Back to Squawk list
  • 16

Newly captured photo shows Russia's new badass shark stealth fighter

A new photo captured by Artyom Anikeev shows Russia's new Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter—America's F-22 Raptor's nemesis. According to The Aviationist, its new camouflage—inspired by a typical white tip Red Sea's shark—will make it look "as a rhomboidal shaped aircraft, smaller than the actual airplane" from a distance. ( Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Bill Bailey 5
Anyone who underestimates Russian fighter designs hasn't 1, studied them or 2, been paying attention (SU-27 Family ... HELLO !).

The Russians build designs to suit THEIR needs and do it at less cost (with fewer bells & whistles) than we do then sell slightly "dumbed down" versions to offset the cost and increase the numbers of the "home design" they buy for themselves.

The PAK_FA design is being developed as an Air Superiority Fighter with secondary multi mission capabilities similar to the F-22, the F-35 is a multi role design that can handle itself in the air to air role but it is not now and never was intended to be an Air Superiority fighter.

One thing you can be sure of, whatever version of the PAK-FA design is chosen and goes into production, it will be a potent fighter and you can bet they'll build a lot more than 188 of them unlike the F-22.

And you can say what you like about unmanned aircraft, but manned aircraft are going to be around for a long long time to come.
The (risk averse) US has a fascination with UAVs, but most of the rest of the world still believes in 2 eyes looking out of a cockpit.

BTW, the Russians use a 3D (round) type of Trust Vectoring nozzle instead of the rectangular one used on the F-22, the F-35 does not have T.V. per se, the F-35B uses a downward deflecting nozzle for STO/VTOL operations.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Bill Bailey 2
You obviously haven't met any or seen them fly, I have, they're good, damned good in their own equipment.
Never underestimate your opponent.
btweston 1
What makes you say that? What is it about being born in Russia that makes one less likely to be able to fly an airplane competently?

And saying that an airplane's design doesn't matter is foolish. Oh, wait. Who am I talking to?

[This poster has been suspended.]

tim mitchell 1
heck we can barely afford to train like US
Roy Foster 4
Could be wrong but I don't see anything around the exhausts that would allow for thrust vectoring, immediately giving the head to head advantage to either the Raptor or Lightning, in my opinion.

Quite original looking design! Lol...
siriusloon 1
Besides the B model in VTOL mode, do you see anything around the exhausts of the F-35 that would allow for thrust vectoring?
tim mitchell 3
My money is still on the F22 and F35....Why?....The Raptor is already in service while the T-50 hasn't really entered the production stage yet....While they will be just starting the production phase hopefully the f35 will have finally come into service...Since the F35 is basically a replacement for the aged Harrier fleet their T-50 will be limited to longer take-off rolls that will leave them vulnerable on the ground and you best believe the that the fine folks at Lockheed and Northrop and are still at the drawing board...We are still ahead.
Ric Wernicke 3
This plane looks like a lot of Russian products. Made with mail order parts from the Acme Co. The stealth paint job reminds me of another Acme customer. Wile E. Coyote was brilliant for painting tunnels, but is best remembered for exacting violence upon himself.
siriusloon 2
Before you laugh at the paint scheme, have a look at the F-4 in Hill Grey II or at the F-16 and you'll see the same idea of darker in the middle and lighter at the extremities for the same reason the T-50 does it: to make it look smaller. Stealth is fine, but sometimes the Mk I eyeball enters the fray, too.

And precisely which "a lot of Russian products" does this plane look like?
Aaron Donnelly 2
Good looking aircraft.
looks like the f-22. and Russia pilot's suck lol

[This poster has been suspended.]

siriusloon 1
The problem with heaping immediate derision on a potential enemy is that they rarely live down to being so underestimated. It's much more sensible to accurately assess the capabilities so that they're not such a surprise when it turns out they're not designed, made, and flown by monkeys after all.

And as for "30 years ago", that's when the F-22 was designed.
Brian Bishop 3
We have F-22's in service today, end of discussion.

I'd put my money on an American pilot (Phil) in any semi-equivalent aircraft any day.

[This poster has been suspended.]

siriusloon -2
And you base that expert assessment on what? Xenophobic derision and blind faith?

[This poster has been suspended.]

Brian Bishop 2
btweston 0
No, not bazinga. Having flown a particular plane doesn't mean anything about another plane. 'Merica.
Brian Bishop 1
Yes, Bazinga. Phil was asked if his expert opinion was based on "Xenophobic derision and blind faith". But alas, he is a real fighter pilot, much to the questioner's surprise, I'm sure. This ain't Facebook. Most here know what the heck they're talking about.
btweston 1
Have you flown this one?
Jair Sweatman 1
Why do the Russians think a paint job on an aircraft is something of a strategic difference? Much of the this design is copied from the F-22 and YF-23 aircraft. It further proves the Russians and Chinese are very good at copying designs, but lack the significant research to vastly improve on the work American military designers have already done.

The other thing every fan of Russian and Chinese aircraft design need to consider is this: We have aircraft currently flying that will not be acknowledged until the middle of the next decade. This is a case of what you don't know, and therefore cannot copy, can and will kill you.

Lastly, for those who believe an aircraft must be manned in order for it to be lethal, the software, represented by the man, or woman, in the cockpit, is the most fragile part of the weapons system. If you simply remove the pilot from the aircraft, you increase the ability and agility of the aircraft far beyond what any manned aircraft is capable of. Imagine an aircraft designed to operate at over 10 G's, but limited by the inability of a pilot to sustain prolonged high G maneuvers? You severely restrict the operational capabilities of the aircraft in order to accommodate the pilot. Give a kid a joy stick, some fancy camera angles and remote control and you dominate every piloted aircraft in the sky. Even fancy new copied aircraft with fancy new paint jobs.
Jeffrey Bue 1
Cool looking jet. The inlet lips look eerily similar to the Raptor.
I like it...but then again nothing surprises me about RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY ...they definitely seem to copy other's ,but they seem to do right again & again!!


Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!
Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.