This appears to have been written by an amateur clueless infant.
Lets just pick it apart claim by claim.
"Of the jets in production that promise to take military fighters deep into the 21st century and beyond, the U.S. F-35, the Chinese J-20, and the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA are at the top of the heap." So they admit in the first paragraph that the T-50 is a top tier fighter. Not the smartest way to open an argument, but oh well...
"Much like the F-35 is being sold to American allies, the Russians' T-50 will be offered to countries looking for an alternative to Lockheed Martin's fifth generation fighter." Well thank god somebody out there is offering an alternative to the F-35 or we would ALL be in the same predicament.
"India is tasked with getting a propulsion system into the Russian design; once that's done and the kinks are ironed out..." You mean just like P&W are struggling with the F-135. Didn't we have an alternate for this? Oh thats right some idiot decided to bleed the F-136 through a thousand cuts so there is no alternative and no competition. I have more confidence in the Indians than Pratt right now.
"But those countries won't be training pilots any time soon...... the delivery schedule could be decades away for some purchasing nations." Hmmm.... that sounds quite familiar to another program.
"And if Americans thought they were alone in questioning the need for a fighter program, that by design seems a feature of the past, in today's drone-filled skies, many Russians question the need for their new fighter as well." Oh, so you admit that there is open questioning of the whole point of the F-35? Yet another not so smart way to argue for that shiny new toy.
"There is no mission and no adversary for such plane," Russian defense analyst Konovalov says. "It would be more expedient to fit modern avionics to older generation jets." It's hard to tell if these authors are working for or against the F-35 by putting in a statement like this. It's basically an open admission that new is not always relevant or better.
"Military jets are divided into generations and the aircraft of the immediate future is the 5th." Thanks for the 5 year olds lesson in fighter jets. I guess this speaks volumes about the targeted clueless audience as well as the authors combined understanding of the topic.
"Russia doesn't compare the T-50 to the F-35, preferring to compete with the F-22, but the F-35 is the future of America and her allies." Yes because they realise that the Raptor is what you have to beat. And because they also realise that it is easier to take an F-22/T-50 airframe and adapt it for air to ground than the other way around, which is exactly what they are doing.
"The T-50 will be the backbone of the Russian air force — but it's not as stealth as the F-35 — with T-50 designers going for maneuverability over secrecy."
Yes it will, and that is debatable. And yes they chose superior performance and a big fat powerful AESA and EO to find F-35 and hunt it over trying for that extra few dB on radar attenuation. Furthermore the correct accepted grammar is "Stealthy" not "as stealth". Where did these idiots go to school? End Pt 1
"Though the T-50 tops out at 1300 mph compared to the F-35's 1200 mph, the American fighter can launch its internal missiles and smart-bombs while flying faster than the speed of sound." There are so many things wrong with this statement that you should just disregard it as totally false.
"Both jets can slip into thickly defended aground targets, but the F-35 will be better at taking them out — the T-50 is better suited for air-to-air battles." So you admit that the T-50 is a quite good penetrator, maybe at least the equal of the F-35. But you then point out that the T-50 is a superior A2A performer. So in other words it will mow down F-35's before they have a chance to reach the battlefield. And then precede to dominate said battlefield, nice.
"The T-50 is said to have an excellent weapons firing range, but the F-35 has three variations tailored to specific missions." What the hell does this statement mean, how does it show the F-35 in a good light, and what three variations based on specific missions are they referring to? The statement doesn't even make sense.
"The T-50 can take off using a relatively short 300 meter runway — but the F-35 also has a short take-off model — as well as a vertical takeoff variant." These copy paste clowns dont even realise they are talking about the same model of F-35, not two different models. Are they really THAT incompetent?
"The T-50 program is still getting off the ground — the first batch enters an evaluation phase this year — but the F-35 already has a training school for pilots and crew of its three variants." it is arguable that the F-35 is still getting off the ground , and as for the training school, isn't it still effectively without airframes? Or at least ones that are real world representative and can actually be flown and trained on?
"And it looks mighty impressive from behind-the-scenes" Oh now really, that is the sort f thing I would expect from a 12-15 year old aviation enthusiast, not a supposed journalist working for a defence column in a serious journal.
They say "dont give up your day job" but in the case of the two authors of this third rate article I would say "please do!" Honestly these two twits missed their calling in life when they failed to turn up at the casting call for the latest muppet movie
Nice fisk, Goldeel, and also: "India is tasked with getting a propulsion system into the Russian design; once that's done and the kinks are ironed out..."
Very funny claim, this one. India is good at computers, but not very experienced with airframes and engines while Russia (relatively) is the inverse, and that's why they are collaborating for the FGFA, which is not exactly the T-50.
9 comments:
Excellent I feel better now.
Excellent I feel better now.
True Lies! ^&^
Wow...must have smoked some good stuff before writing that article.
This article begs for a follow up:
Why the c-130 will never compete with the f-35 for air dominance.
Hilarious, They need to take this article on the road as a comedy act!
RSF
Reply Part: 1.
This appears to have been written by an amateur clueless infant.
Lets just pick it apart claim by claim.
"Of the jets in production that promise to take military fighters deep into the 21st century and beyond, the U.S. F-35, the Chinese J-20, and the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA are at the top of the heap."
So they admit in the first paragraph that the T-50 is a top tier fighter. Not the smartest way to open an argument, but oh well...
"Much like the F-35 is being sold to American allies, the Russians' T-50 will be offered to countries looking for an alternative to Lockheed Martin's fifth generation fighter."
Well thank god somebody out there is offering an alternative to the F-35 or we would ALL be in the same predicament.
"India is tasked with getting a propulsion system into the Russian design; once that's done and the kinks are ironed out..."
You mean just like P&W are struggling with the F-135. Didn't we have an alternate for this? Oh thats right some idiot decided to bleed the F-136 through a thousand cuts so there is no alternative and no competition. I have more confidence in the Indians than Pratt right now.
"But those countries won't be training pilots any time soon...... the delivery schedule could be decades away for some purchasing nations."
Hmmm.... that sounds quite familiar to another program.
"And if Americans thought they were alone in questioning the need for a fighter program, that by design seems a feature of the past, in today's drone-filled skies, many Russians question the need for their new fighter as well."
Oh, so you admit that there is open questioning of the whole point of the F-35? Yet another not so smart way to argue for that shiny new toy.
"There is no mission and no adversary for such plane," Russian defense analyst Konovalov says. "It would be more expedient to fit modern avionics to older generation jets."
It's hard to tell if these authors are working for or against the F-35 by putting in a statement like this. It's basically an open admission that new is not always relevant or better.
"Military jets are divided into generations and the aircraft of the immediate future is the 5th."
Thanks for the 5 year olds lesson in fighter jets. I guess this speaks volumes about the targeted clueless audience as well as the authors combined understanding of the topic.
"Russia doesn't compare the T-50 to the F-35, preferring to compete with the F-22, but the F-35 is the future of America and her allies."
Yes because they realise that the Raptor is what you have to beat. And because they also realise that it is easier to take an F-22/T-50 airframe and adapt it for air to ground than the other way around, which is exactly what they are doing.
"The T-50 will be the backbone of the Russian air force — but it's not as stealth as the F-35 — with T-50 designers going for maneuverability over secrecy."
Yes it will, and that is debatable. And yes they chose superior performance and a big fat powerful AESA and EO to find F-35 and hunt it over trying for that extra few dB on radar attenuation. Furthermore the correct accepted grammar is "Stealthy" not "as stealth". Where did these idiots go to school?
End Pt 1
Reply Part:2.
"Though the T-50 tops out at 1300 mph compared to the F-35's 1200 mph, the American fighter can launch its internal missiles and smart-bombs while flying faster than the speed of sound."
There are so many things wrong with this statement that you should just disregard it as totally false.
"Both jets can slip into thickly defended aground targets, but the F-35 will be better at taking them out — the T-50 is better suited for air-to-air battles."
So you admit that the T-50 is a quite good penetrator, maybe at least the equal of the F-35. But you then point out that the T-50 is a superior A2A performer. So in other words it will mow down F-35's before they have a chance to reach the battlefield. And then precede to dominate said battlefield, nice.
"The T-50 is said to have an excellent weapons firing range, but the F-35 has three variations tailored to specific missions."
What the hell does this statement mean, how does it show the F-35 in a good light, and what three variations based on specific missions are they referring to? The statement doesn't even make sense.
"The T-50 can take off using a relatively short 300 meter runway — but the F-35 also has a short take-off model — as well as a vertical takeoff variant."
These copy paste clowns dont even realise they are talking about the same model of F-35, not two different models. Are they really THAT incompetent?
"The T-50 program is still getting off the ground — the first batch enters an evaluation phase this year — but the F-35 already has a training school for pilots and crew of its three variants."
it is arguable that the F-35 is still getting off the ground , and as for the training school, isn't it still effectively without airframes? Or at least ones that are real world representative and can actually be flown and trained on?
"And it looks mighty impressive from behind-the-scenes"
Oh now really, that is the sort f thing I would expect from a 12-15 year old aviation enthusiast, not a supposed journalist working for a defence column in a serious journal.
They say "dont give up your day job" but in the case of the two authors of this third rate article I would say "please do!" Honestly these two twits missed their calling in life when they failed to turn up at the casting call for the latest muppet movie
Nice fisk, Goldeel, and also:
"India is tasked with getting a propulsion system into the Russian design; once that's done and the kinks are ironed out..."
Very funny claim, this one. India is good at computers, but not very experienced with airframes and engines while Russia (relatively) is the inverse, and that's why they are collaborating for the FGFA, which is not exactly the T-50.
Post a Comment