was older than the equipment I operated. I was 43 at the time, and my launcher was built in 1984. It is now 10 years later, and we still have not built any new equipment in almost 30 years.

And PATRIOT is not even 80's technology, it is 60's technology. It ultimately replaced a system that was 50's technology.

And it's replacement based on early 2000's technology is still stuck in procurement hell, where it has been for the last decade. Meanwhile the systems we do have are now spending more time deadlined then they are in service. They are simply falling apart from age, and a lack of replacement parts.

It is expensive and takes a long time to get a critical part for a system that has not been built for 30 years.

 

By replacement for the Patriot, are you talking about THAAD? Isn’t it only intended to go after ballistic missiles? Wouldn’t that leave a gap in our defenses against cruise missiles and aircraft?

 

I have to admit, this rather stuck out in my mind when I read your posting.

I am one of the last remainders of the "Cold Warriors" in service today. My first decade in uniform was in training and expecting WWIII with the Soviet Union. And it is a mindset that is rather foreign to most I serve with today.

I guess it is akin to trying to explain to a WWI soldier what fighting was like in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, today the US pretty much expects to own the sky in any conflict. And that has been the case since the latter days of WWII. But in the WWIII scenarios I was first trained in, that was not really the case. For most of the first month of such a conflict, it was expected that neither side would have aerial superiority. That would only come as the numbers of advanced US fighters finally arrived in theater in increasingly overwhelming numbers.

And interestingly enough, many of us were speculating as to how the "F-19 Stealth Figher" (a secret yet commonly known) weapon would affect the outcome. Some of us thought such superiority might come sooner, as this super-top-secret weapon would arrive and slash the Soviets to shreads.

Joke is on us though, as ultimately the F-117 was not even a fighter at all. It was a light bomber, which should have been named the B-117.

But to see the role of the Attack Helicopter in warfare, one has to look at why it was made in the first place. In the early 1960;s, helicopters cost about 1/5 as much of a tank. And had a crew half the size. They were literally seen as disposable. Even if they only took out 1 tank per engagement before being destroyed, we still came out ahead as compared to a tank vs. tank battle. We could (and would) literally throw away helicopter after helicopter, as they were cheaper than tanks.

Interestingly enough, most of our military today is still composed of that equipment bought and built up during the Reagan administration. An era of Fulda Gap, GIUK Line, and Star Wars. Pershing Missiles and potential fighter battles F-14s and MiG-28s over the Med.

I have to admit, if WWIII were to be fought today as if it was 1988, things would likely be much different. If anything, the advantage of the US has shifted far when it comes to technology, but is actually lower when it comes to numbers. Our capability to hold of a "Warsaw Pact" type strike in 2018 is slim to none, we simply lack almost anything needed to hold back the numbers if such were ever to attack NATO.

And yes, I personally scream inside at the state and age of most of our equipment. During my entire time in PATRIOT (2007-2012), it was the running joke that I was the only person in the Battalion (likely the Brigade) that was older than the launcher he operated. My personal launcher was built in 1988, during my second enlistment. And it was the newest launcher in the Battalion (a purpose built PAC-3, not an upgraded original generation launcher circa 1982).

Even to this day, I take a perverse sense of pride when I point out the data plate of a piece of equipment (say an M-998 HMMWV) , and have somebody look at the build date. Most are honestly shocked to realize the vehicle they drive is older than they are.

But in closing, you can pretty much forget any consideration of the impact of a US "Naval Bombardment". That has not been a threat for over 25 years now, since the last of the Iowa class was retired. The two 5" guns of a Tico or the single 5" gun of a Burke are of no real threat to any enemy. A single Battery of conventional artillery can pour down more hate then one of these ships can.

As a side note, I have long advocated the creation of a modern version of the Alaska class Cruiser. With nine 12" guns and twelve 5" guns, I have long believed that one of these should be with every amphibious warfare group as a flagship and base of fire for any potential amphibious bombardments. I admit we have not had to do an amphibious landing in decades, but in the event we ever do I am afraid we are going to find ourselves badly mauled because of the lack of shore bombardment capabilities.

Plus, I would simply love to see a return of the naming convention of the Alaska Class. It rested between the Cruiser (Named after cities), and the Battleship (named after states). As such, they were named after insular areas (territories) of the United States.

This would see a return of the USS Guam, USS Puerto Rico, USS Palalu, and other places occupied by US citizens that have been ignored by the Navy since the end of WWII when it comes to ship names.

 

No, I do not mean THAAD. I mean MEADS.



The Medium Extended Air Defense System was originally being tested when I first joined ADA in 2007. Essentially it took a lot of lessons learned over the decades from PATRIOT, and upgrade it into a replacement to work alongside THAAD.

Essentially it would take the same missiles as PATRIOT, but put it into a launcher closer to that of THAAD. To start with, no more trailer. Over the decades, it was realized that putting the launcher on a trailer (instead of built into the vehicle itself) was a mistake. They got stuck easier, and were more of a problem when it came to transporting and maintaining than they were worth. So in the future plans, that was discarded.

MEADS was initially designed to work with the existing PATRIOT RADAR and command equipment, but also be capable of seamless integrating with THAAD equipment. And it would be able to use existing PATRIOT missiles, as well as working with systems still in development (like the IRIS-T, a ground launched AIM-9 SIDEWINDER). This would give it much more capability than PATRIOT alone has.

In the mid-2000's, the expectation of a PATRIOT Battalion was very different than it was then ( or is today, the same as it was then). We were expecting by this time to have moved to a Battalion being 1 Battery of AVENGER, 2-3 Batteries of MEADS, and 1 Battery of THAAD. This would allow coverage of everything from short to long range and beyond.

However, in reality in 2018 our ADA Battalions look exactly like they did 11 years ago. MEADS was largely scrapped in the last administration, and has only limped along because Germany and Italy keep funding it. THAAD in over a decade has yet to move beyond it's 2 Provisional Batteries.

I spent my entire 5 years in PATRIOT looking forward to working with MEADS. And even 6 years later, nobody I know has ever worked on this system. And I honestly think now that the US will never field it. Instead, we will keep on using the Kennedy era and Reagan fielded equipment, because the people of this country really do not give a damn about the people that have to work on and rely upon it.

Today, there are very few who are still in the military that were even in service when this thing first came into use. I met a few old Sergeant Majors and Colonels during my time that used it in the First Gulf War, but that is really it. Like much of our military, we now have the unborn children of those who first used it now operating their father's equipment.

And still there is no replacement in sight.

 

It is much more likely that the F-35 is a S-500 killer.

Where the F-35 comes up short is against enemy air-superiority aircraft.

Last I knew, no one has been able to get enough accuracy from a VHF radar to secure a weapons lock.

I have read a blogger who pointed to what he thinks are hints that the US has secretly developed this capability. But in my opinion he was making some rather large assumptions.

The west could choose to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons if we decide to heat up the fighting there so that Putin is too busy to think about invading the EU.

Or we could supply Ukraine with heavy weapons when Putin pushes his invasion deeper into their country.

Failing that, Putin will face air defenses when he invades the EU.

The problem is, we do need that many. If we face a peer power, we'll need to be able to shoot down enemy air-superiority fighters.

We have a grave shortfall in our air defenses at the moment.

In a war against a peer power we'll be in pretty big trouble without an adequate number of F-22s to counter enemy air-superiority fighters.