Basically what he is saying here, is that he (thinks) that he knows more about stealth from reading magazines than the Sukhoi engineer team designing the Pak Fa. And that he is so frustrated and feels sorry for Russia, because Sukhoi is blatantly building in stealth compromising flaws into the Pak Fa. (even though the tender stipulated stealth and Sukhoi fulfilled the tender in good faith)Originally Posted by FalconDude
joking I could say that you can start now, as the plane will not change from now to pre-production.
On a more serious note, I'll express my own frustration for not given (via articles, publications and relevant press) any valid insight as to why the plane is designed the way it is.
Where does this wholly condescending and trumped up arrogance about stealth vis a vis the Pak Fa come from ? It comes from US observers and commentators who have been peddling this stealth absolutist ideology that completely blows out of proportion, certain stealth features of Lockheed aircraft.
Then fans of the Lockheed verity, read these religious texts and apply their teachings to other aircraft like the Pak Fa.
Haha thanks for proving my point once again. This is a couple days after pics emerge of the engines covered, the runway light is squared off and a little bit more improvement on the landing gear door. You don't even recognize that your list of hangups has gotten shorter and you wont allow these improvements to change your perception of the stealtheness of the aircraft.wait for the next two Prototypes.
wait for more prototypes.. ha freaking ha. This implies that there is a chance that there will be a Pak Fa that you would sign off on as stealth. There won't be. You've already made up your mind.
Yep. Keep playing this up. Keep telling everyone that there is a Pak Fa out there that you would give a passing grade. As I said. There isn't. You and your type have already decided. Even when things get crossed off the list, you will just find another thing to cast doubt about.That is really all we can do. PakFa is riddlet in questions
If we call the F 22 100% all around stealth, what percentage would you grade the Pak Fa relative to it ?
Is it 20% less stealthy ? 60% ?
I think its less that 5% if at all. I just don't see the evidence for it
Last edited by KGB; 19th March 2017 at 15:18.
It is not practical to assign a simple numerical value. How would you define 50%? A halving of the measured RCS? A halving of the detection range? And the value of such parameters would vary with frequency. Intelligence agencies would assign teams of engineers to study the likely RCS of Russian and Chinese fighters, but the defence press, defence academics, and the open-source intel community do not have the sort of funding that would be needed to come up with an answer.
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with language barrier, but you are reading people the wrong way, and that include me.
I have never stated that PakFa would not be pricieved as a stealth jet.. far from it.
I question some of the smaller details/layout of PakFa. If you can't live with that so be it.
Last edited by haavarla; 19th March 2017 at 18:03.
KBG is one of those Russia stronq posters who ignores physics and simply won't accept that the T-50, like every aircraft ever designed, is the result of a compromise of all the various requirements for stealth, performance, and cost that best suits the Russian Air Force mission.
The T-50 is obviously a stealth aircraft. The question is how Sukhoi has balanced the stealth with other factors, such as maneuverability, and especially cost.
Last edited by RadDisconnect; 19th March 2017 at 18:22.
Just watch. The National Interest is a good website to watch this in action. There is a mix of different political views on there. Watch the next article about the Pak Fa. In the comments, somebody will pipe up and say "the Pak Fa isn't even stealth"
Last edited by KGB; 19th March 2017 at 21:20.
Shaping can reduce radar reflection by 100-1000 times, so is RAM. But the same can't be said about size.
Almost none of what you said has any relevance to what others (myself included) were trying to say.
You are hang up on size and in stealth studies, size doesn't always matter. If I "ping" a flat object the size of Mt Everest right, I will not see a reflection from it! Physics.
A few degrees different in angle can change strength by 20-30 dB
But 10-20% smaller object will not have RCS 10-100 times smaller. Why else do you think stealth aircraft need internal weapon bay ?
Last edited by garryA; 20th March 2017 at 16:38.
Last edited by moon_light; 20th March 2017 at 17:00.
KGB has the typical russianstronk attitude of retaining Russia has the best of anything.
Still exist and are very present, not just there but in many other forums, also the specular American own brand of chauvinism, the ones that are jokingly called 'Murica.
So, what he said about them it sadly very truea s they reach some level of stubborness in their own rantings than often doesn't just match but even overcome the RussianSTRONKists.
I vividly remembered one that negated PAK-FA being stealth with the argumentation that being it the FIRST generation of russian VLO when compared to F-22 and F-35 being the THIRD of US, it would have had the same diamond shaped appearence of F-117 to be called fair game...
Well, that was a desperate case but many other came very close to this nonsensical approach, so it's not a case that the russian crew sometimes overreact when some criticism about PAK-FA stealth level is put into discussion...
I, being the staunch pro-russian that I am, still see way more relevant shortcomings or better said critical points in the PAK-FA actual technical level than RCS reduction features but, said so, I will take it instead of F-35...
Last edited by Marcellogo; 20th March 2017 at 22:28.
For my sake, and your own, don't quote the offenders.
Ранее представители Минобороны неоднократно заявляли, что первые поставки начнутся в этом году.
"Т-50 — тут секретов нет, это самолёт со сверхзвуковой скоростью на бесфорсажном режиме, малозаметный, с искусственным интеллектом. Мы получим эту машину. Шесть штук", — сказал Юдин, отвечая на соответствующий вопрос.
"A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"
Combined with the multitude of other cost saving compromises and you have a "stealth" aircraft which will struggle against actual VLO designs.
In stealth v stealth big picture scenarios where missile ranges are not a factor, it will most often come down to who sees who first. The team that went the extra mile to avoid compromises will win... and right now the T-50 is still a very long way off the level of refinement the US and even the Chinese are demonstrating.
Pretend that all of the "gimmick" detailed stealth measures provide no real advantage all you want, hopefully sukhoi does the same
Meanwhile those with a modicum of insight on the subject matter will continue to appreciate the elegance and maturity of the stealth measures implemented on the F-35.
The main reason why the Raptor and the J 20 (Mig 1.44 as per Janes, deftech) has a flatter bottom is because of the conventional shape and style of the jet.
Last edited by KGB; 30th March 2017 at 04:45.
There has been about zero "cost saving" compromises. But bring one up. I can bring up multitudes of cost saving compromises on the F 22. Here's one from Def techCombined with the multitude of other cost saving compromises and you have a "stealth" aircraft which will struggle against actual VLO designs.
"The AIRST was deleted from the F-22 avionic suite during development as a cost saving measure."
Funny how one of the hang ups about the Pak Fa is the airst when in reality, the Raptor would have had one too but it was deleted as a cost saving measure.
And yes. The quick bays carry SRAAMs. For the millionth time.
Then again you are asking someone who thinks the T-50 will go into service with only external weapons; in other words someone without a modicum of insight into the T-50 program.
Something he has in common with KGB, comically.
There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 12 guests)