Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 80 of 105 FirstFirst ... 307076777879808182838490 ... LastLast
Results 2,371 to 2,400 of 3130

Thread: RuAF News and development Thread part 15

  1. #2371
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Sigh..
    Let me try again. Being slim as the YF-23 and PakFa does not mean it has a lower RCS vs F-22.
    It only means it has a slimmer side profile, but LARGER top/under Profil.
    It a design choice.
    From ground or above the PakFa has a larger fotprint.
    Oh and the same when PakFA turns over from a peer point of view.

    Yes i'm sure Sukhoi want to cut some corners on cost, but that does not take away anything from the F-22 Design.
    It may be the most expensive fighter, but its a very advanced product. I'd say that matter.

    If the PakFa design advocates any advantage, i'd say it utilizing its internal volume a tad better vs F-22 more boxy airframe with the air-intakes inside vs under the airframe.
    PakFa also produce more lift from the blended wing/body layout.
    Let me try again. Being slim as the YF-23 and PakFa does not mean it has a lower RCS vs F-22.
    It only means it has a slimmer side profile, but LARGER top/under Profil.
    It a design choice.
    You are implying that the ratio's are the exact same and that the Raptor is taller in the exact number that the Pak Fa has a bigger top down profile. And then you are implying that the top down footprint is more important than the incoming profile. The YF 23 is shaped more like the Pak Fa and it got better all around stealth than the Raptor.
    Yes i'm sure Sukhoi want to cut some corners on cost, but that does not take away anything from the F-22 Design.
    OMG... I said OPPORTUNITY COST. Not production cost. Meaning, they deemed the advantages of the slimmed down option did not outweigh the advantages of the protrusions.

    It may be the most expensive fighter, but its a very advanced product. I'd say that matter.
    Again. I was talking about opportunity cost. Which has exactly nothing to do with the value cost of the jet.

  2. #2372
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Is it so outside the boble to say the F-22 has a better detailed signal management?
    Hell just take another example, those air spill doors from airduct on top of F-22 and then look at the ones on bottom of PakFa(Flanker) air-intakes.

    I'm sorry if it upsets people. It is what it is.
    I like the PakFa over F-22 Design for several reasons, stealth finesse is not one of them.

    I would say the F-22 is more boxy vs F-35 considering the F-35 has only one(huge) engine. And every airframe design is build around its engine/engines.
    Is it so outside the boble to say the F-22 has a better detailed signal management?
    That's not the argument. There is a tactical costs to having this detail. Im sorry to say, that you have to explain how this tactical cost outweighs the advantages that the Pak Fa has.
    Hell just take another example, those air spill doors from airduct on top of F-22 and then look at the ones on bottom of PakFa(Flanker) air-intakes.
    Any pics ? I have no idea what this is about

  3. #2373
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Any pics ? I have no idea what this is about
    He's talking about the boundary layer spill ducts. Look on top of the F-22 near intake.

    BTW, these "whose bigger" contests vis a vis the F-22 and the Pak-Fa are stupid. They are different design philosophies for different operators-Different horses for courses. If anyone, (based on the classified nature of each) can state definitively that one design is superior to the other (based on the respective service's requirements), your full of it. One may have a lower RCS, or better low speed maneuverability, one may be 15 years newer, but it's obvious they were not designed with the same requirements, other than air dominance.

    And in the wrong thread.
    Last edited by FBW; 10th January 2017 at 17:55.

  4. #2374
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin View Post
    ^^ From the interview it seems besides making IL-114 , they would be making L 410NG in Russia and planning to move production line from Czech to Russia.

    Another project by SibNIA where 9-19 seaters aircraft is getting developed.

    L410NG --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MphVCt-_bg
    Yeah that has been the plan for a while- this year serial production should get underway in Russia- a gov leasing company ordered 5 of them just a few days ago.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  5. #2375
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    He's talking about the boundary layer spill ducts. Look on top of the F-22 near intake.

    .
    Looks like a mess compared to the Pak Fa. Any air that doesn't go through the engine on the Pak Fa, has a straight path right out to the back of the jet.

  6. #2376
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Looks like a mess compared to the Pak Fa. Any air that doesn't go through the engine on the Pak Fa, has a straight path right out to the back of the jet.
    No it doesn't, look on underside of Pak-Fa inlet. If u want to respond, move it over to appropriate thread.

  7. #2377
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    You are implying that the ratio's are the exact same and that the Raptor is taller in the exact number that the Pak Fa has a bigger top down profile. And then you are implying that the top down footprint is more important than the incoming profile. The YF 23 is shaped more like the Pak Fa and it got better all around stealth than the Raptor.


    OMG... I said OPPORTUNITY COST. Not production cost. Meaning, they deemed the advantages of the slimmed down option did not outweigh the advantages of the protrusions.



    Again. I was talking about opportunity cost. Which has exactly nothing to do with the value cost of the jet.
    The surface angles of the yf-23's side surfaces were significantly more canted than the f-22's.

    The angle of the f-22's side surfaces are 55 degrees from horizontal, the yf-23 was around 35 degrees. This accounts for the difference in allround RCS.

    The PAK fa has some surfaces canted at 65 degrees like the f-35 and j-20, however it also has surfaces at 75 and 85 degrees like non-stealth fighters have (this has not changed at all with the new prototypes with the new engine cowling either) so from a stealth shaping perspective the t-50 is more analogous to a clean rafale. Both have frontal RCS reduction measures with some side RCS reduction. Neither have any rear RCS reduction.

    Another thing you'll notice on the actual VLO aircraft is sharpened (blade-like) leading edges and meticulous attention to reducing surface discontinuity reflections, neither of which have been addressed in the latest PAK FA examples.

    Size is tertiary when it comes to RCS. Hence why from the most important aspects, a zumwalt destroyer has a lower RCS than an Su-27.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 10th January 2017 at 21:51.

  8. #2378
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    The surface angles of the yf-23's side surfaces were significantly more canted than the f-22's.

    The angle of the f-22's side surfaces are 55 degrees from horizontal, the yf-23 was around 35 degrees. This accounts for the difference in allround RCS.

    The PAK fa has some surfaces canted at 65 degrees like the f-35 and j-20, however it also has surfaces at 75 and 85 degrees like non-stealth fighters have (this has not changed at all with the new prototypes with the new engine cowling either) so from a stealth shaping perspective the t-50 is more analogous to a clean rafale. Both have frontal RCS reduction measures with some side RCS reduction. Neither have any rear RCS reduction.

    Another thing you'll notice on the actual VLO aircraft is sharpened (blade-like) leading edges and meticulous attention to reducing surface discontinuity reflections, neither of which have been addressed in the latest PAK fa examples.
    will reply in Pak Fa thread

  9. #2379
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,310
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Is it so outside the boble to say the F-22 has a better detailed signal management?
    Hell just take another example, those air spill doors from airduct on top of F-22 and then look at the ones on bottom of PakFa(Flanker) air-intakes.

    I'm sorry if it upsets people. It is what it is.
    I like the PakFa over F-22 Design for several reasons, stealth finesse is not one of them.

    I would say the F-22 is more boxy vs F-35 considering the F-35 has only one(huge) engine. And every airframe design is build around its engine/engines.
    Upset, who?
    When I sometime disagree with someone is not because I don't appreciate him/her, right the contrary.
    This is a discussion thread so I use to reply to persons I feel worthy to, not with someone that say always the same thing like a broken record (absit iniuria verbo).
    The only one I get something upset is GarryA because it has this damn habit to take just one single phrase from my longer posts without reading all of it...

    And I call F-35 boxy because it so short that really resemble a carton box, or a brick.
    A Su-24 has surely a even greater frontal area but is longer.

  10. #2380
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2368326.html

    First two Ka-32A11BC from the deal of 4 helicopters (52 million USD) with Jiangsu Baoli.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  11. #2381
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/11/vertoletyrossii/

    Kazakhstan is buying another 4 Mi-35M in 2018.

    https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/11/triumph/

    MOD will receive 4 S-400 polks this year, though no word if they will be two or three divisional.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  12. #2382
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    327
    Kazakhstan is buying another 4 Mi-35M in 2018.
    I thought it was going to receive the helicopters in 2018. Any idea of the total number acquired so far? When first announced no details were provided.

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3330008
    History and Military Technology blog

    alejandro-8en.blogspot.com

  13. #2383
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    I took it as 4 received to date, another 4 through 2018.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2324781.html
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  14. #2384
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,542
    Some Tu-160 awesome Vapor fest

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL1A0D2t-U
    Thanks

  15. #2385
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    Some interesting info from Ilyushin:

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2376724.html

    They say Il-214 development could not be agreed on due to all the Indian requirements that Il thought would compromise the plane overall. Says that with VKS requirments alone the path will be simpler and more realistic- also curiously mentions that Indians wanted PS-90 level thrust, while VKS is fine with PD-14 (I was under the impression the Indian side was the one wanting the PD-14). Either way the plane will initially have PS-90 apparently. Development work is starting on the SVTS (I thought it was STS-21) this year.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  16. #2386
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,651
    ^^ I saw the full report at UAC GORIZONTY_12.pdf , Page 31
    Then was created in the 2000s, a joint Russian-Indian project multipurpose transport aircraft (MTS), named
    India Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA). However, for reasons beyond the "Ilyushin" Examples India ranks is suspended part
    in this program.

    "Then there was a lot of specific requirement - altitude airfields in mountains up to 5 kilometers, hot, plus high . We are going to put some unusual the number of weapons, including bombs and guns, - says Olga Kruglyako- va.- like it to be a bomber , He bombed, tucked and refueled, but still and cargo carried. We tried to convince them that in an amount such problems can be Only the aircraft, which will be performed poorly take all these functions. "

    For such special requirements put forward the Indian side, had put on the aircraft engine PS-90. but this engine with a thrust of 16 tons was clearly more needs machines, calculated tion of 20-ton load of the transported. Without For the specific requirements of the Indian this engine is well suited WABT Wel PD-14 produced by currently in the United Engine Corporation (part of the state corporation "Rostec") for passenger aircraft MS-21. As the first phase of "Ilyushin" It offers the option to PS-90.
    Looks like IAF wanted to use MTA as a Bomber which can do Bombing , Carry external Guns , Refuell as well as Carry Cargo for Hot and High Condition , 5 km in Mountain area ......UAC told IAF that making MTA as bomber and transport aircraft would make it perform poorly in either roles

    IAF wanted 16 Ton PS-90A1 Engine which UAC consider it over thrust for 20T payload aircraft while Russian Airforce wanted more modern PD-14 Engine with 14T thrust.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  17. #2387
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,442
    I would've thought the extra expense of PD-14 over PS-90 would outweigh the improved SFC for a military airlifter that does not see the same flight hours as a commercial airliner.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  18. #2388
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin View Post
    ^^ I saw the full report at UAC GORIZONTY_12.pdf , Page 31


    Looks like IAF wanted to use MTA as a Bomber which can do Bombing , Carry external Guns , Refuell as well as Carry Cargo for Hot and High Condition , 5 km in Mountain area ......UAC told IAF that making MTA as bomber and transport aircraft would make it perform poorly in either roles

    IAF wanted 16 Ton PS-90A1 Engine which UAC consider it over thrust for 20T payload aircraft while Russian Airforce wanted more modern PD-14 Engine with 14T thrust.
    Seriously guys.. this can't be real.
    Thanks

  19. #2389
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    639
    Indian procurement strategy is a riddle wrapped in an enigma stuffed in a bong with a whole lot of cannabis. Best not to try and make any sense of it....

  20. #2390
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,542
    Quote Originally Posted by soyuz1917 View Post
    Indian procurement strategy is a riddle wrapped in an enigma stuffed in a bong with a whole lot of cannabis. Best not to try and make any sense of it....
    No. This article is fake news or fake news. Nothing more.
    Of all the stupidity I read on mainstream media about Aviation, it does not even come close to what I read on MTA.
    Thanks

  21. #2391
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Seriously guys.. this can't be real.
    what can't be real? the requirement to be able to use the MTA as a gunship? or hot and high requirements? IAF has used its An-32s in a bombing role as well.

  22. #2392
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,542
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    what can't be real? the requirement to be able to use the MTA as a gunship? or hot and high requirements? IAF has used its An-32s in a bombing role as well.
    Well then, if we are talking about a Gunship. Perhaps a small chance.
    But as a bomber is plain idiotic.
    I know the An-32 has been tested for dropping dumb bombs.. but really!?
    Thanks

  23. #2393
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    what can't be real? the requirement to be able to use the MTA as a gunship? or hot and high requirements? IAF has used its An-32s in a bombing role as well.
    Indeed.

    Also, the statement was not a random journalist, but from the Deputy Chief Designer of Ilyushin.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  24. #2394
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    https://cont.ws/@predator85vk/484361

    5 Nebo-M complexes delivered in 2016 apparently.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2375267.html

    Some good pics of the S-400 complex that went online in Feodisya, Crimea. Complete with priest nonsense.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  25. #2395
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    145

  26. #2396
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,363
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    https://cont.ws/@predator85vk/484361

    5 Nebo-M complexes delivered in 2016 apparently.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2375267.html

    Some good pics of the S-400 complex that went online in Feodisya, Crimea. Complete with priest nonsense.
    HOLY S***, sorry, SAM!

  27. #2397
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Complete with priest nonsense.
    The only nonsense is your disrespect to our cultural traditions.

  28. #2398
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Scar View Post
    The only nonsense is your disrespect to our cultural traditions.
    I agree, especially because this is something much more than just a cultural tradition...

  29. #2399
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Scar View Post
    The only nonsense is your disrespect to our cultural traditions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

    The Russian Orthodox Church is not a cultural tradition I have any particular inclination to respect.
    Also believe it or not, many people within the Russian Fed have no history of being a part of this particular religious tradition.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #2400
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

    The Russian Orthodox Church is not a cultural tradition I have any particular inclination to respect.
    Also believe it or not, many people within the Russian Fed have no history of being a part of this particular religious tradition.
    1) Secular state doesn't mean disrespect to traditions.
    2) Many people have no history, roots, traditions and principles at all - but there is no any need to expose it on public. Orthodox Church is a HUGE part of our history, culture and traditions, believe it or not. Maybe you should learn the history of your own family any further than 2-3 generations back? I know the history of my family till the XVIII century, what about yours? А, Иван, не помнящий родства?

    And BTW, look at this video. Nonsense? Nope. Just respect to traditions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 18 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 17 guests)

  1. TR1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES