moosefoot

MiG-29M2/35, Su-27SM3 or the Su-35S, so that the Russians are endowed with something sleek and highly modernised as well. As far as I can see there are 3rd party developers working on both the Typhoon and the Raptor, the Russians need some 4.5/5 generation love too. :) The 35BM was pretty much only a few prototypes/tech demos (901, 902 and test airframes 35-3, 35-4) that eventually evolved into the serial 35S, which is why I said the latter (but voted for "BM"). There will be 7 Su-35S in VVS service by New Years, and a whole lot more to follow in 2013-2014. The first two were completed in 2011, this year five have been completed. The total order stands at some 50 pieces over the next two years, production is about to ramp up for real. The PAK-FA is also a prototype, even more so actually. Attempting to model it as a warplane as this stage is largely futile if you ask me. At least with the 35S there is plenty of data available and of course, it's actually beginning to enter service. As far as the PAK-FA goes, we don't even know what internal weapon configuration it'll have for sure (only some vague-ish hints here and there), let alone other basic characteristics. In short, that'll have to wait until at least 2016. Optimistically speaking. The MiG-29M2/35 is not really near any kind of service entry either, but at least it shares a whole lot with the new modernised K/KUBs that both the Indians and the Russians have ordered. The 27SM2/3 would do... But the 35S (or BM if you will) would be a real treat. You see, it always sort of lets me down that the Russians (or any other classic opfor/redfor) are always lagging behind technology wise when in game worlds, despite that they might very well possess more evenly matched assets for the time period portrayed (note that this is not always the case however, as various kinds of technology gaps certainly are realistic in many popular historical scenarios). But as far as DCS goes, we're pretty much in the contemporary world and the 35S has a given place there if you have say Typhoons and Raptors over at the other end. I have to say that Battlefield 3 was a notable exception in that department by the way, then again that's not exactly a simulator. :) Anyway, thank you in advance. I'll be expecting a project to begin soon. :pilotfly::D

Awesome and inspiring! Thanks. :smilewink: I think the Bug is the best looking plane currently fielded by US forces. I don't know why, but it's sleek, modern, a bit modest looking yet far from being boring. My very first combat flight sim was F/A-18 3.0, too. :D

Just some quick input... Russian "powerlessness"? No, Russia and NATO are not comparable because the bulk of NATO is the USA and nobody competes with the USA. USA tops the military expenditure of all other countries - combined. This makes the US able to put things into active service in numbers that other countries can just dream of, for example, but there are obviously many other massive implications of this humongous budget. Doctrines and other things are also way different, with the US being very focused on power projection (forward bases, CVBGs etc), something nobody else has really aspired to since the colonial era. The USSR/Russia, France and the UK has had some of this stuff going on, but only to an extent that remains pathetic in comparison with the US. But we do not live in a world where military might and power projection capabilities rules everything anymore, thankfully. Let's hope we never have to again. But... To address the "powerlessness". First and foremost, since the USSR collapsed, they lost the popular label "superpower" and today they are generally regarded as a "great power" or "potential superpower". So less power, true. No power? False. Economy is the major thing to be taken into consideration. The Russian Federation is an economic powerhouse, and ever increasingly so. It is de facto the largest country in the world with a good fraction of global natural resources available within its borders. Apart from the mineral industry, agriculture, forestry etc, the available hydrocarbon resources in Russia are only rivalled by the SA/UAE reserves and untapped resources in Canada. Energy is their thing, really, and those industries seem to grow exponentially. The fine-industrial and general technology sector has recovered by a lot since the break-up of the USSR and the 1990's crisis and it is also growing fast at present. The European Union for example don't want to seriously risk making the RF an enemy, not because of fear of military retaliation but because Russian energy keeps Europe running. Gazprom alone is responsible for some 25% of European gas imports, and it's increasing by the year. Obviously this is a mutual deal, Russia do not want to make the EU an enemy because even though the export fraction of GDP has decreased (while the overall GDP has increased), exports are still very important and the EU is an important customer. Western companies are also investing heavily in Russia, money is flowing in and out. The global implications of all these relationships are very serious and if they were devastated the end result would be hard to predict. Furthermore, the Russian Federation is a member of the G8 - obviously somebody reckons their influence... Russia will probably join the World Trade Organization in a couple of weeks, providing a further boost to its economical potential and will probably lead to a huge surge in foreign investment as it provides a framework for more stable trade conditions. Also, being a permanent member of the UNSC they undoubtedly have serious international diplomatic power as well, one of the most obvious manifestations of this is the classic veto right of course. :) Even though open jargon can be harsh at times (like in the Medvedev speech) there is a lot going on behind closed doors. Others are definitely not considering the Russian Federation to be some kind of joke. On the topic of military might they have a sizeable arsenal of ICBMs, SLBMs, intercontinental bombers and similar assets, only surpassed by the USA. One of the few countries in the world with the capability of striking a knock out punch globally. These capabilities have faced a decent growth recently as well, with older, obsolete systems being phased out and newer put in place. Looking at Russian recent defense expenditure trends and acquisition programmes, they are constantly reinforcing their power over their regular sphere of influence. Now, remember the doctrine part I talked about - they don't want to play the US game, their priorities are different so you can't compare it straight. The RF ground forces aren't supposed to land a massive invasion on the US mainland. The RuAF isn't capable of dispatching 1500 air superiority fighters to the other side of the world to dominate the skies. But that's not their mission. The Russian Navy doesn't have 12 CVBGs and a total assload of LHCs and landing craft. They can't afford an US style approach at the moment, and they have no wish of doing so either, so it doesn't matter. Their task is to deal with threats in the immediate neighborhood, really. That said, most of the forces are in a generally bad state at present but these issues are being rectified at a surprising pace. The RF armed forces will most definitely be modern, swift and efficient in 2025 if things continue on this track. Sure, combined NATO forces would most definitely be able to win a tactical victory against the armed forces of the Russian Federation if a conflict were to take place today or in the near future. There is no doubt in my mind regarding that. But a strategic victory? No. The world would be in ruins, both figuratively speaking (economically and regarding political stability and what not) and quite possibly more literally - just a heap of smoldering radioactive rubble. Let's hope that the world will never have to experience such a clash. So, NATO wants to place some missiles in Eastern Europe. Russia is opposed to this. When the Obama administration cancelled the EIS plans, people like Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy thought it was a good decision, citing improved relations with Russia as a positive result. The decision was obviously not taken just to be nice or anything, rather it was political pressure about the prospect of international diplomatic issues blossoming up that caused the cancellation. In other words, Russia was taken seriously. :smilewink: Then the US just recently came along with an all new set of plans, again met by heavy skepticism from Russian officials... This is where we are now. They are going to work this out, Moscow wants the ABM system implementation to be transparent and that every aspect should be negotiated, they are not opposed to the idea per se. There will be compromises. Cheers from Scandinavia, moosefoot

Thanks for the warm welcoming, guys. I've been lurking on this forum for many, many years (I am a LOMAC fan) but I didn't bother joining until now. :) On the topic of nozzles, I found this article: http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2010/04/27/194329.html It states that the TVC axis is tilted at 30 degrees and that there are, in fact, stealth-style flat nozzles being developed for this engine. :thumbup: I am dying to see that. I'm dying to see more "finished" versions of this aircraft in general... The prototypes are cool and were well worth the wait but now I want to see the serial version instead. Very little information is available but there are some things hinting at a drastic increase in stealthiness and fifth-generation-ness to be seen in prototypes T-50-5/6. Cheers from Scandinavia, moosefoot

Both T-50-1 and -2 possess TVC. Here are some examples: T-50-1 moving nozzles during a pre-flight check: At ~ 1:05 in. Here is T-50-2 actually using it in flight: Swiveling nozzles can clearly be seen if you have a sharp eye, for example right at the quick flip @ ~3:56 in. One can also spot the LERX's moving about independently, which is old news I guess but nevertheless rather interesting to see during actual flight. Here is a still of T-50-2 with nozzles pointing down unevenly (compare to the angles of the elevators): http://russianplanes.net/images/to56000/055384.jpg These examples appear to be showing "2.5D" TVC, basically simple pitching movement but with the axis tilted some 20-25 degrees or so, and with independence of course (unlike in the F-22). It's not quite as complex as the TVC in some other tech demos (like the MiG-29OVT), but still interesting. Technically it can still be used to augment both pitch and roll in combination with the traditional aerodynamic surfaces, and used to facilitate and maintain maneuverability during high alphas etc where airflow is insufficient/unsuitable for normal aerodynamic control. It's not as versatile as full 3D, but less mechanically complex (which makes it more reliable, lighter, cheaper and quite likely easier to adapt for stealth) while still not being as limiting as basic unison 2D. A compromise in other words, and a rather smart one at that. Old news as well, but what the hell. :D Even though the PAK-FA has hardly done any jawdropping aerobatics so far, the precision in rolls etc. do appear to be F-22-esque at times. I'm sure we will see it pushing the limits over the next couple of years as they progress with development and gain more confidence in the machine and what it should be capable of doing. The biggest question in my opinion regarding TVC is if they are going to move onwards to full 3D in the future or if they will stick to this. Again, the 2.5D idea does indeed seem to be very sound considering the stated goals for this project. The engine testbed demos do appear to show "2.5D" as well, so that's where I'd place my bet. Example: Also, this might be even more old news but regarding flat, stealthy looking nozzles: Nota bene that it's just an amateur interpretation of some tech docs that NPO Saturn supplied when filing for various patents, but I just have to say that it really looks cool with the tilted axis in combination with flat nozzles.