Russia Unveils New 'Checkmate' Fighter Jet

[y_p_w]

How does the F-35 compare to the other US jet fighters? And, other countries best jet fighters?

In terms of what? Cost? It's really hard to pin down the costs because they don't simply sell individual aircraft to foreign buyers. They sell complete packages with parts and maintenance.

In terms of capability, the F-35 is supposed to be state of the art in terms of sensor fusion. It does stuff that other aircraft can't do. Apparently is requires a different set of thinking than traditional combat aircraft.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

In terms of what? Cost? It's really hard to pin down the costs because they don't simply sell individual aircraft to foreign buyers. They sell complete packages with parts and maintenance.

In terms of capability, the F-35 is supposed to be state of the art in terms of sensor fusion. It does stuff that other aircraft can't do. Apparently is requires a different set of thinking than traditional combat aircraft.

Yes, this is what I meant. Is it the crown jewel of the US jet fighters? Does it have more stealth technology than other countries top jet fighters? Any other information is greatly appreciated.

 

[930.engineering]

Russia will have more $$$ for weaponry now that they are selling gas to our 'allies' in western Europe...

What's the difference to buying oil from Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar? These spend billions supporting islamic extremist groups elsewhere who make war and threaten Israel, as well as making even more people from middle-east region migrate to Europe.

 

[pbm]

What's the difference to buying oil from Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar? These spend billions supporting islamic extremist groups elsewhere who make war and threaten Israel, as well as making even more people from middle-east region migrate to Europe.

I agree with you....but I'm wondering why we are contributing the most to NATO when many members aren't paying their mandated share....especially the wealthiest country in Europe. Also, closing the Keystone XL pipeline has made us more dependent on those countries you cite.

 

[y_p_w]

I agree with you....but I'm wondering why we are contributing the most to NATO when many members aren't paying their mandated share....especially the wealthiest country in Europe. Also, closing the Keystone XL pipeline has made us more dependent on those countries you cite.

Not really. If more crude is needed, it's easy enough to just open the taps on closed wells in Texas or North Dakota. Those wells also produce sweet light crude, while what was slated to go through Keystone XL was actually super thick crude that had to be mixed with light crude just to get it through the pipeline.

Right now the US is a net petroleum exporter. Also - Keystone XL was never about increasing supply. That stuff is still coming into the US by rail or through the existing Keystone pipeline. But this was really more about decreasing the transportation costs for the seller. If it was going to increase supplies, it would have been slated for export to other countries by ship. Right now they're working on a pipeline to the Vancouver area where it would then be sent by ship to Asia. Exporting Canadian tar sands oil to other countries is more or less the goal.

 

[pbm]

Not really. If more crude is needed, it's easy enough to just open the taps on closed wells in Texas or North Dakota. Those wells also produce sweet light crude, while what was slated to go through Keystone XL was actually super thick crude that had to be mixed with light crude just to get it through the pipeline.

Right now the US is a net petroleum exporter. Also - Keystone XL was never about increasing supply. That stuff is still coming into the US by rail or through the existing Keystone pipeline. But this was really more about decreasing the transportation costs for the seller. If it was going to increase supplies, it would have been slated for export to other countries by ship. Right now they're working on a pipeline to the Vancouver area where it would then be sent by ship to Asia. Exporting Canadian tar sands oil to other countries is more or less the goal.

Thanks for that information...Isn't shipping crude by 'rail' more likely to have 'mishaps' than shipping by pipeline?
What are your thoughts on NATO and our costs of being in it?

 

[y_p_w]

Yes, this is what I meant. Is it the crown jewel of the US jet fighters? Does it have more stealth technology than other countries top jet fighters? Any other information is greatly appreciated.

Well - it's a little bit more complicated than that. The F-22 is still considered the best in the world, but its mission is much different than the F-35. The F-35 has multiple missions (including attack) and multiple forms. The F-35 can carry external weapons as well as internally. The F-22 is a pure fighter, although I've seen it represented in movies where they show it with a ground attack capability. In the end they're supposed to work as a team, and I don't believe that anyone really thinks about it as how good a single aircraft would be compared to another. Ask Astro14. He would describe missions and not simply aircraft, such as when fighters would escort electronic warfare aircraft.

As far as how stealthy, the usual phrase is "radar cross signature" although it depends on which direction. I heard that some stealth aircraft designs concentrate on that from the front, while others concentrate on all aspects. This paper published by the Naval Postgraduate School

http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/ec4630/rcsredux.pdf

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B- 2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.​

​

Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges which interfere with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composites.​

 

[wemay]

Thanks for that information...Isn't shipping crude by 'rail' more likely to have 'mishaps' than shipping by pipeline?
What are your thoughts on NATO and our costs of being in it?

How many OTR or rail oil mishaps can you recall over the last 10 years. I recall very very few.

 

[y_p_w]

Thanks for that information...Isn't shipping crude by 'rail' more likely to have 'mishaps' than shipping by pipeline?
What are your thoughts on NATO and our costs of being in it?

That's a possibility. However, there was also talk about the possibility of a pipeline possibility leaking and what that might do to groundwater.

I live near several major refineries, and they're all connected to pipelines, tanker docks, and rail. I can drive by Richmond Parkway in Richmond, California next to the Chevron Richmond Refinery. There is no lack of rail tanks as well as pipelines going everywhere.

 

[y_p_w]

How many OTR or rail oil mishaps can you recall over the last 10 years. I recall very very few.

There was that explosion in Quebec in 2013. But that was light sweet crude which was supposedly more volatile.

 

[wemay]

There was that explosion in Quebec in 2013. But that was light sweet crude which was supposedly more volatile.

Yes, definitely remember that. But point being its a rare occurrence.

 

[y_p_w]

Yes, definitely remember that. But the point being its a rare occurrence.

Sure. I'm not sure what would happen if one of these rail tanks derailed or somehow spilled. It might be more contained than a massive explosion.

 

[930.engineering]

I agree with you....but I'm wondering why we are contributing the most to NATO when many members aren't paying their mandated share....especially the wealthiest country in Europe.

I agree on that. Merkel is to blame.

.

 

[IndyFan]

How many OTR or rail oil mishaps can you recall over the last 10 years. I recall very very few.

But wait, there's more....2020, Seattle derailment and fire, and 2014 Lynchburg, VA.

Bet there are more. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Funny how the MSM makes sure you don't.

 

[IndyFan]

I agree on that. Merkel is to blame.

.

Easy thing to do is move assets out of those countries and into places in the former Com bloc countries like Poland, where we are appreciated.

 

[IndyFan]

Yes, definitely remember that. But point being its a rare occurrence.

Not as rare as you think. Certainly not as rare as comparable pipeline mishaps.

 

[Danh]

In terms of what? Cost? It's really hard to pin down the costs because they don't simply sell individual aircraft to foreign buyers. They sell complete packages with parts and maintenance.

In terms of capability, the F-35 is supposed to be state of the art in terms of sensor fusion. It does stuff that other aircraft can't do. Apparently is requires a different set of thinking than traditional combat aircraft.

F-35As (USAF version) has a fly-away cost of about $80 million each, at least when sold to the US government.

 

[y_p_w]

I

F-35As (USAF version) has a fly-away cost of about $80 million each, at least when sold to the US government.

Not sure how accurate those unit costs are in the long run given that they’ll be locked into buying parts and maintenance.

Foreign customers get that as complete contracts.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Well - it's a little bit more complicated than that. The F-22 is still considered the best in the world, but its mission is much different than the F-35. The F-35 has multiple missions (including attack) and multiple forms. The F-35 can carry external weapons as well as internally. The F-22 is a pure fighter, although I've seen it represented in movies where they show it with a ground attack capability. In the end they're supposed to work as a team, and I don't believe that anyone really thinks about it as how good a single aircraft would be compared to another. Ask Astro14. He would describe missions and not simply aircraft, such as when fighters would escort electronic warfare aircraft.

As far as how stealthy, the usual phrase is "radar cross signature" although it depends on which direction. I heard that some stealth aircraft designs concentrate on that from the front, while others concentrate on all aspects. This paper published by the Naval Postgraduate School

http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/ec4630/rcsredux.pdf

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B- 2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.​

​

Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges which interfere with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composites.​

y_p_w, thank you very much for that lesson.
Are you involved with aircraft in some kind of way?

 

[ZeeOSix]

The F-22 is a pure fighter, although I've seen it represented in movies where they show it with a ground attack capability.

In the beginning the F-22 was called F/A-22. "A" for "Attack". The F-22 also has capability of delivering JDAM and similar air-to-ground munitions. Guess they thought it as dual purpose with the "F/A" designation, but went with just calling it F-22 a few years into the program.