Trump has the opportunity for Russia America cooperation in military sector

a reply to: AdamHeiman

BAE
General electric
Rolls Royce
Pratt and whitney
Lockheed
Honeywell
Are all western corporations that have developed fluedic thrust vectoring systems.

You see its the engine design its self thats holding back russian thryst vectoring systems. You need to develop bypass ducts and all sorts of stuff to have a secondary fluid manipulate the vector of the primary exhaust fluid.

Russia doesnt have that which is why theyre stuck with the 80s versions of the technology.

You need to think of it from a stealth perspective. If the shape of your aircraft is whats largely responsible for the stealth aspects then haveing a part that physically moves around whether it be flaps or engien nozzles will mess up your stealthyness. Even though the rear of the aircraft is the least stealthy angle to hit it with radar. Having nozzles move around to new angles aint going to help. Which is why you want to use bypassed air to do it with. No moving parts changing the shape of your plane.

The usa is interested in thrust vectoring not because we want to be manueverable in a dogfight. Which aint going to happen anymore. Preparing and building aircraft for that is obsolete and a waste. We want the thrust vectoring ti maintain stealthy profiles. Plus its a perfect synergy with our new engine designs which i am under no circumstances going to disclose. (Ive learned my lesson) But its safe to say are decades ahead extremely versatile and capable and do things on magnitudes russuan designs never could. Jet engine doesnt exactly describe our new engine designs. Hence whu theyre extremely classified

a reply to: paraphiAchieving

I would not say "brings nothing to the table".

For Trump to....down the road....challenge the U.N. or, for that matter, get serious Chinese attention and co-operation, nothing would give more weight than the perception of a tight relationship between The U.S. and Russia.


There would be far less counter-reaction.....

BASSPLYR

Are all western corporations that have developed fluedic thrust vectoring systems.

SNIP

The usa is interested in thrust vectoring not because we want to be maneuverable in a dogfight. Which aint going to happen anymore.

This I disagree with, as long as there are politicians there will be ROE that will require it..

Plus its a perfect synergy with our new engine designs which i am under no circumstances going to disclose. (Ive learned my lesson)

Understood.

a reply to: edsinger

Politicians always find a way to needlessly endanger our service men. Cant argue that.

But yeah our engines have a few surprises. Jet turbine technology hasnt exactly been stagnant sometimes it evolves into something pretty different and new and very elegant sophisticated and dynamically versitile. A break through one could say. A

nd the sensor and data fusion makes the new fighters nearly unstopable until other nations catch up. Which isnt going to be soon with the lead we have across all boards.

What theyre discovering with the f35 that the publics not to aware of is that with the sensor data fusion breakthroughs in situational awareness. Dogfights are really a thing of the past. Its not like when that claim was thrusted upon the old f4 anymore. This time its for real.

There have been breakthtoughs. None of which i could see the usa ever giving up to russia.

Still do not like the 'no gun' deal. Tactics can make up for maneuverability in most cases, MiG15/F86 as one example..

Plus the Navy version has ONLY one engine, that one scares me but maybe they know something that I don't....


What we are seeing with the F35 is a new style warfare in the air, Israel saw this happen to them in the Negev, while tasked with exercises against the M1, they IMMEDIATELY bought the system. 'new' warfare, but all is not as you think, look at the Burke in the Black Sea. I really want to know what happened there, twice even..

a reply to: AdamHeiman

Thrust vectoring does not make it a great engine. It simply means that the aircraft is more maneuverable. If your aircraft are suffering engine failures every few hundred hours, your thrust vectoring means nothing.

Russian engine reliability, which is what really matters has always lagged behind the US. They were so bad at one point, only about 20 years ago, t that they were buying Pratt&Whitney engines to power their commercial aircraft.

Military cooperation with Russia? Not on your life.

We can maintain peaceful diplomatic and economic relations with them without going full retard and letting them near our arsenal.

Russia has nothing to offer, they're itching to get back to their cold war era superpower status and to reclaim the land they lost.

If Hillary had the same relationship with Russia and won the election, would you have the same attitude about building a relationship with Russia?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AdamHeiman

Trump catches hell for just talking nice to the Russians.

a reply to: AdamHeiman

The AL-41 engine, the most common engine used in Russian fighters has a 1,000 hour Mean Time Between Overhauls, and a 3-4,000 hour life cycle.

By comparison, the F100-PW-229 with the Engine Enhancement Package, has a time between inspections of between 4,000 and 6,000 hours, and 7-10 years between Overhauls.

That means US engines have much longer life cycles and less required maintenance.

a reply to: Tman2135

Russia and the u.s alread collaborated heavily in the space program and that worked out well.


Where do you think ULA gets there engines from?

As far as military colabs go.... doubtful at least in any truly meaningful way

My buddy who worked on missile and display systems told me that Russian officials regularly inspect US weapons systems with US generals leading the way. Russia also hosts US teams for the same purpose....

He said it has been this way for a very long time and that both sides have secret agreements to keep certain things transparent and "fair".

a reply to: banjobrain

open sky's treaty i would assume

a reply to: penroc3

Sort of. I'm addition to Open Skies they had agreements to put people on the ground when they were defueling and removing weapons from inventory.

They used Open Skies to monitor activity from the Air, and ground teams to do verification after the work was done.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i think its pretty safe to say that the US has some pretty interesting surveillance tech in the skies.

well with the open sky treaty i wonder if they ever roll out something more interesting, and if so i wonder if it would be logged on a public flight tracker. i doubt it

but it would be interesting watching a track hauling ass past all the regular traffic.

do the russians have anything super neat flying over our skies?

North Korea and China surely have had their airspace violated by some of our more darker assets, why wouldn't they send there own surprise flights?

a reply to: penroc3

Open Skies limits sensors to COTS units only. The US uses an OC-135, while Russia uses a Tu-154M. It was here several times last year. They also are scheduled well in advance, and have all kinds of regulations.

a reply to: ColaTesla

If THEY deploy tanks INDIVIDUALLY,like we have seen, their tactic will render any advantage mute, the Cav can Ice them with ambushes pretty easily.