Saint Warrior

You should read more carefully what I posted above. I did not mean unlocking the slider, but actually meant unticking the box "Enable ATI Overdrive". If you tick it, Overdrive starts running on it own, in an automatic mode, and it tries custom GPU and graphics memory clocks also. For example, the normal memory clock for 4870 card is 900 Mhz. If it pushes it beyond that limit you may experience graphics corruption. What actually occurs on Crossfire cards, such as 4870X2 or other. You have two options then - either disable the crossfire by disabling Catalyst A.I. or turnoff Overdrive and leave Crossfire. I prefer the second option. Well, I tried to turn my fan to 80 percent activity in ArmA II. Did not see any performance increase, instead it was roaming like Chinook chopper. All in game FPS are actually controlled under 3D Tab in CCC, you should carefully set your AA and AF values (for which I found 8X is nearly the optimal setting, Mipmap terrain - best looks and runs under Performance, Wait for Vertical refresh - Always off, Catalyst A.I. - Advanced). By the way, 8X AA and AF all together deliver an awesome FPS boost in game (200% faster in menu with aircraft carrier), up to 50 percent faster in game.

Everybody who uses ATI HD 4870 X2 2GB or any other crossfire ATI cards should disable (untick the box) the ATI Overdrive in Catalyst Control Center. This is very important as ATI Overdrive overclocks the memory of video card and it is very likely that you will experience various graphics glitches, such as meshed textures, flying and flashing lines etc.

Hello everybody, I remember those old OFP times when you had to hit the dirt during any hostile engagement, creep and change positions constantly in order to score kills. Taking into considerarion, I was playing at recruit settings. I am in Manhattan Mission of ArmA 2 already and game more and more seems like an entertaining walk through enemy territory. I am encountering lone Chedaki which shoot a couple of shots and run nobody knows where (don't flank my unit but just ran), other Chedaki squads are also comprised of scattered lonely fighters. Yes, you can die suddenly if you miss a machinegunner's position on your flank, but that happens damn rare. I lack action so far. I am using steam version of ArmA II 1.03.

Hello everybody, I would like to report a strange issue my XFX ATI RADEON HD 4870 X2 2GB card is encountering each time I try to measure the ingame FPS using FRAPS utility. The game (including main menu) becomes filled with flying flashing triangles, lines making itself completely unplayable. The fan of GPU starts working in somewhat of an unusual manner. Changing the graphics settings or deleting profile does not help at all. The only remedy for this glitch is a complete uninstall and fresh install of graphics card drivers. Can anyboudy from BIS comment this issue? :(

Update. That was not a fault of FRAPS at all. It was an ATI Overdrive feature, that was turned on in CCC and forcing GPU memory to overclock and bring up graphics corruptions in-game. ArmA 2 is working perfectly in Crossfire X mode with ATI Overdrive turned off.

To my opinion the extreme beauty of the ingame world and graphics (on High settings) easily overtake those FPS drops and texture loading issues in some areas. This game is very addicting for me just because of it's graphics and OFP heritage gameplay.

I have to disagree with thread starter. Yes, we have numerous bugs in ArmA 2, top of the line CPUs and GPUs do not provide the expected performance but again as OFP long time ago this game is damn addicting one. I start playing it and basically forget issues with FPS drops and slow texture loadings, concentrate myself on the task, think what areas are covered by enemy fire or not. Hmm, ArmA 2 takes all of my spare time recently, get back from work, fire it up and stop playing when already sleepy. :) As concerning campaign warfare, well, it is a late 2000s war simulator, and modern land warfare is small mobile group based, and yes - you do have to value each Razor operative, lead the team thinking over your moves carefully. It is just a modern war, which ArmA 2 is simulating.

Sorry, there is some misunderstanding here. I did not delete the whole folder, but just got rid of profile file alone, named WinAccount.Arma2profile. I never touch any .cfg files, I know they're vital for the functionality of the game. All that sudden disaster occured after deleting the profile file itself.

Hello everybody, Does anyone have any ideas about what's wrong with the main player's profile of the game? I mean the one in ArmA 2 profiles folder, created using Windows account name. Following numerous advices I deleted it last night, taking into consideration that I play from other profile. ArmA 2 started doing incredible things immediately - the whole screen went filled with randomly flying blinking squares, lines etc. Unplayable, speaking generally. The only way to solve the problem was turning off Catalist AI in ATI CCC of my HD 4870 X2 card, cause the game somehow became incompatible with either just Catalyst AI or the Crossfire X technology entirely. Managed to solve the problem completely by upgrading to latest Catalyst AI 9.7 drivers, so got Crossfire X working back normally. Suprisingly, ArmA 2 recreated back the deleted profile again. It's already a real mystery. It seems that main ArmA 2 profile is the core of the entire game. :eek: P. S. I am running on all High settings with 2580 meters visibility, both in game and 3D resolution: 1650 x 1050 x 32. System: AMD Phenom X4 Black Edition 3.0 Ghz 4 GB DDR2 800 Mhz Corsair RAM XFX ATI RADEON HD 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 Seagate 1.5 TB HDD Windows XP SP3 32 Bit

Thanks everybody for advice, I will give it a try. I maxed settings in CCC just to trigger Crossfire in-game. Suprisingly, my videocard never gets hotter than 74-77 degrees Celsius with 50 percent fan usage during most intensive combat scenes in ArmA 2, but nevertheless FPS is suffering.

Hello everybody, I am running steam version of ArmA 2 on such machine: AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 3.0 Ghz Gigabyte Ultra Durable 3 Motherboard with 4 GB DDR2 800 Mhz RAM XFX ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 2X256 Bit Seagate 1.5 TB HDD Windows XP SP3 32 Bit Settings in ATI CCC: 16X Antialiasing 16X Antisotroping filtering Maximal Catalyst AI Vait for vertical refresh - OFF Settings in Arma 2: Resolution:1650 x 1050 x 32 3D Resolution: 1650 x 1050 View distance: 2580 metres General settings: Very high Advanced settings: All set to High I am getting various FPS from 20 to 40 during campaign gameplay, but experience serious performance drops in Chernagorsk - slowly loading textures, significant framerate decrease. So, the question is, taking into consideration that my GPU is four times more powerfull then recommended for ArmA as well as I use one of the top lined AMD quad cores - will switching to Very High video memory option give me any performance increase playing Chernagorsk missions? Thanks for your replies.

I would advise you to play an original OFP campaigns first without any mods. This will give you a clear view of this great game, as well as all it's features. Learn how to manage your squad properly, get familiar with basic combat tactics and strategy used in OFP gaming. Welcome to OFP - a more than just a game!

It is very likely, you know. Remember all Israeli-Arabian wars, especially air battle over Bekaa valley, where Syrian and Egypt planes were downed one after another, just like drones at training sessions.

That sounds like that joke, said by Russian former minister of defence Pavel Grachev - "We need only one parachute regiment to take Grozny during the first Chechen War". The outcome of that war was notorius - more than 4500 dead during 2 years of intense fighting and Hasaviurt peace treaty, resulting in de facto loss of the rebel territory. Speaking seriously, 48 Polish Air Force Block 52+ F-16s is already an air force of really formidable strength if it's command is able to manage it properly, cause they can: - establish air superiority over all territory of Poland - carry out precision strikes at russian strategic objects in Kaliningrad region, cutting off supply routes from Russia's mainland - jam and destroy S-300 SAMs I consider Polish Air Force to be one of the Europe's strongest and most modern one at this moment.

Feeding nation with loud announcements is the rulling style of the modern Russian government. But unfortunately those announcements do not have any obvious implementations. Do you know, how many Su-27SM (Su-35 like modernization programme) fighters they managed to supply to their Air Forces so far? Two regiments. That means something about 40 fixed wing aircraft. During period of Everest high oil prices. Man, Poland has ordered, paid for, purchased and received 48 F-16's Block 52+. Poland and Russia...how do you like such comparison? They cannot launch their single (rather weak) Zhuk-E AESA into serial production due to constant problems, but continue to announce that Irbis-E will be all the way better than APG-77(V1). They criticise AIM-120 Amraam missiles, but actually do not have own production facilities for air-to-air missile manufacturing at all. Cause all of them were left in Ukraine after the break down of the Soviet Union, and they are using munitions from large reserves, inherited from USSR and Cold War era.

Thanks for your proposal though, but I am quite satisfied with my current job and military aviation is just a hobby. :) In this thread I just wanted to clearify that U.S. military industry will repeat mistakes, done by Russians in 1980's, in case they cease further developments of 5th generation stealth fighters and roll back to extensive upgrades of current production aircraft like F-15E or F-16E. The biggest mistake done by Russians is that they actually stopped any technological progress in area of military aviation with the development of Su-27 and Mig-29. I remember those times (beginning and mid 1990's) when there were only constant screaming by Sukhoi and Mig companies: "We have developed the most agile aircraft in the world! Su-27 can perform a Cobra maneuver thus it beats F-15 to pieces, and F-16 have nothing against the Bell maneuvers of Mig-29!". Were they that stupid to think that F-15 and F-16 will be the most sophisticated jets U.S. is able to develop, that there were no more researches and future programs going on? Were they that stupid to not to see that all air combat is moving all the way to BVR after Gulf War in 1991? What did they get in the result? Still the same Su-27 and Mig-29 platforms after 19 years, mysterious, non-production Su-47 Berkut, Mig 1.44 and PAK-FA and ongoing production of F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II at their opponent's.

Could you do me a favor providing a source of information, considering terrific F-22 Raptor prices starting at USD 192 million? Have a look at Pentagon budget charts, the biggest estimated production price per unit is USD 152 million. The latest and the most likely to be chosen by foreign customers package is F-15SE Silent Eagle. Nobody needs something that is outdated already- if there is F-15SE, all serious customers (like India or Pakistan) will be looking forward to it only, without any consideration about possible purchase of F-15E or F-15K versions.

The exact price of F-22A Raptor you can calculate here at page F-3. 2 719 500 000 USD for 20 fighters = 135 975 000 USD unit delivery to Air Force cost. It is an official, unclassified document of Pentagon, as you can see, not a PR press release or something like that. F-15SE Silent Eagle fly away cost is estimated to be USD 100 million. The actual price difference between real 5th generation fighter aircraft and the 4th one appears to be something around 36 percent.

Nope. I just try to make sensible conclusions. Why should one invest in outdated equipment (like all F-15 variations are) if there is a possibility to purchase a next generation stuff for a bit higher price? I like to compare this situation with ordinary car purchase. For example, you would like to buy an Audi A8 this summer. The model available now has been produced since 2002. This summer a next generation of Audi A8 is entering production. What will you buy, a car, that has been produced since 2002 or a brand new next generation series, while both are available at the moment? :D Same here, there is F-15SE Silent Eagle and there is F-35 Lightning II. It is up to you what you choose. ;) Actually, any fighter equipped with a radar can detect a stealth aircraft. It is another question, whether this fighter will survive as far as that detection range is.

F-15SE Silent Eagle is just the same F-15E Strike Eagle originating from late 1980's but with more spacious conformal fuel tanks which are used for weapon storage now, as well as canted vertical tail fins and possible anti-radar covering with air-intake RCS reduces (like we have on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets). It is not a "pure stealth" what can be clear seen from the oval shape of it's nose. It's AESA has got much less transmitters than APG-77, it has less powerfull engines, compared to supreme thrust-to-weight ratio of F-22 Raptor (which is even able to do vertical zigzags from lowest airspeeds). As for possible upgrades, F-22 Raptor is a future platform, with plenty of unused capabilities (facts from military excersise reports I mentioned above prove that), while F-15 has already got nearly everything it is possible to install on this fighter, so it is limited to future upgrades, in fact. That is quite the same, like if you got enough money for Bugatti Veyron (the world's fastest car), but say "it is limited to upgrades" instead that's why you will buy a Volkswagen Golf Mk2 for $1000 and put all the possible upgrades in trying to make a faster car than Bugatti Veyron. :) Will you succeed? I really doubt this.

As the F-22 begins its operational life, interest has turned to assessing just how well suited the stealthy Raptor is to its role as the premier air-to-air fighter, while taking a peek at some of the surprises for pilots and maintenance crews as they explore what the aircraft can do. As part of the research for this series of articles on the F-22, Michael Fabey flew in the back seat of an F-15D while the Eagle and Raptor pilots demonstrated their aircraft's capabilities in the air-to-air ranges at Tyndall AFB, Fla. The F-22 is proving it's a dogfighter after all. While it wasn't part of a hard-turning furball, an F-22-with its Amraams and Sidewinders expended-slipped into visual range behind an F-16 and undetected made a simulated kill with its cannon during the stealth fighter's first large-scale exercise and deployment outside the continental U.S. Those and other revelations about the F-22's emerging capabilities are increasingly important as the first combat unit, the U.S. Air Force's 27th Fighter Sqdn., begins its initial Air Expeditionary Force deployment this month to an undisclosed site. And the first F-22 unit, the 94th Fighter Sqdn., will participate in Red Flag in February. The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. In amazing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena-two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon. The 27th Fighter Sqdn. aircraft-on deployment from Langley AFB, Va.-didn't get to show off their J-Turn and Cobra maneuvers or their high-angle-of-attack, high-off-boresight (which actually will arrive with the AIM-9X) and unique nose-pointing capabilities. The reason, those involved say, was because the victims of the three encounters, flying conventional fighters, never had a clue they were being stalked by F-22s until they were "killed." Raptor pilots agree that their preferred location for the fighter while in the battlespace is at high altitude, well above the other fighters, where they can adopt a fuel-efficient cruise, sweeping both the air and ground with radar and electronic surveillance for targets. From a superior altitude, the F-22 used sustained supercruise to range across hundreds of miles of airspace before an enemy fighter could threaten friendly high-value surveillance, command-and-control and tanker aircraft. Perhaps the most important revelation by the 27th Fighter Sqdn. was demonstrating the F-22's ability to use its sensors to identify and target enemy aircraft for conventional fighters by providing information so they could engage the enemy sooner than they could on their own. Because of the advanced situational awareness they afford, F-22s would stick around after using up their weapons to continue providing targets and IDs to the conventional fighters. "We always left F-22s on station to help, but we didn't designate any one aircraft to provide data," says Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, the unit's commander. "It was critical that every F-22 out there provided all the data he had." With its high-resolution radar, the F-22 can guarantee target altitudes to within a couple of hundred feet. Its ability to identify an aircraft is "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS," he says. "It was a combination of high-resolution sensors and being closer to the targets." The F-22's radar range is described only as being more than 100 mi. However, it's thought to be closer to 125-150 mi., which is much farther than the standard F-15's 56-mi. radar range. New, active electronically scanned radar technology--optimized for digital throughput - is expected to soon push next-generation radar ranges, in narrow beams, out to 250 mi. or more. The ability to close on the enemy without being targeted also allowed the F-22s to operate in threat areas where conventional fighters could not survive. This enabled the Raptor to engage targets at a greater distance from the aircraft and homeland they were defending. Raptor pilots had all the available data on the airspace fused and displayed on a single, easy-to-read screen. "When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18, it tells me who they are locked on to," he says. For example, "I could help them out by saying, 'You're double-targeted and there's a group over here untargeted' . . . to make sure we got everybody." F-15 targets will be latent because of the radar sweep. However, these messages are less and less verbal. "When you watch [tapes of the Alaska] exercise, it's fairly spooky," says Gen. Ronald Keys, chief of Air Combat Command. "There's hardly a word spoken among Raptor pilots." That silence also previews some of the fighter's possible future capabilities. "Because of the way the aircraft was designed, we have the capability to do more," Keys says. "We can put unmanned combat aircraft systems in there with Raptor. You've got three fairly low-observable UCAS in the battlespace. An air defense system pops up, and I click on a UCAS icon and drag it over [the emitter's location] and click. The UCAS throttles over and jams it, blows it up or whatever." In Alaska, because the F-22 remained far forward at high altitude, with an advanced radar it could monitor rescue missions that the AWACS 150 mi. away could not. "We could see the helicopters down in the valleys and protect them," Tolliver says. In addition to AWACS, the F-22 also can feed data to the RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to improve situational awareness of the battlespace. "If a Rivet Joint is trying to get triangulation [on a precise emitter location], he can get more [voice] information" from an F-22, Keys says. "If an AWACS sees a heavy group 40 mi. to the north, Raptor can come up and say it's two F-18s, two F-15s and four F-16s." Moreover, Keys says, modifications are underway to transmit additional target parameters - such as sensitive, high-resolution infrared data - from the F-22 with a low-probability-of-intercept data link. "Getting data into an F-22 is not hard," Keys says. "Getting it out [while staying low observable] is more difficult. We bought the links, but we just don't have them on yet." The F-22's advanced electronic surveillance sensors also provided additional awareness of ground activity. "I could talk to an EA-6B Prowler electronic attack crew and tell them where a surface-to-air missile site was active so they would immediately know where to point their electronic warfare sensors," Tolliver says. "That decreased their targeting time line considerably." In addition, the F-22 can use its electronic surveillance capabilities to conduct precision bombing strikes on emitters-a capability called destruction of enemy air defenses. "And future editions of the F-22 are predicted to have to have their own electronic attack capability so that we'll be able to suppress or nonkinetically kill a site like that," he says. The F-22's operating altitude and additional speed during the Alaska exercise also garnered praise. "We stayed high because it gives us an extra kinetic advantage with shooting, speed and fuel consumption," Tolliver says. "The Raptor typically flies way higher than everybody else and it handles like a dream at those altitudes." Tolliver wouldn't confirm the operating altitude, but Pentagon officials have put it at 65,000 ft., which is at least 15,000 ft. higher than the other fighters. "There were times we went lower, maybe to visually identify a threat or if we were out of Amraams and there was a bandit sneaking in at low altitude," he says. "The Raptor would roll in and kill him with a heat-seeking missile." The lopsided combat ratio resulted because, "they never saw us," Tolliver says. "We got there without being detected, and we killed them rapidly. We didn't do any major turning. It's not that the J-Turn maneuver isn't fun, but we didn't get a chance to use it." The F-22's Mach 1.5 supercruise capability also got a workout in Alaska. Because only eight F-22s were ever airborne at once during the exercise, four of them were constantly involved in refueling from tankers flying orbits 150 mi. away. Supercruise got the fighters there and back quickly. On station, the fighter would conserve fuel by cruising at high altitude. "We also used supercruise quite a bit because the fight was on such a large scale," Tolliver says. "The airspace was roughly 120 mi. by 140 mi. We could sit up at high altitude and save our gas and watch. We don't hang out at Mach 1.5. With our acceleration, when we saw the threats building, because we could see them so far out, we'd dump the nose over, light the burners and we were right up to fighting speed." During a typical day in the Alaska "war," 24 air-to-air fighters, including up to eight F-22s, defended their aerial assets and homeland for 2.5 hr. Air Force F-15s and F-16s and Marine F/A-18s simulated up to 40 MiG-29s, Su-22s, Su-24s, Su-27s and Su-30s (which regenerated into 103 enemy sorties in a single period). They carried AA-10s A to F, Archers, AA-12 Adders and the Chinese-built PL-12. These were supported by SA-6, SA-10 and SA-20 surface to air missiles and an EA-6B for jamming. Each day, the red air became stronger and carried more capability. As a result of all the emitters in the battlespace, the F-22's ability to map the electronic order of battle (EOB) - what's emitting and from where - proved critical. "I love intel, but it's only as good as the last time [analysts] got a data update, which could have been hours or even a day earlier," Tolliver says. An F-22 "gets rid of the time delay. I can plot an EOB in real time. I'm not saying we're better than a Rivet Joint, but I can go places that it can't. If he's 150 mi. away, he's probably not going to be able to plot a high-fidelity threat location as quickly as I can." The adversaries were wily and didn't want to lose."We had guys running in at 500 ft. off the deck," Tolliver says. "We had guys flying in at 45,000-50,000 ft. doing Mach 1.6, trying to shoot me before I know they are there. They would mass their forces and try to win with sheer numbers. None of it worked." A tactic used by the F-22s was actually developed and practiced in smaller scale at Langley before the exercise. Raptors worked in pairs, integrated with F-15Cs or F/A-18E/Fs. "I could help target for them from behind and above," Tolliver says. "We really don't have a name for what we were doing other than integrated ops. I was able to look down and smartly target F-15s or F/A-18s to groups at ranges where they could not yet [detect] the target." Yet, there are a number of F-22 capabilities that are shrouded in mystery, including electronic attack, information warfare and cruise missile defense. "It's no secret that one of our mods is to put electronic attack on board and then we will play a role in combating networks," Tolliver says. "We're already involved in the collection part. When we come back from a mission, we have the ability to download EOB data that's turned into intelligence pictures. This makes us an intelligence platform doing nontraditional ISR by bringing back emitter data so that teams can go out and conduct information operations." The next step will be to pass the detailed information about surface-to-air missile locations, capabilities and emission details (called parametrics). "If I have characterized, say an SA-10, I can send it verbally to AWACS and they can send it out to other platforms," says Maj. Shawn Anger, an F-22 instructor with the 43rd Fighter Sqdn. at Tyndall AFB, Fla. However, "I can't pass the parametrics characterization. Hopefully, we'll be able to shoot it up the radar" - a new capability for the radar, which is being developed to send large, high-bandwidth imagery files. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

5th generation fighters do not actually need any external weapon mounts due to extreme level of digital electronics and technologies inside them. You see, if we turn fighter into a striker, like Boeing did in case of F-15E Strike Eagle or Israelis with F-16I Sufa, you need to have one man more inside. Pilot is piloting the aircraft at terrain-following altitudes, weapons operator tries to deliver his munitions with pinpoint accuracy. But he is only a human, that means he can make mistakes. That's why more munitions and their mounting points are needed in order to destroy a number of targets planned. Having 12 bombs on board does not mean all of them will go on target. Some will miss or do little or no damage. That's why F-35 Lightning II is a one - seater with no external weapon mounts in standard stealth configuration. Cause designers suppose, that all weapons from internal bays will lay on targets due to continiously computed impact points and all other state-of-the-art hardware installed on this aircraft. Nope. IRST systems, like the one on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II work in a completely passive way - they just see any heat sources emited from other aircraft, called individual IR signatures.Themselves they emit nothing. This is the same principle which in implemented in heat-seeking sensors of various Surface-to-Air, Air-to-Air IR seeking missiles, like FIM-92 Stinger, or AIM-9 Sidewinder as well as Israeli Python series. RWR systems do not respond to the launch of such missiles, cause they are just seeking a source of a target, without any illumination. It will not. Compare the technical specifications of APG-77 radar, notice it's Low Probability of Intercept Mode (LPI) as well as effective range and you will see, that F-22 is an AWACS itself, but just small and stealthy, having an RCS of a golf game ball. Are you sure? Have you heard of the fact, that usage of conformal fuel tank puts aditional limits to the airframe reliability of an F-15 and restricts it's top speed down to Mach 1.8 figure? Will SU-30MKI have any chance to survive as far as to a dogfight distance with F-35? Taking into consideration AIM-120D Amraam missile has effective range up to 100 miles, first shot-kill probability of 1.0?

The main reason is that Russian fighters have not very good fly-by-wire control system, I don't know whether it is unstable or unreliable etc. Strict limitations are set for piloting those aircraft. You can see the difference in fly-by-wire systems watching the performance of Blue Angels with their F-18 Hornets and the same exhibition flights shown by Russian Knights on Su-27s or Martlets on Mig-29s. U.S. aerobatic pilots manage to fly in far more closer formations (only a few meters from each other).

The only credit we can give Russians is for developing an all-around thrust vectoring (F-22 Raptor uses a two-dimensional one). Everything else is just the basis of highly-maneurable Su-27 Flanker, but this supermaneurability can be achieved during demonstrations only. In combat units of Russian Air Force they have flight control system switched on to strict limitations of AOA, while it is regular for USAF pilots to fly in quite agressive way with high G - forces.

They were, actually. Here you can see the real time comparison of supermaneurability between SU-30MKI and F-22 Raptor. It is quite obvious, that Raptor's performance at critical AOA's is far more clear and stable, cause F-22 was originally designed to be a super agile fighter of 5th generation, while Su-30 is just an ordinary aircraft with thrust vectored engines.