Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 477

Thread: 2017 PAK-FA Thread

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Who between us can say that he really know how stealth work? We can only read carefully what is published and try to get some general glimpses about it.

    F-22 was designed a lot of time ago, they made a superb work on it but as time goes by new things are developed, so something that actually comes cheap would have been absolutely unthinkable just twelve years ago, when it entered service.
    This is what Falcondude said

    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.
    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)

    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.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    This is what Falcondude said



    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)

    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.
    You are reading too much into this.
    You should unhinge a little.. wait for the next two Prototypes.

    That is really all we can do. PakFa is riddlet in questions.
    Last edited by haavarla; 19th March 2017 at 14:00.
    Thanks

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    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.
    It seems a bit naive to see all less-than-adulatory comments on the PAK FA as some sort of US-led anti-Sukhoi propaganda campaign. All aircraft designs involve compromises of one sort on another, and we have no idea what compromises the Russian Air Force was prepared to accept for the PAK FA, or what the USAF was prepared to accept for the F-117, F-22, B-2, and F-35. All that the aviation press, academics, and open-source intelligence specialists can do is to use the limited information on RCS-reduction methods that is in the public domain (and there are no 'religious texts') when assessing both designs. In the case of the PAK FA, several non-US commentators (including Jane's) have expressed the view that the aircraft's RCS-reduction measures seem focussed on the forward sector.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    You are reading too much into this.
    You should unhinge a little.. wait for the next two Prototypes.

    That is really all we can do. PakFa is riddlet in questions.
    wait for the next two Prototypes.
    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 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.


    That is really all we can do. PakFa is riddlet in questions
    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.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    It seems a bit naive to see all less-than-adulatory comments on the PAK FA as some sort of US-led anti-Sukhoi propaganda campaign. All aircraft designs involve compromises of one sort on another, and we have no idea what compromises the Russian Air Force was prepared to accept for the PAK FA, or what the USAF was prepared to accept for the F-117, F-22, B-2, and F-35. All that the aviation press, academics, and open-source intelligence specialists can do is to use the limited information on RCS-reduction methods that is in the public domain (and there are no 'religious texts') when assessing both designs. In the case of the PAK FA, several non-US commentators (including Jane's) have expressed the view that the aircraft's RCS-reduction measures seem focussed on the forward sector.
    I think there is a lot of misunderstanding out there. When people think that the J 20 can be more stealthy than the Pak Fa when its a way bigger aircraft, just because they've spotted something with their naked eye on a computer screen, then you know people's perceptions are flawed. Both aircraft are designated stealth. So that should eliminate any huge differences between the 2. People dont think over all size plays into it.

    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.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,324
    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.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    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 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.
    Dude.. you need to chill, and stop being so childish in your retorics.
    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.
    Thanks

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    378
    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.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Dude.. you need to chill, and stop being so childish in your retorics.
    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.
    Ok maybe that post of mine was a bit overboard. I have seen posts from you that are objective even on other topics that involve Russia. But I know there is people out there lurking , who use a similar tone as the post I was responding to. And their goal is to chip away at the stealth perception of the Pak Fa. And it has been quite successful.

    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.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    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"
    Why would anyone honestly care about what is written in The National Interest or to an even greater extent the comment section? It is hardly a pillar of journalistic integrity...

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    People dont think over all size plays into it.
    People don't think overall size plays into it because their effect is negligible compared to shaping or material.
    Shaping can reduce radar reflection by 100-1000 times, so is RAM. But the same can't be said about size.


    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    I just don't see the evidence for it
    You don't want to admit it more like. PAK-FA has more control surface, variable inlet,seperate nacelles ..etc all trade off some disadvantage in signature for some gain in kinematics. Every designs have advantages and disadvantages

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Ok maybe that post of mine was a bit overboard. I have seen posts from you that are objective even on other topics that involve Russia. But I know there is people out there lurking , who use a similar tone as the post I was responding to. And their goal is to chip away at the stealth perception of the Pak Fa. And it has been quite successful.

    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"
    Most of your posts are overboard and you clearly don't understand what others are saying because you are too eager to jump the gun.

    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.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    People don't think overall size plays into it because their effect is negligible compared to shaping or material.
    Shaping can reduce radar reflection by 100-1000 times, so is RAM. But the same can't be said about size.



    You don't want to admit it more like. PAK-FA has more control surface, variable inlet,seperate nacelles ..etc all trade off some disadvantage in signature for some gain in kinematics. Every designs have advantages and disadvantages
    This says exactly nothing about measuring size relative to shape and ram.

    The fact remains, the smaller something is, the more relative advantage it has if angles and RAM are the same.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    People don't think overall size plays into it because their effect is negligible compared to shaping or material.
    Shaping can reduce radar reflection by 100-1000 times, so is RAM. But the same can't be said about size.



    You don't want to admit it more like. PAK-FA has more control surface, variable inlet,seperate nacelles ..etc all trade off some disadvantage in signature for some gain in kinematics. Every designs have advantages and disadvantages
    No not at all. Fanboys get all caught up in the little details , as a way of checking each other on their knowledge of stealth. And there is nothing wrong with that. But they overlook the forest for the trees. And they want to shove the boring old realities of size aside. This way, they can make claims that a monstrosity of a jet like the J 20 , with its big hulking canards , could in any way, have better stealth than the Pak Fa. Fact is, they are both designated stealth. So the differences cannot be that big by default, and the differences that there are, cannot overcome the reality of actual physical size.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,669
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    This says exactly nothing about measuring size relative to shape and ram.

    The fact remains, the smaller something is, the more relative advantage it has if angles and RAM are the same.
    For the sake of this debate. Yes on a general basic, that is correct.
    Thanks

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by FalconDude View Post
    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.
    Right. But mount Everest wasn't designated or designed to be stealth. That's the flaw in your argument. If stealth has already been achieved by both the Pak Fa and the J 20, then the differences in perceived angles between the 2, cannot be big enough to overcome size.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Right. But mount Everest wasn't designated or designed to be stealth. That's the flaw in your argument. If stealth has already been achieved by both the Pak Fa and the J 20, then the differences in perceived angles between the 2, cannot be big enough to overcome size.
    None of this makes any sense!

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    This says exactly nothing about measuring size relative to shape and ram
    A few mm of RAM can change reflection strength by 20-30 dB
    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 ?


    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post

    The fact remains, the smaller something is, the more relative advantage it has if angles and RAM are the same.
    The fact remain that they do not have the same shape or RAM. Not even close.
    Last edited by garryA; 20th March 2017 at 16:38.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    And they want to shove the boring old realities of size aside. This way, they can make claims that a monstrosity of a jet like the J 20 , with its big hulking canards , could in any way, have better stealth than the Pak Fa. Fact is, they are both designated stealth. So the differences cannot be that big by default, and the differences that there are, cannot overcome the reality of actual physical size.
    God forbid, if someone claim F-35 is stealthier than PAK-FA because it is smaller.I bet you would be the first to protest. The last thread was closed because you did the exact same BS you are doing here and the thread just go full retard.Grow up !. No one wants another JSR.
    Last edited by moon_light; 20th March 2017 at 17:00.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,426
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    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"
    The "National Interest"?!
    Hell, if i want technical informations on the JSF program i am not going to get it in the "comment" section of "Russia Today" am i?

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,368
    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...
    Anytime, Anywhere.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 20th March 2017 at 22:28.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    God forbid, if someone claim F-35 is stealthier than PAK-FA because it is smaller.I bet you would be the first to protest.
    I see no reason why the Pak Fa should be more stealthy than the F 35 for size reasons. Although I find the sleek shape compelling.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,949
    Problem solved.



    For my sake, and your own, don't quote the offenders.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,701
    https://ria.ru/arms/20170322/1490548470.html

    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"

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Another pic:

    Here's a classic example of US aviationists coverage of the Pak Fa as I was saying before. This was said yesterday at http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...t-russian-jets


  26. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Here's a classic example of US aviationists coverage of the Pak Fa as I was saying before.
    Which is funny because it's not the top of the engines that are an issue on a high altitude suercruiser, it's the bottom of them which are still not stealthy, no matter how much RAM has been applied.

    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.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    it's the bottom of them which are still not stealthy, no matter how much RAM has been applied.
    .
    More of the usual . Do you really think that it would have been hard or impossible for the engineers to encase the engines to square it off or something ? If it was as big of a deal as you think it is, they would have done it differently. But they didn't. And that should tell you something. The engines are canted inward to the center line of the jet. The computer could have ok'd it just the way it is yet you sit here eye balling it and calling the shots as if you know better than the computer

    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.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    F-35.
    Combined with the multitude of other cost saving compromises and you have a "stealth" aircraft which will struggle against actual VLO designs.
    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 tech

    "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.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Which is funny because it's not the top of the engines that are an issue on a high altitude suercruiser, it's the bottom of them which are still not stealthy, no matter how much RAM has been applied.

    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.
    Right if the F-35 doesn't carry external AIM-9Xs. Just the 9Xs and the pylons might increase the F-35's RCS to the level of the T-50's RCS.

    BTW does the T-50 really carry short range missiles in the small conformal mini bays on the sides after all?

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Right if the F-35 doesn't carry external AIM-9Xs. Just the 9Xs and the pylons might increase the F-35's RCS to the level of the T-50's RCS.

    BTW does the T-50 really carry short range missiles in the small conformal mini bays on the sides after all?
    Sukhoi is carefully managing the RCS of something as "small" as the IRST installation on the nose, yet the huge Aim-9X external carriage "might" bring the F-35s RCS level to the T-50s? That notion is mind-numbingly dumb.


    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.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

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