It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

T-50 PAK-FA configuration.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
the evolution of the PAK-FA from the SU-47



competes with the F-22, and hopes to fly "higher"
external image

the new plan
external image


the view from below, showing missile positions


another artist's imperssion
external image

another....


Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
russian competion to the F-35 :

Mig-I-2000 :


Viryaz 2000 :


another....


forward swept winged concept :



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Yeah... looks very nice on paper, but does Russia have anything more than just sketches and 3D images to show us?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah... looks very nice on paper, but does Russia have anything more than just sketches and 3D images to show us?


they would have if they had the money to build those.

the PAK-FA prototype is scheduled to fly in late 2006, so you may not have to wait that long.it's getting 1.5 billion dollars anually.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
What... the project is getting 1.6B? That is not very much especially when were talking about your 5th generation fighter here
And I hope I don't have to wait longer I want to see what all the hype is about.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Uhh... stealth you want to convert that to feet. miles and pounds for us non metric folks
I could do it but I’m just too lazy.


1 mile=app. 1.8km
1 meter=app. 3feets
1 pound=app. 0.45kg





Just small correction:

1 mile = 1605 m
1 nautical mile [american] = 1853 m
1 nautical mile [british] = 1855 m
1 feet = 0.3048 m
1pound = 0.454 kg



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
F-22 is Not steals .Pak Fa must be steals . Plasma technology's Will help him
(Tolk about absorbent materials ...
R Absorbent materials don't help for unvisibel
Komposit's material will ..)

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Some sources claim the F-22 is completely Stealth, the other sources claim it's not stealth at all...

Must be in between then?
but seriously it's almost as stealthy as the B-2 AFAIK.

Will the PAK-FA use plasma stealth?! I never heard of that one.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
According to most websites the Raptor has an RCS of 0.02 square meter and the B-2 has a RCS of .75 square meter.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
is the pak-fa a copy....we may never know
is history repeating it self and what the f... is fenix talking about...we may never know

But one thing is for sure the graphics look cool and it's a big development around the program. Just consider that we're hearing about that russan fighter since the f-22 is out. The Project looks serious.
And as for the budget being to low for a new advanced fightert...well
everithing is cheaper in russia and in most of the former eastern block countries too. What do you think, is there a differens in how much you are going pay to an engineer for his work in the USA and in Russia...hmmm? (yes)

[edit on 11-4-2005 by vorazechul]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

forward swept winged concept :





I like it

S-37 with a touch of F/A-22, but I seriously doubt it's viability after the fatigue issues the russians were complaining about



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Why a forward swept wing? What advantages does it offer?

And for real WTF is fenix talking about, none of his posts make sense.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
B2 have RCS 0,1 (from Russian site)
Raptor have RCS 0,1 (about it)
Raptor couldnt be absolutly steals it use metal element at construktion of wing (For hard)
Radar absorbent material couldn't down RCS at 0,0.
Raptor is don't unvisibel for radar, but it have more safety in war fire, and it's beter then it will be (composites) , and
(unmaneurabel),

Rcs of missel imitation target is 0,2 - 0,3, ( based at old missel from S 125 , S 200 ).
Raptor is best aircraft at today . ...
when (if) they do electronik more working.
Pak Fa most have composites wing .



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
That FSW concept may make a cool picture but even a cursory glance will surely tell you that any fighter that looks like that would be completely useless. Those overlong and fragile looking wings would oscillate violently and then tear themselves right off the moment you tried to do anything remotely 'fighter-like' in that plane. It is clearly NOT a serios proposition but a piece of artisitic fanboy nonsense.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
That FSW concept may make a cool picture but even a cursory glance will surely tell you that any fighter that looks like that would be completely useless. Those overlong and fragile looking wings would oscillate violently and then tear themselves right off the moment you tried to do anything remotely 'fighter-like' in that plane. It is clearly NOT a serios proposition but a piece of artisitic fanboy nonsense.


My thoughts exactly. The FSW thing is obsolete (at least as a fixed wing).

I think the most likely configuration is in the picture comparing it to the Raptor.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why a forward swept wing? What advantages does it offer?

And for real WTF is fenix talking about, none of his posts make sense.


It is more understandable for Europeans. He was writing that Raptor has metal construction of wing only with some plastic or carbon materials. It should be better in fight, because you can damage it more than all-composite airframe. But metal is reflecting radar waves much more than composite. It is possible, that PAK FA will have all composite wing.

There is also shown difference between RAM [radar absorbent material] and composite material. Simply: RAM is used to reduce the RCS [radar cross section] when much reflection material is also used [for example it is RAM painting on metal skin]. When you will use ONLY composite materials, you can reduce RCS to 0. But it is needed to say that it can be 0 only if the object is not moving. If it moves, it can be everytime tracked [by radar or some different device].

And some unusual words:
steals probably means stealth
unvisibel - low visible
komposit - composite
for hard - for higher structural integrity
missel probably missile



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
That FSW concept may make a cool picture but even a cursory glance will surely tell you that any fighter that looks like that would be completely useless. Those overlong and fragile looking wings would oscillate violently and then tear themselves right off the moment you tried to do anything remotely 'fighter-like' in that plane. It is clearly NOT a serios proposition but a piece of artisitic fanboy nonsense.


Allthogh you are right about the strenght problem with these wing, it is not true that this is just dream. Su-47 Berkut's FSW were very similar to these
and were all composite which is the only reason why they could survive the strong forces acting on them.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by vorazechul]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by vorazechul]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
To my eyes the wing in that picture looks quite different from the Berkut's It appears longer in span, shorter in chord and much less swept. OK for subsonic cruising but no good for supersonics or violent manouvering.

Incidentally, what parameters have the Berkuts wing been tested to in terms of speed and manouverabilty? Interestingly enough after all the effort put into it Sukhoi appear to have ditched the idea.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Well I'm gonna have to check on that thing to say for sure but I think they really did encounter some problems with the integrity of the wings which were only solvable with a lots of money and time which the russian millitary didn't have



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
To my eyes the wing in that picture looks quite different from the Berkut's It appears longer in span, shorter in chord and much less swept. OK for subsonic cruising but no good for supersonics or violent manouvering.

Incidentally, what parameters have the Berkuts wing been tested to in terms of speed and manouverabilty? Interestingly enough after all the effort put into it Sukhoi appear to have ditched the idea.


The angle of the picture is deceptive... I would say the wingspan is close if not identical to the berkut



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join