Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46

Thread: Does France or Sweden ever plan on developing stealth aircraft ?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    There´s not much more of the SU-30 on the PAK-FA with the exception of upgraded AL-31´s in the form of the AL-41F, and that for the first few dozens of aircrafts. And the way that the Mig-29 can be turned into a Fifth gen aircraft its be design an entirely new one.
    Russian sources indicate that the prototypes will be fitted with a derivative of the existing Su-35S avionic suite to reduce risk and cost. It is likely that this strategy of risk reduction by the use of existing production hardware will apply to other key internal components. The use of the 117S series engine common to the Su-35S in PAK-FA prototypes is a prime example.

    Another example is the basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series, with a large centre fuselage carapace, a pair of long serpentine engine inlet ducts, with inlets beneath a large LEX, the engines mounted in blast resistant tubes, which also provide the means for reacting empennage control surface and TVC loads, and a blended forward fuselage raised above the engine centrelines, not unlike the Flanker and F-14 series. The forward and centre fuselage design is therefore closer to the Flanker and YF-23 than the F-22A. The wing planform is closest to F-22, reflecting design aims in VLO shaping and supersonic cruise performance.

    Where the PAK-FA departs most strongly from the earlier Flanker, the F-22 and the YF-23 is in the aft fuselage design, and the moving LEX or Povorotnaya Chast' Naplyva (PChN) design, intended to provide extreme manoeuvrability and controllability

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,808
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Russian sources indicate that the prototypes will be fitted with a derivative of the existing Su-35S avionic suite to reduce risk and cost. It is likely that this strategy of risk reduction by the use of existing production hardware will apply to other key internal components. The use of the 117S series engine common to the Su-35S in PAK-FA prototypes is a prime example.
    For someone who posts an awful lot about the PAK-FA, you should probably check your basic information before writing nonsense like this.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    For someone who posts an awful lot about the PAK-FA, you should probably check your basic information before writing nonsense like this.
    I didn't write it. I lifted it from an early report on the Pak Fa. The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !) Here's the guy who wrote it.

    Air Power Australia Editor-in-Chief
    Head of Capability and Strategy Research
    Carlo Kopp, BE(Hons), MSc, PhD, FLSS, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

    Dr Kopp has consulted to private industry and government organisations, in areas ranging from computer and network performance, to strategy and operational analysis of military systems.

    He has been most visible publicly as a defence analyst, since 1980. He has written for Amberley based Defence Today, Canberra based Australian Aviation, Sydney based Asia Pacific Defence Reporter and Defence Review Asia, The Age and Australian Financial Review, the US based Journal of Electronic Defence, the Japan based Diplomat, and the UK based Jane's Missiles and Rockets, and Air International. He has also provided numerous television and radio interviews in recent years.

    His current research interests in the military sciences domain encompass air warfare strategy and doctrine, proliferation of Russian weapons technology, aircraft combat survivability, network centric and information warfare.

    Last edited by KGB; 16th March 2017 at 03:27.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,808
    Your entire premise and attempt to characterize "Russian design philosophy" (lol) in a few words is based on a description of PAK-FA systems that is across the board nonsense and incorrect.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    I didn't write it. I lifted it from an early report on the Pak Fa. The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !) Here's the guy who wrote it.

    Air Power Australia Editor-in-Chief
    Head of Capability and Strategy Research
    Carlo Kopp, BE(Hons), MSc, PhD, FLSS, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

    Dr Kopp has consulted to private industry and government organisations, in areas ranging from computer and network performance, to strategy and operational analysis of military systems.

    He has been most visible publicly as a defence analyst, since 1980. He has written for Amberley based Defence Today, Canberra based Australian Aviation, Sydney based Asia Pacific Defence Reporter and Defence Review Asia, The Age and Australian Financial Review, the US based Journal of Electronic Defence, the Japan based Diplomat, and the UK based Jane's Missiles and Rockets, and Air International. He has also provided numerous television and radio interviews in recent years.

    His current research interests in the military sciences domain encompass air warfare strategy and doctrine, proliferation of Russian weapons technology, aircraft combat survivability, network centric and information warfare.

    Now that is funny! Kopp is about as quality a source as Kermit the frog...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Your entire premise and attempt to characterize "Russian design philosophy" (lol) in a few words is based on a description of PAK-FA systems that is across the board nonsense and incorrect.
    Is this normal for TR1 ? Seems so.

    He has not ONE counter point to the actual topic at hand. He just says "huh ur wrong lol huhu" I don't think he has the cognitive capacity to make a counter point or even fully grasp what a counter point is. I assumed that the author got the engine wrong or some basic fact like that and he just dressed it up in as condescending way as possible. But he doesn't even have that.

    Lets summarize

    First one poster said that Mig had nothing to do with the new UAE/Rus 5th gen development project. That was quickly put to rest by this FACT.

    Russia, UAE to collaborate on 5th-generation fighter - UPI.com
    www.upi.com › Defense News
    Feb 20, 2017 - The new light combat aircraft to be developed jointly by Russia and the United Arab Emirates is expected to be based on the legacy MiG-29.

    Then another poster correctly pointed this out.

    Sukhoi did it by morphing SU-30 into PAK-FA.
    MiG can do it by morphing MiG-29 into a Gen 5 for UAE.


    Then I just pointed out that Carlo Kopp, had the following to say about the Pak fa

    In the broadest of terms, the PAK-FA is a fusion of ideas and design features seen in late model Flanker variants and demonstrators, but incorporating specific stealth shaping features. No less importantly, the PAK-FA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the Russian philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design

    Development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities.

    The basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series,




    ^huhu wrong lol geez man lol wrong dumb crazy haha heehe hoo hah basic wrong fail man im cool crazy hehehahweo cant see nottin here brah. No evoutionary design here brah. Total new . Just like the F 35 concurrency brah

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,808
    LOL. YOU POSTED THAT PHOTO?!?!

    BAHAHAHAH!

    That comparison was made by some idiot fanboys to show SUPPOSED identical features (in reality, only a nitwit would think they are actually identical or very similar) to demonstrate THAT THE T-50 IS NOT STEALTH BECAUSE IT IS MERELY A Su-27 UPGRADE.
    Given the PAGES of space you have wasted on this forum to prove the T-50 is stealthier than god himself, do you REALLY want to use THAT as your proof?

    As for this:

    "He has not ONE counter point to the actual topic at hand. He just says "huh ur wrong lol huhu" I don't think he has the cognitive capacity to make a counter point or even fully grasp what a counter point is. I assumed that the author got the engine wrong or some basic fact like that and he just dressed it up in as condescending way as possible. But he doesn't even have that. "

    It is quite obvious you only post drivel about the topic at hand, given that T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S, and most certainly does not have a sensor suit derived from the Su-35S.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    LOL. YOU POSTED THAT PHOTO?!?!

    BAHAHAHAH!

    That comparison was made by some idiot fanboys to show SUPPOSED identical features (in reality, only a nitwit would think they are actually identical or very similar) to demonstrate THAT THE T-50 IS NOT STEALTH BECAUSE IT IS MERELY A Su-27 UPGRADE.
    Given the PAGES of space you have wasted on this forum to prove the T-50 is stealthier than god himself, do you REALLY want to use THAT as your proof?

    As for this:

    "He has not ONE counter point to the actual topic at hand. He just says "huh ur wrong lol huhu" I don't think he has the cognitive capacity to make a counter point or even fully grasp what a counter point is. I assumed that the author got the engine wrong or some basic fact like that and he just dressed it up in as condescending way as possible. But he doesn't even have that. "

    It is quite obvious you only post drivel about the topic at hand, given that T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S, and most certainly does not have a sensor suit derived from the Su-35S.
    See ? Just like that he's knee deep it petty politics about "WHO POSTED THAT PHOTO WHOA LLOLOLOL" As if i didn't know the history of that photo.

    And in those arguments where petty fanboys claim that the T50 is a stealth flanker, I'm on the record as saying that its PARTIALLY TRUE and that this IS NOT a bad thing or any knock against the Pak Fa BECAUSE I and anyone with eyes and some basic reading comprehention knows that RUSSIA EMPLOYS EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY.

    They did so in the su series through to the Pak Fa and they will in the new MIG 29 based 5th gen UAE fighter

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Kopp claims to be an expert in areas where he has no experience. Here is his bio from where he actually works:
    http://users.monash.edu/~carlo/
    He could be considered an expert on cybersecurity and networks, that does not make him versed in: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.

    A search of his research publications on Google scholar gives the following:
    Kopp, Carlo. The electromagnetic bomb-a weapon of electrical mass destruction. MONASH UNIV CLAYTON (AUSTRALIA), 1996.

    Kopp, Carlo, and Ronald Pose. "Bypassing the home computing bottleneck: The suburban area network." Computer Architecture. Vol. 98. 1998.

    Kopp, Carlo. "Moore’s law and its implications for information warfare." 3rd International AOC EW Conference. 2002.

    Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "A Link Layer Security Protocol for Suburban Ad-Hoc Networks." proceedings of Australian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference. 2004.

    Castro, Maurice D., Ronald D. Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "Password-capabilities and the walnut kernel." The Computer Journal 51.5 (2008): 595-607.

    Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "Link layer security for sahn protocols." Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2005. PerCom 2005 Workshops. Third IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005.

    I purposely left off the Airpower Australia papers as they were published only on thier website (not peer reviewed research), and removed one that was not peer reviewed or presented at a conference.

    In other words, using APA as a source is akin to using "Gripen for Canada" blog as a reference. Airpower Australia used open source (in the case of Russian/Chinese radar systems- brochure claims) coupled with "analysis" that makes bias conclusions without supporting documentation. The Australian Parliamentary hearings on the F-35 buried their credibility (Kopp was conspicuously absent, most likely to protect his professional reputation).
    Last edited by FBW; 16th March 2017 at 12:37.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post

    It is quite obvious you only post drivel about the topic at hand, given that T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S, and most certainly does not have a sensor suit derived from the Su-35S.
    I wrote

    The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !)
    He counters with this

    Your entire premise and attempt to characterize "Russian design philosophy" (lol) in a few words is based on a description of PAK-FA systems that is across the board nonsense and incorrect.
    Then he goes on to LOLLOL and mutter some petty politics about my source (Carlo Kopp) and the picture I used to back up my actual argument. None of which supports his apparent argument ? that Russia does not employ any evolutionary design philosophy whatsoever. (not even sure what is argument is) And since he was embarrassed that I called him on his petty little claim about the engine before he even said it, he just skipped over it hoping nobody would notice.

    Then we get this doozy..
    Originally Posted by TR1
    T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S
    Lets go back in time...

    Originally Posted by KGB
    The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !)
    He keeps up this condescending tone with low information posts (no information posts) in the hopes of picking up allies. Which he has. One of the allies he picked up had this sage insight to offer the discussion:

    Now that is funny! Kopp is about as quality a source as Kermit the frog...
    Last edited by KGB; 16th March 2017 at 14:02.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Kopp claims to be an expert in areas where he has no experience. Here is his bio from where he actually works:
    http://users.monash.edu/~carlo/
    He could be considered an expert on cybersecurity and networks, that does not make him versed in: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.

    A search of his research publications on Google scholar gives the following:
    Kopp, Carlo. The electromagnetic bomb-a weapon of electrical mass destruction. MONASH UNIV CLAYTON (AUSTRALIA), 1996.

    Kopp, Carlo, and Ronald Pose. "Bypassing the home computing bottleneck: The suburban area network." Computer Architecture. Vol. 98. 1998.

    Kopp, Carlo. "Moore’s law and its implications for information warfare." 3rd International AOC EW Conference. 2002.

    Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "A Link Layer Security Protocol for Suburban Ad-Hoc Networks." proceedings of Australian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference. 2004.

    Castro, Maurice D., Ronald D. Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "Password-capabilities and the walnut kernel." The Computer Journal 51.5 (2008): 595-607.

    Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. "Link layer security for sahn protocols." Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2005. PerCom 2005 Workshops. Third IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005.

    I purposely left off the Airpower Australia papers as they were published only on thier website (not peer reviewed research), and removed one that was not peer reviewed or presented at a conference.

    In other words, using APA as a source is akin to using "Gripen for Canada" blog as a reference. Airpower Australia used open source (in the case of Russian/Chinese radar systems- brochure claims) coupled with "analysis" that makes bias conclusions without supporting documentation. The Australian Parliamentary hearings on the F-35 buried their credibility (Kopp was conspicuously absent, most likely to protect his professional reputation).
    Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source)

    Welcome to Logical Fallacies 101, an effort to help foster more reasonable, logical debate wherever else you may find yourself discussing differences of opinion.

    https://stevencwatts.newsvine.com/_n...ack-the-source

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Or in another words, the UAE is doing precisely what it did to EADS (remember the MAKO?), Dassault, Eurofighter and a few others. With the UAE untill a contract is signed and the first airframes are being delivered the chances are that the entire discussion will end in zero. This entire episode smells "lets put pressure on the Americans in order to get the F-35A" by some fifty miles.
    Absolutely right.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source)

    Welcome to Logical Fallacies 101, an effort to help foster more reasonable, logical debate wherever else you may find yourself discussing differences of opinion.

    https://stevencwatts.newsvine.com/_n...ack-the-source
    Welcome to rational thinking, something you've been struggling with on this forum. Just because you agree with the source does not make it valid. Again and again, your citing information that has been disproven. If you want to look ill informed, continue to defend APA. I am not attacking the source per se, I am pointing out their lack of qualifications.

    They discredited themselves in public, at an official hearing, that does have an impact on how anyone views them. As far as Dr. Kopp goes, please show me where I'm wrong about his research. Please show evidence of his expertise in any of the relevant areas: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.
    Last edited by FBW; 16th March 2017 at 14:10.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Welcome to rational thinking, something you've been struggling with on this forum. Just because you agree with the source does not make it valid. Again and again, your citing information that has been disproven. If you want to look ill informed, continue to defend APA. I am not attacking the source per se, I am pointing out their lack of qualifications.

    They discredited themselves in public, at an official hearing, that does have an impact on how anyone views them. As far as Dr. Kopp goes, please show me where I'm wrong about his research. Please show evidence of his expertise in any of the relevant areas: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.
    The highlighted is still ad hominiem. The discussion is not Dr Kopp. The particular sub discussion is Russian design philosophy.

    The public exposure of the Sukhoi/KnAAPO T-50/I-21/Article 701 PAK-FA was on 29th January, 2010. The test flight has provided sufficient high resolution imagery, video camera footage, and incidental disclosures to perform an initial technical assessment.

    The report that I referenced was made on the 15th February 2010. So if there is technical errors like engine models and stuff like that, it does not discredit the point about design philosophy.

    So again. The central point about Russian design philosophy is this. Plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities.



    Have you ever noticed that the Mig 29 looks similar to the su 27 even though they are separate aircraft types and within those types, there are other variants ?

    If you don't think they look similar, get your eyes and a few other functions checked.

    They do look similar whether you like it or not. With that in mind, what does it say about Dr. Kopp's basic point about Russian fighter aircraft design philosophy ?


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Welcome to rational thinking, something you've been struggling with on this forum. Just because you agree with the source does not make it valid. Again and again, your citing information that has been disproven. If you want to look ill informed, continue to defend APA. I am not attacking the source per se, I am pointing out their lack of qualifications.

    They discredited themselves in public, at an official hearing, that does have an impact on how anyone views them. As far as Dr. Kopp goes, please show me where I'm wrong about his research. Please show evidence of his expertise in any of the relevant areas: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.

    Lets bring in yet another Russian jet. The su 34. What does the su 34, compared to the Mig 29 and su 27 have to say about Dr. Kopp's point about Russian design philosophy ? ( plan long term, then spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities. )


  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,808
    "Have you ever noticed that the Mig 29 looks similar to the su 27 even though they are separate aircraft types and within those types, there are other variants ?"

    Because they were based on then contemporary recommendations for layouts from TsAAGi.

    Why don't you compare them with the previous generation of Soviet jets, so much for "gradual evolution vs revolution".

    Comparing Su-34, which is just a strike Su-27, to something clean sheet like T-50 is ridiculous as well.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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