New Photos of Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 Stealth Jet Show Some Progress of Russian Advanced Fighter Program

Sep 11 2017 - 47 Comments
By Tom Demerly

New Ninth Example of Russian 5th Generation Sukhoi Su57 (PAK FA) With Its Enormous Fuel Tanks Spotted at Zhukovsky.

Vladimir Zinenko, admin for the Facebook group page “ВВС России”, a page for fans of the Russian Air Forces, has shared new photos of the ninth example of Sukhoi’s 5th generation fighter, the recently designated Su-57. The aircraft has been referred to in development as the T-50 and is the outcome of Russia’s PAK-FA advanced fighter development program. The program is intended to field an advanced 5th gen air superiority aircraft to offer capabilities similar to the U.S. F-22 Raptor.

One noteworthy distinction between the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor and the T-50/Su-57 is advanced, precision air-to-ground capability engineered into the aircraft from its origin, whereas the F-22 Raptor acquired this capability following its “increment 2” upgrade program in 2005 and has since demonstrated its precision strike capability in Syria.

The new aircraft flew through Zhukovsky International Airport two days ago when a number of spotters photographed it. The photos quickly appeared on the Russian aircraft spotter and photographer forum RussianPlanes.net.

The T-50 prototypes have worn several paint schemes so far and this latest example is wearing the pixelated two-tone camouflage livery seen on at least one other T-50/Su-57.

For the long ferry flight made from where the aircraft apparently first flew on Aug. 6, 2017 at Komsomolsk-on-Amur it transited approximately 3,273 miles (6,066 kilometers) to Zhukovsky where the photos were taken two days ago. The aircraft carried a large pair of underwing tanks during the flight.

The long ferry flight from its likely production facility to the Moscow area for testing spanned most of Russia.

This new aircraft, wearing tail number “511”, has been characterized as a production test aircraft using the final version of the Su-57’s airframe. It is said to have tested production capabilities for follow-on examples likely to be built in a low-initial-rate setting.

Questions continue to surround the Su-57 program. Criticism has surfaced in western media of the aircraft’s actual stealth capability, but many of these criticisms in popular media mirror those seen in the western non-defense press about the U.S. F-35 program, a largely successful program that has nonetheless drawn intense scrutiny and criticism in media outside the defense industry.

The majority of concerns about the Su-57 are focused on its engine program. The aircraft have used the NPO Saturn/Izdeliye 117, or AL-41F1 engine with vectored thrust capability. An engine fire in June 2014 seriously damaged the fifth PAK-FA/T-50 prototype during testing. That aircraft has since been repaired following engine replacement that took over a year. There have been reports of a program to re-engine the aircraft by 2025 with an entirely new powerplant intended specifically for the Su-57.

Image credit: Andrey Neyman via RussianPlanes.net

Salva

Salva

  • leroy

    All 12 of them Moscow is able to afford isn’t what I’d call much of a threat. India knows the background on this wannabe stealth fighter, and I’m sure they told the USAF all about it when they went to their last Red Flag with those weak-engined Su-30MKIs. Probably made for a few good laughs with the Raptor and Lightning II pilots at the Nellis O-Club! These Russian machines better hope they never run into F-22 or F-35. They’ll last all of 30 seconds.

    • Chaos Craft999

      You made poor decisions little boy.

    • Peter Mpande

      Hahaha! In the Korean war, with 29,000 aircraft, the USAF failed to assert air superiority over North Korea. Did the US and it’s “United Nations” allies win against the barefoot peasant armies of North Korea and China?

      In Vietnam, we can ask US Sen John McCain if US aircraft were untouchable over North Vietnam. Did the US win the Vietnam war against another barefoot peasant army?

      What is the use of such s reputedly powerful air force if it can’t even succeed in bombing a few North Korean peasants “back to the stone age” as threatened by US air force General E. Curtis LeMay?

      Has US air power defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan? It has had to resort to drone attacks because conventional aircraft are at such high risk from possible MANPADs.

      Come on; the power of the US air force lies in the aircraft manufacturers’ sales pitch. The F14 with its multi-target Phoenix missiles, was a flop, already withdrawn from service. A nearly Boeing 737-size “fighter” was a ridiculous proposition, anyway, and it’s “swing wing” technology had been a disastrous flop on the discarded FB111. No? So is the F16, successful only in terrorising helpless Palestinians. The FA18 was the plane, YF17, which failed in the lightweight fighter competition against the then YF16. It was brought into service by lobbyists and the need to create jobs.

      The US air force has never faced an equally capable adversary. The real test would be a head to head against the Russians or the then East Germans, flying the truly capable MiG 29 or Su 27 or 31. Otherwise, the USAF and it’s aircraft, have never been tested in real combat

      • Uniform223

        ” In the Korean war, with 29,000 aircraft, the USAF failed to assert air superiority over North Korea.”

        > depends how you look at it. No US ground force has EVER been attacked by enemy aircraft since the Korean War. Also during the Korean War the US had a lopsided kill ratio ranging anywhere from 1:6 to 1:12 (depending on what source you want to take it from…). In the aerial campaign the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russian fighter pilots were restricted to a very narrow strip famously known as Mig Alley…

        http://yellowlegs-and-others.com/Place_Names/Images/MiG_Alley_Map-220px.JPG

        Throughout most of the Korean War, the US exerted absolute air superiority over the vast majority of the peninsula. Even in Mig Alley, air superiority was established if you were to look at the kill ratio.

        “In Vietnam, we can ask US Sen John McCain if US aircraft were untouchable over North Vietnam. Did the US win the Vietnam war against another barefoot peasant army?”

        > If you’re talking about air superiority… then yes. The US did have air superiority over the whole of Vietnam. During that time North Vietnamese aircraft never flew over South Vietnam. More over US air operations took place over the entirety of Vietnam. US and South Vietnamese troops could go anywhere in the country with out fearing the North Vietnamese Air Force. The same CANNOT be said about the NVA and their VC counter parts.

        Tactically speaking North Vietnamese actually lost. In every major battle the NVA and VC attempted, they were often beaten back with staggering casualties. The Tet Offensive was the last and only major offensive the NVA and VC attempted. After that, the NVA and VC were mainly on the defensive. Its often been hypothesized that had the political will to keep going, North Vietnam would have eventually succumbed. Vietnam War (in some ways) was more of a political loss then an actual military loss.

        “What is the use of such s reputedly powerful air force if it can’t even succeed in bombing a few North Korean peasants “back to the stone age” as threatened by US air force General E. Curtis LeMay?”

        > then you would know that Gen LeMay and his tactics were reined back by President Truman. If it weren’t for the use of air power, the DMZ would be in a different area or would not exist at all as air power was the only real asset that held back the tidal wave of Chinese reinforcements and Russian supplies…

        “Has US air power defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan? It has had to resort to drone attacks because conventional aircraft are at such high risk from possible MANPADs.”

        > The Taliban and AQ forces in Afghanistan quickly learned to fear US Air power in the form of close air support and strike operations. The use of armed UAVs (like the MQ-9 Reaper… )
        http://www.ga-asi.com/websites/gaasi/photogallery/4264089/mq9-reaper-weaponized.jpg
        in Afghanistan WAS NOT in response to the danger from MANPADs (as you so ignorantly claim because the Taliban and AQ had very little of those to begin with), small arms fire or from crew served weapons. Instead it was one out of tactical necessity. You should know (perhaps I am given you too much credit so I’ll educate you…) then that the MQ-9 was developed from the MQ-1 Predator drone. The expansive terrain of Afghanistan required ISR assets to remain on station during long periods of time, UAVs like the Predator drone offered this capability. When they started to arm the Predator drones it only made sense. You can spread out multiple assets over a wide area and they can stay on station for extended periods of time collecting intel and when need can strike enemy targets or provide close air support.

        “The F14 with its multi-target Phoenix missiles, was a flop, already withdrawn from service”

        > so much of a flop that it was able to shoot down Russian aircraft in the hands of Libyan pilots on two separate occasions. Iraqi pilots feared the Iranain F-14s. So much so that during the Gulf War Iraqi fighter pilots still feared the F-14 this time however in the hands of USN pilots.

        ” “swing wing” technology had been a disastrous flop on the discarded FB111″

        > yes so much of a terrible technology design that there are Russian aircraft designs that incorporated the swing wing…

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Sukhoi_Su-24MR%2C_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN2283252.jpg/440px-Sukhoi_Su-24MR%2C_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN2283252.jpg

        http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/mikoyan_mig_23_flogger_l1.jpg

        https://grahampilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/tu-22m-3.jpg

        https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/tu-160-1.jpg

        +sarcastically+ because at the time of its inception, swing wing was just a terrible design feature…

        ” F16, successful only in terrorising helpless Palestinians.”

        > and shooting down Syrian and Russian aircraft… don’t forget about that…

        “The FA18 was the plane, YF17, which failed in the lightweight fighter competition against the then YF16. It was brought into service by lobbyists and the need to create jobs.”

        > wrong again…

        The LWF Program was primarily and USAF initiative. The USN piggy backed off of the technical findings and results for their own program VFAX. This program was to eventually replace the the older A-7s and F-4s in USN inventory. The YF-17 was extensively modified (structurally) to fit the needs and requirements of carrier operations. These changes gave the F/A-18 an additional 10k lbs of gross weight over the original YF-17 design. Unlike the USAF’s LWF that would start off as a simple day time fighter with future block upgrades for additional capabilities, the USN wanted day/night and all weather capability right out the gate. The F/A-18 would enter service with more operational capability than the early block versions of the F-16.

        “The US air force has never faced an equally capable adversary”

        >this is another fallacy…

        Before the Gulf War the Iraqi air force by it self was the 5th largest air force in the world at the time. Not only that it was perhaps the most experienced air force at that time as Iraqi was coming out of and 8 year conflict with Iran. the USAF’s and USN’s last major experience in conflict was over 20 years ago against North Vietnam. The Iraqi air force also had a mix of both Russian and western fighter aircraft in their inventory. Iraqi fighter pilots were trained in both western and eastern (former soviet) air tactics.

        “the real test would be a head to head against the Russians or the then East Germans, flying the truly capable MiG 29 or Su 27 or 31″

        > So what makes an East German or Russian Mig-29A different over an Iraqi or Serbian Mig-29A?

        ” Otherwise, the USAF and it’s aircraft, have never been tested in real combat”

        > USAF aircraft has taken part MORE combat operations than their Russian or even Chinese counter parts.

      • Pepe Le Cox

        Hahahaha, with this post you will put the official trolls, AKA: Leroy and Uniform223 hysterical

  • leroy

    ” … criticisms mirror those seen in the western press about the U.S. F-35 program, a somehow successful program that has nonetheless drawn intense scrutiny and criticism in media outside and inside the defense industry.”

    You do know what most of that was don’t you (besides the clueless who think they know everything about military aviation even though they don’t have a single armed forces or civilian aircraft-type flight hour)? Russian and Chinese paid disinformation specialists (“trolls”, wumaos”) that are all over the West’s Internet trying to influence the free world public’s opinion (free world doesn’t include dictator-led Russia). They have been relentless in trying to get the F-35 cancelled because they know that it can operate in their airspace with virtual impunity. Too bad it didn’t work.

    BTW – I hate trolls. Don’t you?

    • Black Eagle

      Did you even look at yourself when you’re calling someone “Russian and Chinese paid disinformation specialists”? Your constantly blabbing and spreading bs about how everything American is the best and how everyhing other sucks under almost every article of this page just keep proving one thing, that actually you have to be one of those disinformation specialists. Or is it just the result of very childish and immature behavior? Everyone who is real aviation enthusiast can easily realize there is always zero percent accuracy and credibility in your posts and that it is just a poor and pathetic way how to try to make some people upset. Really bad for you it doesn’t work at all and that your disinformations are not enough to influence someone. You shouldn’t probably use video games as a source of informations, because you are stop seeing the difference between a virtual world and the real one.

    • Ethan Mclean

      LOL, The irony meter just overloaded and blew up :DDDD

  • Mixelflick

    Should have fantastic range, and looks to be a great dogfighter. However, it’s engines (currently) are woefully under powered and it isn’t as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. Even with the new engines, it’ll still be a sitting duck for US stealth aircraft (and there will be thousands of F-35’s, vs. a couple hundred SU-57’s.

    The more immediate threat is China, and the J-20 in particular. The USAF really needs to starting stamping out F-35’s to overwhelm Russia/China, and our silver bullet F-22 force will ensure air dominance.

    Beautiful bird though, this SU-57. The Russians have some fantastic engineers over there, and this and the SU-35 will be deadly birds not to be taken lightly…

    • Chaos Craft999

      Under powered? How about you Check the Thrust to Weight ratio of F35 and F22? F35 has 1:16, raptor has 1:18 and The Engine Su-57 borrowed was from Su-35S which has 1:35 ratio.

      Everyone already started talking shit about a fighter that hasnt yet entered a Production or service

  • Black Eagle

    Nice to see anything new related to the PAK FA/Su-57, any new progress, this article will surely left many haters and Western fanboys once again jealous af when they will see their useless assumptions about this aircraft were all the time so WRONG!

    Now about the program. The development is almost done, last two prototypes remaining for completion, the T-50-10 which is expected to fly yet this year and the last T-50-12. One of these (or maybe both) will be also using Su-57’s new 5th generation engines, the Izdeliye 30. This engine will have thrust no less than 170kN (with afterburner), ability of supercruising at speed over Mach 1.5, reduced heat signature and 3D thrust vector control for supermaneuverability…really lethal combination. Also testing of weapons from internal bays is about to begin next year and will be likely carried with the last prototypes. Ultimately, serial production will begin and first squadron consisting of 12 serial Su-57s is to be created with IOC status granted in 2019. More Su-57s are planned to be ordered within the new state armaments program for 2018-2025.

    Here are some milestones of the T-50 program.

    Ground tests of the AL-41F1 (Izdeliye 117) engine intended for the Su-57 prototypes.

    Demonstration of the Su-57’s high agility.

    Testing of the 30mm cannon GSh-301 for the Su-57.

    First mid-air refueling of the Su-57 with use of the probe-and-drogue system.

    Deal with it guys, your hatred has no chance to somehow affect the fact this beauty is going to service very soon and will be capable enough to handle any potential intruders which would want to violate the Russian airspace.

  • Fave

    Even if the F-50 is a great plane, Russia has little money to build it. It’s main focus will be as an export product to generate revenue.

  • Augustine

    According to Americans, Su-57 is junk platform with weak, inferior stealth capabilities. Any weapon thats not NATO origin is inferior according to deluded self praising ‘Only us makes great stuff’ Americans. After 6 months of calling North Korean ICMBs and nukes dud dummy plastic artworks, the same Americans now pee in their pants seeing ‘fake North Korean missiles’ fly long enough to hit any spot in the USA with thermonuclear warheads. Russia is 100 times more technologically advanced than North Korea, dont be half-wits!

    • Black Eagle

      Exactly my words. Keyboard warriors are trying to claim here how U.S. can easily handle any Russian threats, but what we can actually see is how desperate Americans look like when they see dated North Korean missiles flying all around their allies in Asia.

    • Bulldogdriver

      Well, the last few Russian fighters (MiG-25/29) were said to be so so ‘superior’ turned out turkeys. Russians are the ones that are famous for making incredulous claims when none of their systems are ever rigorously tested to prove their claimed capabilities while the US military consistently make incredulous understatement of their platforms, only to impress during war. Just see the USAF and USN factsheets and see how much they actually understate their weapons performance.

      • S O

        Nonsense. The MiG-29 was great in the 80’s, especially due to the R-73 missile and helmet sight. Its radar wasn’t remotely as easily jammed as expected by the Americans. Su-27 was flat-out superior to F-15C in the 80’s.

        (The Soviet fighters of the 60’s and 70’s had issues. MiG-23 had too complicated radar and wasn’t agile enough, both MiG-21 and MiG-23 had poor armament. The USAF, UK and most of European save for the French had crappy fighters in the 60’s as well.)

        The West only regained superiority when active radar seeker missiles (AMRAAM, MICA) and the new Western IR missile generation (IRIS-T, AIM-9X, MICA IR, Python-4/-5 – the answers to the R-73) and the mere 187 F-22s arrived.

        • Phil Verhey

          1 the SU-27 didn’t have the fuel to fight, it only had enough fuel to fly combat over it’s own airfields .. and that is useless.. so no, the SU-27 was useless in the 80’s.

          2nd the SU-27’s uselessness was addressed by adding another internal fuel tank, which when full, put the Flanker off-balance and out of it’s designed rotational mass ratio with the wings’ angle of incidence and centre of lift.
          … so again, the SU-27 was 1. useless until it wasn’t.. and poor when full of fuel.

          Summary of the SU-27 in the ’80s … can’t meet NATO jets in a first strike … added external tanks which had to be kept through the fight, making them easy kills … added an internal tank, which stayed full until external tanks were jettisoned entering a fight, leaving the SU-27 vulnerable, subject to stalling & maneuver killing themselves entering the fight.

          .. claiming the SU-27 was good in the 80’s is like claiming the f-16 wasn’t stupid dangerous to fly in the 80’s …and US pilots quite the airforce to avoid flying the electric lawn dart.

          SU-27 & the F-16 were both dogsh*t in the 1980’s.

          • S O

            You wrote utter nonsense there. The SU-27 had enough internal fuel from the start, and if there was a fuel problem regarding CG the pilot could dump fuel and redistribute it with pumps. Su-27s are rarely seen with drop tanks – they’re essentially for ferry flights only.

            The F-15s used external drop tanks almost all the time.

            Su-27s were vastly superior to F-15s in dogfighting, had an occasionally useful IR sensor, had vastly superior IR-guided missiles and about equivalent medium range SARH missiles in the 80’s + they had medium range IR-guided missiles and medium range passive radar missiles for occasional surprises.

            And F-16s were useful fighters in the 80’s. They were facing MiG-21 and MiG-23 that had not received R-73s mostly. Su-27s weren’t in Central Europe, and MiG-29 were still are in the 80’s compared to the older fighters. SARH missiles were not very deadly against agile and quick fighters with a fully functional radar warning receiver.

    • JS353535

      Nobody is peeing in their pants about NK in the US, believe me. His hand-me-down Chinese junk would be blown out of the sky long before it ever reached the US mainland. The only people who should be truly concerned are the South Koreans, they are the low-hanging fruit and the easiest target to inflict the most damage upon.

    • Chaz Spaulding

      Augustine. You should have said: “Only ignorant and stupid Americans”. Only idiots think this way. I have tremendous respect for modern Russian skills in this area……….May we never have to fight each other. Love ’em or hate ’em, the Russians are smart and industrious.

    • Phil Verhey

      the North Koreans still don’t have re-entry, both missiles shot over japan were filmed breaking up on re-entry.
      they don’t have the mid course capability to launch an ICBM, and they don’t have the rocket technology to reach the lower 48 states with a warhead & re-entry vehicle (weight).

      .. they’re still just shooting bottle rockets.

  • michael arazan

    From what I read all over plane forums, head to head at an F-22 it is evenly matched. And from what I’ve read about the f35 it’s basically pork project that went over cost, and was a poor choice for a leader role in the armed forces. Should of fixed the F-22 faults and continued with that project. I have zero faith in the F-35 joint strike fighter if it has to go up against a Pak Fa/ T50, luckily it’ll still be a few more years before it’s going to production and Russia has only a small order for them, but they are looking to sell them out right.

    • OG_Locc

      “head to head at an F-22 it is evenly matched”

      No.

    • Johhny Tbone

      You should read India’s take on the pak 50…

    • Embroise

      micheal arazan,

      Your intel is so out of date. F-35 is pretty much dangerous in close range with its helmet heads-up display he can fire his AIM-9X by just looking on either side of his shoulder… And for dog-fights? Ask the Norwegian how their F-35A could easily kills their F-16 vipers in a dog-fight. Ye, true, F-35 has a very light body weight and a very strong engine that it can do difficult angle of attack and maneuver with the help of its computerized electronic support system that could push the plane to its limits without breaking of out of control! That is how beautiful the F-35 is… And none of its pilots ever whine or murmur about limitations. Every single one of them expresses the same overwhelming satisfaction…

  • Lawrence D. Wood

    Hanging tanks or ordinance under the wings kind of defeats the ‘stealth’ idea . . .

    • Larry J

      I’ve seen photos of F-22s with external fuel tanks. They use them on ferry flights where stealth isn’t required.

    • katakoco

      I think they do it on purpose for ferry flight and cover their true RCS

    • Hunter3203

      True, but our own stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 have the same kind of removable pylons for carriage of fuel tanks and additional ordinance when stealth isn’t a priority. F-22s based in Alaska routinely are outfitted that way.

    • El Kabong

      You don’t always need stealth….

  • leroy

    Let’s be real, can we? This PAK FA (that’s what it should be called – its test and development name) isn’t stealth, sensors are not more advanced than other Sukoi and MiG production models, so why in the hell should Russia even bother spending money on this “fighter” when they might just as well push more capabilities into their Su-35?

    Look – it’s all the same 1970s, 80s era (technology) stuff. It’s all the same story of inferior (to the U.S. and NATO) capabilities. So why even bother with the PAK FA? It’s gonna get shot down just as quickly as an Su-35. From way far away before the Russian pilot even has enough time to react. He’ll never know what hit him, or where the missile came from!

    Plus let’s face some more obviousness. The U.S. economy produces in one year what Russia does in 20. Russia is an economic basket case with a poor and desperate population where goods and services are in short supply and the basic necessities of a modern 1st world life are not to be found anywhere in the average shared-outhouse countryside-community of ramshackle , dilapidated Soviet-era fire-trap apartments and deteriorating small pigpens. Russia can’t afford no goddamn fake 5th gen fighters!

    Russia will never be a global military power. Time to start focusing on trying to join the civilized first-world and stop these “never gonna happen” dreams of matching the U.S. and NATO in military firepower. I can 100% guarantee you that ain’t gonna happen in 200 years. Perhaps far longer. The PAK FA is not worth the juice what’s gonna be got from the (always weak) squeeze. Or should I say too little vodka from too many potatoes.

    • Paul

      45 million on food stamps, a crumbling infrastructure, infant mortality and life expectancy rates of a third world country. Hang on that’s the USA. As For Russia not being a military power, the Syrian war theatre begs to differ.

  • Lets play with current numbers , shale we ?

    RCS.

    PAK FA : 0,05 – 0,1m2 (The stealthier right now)

    F-22 : 0,4 – 0,7m2 (Fairy tales like 0,0001m2 are only somewhere in dreamland)

    Patato-35 : 0,8 – 1m2 (Not even stealth)

    J-20 : 0,5 – 0,7m2

    Rafale F4 : 0,3m2.
    Even stealthier than F-22…So soon we will have the second stealthier fighter.
    ===========================================================
    Speed

    PAK FA : 2.600+ Km/h
    F-22 : (CLAIMED) 2.410 Km/h
    Patato-35 : 1800 Km/h

    ===========================================================
    Supercruise.

    PAK FA : 1,8mach
    F-22 : 1,4mach (No 1,6….no 1,8….no nothing else. Just barely 1,4)
    Potato-35 : Search somewhere else. No such thing.

    ===========================================================

    MAX G turns
    PAK FA : 11G
    F-22 : 9G
    Potato-35 : 4,95G (A spitfire can win this)

    ===========================================================
    Rate to climb
    PAK FA record holder at 384 m/s.
    ” With such speed it would have been on top of Everest in 23 seconds ”
    F-22 : 220-260 m/s (No fairytale as 350m/s)
    Potato-35 : 100m/year
    ===========================================================
    Radars

    PAK FA : Sh121 N036-1-01 X-band in front and side front
    (It is ADVANCED Irbis-E) so we have at least 450Km range ,against 3m2 target.

    L-Band – No stealth BS against it.

    Rear radome : The classic rear ”horn” of the Sukhoi family with
    a small radar covering 52 Km range , and a special jammer inside it.

    F-22 : APG-77 with 240 Km range and ohhh….only 100 of them produced….!
    and AN/ALR-94 ….which ANY fighter has similar system.

    So much of ”technology” here….

    Potato-35 : APG-81 with 150km.
    ===========================================================

    Range :
    PAK FA : Record holder at 7000 Km in ”patrol flight mode”

    F-22 : 2600 km.

    Potato-35 : 2200 Km.

    ============================================================

    Weapons air to air

    PAK FA : R-77M 250km , R-74 all aspect 40Km

    F-22 : AIM-120C7 – 48km , AIM-120D – 72 Km
    Potato-35 : The same with the exception of UK and Italians with Meteor at 105Km

    ==========================================================
    Thrust to weight :

    PAK FA : 1.19
    F-22 : 1.08
    Potato-35 : 0.87

    ==========================================================

    Now , lets play with the new toys of PAK FA

    Izdeliye-30 engines with ultra thrust at 39,566 lbs x2 = 79.132 lbs.
    Thrust to weight at 1.36+
    More economy in fuels , more range.
    Speed 2800++ Km/h
    AND….off course , the ONLY with the new PHOTONIC radar.

    No stealth , No UFO against it.

    ===========================================================

    Do the math.

  • Ethan Mclean

    Have same pilots flown russian planes ? No ? Have they tested russian avionics, etc ? No ? Are there any facts ? No ? :D

    • Phil

      Ethan Mclean..
      Yes, our pilots HAVE flown Russian aircraft and avionics (vacumn tube ones at that), in fact, Chuck Yeager was the first, test flying a defected Mig 15. We have tested that, and the Mig 17, Mig 21, Mig 25, Mig 27, and are currently flying the Sukhoi 27..all at Area 51 in Nevada. This is a special group of Air Force pilots of a squadron based at Area 51, called the Red Hats. It is a test, and evaluation squadron. They have their own dedicated mechanics very familiar with Russian, and Russian aircraft technology.
      In fact, we recently lost a former F-35 test pilot, and the aircraft he may have been flying could have been the Sukhoi 27.

  • EDDIMUNDO

    Yet to see a Russian jet with the F-35s helmet capabilities

  • Ain’t doing your homework…

    • Paul

      That’s constructive. You obviously don’t care.

      • Again, I will not do your homework. If you want the “information” there to be taken seriously, provide the links, or the proper source. Otherwise, I will take that as valid as evidence of Santa being real.

  • Phil Verhey

    your sarcasm is legendary!

    • enricodiba

      Americans have builded 186 F22 and introduction them in 2005, but today only 123 are combat-coded and 20 are classificated as backup aircraft inventory the rest are for test. Today F22 haven’t full integration for modern version of missiles AIM-9X and AIM-120D AMRAAM in any case this latter is obsolete respect european and russian rival, furthermore f22 still has not a helmet-mounted cueing system, russian have this helmet since 80’s. The funny things about this situation is that the money for f22 upgrades are used for the development of f35.