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.

 

Pic of 5th Generation Russian Fighter (PAK-FA)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I know that there are other threads on the PAK-FA (Perspektiwnyj Awiacionnyj Kompleks Frontowoj Awiacji) but this recent picture of the final configoration changes much of the previous speculation so I thought a clean start would help.

The PAK-FA is basically Russia’s 5th generation medium fighter.

Contrary to popular analysis, the PAK-FA owes more to Sukhoi’s S-54 and S-55 concepts than the sexier S-37 Berkut (twin engined technology demonstrator with forward swept wings, unlike the S-54/55 the Berkut made it into the air). But it is clearly bigger than the S-55 and almost certainly has a much more powerful engine with TVC, probably a development of the AL-31. Also, it is single seat.

The design configuration has been set and work on the prototype is due to start shortly at Novosibirsk. Rumors are that there’s a mock up but I haven’t seen any photos yet, I’ll update this when I do.

I am surprised that the design doesn’t have canards (like the S-55 concept and also recent more Flankers). There are no external hardpoints and the wingtips clearly don’t have provision for launch rails. But there is a large belly which is thought to accommodate a weapons bay.

The intake (reported twin-split) appears stealthy and probably has an S-profile to prevent radar beams bouncing off the engine.

I can do a more detailed analysis if there is sufficient interest.




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I thought there’d be more interest in this, since it is pretty cutting edge.

My initial analysis is that it is likely to be significantly better than F-16, F-18 and in some respects, Typhoon and Rafael also.

The weapons bay is probably large enough to carry four AA-12, which could be ramjet developments(?) and two AA-11 Archers. A weapons bay complicates the launching of these missiles but no doubt there are ways around that.

The biggest question mark is range. Without recourse to drop tanks, it probably has limited internal fuel.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
There is interest, I think its just that there is already a quite lengthy Pak Fa thread and the Pak Fa itself is all a little speculative at the moment.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I thought it was going to be a picture of the aircraft not a sketch. It looks to me like someone crossed an F-16 with a F/A-18 and maybe added F-15 intakes. Single engine will turn some people off on it. Might be a good cheap light-weight fighter if they don't try to turn it into a bomber.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
It is important to where did you get this 3-v piture?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The drawing originates from Sukhoi. Won’t say more than that but I have no reason to doubts its authenticity, even though it is hardly of “press release” quality. I must admit I’m secretly disappointed that the layout is so conventional.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Two words that make this aircraft second rate, or at the least imperfect design:


Single Engine



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Two words that make this aircraft second rate, or at the least imperfect design:


Single Engine

Why is that ??
What is so bad about a single engine when compared to a twin engine, a single engine is more effecient, more controllable and also more easier to maintain. Sure you get hit , you buy the farm but that would be the case with the F-16 too. That turned out to be a damn fine plane, so whats wrong if they take it one step higher ?


[edit on 28-11-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Two words that make this aircraft second rate, or at the least imperfect design:


Single Engine



as is the F-16 then , or the Mirage , or Gripen , or Rafale



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Two words that make this aircraft second rate, or at the least imperfect design:


Single Engine


To complete this: russian air force STRICTLY want two engine fighter. They will NEVER accept single engine fighter and because of that this picture is 99 % fake.

Sukhoi wanted to build single engine fighter, derived from Su-47 Berkut, but it was soon abadoned because air force didnt want it.




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by skippytjc
Two words that make this aircraft second rate, or at the least imperfect design:


Single Engine



as is the F-16 then , or the Mirage , or Gripen , or Rafale


Exactly. And thats why those fighters arent air superiority fighters, and never will be.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Do you think the French Air Force knows they are only getting one engine with each Rafale, they sure as hell have paid for two. And what are Dassault going to put in the hole?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   
As of now, nobody has explained why they think that single engined aircraft are crap or that twin engine aircraft are vastly superior .
Anyone willing to explain ??



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Battle damage. You take a hit and blow out an engine in a single engine plane, you're up the creek without a paddle, and down one airplane.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Battle damage. You take a hit and blow out an engine in a single engine plane, you're up the creek without a paddle, and down one airplane.

Thanks for answering the question but when a twin engine plane takes a hit and loses an engine it would be crippled and thus would still be a sitting duck for the enemy wouldnt it ?
that way you still get shot down, so what is the difference ?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Because there are many times you can be hit and lose an engine when you can easily get away from the enemy. Or if you are hit in A2A, your wingmen will cover you until you can get away. You can be hit coming off the target, by a AAA gun, so you stay low and limp out of the area, until you can go higher. If you take a hit and lose an engine, you're not automatically up the creek. There were a lot of planes during GW1 that lost engines that made it home just fine.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
It also because of mechanical failure: one engine burns out, etc., then there is the other to keep the aircraft flying. There are others reasons for having two engines, such as added thrust to weight ratio as applied to a single engine versus being distributed between two, etc, etc.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Two issues.

1. That the Russians favor twin engine fighters.
This has been true and with the exception of trainers and specialist aircraft, single engined aircraft have been removed from the Russian air force. This does not follow through to al the CIS member states. The main reason for this was PEACETIME safety due to the high level of engine failures experienced, in part due to poor maintenance. It is a surprise that the PAK-FA is single engine but not impossible at all. Single engine fighters offer several advantages, the biggest question being engine reliability. If the air force can be satisfied that the aircraft is as safe to operate as an existing twin engine one, then the culture of twin is better can be reversed. This seems to be the case.

2. That twin engine fighters are universally better and why.
The statement that all single engine fighters are flawed is an opinion which is not shared by all air forces, aircraft designers or industry analysts. There simply is no clear cut evidence to support it. Both single and twin engine aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. The pro-single lobby can cite size, weight and maintenance resources for example. Do the F-16 or Mirage 2000 have unacceptably high accident rates? The battle damage argument has an element of validity, but it is hard to remove case studies from their specific circumstances.

Gulf War 1 was used as an example to support a twin engine aircraft case on the grounds of battle damage. Yet in GW1 of the 40 aircraft the Allies lost, 70% were multi-engine. I’m not going to use that as an argument for single engine being better, merely to point out the stupidity of the case put forward.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
well this forum seems to have guys who have some knowledge about aircrafts can anyone please clear some of my queries:

1 Most sources say that the Su 37 will be the prototype for this bird but one source said that both the Su 37 and Mig MFI will be the prototypes
which one is more authentic?

2 Will the plasma stealth technology be used in this bird ?

3 What ddo you guys think about the stealth property of the bird ?

4 one Sukhoi scientist was quoted saying that it will be far better than the F-16 and Rafile and as much stealthy as the F 22 but with better manuvarablity (multiple nozzle ) what are your comments in this issue?



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Do you think the French Air Force knows they are only getting one engine with each Rafale, they sure as hell have paid for two. And what are Dassault going to put in the hole?



LOL


that`ll be a DOH from me

yes the Rafale has 2 engines



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join