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.

 

Raptors Fatal Flaw

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Resemblence is different from being copied/stolen. The Tu-160 might look like the B-1B, maybe Tupolev took a look at the B-1B and decided they needed something for high altitude high speed bombing and designed it after the B-1. It is not that easy to just look at a plane and make another plane like it, say I show you a F-22, can you build another one on your own just by looking at it and not studying the internal features at all?




posted on May, 22 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
my apologies over the raptor's stable airframe issue and the S-300 issue.


Anyway thanks for showing me the light.

And i agree with warlord, an airplane cant be made by looking at pics or models of another.

I would call an airplane a copy if you get the original airplane an then disect it, and then reverse engineer it to make your own airplane.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Everyones talking about how the F-22 wouldnt be able to launch aam's in a dog fight. Well usually in a dogfight there are barely any missiles launched, because both pilots are flying very intricately. So instead of relying on the missiles the engineers decided to put the M61A2 20-mm cannon. Its a variant of the gun on the front of the A-10. That is what dogfighting is about. Usually missiles are used if a pilot is stupid enough to start flying straight. Other than that its up to the good old fashioned guns.


Oh and for anyone who said the F-22 wouldnt be able to launch missiles while doing a sharp climb or turn, this pic shows the bay doors being opened for launch while upside down and falling.
www.tvk.rwth-aachen.de...



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Well yes, the Tu 160 does resemble the B-1, but if one is going to make smug remarks you should expect to be pulled up about it if you then get it wrong.


Regarding the similarity between the Tu-160 and B-1, the Tupolev OKB didn't just flat out decide to make a bomber that looked like the B-1, as it might be easy to assume they did. They conducted exhaustive research into the design of a new large strategic bomber, some of the proposals were based on the Tu-144 airliner, and the shape of the Tu-160 gradually evolved through this research. It is easy to look at the Tu-160 and see a likeness to the B-1 obviously but there was no copying going on at all. It is merely that Tupolev research showed the layout used to be the best one for their aircraft, which is in fact much bigger than a B-1. It is no more a copy than the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109 et al were copies of each other. They simply use the same layout. In fact if you were to study a close up photo of identical sections anywhere on a B-1 and Tu 160 yopu would see that they are utterly different. This talk of copying is extremely shallow, no to mention wide of the mark.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I agree waynos. The same goes for centurion's claim that the PAK-FA is a copy of the F-22 just because the artists impression of it looks like the F-22 or some claims that the tejas is a copy of the mirage, or that the rafale is a copy of the typhoon.

But the same cannot be true in the case of the J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10, FC-1, H-5, H-6 which were all reverse engineered from other airplanes after obtaining the other plane, disecting the same and making your own plane or by buying some existing design with all of the R&D on it completed.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I have seen some info on the f-22 and from what i have read it is own of the most advanced fighters in the world. It has a radar cross section of a bumblebee and was tested against 5 f-15's and managed to get all 5. pretty impressive.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

But the same cannot be true in the case of the J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10, FC-1, H-5, H-6 which were all reverse engineered from other airplanes after obtaining the other plane, disecting the same and making your own plane or by buying some existing design with all of the R&D on it completed.



Exactly. That is where you have a copy, even one which is much more developed than the original (eg J-10, FC-1), it does not change the fact that the origin of the aircraft is a copy of something else



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
You're really funny Stealth Spy, because I remember a whilte back I recall you hated the Stable airframe.




As a matter of choice, i dislike its unstable airframe too


That was about the F-16 seen here, www.abovetopsecret.com...

You kind of remind me of someone, "I actually voted for the stable airframe, before I voted against it"


And just for the record, none of the Flanker variants can do the Cobra or Super Cobra fully loaded, and they can only do it with a very small fuel fraction. The Flanker's wing loading is too high and it's g-factor lowers when fully loaded, it get's around 7.5 g's at full combat weight, while the F-15 gets around 8.6



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
All nice to learn, but the fact of the matter is that there is a distinct difference between stealth and manueverability.

The Su-37 Flanker and the F/A-22 Raptor.

Believed to be the world's two most powerful aircraft. It's true that the Raptor is way more advanced than the Flanker stealth wise, and can easily take out a flanker, but what alot of people seem to misunderstand, is the fact that if the Raptor's stealth fails for whatever reason, and it's in a dogfight with a Flanker(which by the way Raptor's are to not fall into dogfights, First sight, first kill basis), the flanker would most definetly win the dogfight.

The Flanker is capable of 3 dimensional TVC, where as the Raptor is only capable of 2D. I believe that the Raptor sacrifices a large part of its manueverability for stealth, and I believe it's for the better, this way the Raptor will always squeeze off the first shot, and will win the fight without the Flanker even seeing what's happening.

But, I think what Richard was trying to get at, is it's not the Raptor that will fall behind the times, is that the more inferior aircraft, like the Flanker, Super flanker, and Berkrut, will advance in radar technology, they will be able to see to the Raptor, so the Raptor in essence, will be completely useless with it's stealth, so in 5-10 years, there may possibly be Radar that can counter Stealth, and you can't go back and change the entire design of the Raptor's stealth so that it has a lower cross-section, the Raptor is only open to very limited improvement, so upgrades will be difficult. The Raptor may only reign dominant for a decade or so. But in level of technology, it will reign dominant for 2 decades. However there will always be a Radar that is built to counter the Raptor, and with that in place, the Raptor is virtually useless.

Shattered OUT...


This is exactly the problem. The US has bet the family farm of the F-22's stealth capacity. Question: is it easier to develope stealth or a new radar to detect stealth? And, of course, there is the rumor that the Russians say it is possible to induce stealth in any aircraft, even a DC-3, by using a plasma envelope. So, where is the F-22 then? Even its tactics are based on stealth.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
But the same cannot be true in the case of the J-6, J-7, J-8, J-10, FC-1, H-5, H-6 which were all reverse engineered from other airplanes after obtaining the other plane, disecting the same and making your own plane or by buying some existing design with all of the R&D on it completed.


Please define copy. If you mean illegally copied or reverse engineered, none of them make the cut. The J-6 and J-7 are just MiG-19s and MiG-21s made in China with Chinese parts. The J-8 is a MiG-21 modified to fit 2 engines, done with the approval of the Russians.

The Chinese did try to reverse engineer a Pakistani F-16 illegally (yes,copy), but eventually they turned to the Israelis who provided them with assistance and information on the Lavi. However, if you take time to study the dimensions they are very different.

As for the Fc-1, it resembles the F-5 and F-20, but for the MiG-33 as you said, it is just a MiG-29 with a new designation, and the Fc-1 looks totally different from the MiG-29, for example Fc-1 has one engine while MiG-29 has 2 engines. In fact, the Fc-1 looks more like a Mirage 2000 than a MiG-29.

As for the bombers H-5 and H-6, they are again manufactured under licenses. The H-6 is just a Tu-16 made in China, nothing really copied about that.

The point that I'm trying to make is, of the planes you said China copied, most of them are manufactured under licenses, making it more like they were actually bought rather than copied. If you regard the J-7s,J-8s,J-10s and J-11s etc as being copied, then the Su-30MKI is also copied when they make it in India. If you would just relax and really think about it, you would see what I mean.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Stealth Spy haven't you learnt in the other threads we agured in??

we ( chinkcoms and others) have continuly wasted you in these.

Everytime you say the same things but in different threads. then i have to spoon feed you this info again

FC-1

Russian Mikoyan Aero-Science Production Group (MASPG) providing assistance in some design work as well as its RD-93 turbofan engine to power the aircraft.


the mig-33 was never even a prototype. it was just a design concept. It was just a rumour about the FC-1 being designed from mig-33. because of mig design help.

STEALTH SPY THIS IS FOR YOU

As part of my research on strategic affairs I frequent numerous web sites that focus on India's emergence as a military power. The enthusiasm expressed on most such forums by young Indians for Defense Research Projects managed by the DRDO, such as the LCA, Arjun MBT and the Brahmos is gratifying. Unfortunately, there is no similar enthusiasm for DRDO products within the defense forces. The IAF is not as thrilled as the young people on these forums about the proposed induction of the LCA. Clearly, there is a serious disconnect and I will attempt to address in these columns in the coming days.



Introduction

A Marut of 31 Sqn IAF at the AF Museum, PalamThe recent news, curiously enough reported only by ¹Calcutta telegraph to best of my knowlede, that the Kaveri engine being built to power the Tejas LCA had failed in high altitude simulation test on the ground was a disappointment. However, it was not a surprise. Bangalore based Gas Turbine and Research Organization, GTRE, has in the past failed to deliver on the HJE-2500 engine for the Kiran jet trainer or come up with anything credible when the Maruts languished for want of a suitable engine during the 70s. Its ability to come up with a GE F404 replacement was suspect at the very best, more likely quixotic.

²Air Chief Marshal S. Krishnaswamy on October 6 acknowledged the setback in Kaveri development when he recommended a mid-term quality review of the Kaveri aero-engine

As part of my research on strategic affairs I frequent numerous web sites that focus on India's emergence as a military power. The enthusiasm expressed on most such forums by young Indians for Defense Research Projects managed by the DRDO, such as the LCA, Arjun MBT and the Brahmos is gratifying. Unfortunately, there is no similar enthusiasm for DRDO products within the defense forces. The IAF is not as thrilled as the young people on these forums about the proposed induction of the LCA. Clearly, there is a serious disconnect and I will attempt to address in these columns in the coming days.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

the mig-33 was never even a prototype. it was just a design concept. It was just a rumour about the FC-1 being designed from mig-33. because of mig design help.


Yeah Yeah, every thing china copy is a rumour, when there is solid evidence, which i have provided to you and you have accepted the same in this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

First of all you seem to have lifted some personal views of an individual form some forum without even specifying the source.

It is another unsucessful effort of yours to cover up Chinese copying bu suggesting that every indegenously developed piece of technology from India is crap. Are you suggesting that India too take to copying?

Are these views official ?...No.
India is a nation of 1.1 billion people each having a seperate view. Are you trying to endorse a view of an unknown individual to be the real case ?

It is a reflection of India's free society and free press.
Lets see someone in communist China where the state controls everything say anything like that and he'll be dragged into the streets and used for shooting practise.

The individual quoted by you seems to be fraustrated by the fact that the Kaveri engine failed some test in Russia. Well, that was in 2001.
And that was when the quoted author said sad things.

The problem has been rectified and the Kaveri engine has now undergone 150+ hours of supersonic testing sucessfully and has passed every test in India and Russia. This issue has been addressed by Rajkhalsa and me several times now, and is one you are acquainted with.

China is yet to produce an original aircraft enigine of its own. The W-10 A is alredy addressed by me in www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might want to save this post so that you can refer to it everytime you post wild stuff like this.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
go view this www.fas.org...

Only 20 LCA's will use the F-117's engine. The rest will use the Kaveri

and BTW read this article for yourself : LCA with Kaveri engine to be operationalised in 2009

and save this too.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
If you mean illegally copied or reverse engineered, none of them make the cut. The J-6 and J-7 are just MiG-19s and MiG-21s made in China with Chinese parts.


Isint that bad enough. Besides your own respected chinese sources claim the same thing and categorically use the word "COPY".

China are infact re-naming these planes, and claiming these to be indegenously developed.


M6D

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
i ask you stealth spy whyare you so worked up over china? can you not admit if china waged war with india they'd waste you? can you not admit, that despite most of their aircraft been copies, india wouldnt stand achance in a war? because you seem like a remarkably arrogant person, you seem to have issues with china for no reason, i believe you have a superiority complex, and it would be better for you if you just admitted china due to sheer numbers would beat your country



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
My sincere apologies if i appeared arrogant but my previous post was only a reply to a meritless and prejudice ridden post by chinawhite.

Infact, this must be the 20th time he has posted about the Kaveri engine's test failure in Russia in 2001, when its been fixed and running and ready for induction.

And the Indian Air Force stand more than a chance against China. Although China enjoys a numerical superiority, it is only because of aircrafts like the J-7 (Mig-21). The Indian Airforce is qualitatively superior to the Chinese one.

Ever heard of Su-30 MKI's ?? If you have'nt go check out vayu-sena.tripod.com... India will have around 170 of those by 2007. They alredy operate large numbers of those (~90).

Ever heard of Mirage-2000's, Mig-29's, Jaguar's and their numbers in the IAF ??

Ever heard of the Phalcon AWACS ??

Ever heard of the LCA Tejas ??

I suggest you go check out this thread as well >> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have any idea of the war between India and China in 1962 ?

i suggest you go look up deatils on this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for my arrogance, i would kindly request you to advice me on what parts of my post made me appear so and how i could improve on it.


And to Warlord : Can u give me proof that russia gave their consent for the Mig-21 to be remade and named the J-7 ? And did russia give consent to China to sell the J-7, etc to Pakistan ?

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
OMG!!! My apologies to the original Creator of the thread for this.

STOP GOING ONTO COPYING!!!

I thought this stuff was banned from ATS!!! >.<

This is a thread about the F/A-22 Raptor and POSSIBLE flaws, not about a bunch of people's superiority complex, are we so undisciplined? Man, this is so annoying to see this happen in some poor fella's thread.

Stealth Spy, you are to blame for all of this, if you would just keep your mouth shut, but you can't can you? If you wanted to know why noone would respond to you in another thread, was because we didn't want you doing this, someone responds to you, and now looks what happen, maybe you should take a week or two, and just try and teach yourself to watch what you say and when, we don't like this stuff, please, let this be the last off topic post, please, back to the topic at hand.

Can we all do this? And for everyone who responded without saying stop, you are all just as equally to blame. Including me, but I just had to say something, no one would listen to Seekrof when he said stop, but seriously, please stop.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Well, I think that the possibility of opening the doors to launch a missile being a potential problem would have been at the forefront of the designers minds, seeing how exacting the specification was in the first place and that, consequently, a great deal of money and effort was expended in making sure that it wasn't a problem at all.

The Raptor may eventually prove to have a fatal flaw of some kind, unfortunately this sort of thing is unpredictable, but if it has it wont be something so obvious that a load of plane buffs on a messageboard could spot it ahead of Lockheed and the USAF.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Well, I think that the possibility of opening the doors to launch a missile being a potential problem would have been at the forefront of the designers minds, seeing how exacting the specification was in the first place and that, consequently, a great deal of money and effort was expended in making sure that it wasn't a problem at all.

The Raptor may eventually prove to have a fatal flaw of some kind, unfortunately this sort of thing is unpredictable, but if it has it wont be something so obvious that a load of plane buffs on a messageboard could spot it ahead of Lockheed and the USAF.


Well said mate.

The bottom line is, if anyone on this board can think of a potential problem, then the best aerospace engineers in the world with the biggest budgets in the world would most likely have thought of it.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Cheers AMM, some people think I'm anti-American you know



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join