Alternative European 5th generation fighters?

[Scott Kenny]

The original contract is for 76 serial models, that doesn't include the prototypes which were built from T-50-1 all the way up to T-50-11.

Currently the number of produced Su-57S sits around the ~30 air frame mark. On top of that will likely come additional contracts as soon as the M model with the AL-51s becomes available.

Either way however, even 30 stealth fighters are more than the vast majority of Europe operate currently and if we exclude the F-35 as an American effort, it's the only stealth fighter that's actually from Europe that's operational.

So there's only ~20 production-spec Su57s in existence?

 

[EmoBirb]

So there's only ~20 production-spec Su57s in existence?

22 was late 2023, today it's (as I said) around 30. The prototypes aren't counted. Su-57S = serial models.

 

[Scott Kenny]

22 was late 2023, today it's (as I said) around 30. The prototypes aren't counted. Su-57S = serial models.

Thanks for the clarification.

I have not been paying a whole lot of attention to Russia's aircraft production.

 

[Desertfox]

I'll just note that the Su-57s have been unable to do anything about Ukraine's F-16s.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It's not about what one would rather fly, but what's more effective. And a single Su-57 would most likely wipe out a Rafale per missile it carries.

In the words of our estimable neighbours in Aussie - Yeah, nah.

No missile yet built has a 100% rate of even firing correctly, let alone killing its target.

 

[EmoBirb]

I'll just note that the Su-57s have been unable to do anything about Ukraine's F-16s.

Given that the Su-57 doesn't fly many sorties, Ukrainian F-16s don't fly many sorties and that Ukrainian F-16s usually crash into the ground themselves before they could be shot down, I'm not surprised.

Su-35 and MiG-31 are the aircraft the VKS utilizes to sanitize the air space and enable the Su-34s and Su-24s to conduct their frontline bombings.

The Su-57s are mostly used right now for training, as well as other specialized missions, like the S-70 trials or strikes like the destruction of Trypilska TPP.

 

[EmoBirb]

Thanks for the clarification.

I have not been paying a whole lot of attention to Russia's aircraft production.

There isn't much of special interest going on really. Su-35S deliveries, Su-34M deliveries, 8-12 Su-57S annually currently. Probably the most noteworthy event is the restarting of the Tu-160 production line I suppose, with Tu-160Ms being modernized and brand new Tu-160M2s rolling off the line.

Essentially production is meant to replenish losses and expand the fleet of useful aircraft so that the capability gap won't be as significant when many legacy airframes will be retired after the war due to them having reached the end of their lifespan.

That's kinda getting off topic though.

Going back to hypothetical Euro fifth gens, there is in reality only the Su-57 and at one point SAAB proposed their Flygsystem 2020 which they more or less marketed as something like a stealthy Gripen.

The latter is probably of the most interest as it was the only publicly acknowledged conceptualization of a European stealth fighter outside of Russia until the GCAP and ill fated FCAS were launched, both however being considered sixth generation efforts.

Now the issue with the Flygsystem obviously was that SAAB couldn't really bear the cost alone. However the Gripen turned out to be not the kind of export success they hoped for and many potential European partners settled for the US made F-35 instead.

The only major player in Europe that didn't, aside from Sweden obviously, was France. However for many reasons France is still attempting to market the Rafale as something that could be comparable to a 5th Gen fighter. Well the Rafale does have export success, especially on countries where the F-35 is not an option (like many Gulf States, India, etc.) despite being essentially an obsolete aircraft in a modern air combat context.

So the Flygsystem and SAABs idea of a stealth fighter died because Europe rather bought the F-35 and France was huffing tremendous amounts of copium. Add to that the overall unwillingness across all of Europe to spend any real money on military development and you got yourself the cocktail that euthanized the concept of a European medium weight 5th generation fighter.

A mantle only to be taken up again by the LTS which will have its first prototype finished this year.

If Eurofighter and Rafale wouldn't have come so late and wouldn't have been so ridiculously expensive there may have been a real push for a European equivalent to the F-22. Especially as stealth wasn't some unknown concept. But things just didn't turn out this way. And arguably just buying F-35As for around 100M or less has been the better alternative altogether.

Also: I suppose Turkeys KAAN could be up for debate to whether it's "European" or not.

 

[EmoBirb]

Like we're seeing now with GCAP and FCAS/SCAF, the problem is that no single Euro nation really has a large enough economy to afford the development of a 5th gen fighter. France would just short of bankrupt themselves to do it, just because their plane must be carrier compatible.

So some level of international agreement would have been necessary.

Differing requirements, penny pincher attitude and overall higher manufacturing cost due to higher labor cost and lower production numbers are generally what kill/make joint European projects more difficult.

Also why I firmly believe FCAS will (and quite frankly should) fail. What good is it for Germany to operate a hyper expensive, through carrier capability compromised, long range naval strike fighter from our air fields? Why should we pay for that, especially as the whole timeline is just pure insanity. 2040s service entry???? Lmao. Just so France can get themselves shiny new jets for their shiny new carrier. Nah, Germany doesn't need range, Germany doesn't need something like FCAS. Instead pairing Block 4 F-35s with indigenous CCA/UCAVs would be more economical, reasonable and it would still provide work for the military aviation industry. Especially as such drones could be procured in larger numbers. They would even be able to make the essentially obsolete Eurofighter somewhat valuable again if it's able to operate with such stealthy UCAV wingmen. And yes, such drones are being developed under FCAS too, but the fighter component which is also developed by dassault? That's just France trying to get Germany and Spain to pay for the French navy and air force's stuff.

 

[EmoBirb]

In the words of our estimable neighbours in Aussie - Yeah, nah.

No missile yet built has a 100% rate of even firing correctly, let alone killing its target.

> During the highly realistic Exercise Northern Edge 2006, the F-22 proved itself against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor pilots achieved a 108-to-zero "kill" ratio against the best F-15, F-16 and F-18 "adversaries."

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196040/lockheed-martin-f-22a-raptor/#:~:text=The%20Raptor%20pilots%20achieved%20a,97%20percent%20mission%20capability%20rate.

A Su-57 is to a chubby Rafale with it's teeny tiny radar what the F-22 is to an F-16. Just that the Su-57 also utilizes stuff like the R-37M to make such an encounter even more unfair, like taking out AEW&C aircraft or just increasing the stand off range.


Any stealth fighter utterly mauls it's non-stealth predecessors. That's something the Americans, Russians and Chinese all agree on. Surely, extremely new and upgraded non-stealth fighters with powerful radars and sophisticated ECM suites have a better chance at survival, like an F-15EX for example. But the Rafale? Doubtful. So while "one missile, one kill" is a bit exaggerated, it shouldn't be far off.

 

[Null]

I'll just note that the Su-57s have been unable to do anything about Ukraine's F-16s.

Are there even videos that they are used in ukraine? it surely isn't pushing the Russians last time I looked at the war map.

 

[Ainen]

I'll just note that the Su-57s have been unable to do anything about Ukraine's F-16s.

That's btw about immediate loss of efficiency of 4th gen platforms.

If SAMs can create a zone of unacceptable loss chance (which isn't high for 3x strong fleet of the latest aircraft with no immediate replacement in a pipeline), any aircraft can dart to and back from frontline.

Not just F-16s, but anything really (Su-27, Mig-29, Su-25, helicopters even).

With three main lessons out:

1, VKS mostly prepared to defend against NATO, and invested into aircraft parrying leadership's main fear: US airpower personified in stealth.
As a result, it's toothless against lincomparably weaker version of itself.
Great power is only great power if it can attack.
Conclusion: with perspective of hindsight, Russian primary development thrust should've been a more affordable, more attrirable LO strike fighter, i.e. some kind of earlier T-75(Russian F-35).
One may argue that even it's deterrence effect would be higher(no one bothers counting F-35s and F-22s, Su-57s and J-20s separately; higher number is what matters).
Furthermore, in particular Russian case, T-75 can launch all the same effectors anyway.
I.e. for Russia, T-75 is the key enabler they lacked.
Maybe it's possible to try to play with S-70 as forward missile node, but without penetrating fighter I'd argue it's only a partial measure. You need full sensor node forward. In case of S-70 in particular, you also need a flying comissar!

2, main investment for weaker powers should never be high capability, expensive fighters.
Decisive denial assets are SAMs, as they take disproportional effort to root out, and it's always hard to guarantee you really did.
If you have even some air force on top, to interfere with search and destroy type DEAD - you're quite resilient. Powers that can crack this system will probably crack you regardless of your actions, but there's only one such power on planet.
Ukraine got lucky here - not like they invested much in their SAMs, but their huge Soviet fleet was just about enough against VKS.

3, if you drop ambition to cross FLOT at will, you can make do with much cheaper aircraft.
Stealth is a key enabler. At the same time, it's only ever truly matters if you're actually getting illuminated from non-escape distance.
If not, you're just as stealthy at low altitude over your A2AD in practice. You can launch stand off effects just as well.
What matters is, again, dispersal/hardening, service rate, and presence of longer ranged munitions.
And here Ukraine failed spectacularly in prewar era - just absolute minimum of sensible investment would've made their jet fleet capable of biting back in 2022. Ukrainian pilots did what they could, but flying on courage and exchanging turned away Russian planes for lives isn't exactly a good exchange rate. Instead they've only got such aircraft in late 2024.

On the other hand, all European air fleets match the criteria.

 

[cattalonX]

The original contract is for 76 serial models, that doesn't include the prototypes which were built from T-50-1 all the way up to T-50-11.

Currently the number of produced Su-57S sits around the ~30 air frame mark. On top of that will likely come additional contracts as soon as the M model with the AL-51s becomes available.

Either way however, even 30 stealth fighters are more than the vast majority of Europe operate currently and if we exclude the F-35 as an American effort, it's the only stealth fighter that's actually from Europe that's operational.

So can we count Turkey as a European country········

 

[yeetmahboi]

So can we count Turkey as a European country········

KAAN isn't operational yet, so @EmoBirb is still correct in some sense. I guess it leans on how you want to stretch "operational though". To some extent Su-57 is no better at that department than KAAN, but we have claims that the Felon already conducted real world deployment near Ukraine, launching ALCMs and thelike, which is a big plus.

 

[Ainen]

but we have claims that the Felon already conducted real world deployment near Ukraine, launching ALCMs and thelike, which is a big plus.

You can track, for example, here.
Last activity - likely first spotted su-57 SEAD in Sumy region, on April 2-3(high speed air to ground launches, best match is ARM).

Plus there are always some non-attributable strikes, which may come from Su-57s, S-70s, or simply Ukrainian AD network somehow got messed over.

Overall, they're active for last year. Given that we only get strike sorties reports, probably about a few sorties per day.

 

[EmoBirb]

To some extent Su-57 is no better at that department than KAAN,

Except that KAAN obviously has only a single prototype. While the Su-57 has 10 Prototypes and ~30 operational serial models.

 

[red admiral]

Going back to hypothetical Euro fifth gens, there is in reality only the Su-57 and at one point SAAB proposed their Flygsystem 2020 which they more or less marketed as something like a stealthy Gripen.

The latter is probably of the most interest as it was the only publicly acknowledged conceptualization of a European stealth fighter outside of Russia until the GCAP and ill fated FCAS were launched, both however being considered sixth generation efforts.

This is nonsense e.g.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/foas-fcba-foa-fcac.1202/

 

[EmoBirb]

That's btw about immediate loss of efficiency of 4th gen platforms.

If SAMs can create a zone of unacceptable loss chance (which isn't high for 3x strong fleet of the latest aircraft with no immediate replacement in a pipeline), any aircraft can dart to and back from frontline.

Not just F-16s, but anything really (Su-27, Mig-29, Su-25, helicopters even).

With three main lessons out:

1, VKS mostly prepared to defend against NATO, and invested into aircraft parrying leadership's main fear: US airpower personified in stealth.
As a result, it's toothless against lincomparably weaker version of itself.
Great power is only great power if it can attack.
Conclusion: with perspective of hindsight, Russian primary development thrust should've been a more affordable, more attrirable LO strike fighter, i.e. some kind of earlier T-75(Russian F-35).
One may argue that even it's deterrence effect would be higher(no one bothers counting F-35s and F-22s, Su-57s and J-20s separately; higher number is what matters).
Furthermore, in particular Russian case, T-75 can launch all the same effectors anyway.
I.e. for Russia, T-75 is the key enabler they lacked.
Maybe it's possible to try to play with S-70 as forward missile node, but without penetrating fighter I'd argue it's only a partial measure. You need full sensor node forward. In case of S-70 in particular, you also need a flying comissar!

2, main investment for weaker powers should never be high capability, expensive fighters.
Decisive denial assets are SAMs, as they take disproportional effort to root out, and it's always hard to guarantee you really did.
If you have even some air force on top, to interfere with search and destroy type DEAD - you're quite resilient. Powers that can crack this system will probably crack you regardless of your actions, but there's only one such power on planet.
Ukraine got lucky here - not like they invested much in their SAMs, but their huge Soviet fleet was just about enough against VKS.

3, if you drop ambition to cross FLOT at will, you can make do with much cheaper aircraft.
Stealth is a key enabler. At the same time, it's only ever truly matters if you're actually getting illuminated from non-escape distance.
If not, you're just as stealthy at low altitude over your A2AD in practice. You can launch stand off effects just as well.
What matters is, again, dispersal/hardening, service rate, and presence of longer ranged munitions.
And here Ukraine failed spectacularly in prewar era - just absolute minimum of sensible investment would've made their jet fleet capable of biting back in 2022. Ukrainian pilots did what they could, but flying on courage and exchanging turned away Russian planes for lives isn't exactly a good exchange rate. Instead they've only got such aircraft in late 2024.

On the other hand, all European air fleets match the criteria.

The issue for the VKS isn't really unpreparedness to take on smaller air force. In fact the UAF isn't really what holds the VKS back from achieving air supremacy over Ukraine. The Ukrainian AD network is what hinders the VKS. With dozens of mobile SAM batteries, smaller self propelled SHORAD type systems and MANPADS. Each of these systems make it more difficult to destroy the others with the assets dedicated to them. This leads to the issue of having to take a top down approach, which in reality means smiting SAM sites with Iskander-M or Tornado-S upon receiving positive ID from surveillance drones in the field. These missiles and MLRS could be used to deal with the remaining fleet of the UAF. However one has to ask the question which objective creates more positive momentum: destroying or at least disabling GBAD systems that actively prohibit operations within a certain area, or utilizing such strike assets in favor of taking our like 2, 3 or 4 aircraft with a ballistic missile. Aircraft which don't pose any actual threat to the VKS or, and I speak here from the larger scale, the ground forces.

That's why the valuable resources of SRBMs and their top of the line MLRS are dedicated towards SEAD/Dead. And not trying to pulverize the remnants of the UAF. It's also arguably more difficult and costly to replace something like a Patriot battery than some old Su-25, MiG-29 or even F-16A. So when it comes to making the expenditure of using an Iskander worthwhile, the SAM site is the preferable target.

As for why the Su-57 doesn't do that on a large scale? There are various reasons. For one, some sorties probably include SEAD work, it's just not publicized. Then there is the simple fact that the couple Su-57s that are operational are far more valuable by being used to train pilots on the type and build familiarity and confidence with the type for pilots and ground crews, than use the limited air frames available for tasks other systems can also fulfill. There is also obviously also always the off chance of something just going wrong, let it be an engine failure, bad mission planning and then having the bird shot down like that F-117 in Serbia. That would be beyond terrible for the PR team at UAC, which is actively selling that aircraft to Algeria and possibly other markets. So why risk it? I already wondered that when the Su-57 conducted trials with the S-70 in Ukrainian controlled air space. Why did they even do that? Imo that was reckless, but they also probably just wanted to show off that if they wanted they could do it.

With regards to the LTS, I think I agree with you that it is a good fit for the VKS. However the LTS built heavily on lessons learned and components developed for the Su-57/PAK FA. So it wouldn't exist without it. Either way, I'm pretty sure that after the Russo-Ukrainian War concludes, we'll see the VKS retire many legacy air frames that just reached the end of their lives, as well as obsolete air frames like their MiG-29s. And that's where the LTS will probably come in.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's btw about immediate loss of efficiency of 4th gen platforms.

If SAMs can create a zone of unacceptable loss chance (which isn't high for 3x strong fleet of the latest aircraft with no immediate replacement in a pipeline), any aircraft can dart to and back from frontline.

Not just F-16s, but anything really (Su-27, Mig-29, Su-25, helicopters even).

With three main lessons out:

1, VKS mostly prepared to defend against NATO, and invested into aircraft parrying leadership's main fear: US airpower personified in stealth.
As a result, it's toothless against lincomparably weaker version of itself.
Great power is only great power if it can attack.
Conclusion: with perspective of hindsight, Russian primary development thrust should've been a more affordable, more attrirable LO strike fighter, i.e. some kind of earlier T-75(Russian F-35).
One may argue that even it's deterrence effect would be higher(no one bothers counting F-35s and F-22s, Su-57s and J-20s separately; higher number is what matters).
Furthermore, in particular Russian case, T-75 can launch all the same effectors anyway.
I.e. for Russia, T-75 is the key enabler they lacked.
Maybe it's possible to try to play with S-70 as forward missile node, but without penetrating fighter I'd argue it's only a partial measure. You need full sensor node forward. In case of S-70 in particular, you also need a flying comissar!

Disagree to some level.

Russia has two separate "big fighter" needs. One is VKS, the other is PVO (think I got the names right, I mean tactical aviation and interceptors).

Russia as a country is just too big physically to rely on SAMs for security. They need big, long range interceptors, bordering on mini-AWACS capable. Those interceptors need to be relatively fast (Mach 2.5+) because of how big the country is. They need the speed to get from their base to wherever the intruding aircraft is, ideally before it crosses Russian coastline/borders.

Their Tactical Aviation needs a fighter to keep the other side's planes out of the way.

We saw the two roles start to converge with the Su-27 series. I don't think that the Su-57 is supposed to replace MiG-31s, IIRC there's a separate advanced interceptor program kicking around out there.

2, main investment for weaker powers should never be high capability, expensive fighters.
Decisive denial assets are SAMs, as they take disproportional effort to root out, and it's always hard to guarantee you really did.
If you have even some air force on top, to interfere with search and destroy type DEAD - you're quite resilient. Powers that can crack this system will probably crack you regardless of your actions, but there's only one such power on planet.
Ukraine got lucky here - not like they invested much in their SAMs, but their huge Soviet fleet was just about enough against VKS.

But you still need enough capability to keep invading assholes out of your airspace, and to keep his fighters off your attack planes crossing the FLOT.

3, if you drop ambition to cross FLOT at will, you can make do with much cheaper aircraft.
Stealth is a key enabler. At the same time, it's only ever truly matters if you're actually getting illuminated from non-escape distance.
If not, you're just as stealthy at low altitude over your A2AD in practice. You can launch stand off effects just as well.
What matters is, again, dispersal/hardening, service rate, and presence of longer ranged munitions.
And here Ukraine failed spectacularly in prewar era - just absolute minimum of sensible investment would've made their jet fleet capable of biting back in 2022. Ukrainian pilots did what they could, but flying on courage and exchanging turned away Russian planes for lives isn't exactly a good exchange rate. Instead they've only got such aircraft in late 2024.

On the other hand, all European air fleets match the criteria.

If you cannot cross the FLOT you cannot stop a large attack. End of discussion.

 

[Ainen]

Disagree to some level.

Russia has two separate "big fighter" needs. One is VKS, the other is PVO (think I got the names right, I mean tactical aviation and interceptors).

Russia as a country is just too big physically to rely on SAMs for security. They need big, long range interceptors, bordering on mini-AWACS capable. Those interceptors need to be relatively fast (Mach 2.5+) because of how big the country is. They need the speed to get from their base to wherever the intruding aircraft is, ideally before it crosses Russian coastline/borders.

Their Tactical Aviation needs a fighter to keep the other side's planes out of the way.

All that is true, but those are already cases of doing conventional/unconventional warfare against superior opponent. Russian strategy for this situation is turning the conflict very bright.
But the problem is that such a scenario is just unlikely. No one wants artificial suns, one natural is enough.

I.e. yes, Russia dutifully prepares for the only scenario that threatens it's existence (consider Russian military statecraft as mix of 1812, 1941 and 1856 traumas). All at expense of activities it actually performs, and fights it couldn't won, but only stalker instead. Everyone expected a bear, but saw an angry porcupine.

But you still need enough capability to keep invading assholes out of your airspace, and to keep his fighters off your attack planes crossing the FLOT.

The first is perfectly done by SAMs, they're just a better investment for the purpose.

Second can not be done against superior opponent at all, so you cross not with attack planes, but with stand off munitions instead.
No need for F-35 for that.

If you cannot cross the FLOT you cannot stop a large attack. End of discussion.

But Ukraine and Vietnam did exactly that.

You don't need to contest air superiority in a Galaxy far far away, doing it over your country, interfering with DEAD activities, is really enough to let SAMs survive.
Same planes can launch LACMs, ASCMs, powered/glide bombs.

Yes, that's very low offensive throughput with long and unnecessary lag between detection and strike.
But for defense it's enough.

Offensive (symmetrical) force in defense will simply be mauled by larger, better funded force.
Sooner or later.

 

[zen]

Basically what it says on the tin. Back as the time you had British, French and Swedish studies for 5th generation aircraft, the British with FOAS and Replica are likely the best known, but Dassault apparently had FACE and supposed SAAB studies have aired at times but no actual development project. The British jumped the F-35 bandwagon as did Italy and France failed to do anything giving F-35 a virtual monopoly if you are a Western nation looking for a 5th generation fighter.

So how do you change that? What it would take for France for example, as the... usual suspect for going their own way, to begin a 5th generation program in the early 2000s?

I can't speak for France.
But I can say there was a period when FOAS was a live effort and that the LO design modelling that led to a full scale representative design built as a pole model 'Replica' was a potential backup to JSF failure or exclusion.

So it's reasonable to start with the possibility of JSF either failing, falling apart or the UK being excluded for some reason.

 

[red admiral]

So it's reasonable to start with the possibility of JSF either failing, falling apart or the UK being excluded for some reason.

I'd previously considered the scenario of effectively jumping from 3rd to 5th Gen here. i.e. avoid Eurofighter/ Rafael and use the engineering effort and money to go "5th Gen".

Your option of UK / Italy not going for F-35 in 2000s is another case (which doesn't really apply to any of the other EUR countries) but still runs into issues with the significant money and effort still being spent on Eurofighter development and acquisition up till around 2015. Maybe FOAS leads to more technology demo phase up until about 2010 and then launch acquisition programme. Possibly coming into service about now in 2025. But I just don't see where the money comes from in general and timing with 2008 global financial crisis really dooms this.

 

[Archibald]

I can't speak for France.

1-France found itself very alone with Rafale after 1985-1988, then the Peace dividends came together with a very ugly economic crash circa 1993 (the end of the Mitterrand era was just awful, packed with corruption scandals and suicides).

2-Which meant that Rafale IOC was delayed to 2001 for the Aéronavale with the castrated F1 standard; and 2004 for the Armée de l'Air with the much better F2 standard. Back in the day (1986 to 1991) the Rafale demonstrator was "cleaned up" with some limited stealth features for the prototypes that flew from 1991.

3-Then the french defense budget endured a catastrophic decline until the 2015 terror attacks plus Ukraine.

4-And then Rafale did not sold a single airframe for 15 years : 1999 - 2014, to the point the Mirage 2000 was dumped not to "parasite" fighter competitions (unlike Lockheed F-16 / F-35 symbiotic commercial deal). The way Dassault works, this slump of the fighter side weighed heavily on the medium-size company, which survived on Falcon bizjets: until that market crashed with the 2008 crisis.

5-Dassault nonetheless explored stealth with the Duc drone family, then NEURON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_LOGIDUC

Dassault nEUROn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the most serious mistake was not pushing DUC / NEURON faster between 1999 and 2019. Even more when Rafale F5 will get a stealth drone sidekick in the 2030s... of Neuron legacy.
Bottom line: Rafale F3 could have had it in the 2010's, based on Neuron.

6-What is still missing from that puzzle is: post-Rafale studies right off the 2000 decade, evolving into full stealth, 5 gen fighter. Even on this well-informed forum I still can't remember any (except one I will try to unearth, but it is pretty vague concept).
EDIT: seems we have a thread, hurrah ! https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-lo-research.6816/#post-477871
Some additional concepts here : https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dassault-rafale-projects.345/page-2#post-341673

 

[paralay]

A mantle only to be taken up again by the LTS which will have its first prototype finished this year.

In my opinion, the representative of the plant said: "if an order for the production of LTS is received, we will fulfill it."
There was no talk of releasing the first flight specimen this year.

 

[Rule of cool]

I can't add anything to the technical discussion, but reading this thread makes me think it's little wonder Putin thought he could invade the Ukraine and get away with it. It appears as if the Europeans begrudged every Euro/Pound they had to spend on the Typhoon/Rafale, accepted delays with upgrades and didn't upgrade early tranches to the latest spec etc etc etc, and this appears to be the case across the board with European defence spending. After decades of this Putin would have known full well that the Europeans would be physically unable to assist the Ukraine.

But things appear to be turning a corner, apparently Europe is on track to manufacture 1 million 155mm shells this year, beating he US' 850k for example.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I have been pondering of late, the increase of russian propoganda posts. The kind that begin with "Irefer you to my earlier post", and expect us to take that earlier post as gospel.

Propaganda.

No thanks comrades.