Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Can you then explain to me what the restictions are on the F-22? What makes it "so slow."


Its not slow!

I'd put its top speed as somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.5.


But, it is a very large fighter, it has fixed inlets (while the F-22 does have a pressure vent for the inlet, reducing drag over a 'conventional' fixed inlet it still isn't ideal). The bypass cycle of the engines means the engine thrust begins to drop away as the Mach numbers get higher (I don't know the exact numbers of course, probably peaks around 1.5-1.8).




Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
And why is there less friction if weapons are carried internally. One would think that carrying them internally would mean that a larger area of the planes front would collide with air, thus slowing it down.


True, carrying them internally does make the aircraft larger, and would result in slight drag increases (compared to say, an empty uhhh F-15 with updated aerodynamics - not a great example but you get what I mean - The F-22 as it is would have slightly more drag than an F-22 that had not been designed with internal weapons carriage).


But, when carrying weapons externally, you are essentially sticking objects into the local flow around the aircraft - making a balls of all the hard work the designers put in refining the shape. There are all sorts of interactions between the pylons, the weapons and the aircraft, resulting in much increased drag.




posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Why?


Has the KGB (or RVS) or whatever they are these days gone out of business?



I believe the PAK-FA will be an improvement on the F-22 (which evolved from the YF-22), simply because it has been conceptualised 20+ years later. An awful lot has happened in that time, which makes the reception of initial ideas totally different.


For instance, 20 years ago when thinking about the F-22, did LM think of places to house lasers? Of course not, but you might expect the PAK-FA to.



The KGB isnt perfect. The F-22s limits are one of the most closely guarded secrets in the US. Its almost black status. Only very select people have access to the specs. For these reasons, no I dont think that the KGB or anything like them has acquired the specs of the F-22. It would be a national security uproar.

PAK-FA will be better than the F-22A, there is no doubt about that. But I am just making the point that it would not be hard to counter with the F-22B or F-22C which will undoubtedly match it. I think that in the F-22C we will be seeing:

-More powerful engines.
-Stealthy 3D TVC.
-Upgraded avionics.
-Better radar.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
How come this fighter can be so fast? It can't be the engines. Russia is way behind USA on that frontier.


Not quite true. In fact, it could be said that the US has been beaten on a frontier or two there. The latest toy coming from the United States is the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engine in use on the F-35 (I won't go into the developing F-136, interesting though it may be, I'll stick with what is being used right now). This thing puts out 28,000 pounds of thrust dry, and about 40,000 with burners. The latest from the Russian camp is the AL-41F1 which weighs in at 137.5 kN dry (the F-135 is 128 kN dry). I'm too lazy to look these up in imperial measurements, learn metric. Burner spec is probably pretty impressive on that crate. And, yes, the engine is being used on the Su-35 BM whizzing around.

One more thing that the Russians have; the Al-41 variants in use have independent 3D thrust vectoring, whereas I believe F-22 has 2D TVC. For those of us who have seen the MiG 29 OVT/MiG 35, you know the kind of fun that can result from having toys like that
.


Therefore the only possible reason is the avionics and purely the shape of the plane. The F-22 goes Mach 1.7 because it has huge air intakes and due to the fact that it carries all of its weaponry internally.


Actually the speed of F-22 is supposed to be somewhere in the 2's, but that's not quite what I wanted to talk about. Although if the aircraft were empty it would have a larger drag than another empty Raptor that was fitted for external mounts, this isn't true for most combat situations. Putting ordnance externally on an aircraft gives HUGE amounts of drag. A fully loaded internal Raptor will be much more efficient than a fully loaded external Raptor. Also, the internal weapons significantly decreases RCS, a major selling point of the Raptor.



-Stealthy 3D TVC.


To be honest, I do doubt this. Look at the engine outlets on the aircraft. They're square. Although this allows for very easy 2D thrust vectoring, it makes 3D vectoring hard, since you also need to mount flaps on the sides. At the sides are the rather important elevators which, when burned off by your engines, lose their usefulness. Seriously though, the engine nozzles for the '22 are just too close together and not built for 3D thrust in mind; 2D thrust was a requirement of the program and they did it right. PAK-FA will have 3D TVC (let us all for a moment look at the concept drawings, even though nobody really wants to because they're not proven) by the looks of the engines. They are widely spaced, the structures near then allow for the airflow past rather than over when the engines are vectored, and the engine nozzles are capable of 3D TVC (they're round.). Interestingly enough, this doesn't enormously reduce stealth properties, because if you look at the RCS models of the aircraft the intakes ( like all the '27 variants) are very square, and only become really rounded at the nozzle itself. So the RCS won't be hurt too much.

Anyway. Rant over.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23

The KGB isnt perfect. The F-22s limits are one of the most closely guarded secrets in the US. Its almost black status. Only very select people have access to the specs. For these reasons, no I dont think that the KGB or anything like them has acquired the specs of the F-22. It would be a national security uproar.

PAK-FA will be better than the F-22A, there is no doubt about that. But I am just making the point that it would not be hard to counter with the F-22B or F-22C which will undoubtedly match it. I think that in the F-22C we will be seeing:

-More powerful engines.
-Stealthy 3D TVC.
-Upgraded avionics.
-Better radar.



The manhattan project was also a black project... Look what it ended up with: Full off spies that where sending info about the project all the way to Moscow...
1949: The first Soviet nuke exploding... Says it all my buddy.

Btw cheers man



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Daedalus3,

That looks like a Planar array


Maybe you were referring to the Zhuk-AE





hmm.. Actually I was referring to the Zhuk MAE and I thought that was it?
I'll get back on that..



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Who is to say that the Russians don't know all about the F-22 via their buddies in China from the Chinese industrial participation in the F-22?

A couple of weeks ago Flight reported that the Pentagon was starting an investigation into how much Chinese involvement there is is in the F-22 and what level of sensitivity these companies have access to.

The Raptor programme is now at the stage where fully developed hardware is rolling off the lines and into the USAF squadrons so its a bit late to be worrying now isn't it



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
One would think that carrying them internally would mean that a larger area of the planes front would collide with air, thus slowing it down.


The plane will have a larger surface area, but it is still less than that of an aircraft + combined surface area of all externally mounted weapons.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Not quite true. In fact, it could be said that the US has been beaten on a frontier or two there. The latest toy coming from the United States is the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engine in use on the F-35 (I won't go into the developing F-136, interesting though it may be, I'll stick with what is being used right now). This thing puts out 28,000 pounds of thrust dry, and about 40,000 with burners. The latest from the Russian camp is the AL-41F1 which weighs in at 137.5 kN dry (the F-135 is 128 kN dry). I'm too lazy to look these up in imperial measurements, learn metric. Burner spec is probably pretty impressive on that crate. And, yes, the engine is being used on the Su-35 BM whizzing around.


I disagree on this point. To me it sounds like you are measuring engine excellence purely by thrust. It gives a faulty picture in many ways. There are so many more things to look at in an engine. Service lenght, easy to maintain, cost efficiency only naming few. That was actually one of the big sellingpoints in the F-22. It was designed to be handy and maintainable for the ground crew, somtehing they actually have acchieved doing. Now if we compare the thrust ammounts of the F-125 and the AL-41F1, the difference is nothing but huge, 9.5kN. That's 9500 N and yes it may sound like a huge number, but comparing to the total ammount of thrust it's not.


One more thing that the Russians have; the Al-41 variants in use have independent 3D thrust vectoring, whereas I believe F-22 has 2D TVC. For those of us who have seen the MiG 29 OVT/MiG 35, you know the kind of fun that can result from having toys like that .


Undoubtably, 3D TVC gives you an edge in a dogfight. It would be wrong to say otherwise. I've seen on youtube what the MiG 35 is cabable of, but as you admitted yourself it's just a toy
. Even though it has excellent agility it won't match the western fighters in BVR. Therefore tell me, would you rather sit in a MiG 35 or an F-35 in combat?


The plane will have a larger surface area, but it is still less than that of an aircraft + combined surface area of all externally mounted weapons.


Already explained to me, but thanks


[edit on 17-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
After watching most many MiG-35/Su-35/Su-37 videos on youtube, I can see that they are supermaneuverable, but most of those maneuvers dont invovle yaw. Those fighters are mostly demonstrating only two dimentions of their 3d TVC.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I disagree on this point. To me it sounds like you are measuring engine excellence purely by thrust. It gives a faulty picture in many ways.


Actually, I was measuring the engines purely by the straight facts as I could dig them up. Since I wasn't able to dig up on the facts like service lifetime, or amount of maintenance required, it would be rather arbitrary to give a guess, which coming from me, would have no accuracy whatsoever. Even if I could find these stats on the F-135, far less is known about the AL-41. I'm just trying to show the facts that I could find rather than speculating on those that I didn't.



Undoubtably, 3D TVC gives you an edge in a dogfight. It would be wrong to say otherwise. I've seen on youtube what the MiG 35 is cabable of, but as you admitted yourself it's just a toy
. Even though it has excellent agility it won't match the western fighters in BVR.


Now, see, I'm not sure about that anymore. It's really difficult to say what with the amount of information available on the radar systems which is better. Russia's have gotten better, United States still have good ones. This is the extent of my knowledge and amount of actual research since it's only Sunday. So, then, let's take a look at missiles. But since I'm lazy I'll just make a generalization that oversimplifies things in such a way that no decision is really reached and will most definitely be refuted within 4 posts.

Neither missile user has any advantage. Although Russia has a couple snappy things in its arsenal (IR missiles with over-the-shoulder tracking with Su-30's rear-facing radar, IRST, Extra range on that R-77, that monster R-172, etc...) the missiles are simply not as reliable as the legendary AIM-120 "Slammer" and new AIM-9X, so it's hard to say who has the advantage.

One thing I am going to say will give an advantage would be the AIM-120D missile, which is going to put some serious hurt on the BVR opponent. But for right now I'm more tempted to say that they're more balanced than you might think. Assuming, of course, we're looking at F-35 and MiG-35, since F-22 will likely put a dent in anything.



Therefore tell me, would you rather sit in a MiG 35 or an F-35 in combat?


The sexy one.



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0


Actually, I was measuring the engines purely by the straight facts as I could dig them up. Since I wasn't able to dig up on the facts like service lifetime, or amount of maintenance required, it would be rather arbitrary to give a guess, which coming from me, would have no accuracy whatsoever. Even if I could find these stats on the F-135, far less is known about the AL-41. I'm just trying to show the facts that I could find rather than speculating on those that I didn't.


You are willing to discuss how good the PAK-FA is on the drawing board but you refuse to debate other areas such as the maintaining part I just wrote about?

Let us speculate a bit, do you think that the maintainance of aircraft is Russia is up with the western world?


Assuming, of course, we're looking at F-35 and MiG-35, since F-22 will likely put a dent in anything.


Oh yes, USA can always bring in the Raptor when it gets tough



The sexy one.


I see, you would also go for the F-35



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I highly doubt 3d TVC has much of an advantage of 2d TVC. The only advantage I would see is if the plane is a spin or has a high alpha which shouldn't cause the plane to loose control with FBW.



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
You are willing to discuss how good the PAK-FA is on the drawing board but you refuse to debate other areas such as the maintaining part I just wrote about?


If you can find me some hard facts concerning the other parts I am glad to discuss them, but speculating on something that has not been commented on by the Russians is difficult and quite likely not accurate in the least. Therefore it is quite possibly wiser to focus on things that have been released and statistics that are available for us to review. Speculating about parts on PAK-FA right now would be similar to speculating on the Raptor's successor; the sheer amount of hidden facts forces us to deal with what we've got.



I see, you would also go for the F-35


КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

If you can find me some hard facts concerning the other parts I am glad to discuss them, but speculating on something that has not been commented on by the Russians is difficult and quite likely not accurate in the least. Therefore it is quite possibly wiser to focus on things that have been released and statistics that are available for us to review. Speculating about parts on PAK-FA right now would be similar to speculating on the Raptor's successor; the sheer amount of hidden facts forces us to deal with what we've got.




The infrastructure of the Russian Air Force has changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Both the air control and airbase systems have diminished substantially, and their regional distribution has become distorted, when taking into account the current Russian groupings and operative threat scenarios. Under the prevailing economic circumstances it seems unlikely that the Air Force can take quick measures to fix the situation. Therefore, Russia is trying to fill in the gaps in air control with its relatively small AWACS fleet and cooperation with several CIS countries. However, in practice the latter usually means that Russia participates in local development projects as the bill-payer. It also seems unlikely that Russia could increase the number of serviceable airbases by much, and thus it cannot but continue to maintain the current quite close Air Force unit groupings.

The gaps in the maintenance system due to loss of depot standard facilities to neighboring countries have caused maintenance delays, and it takes time before the system can be brought up to date. This project belongs to the third phase of the ongoing reorganization program.


It is rather clear to me that Russia isn't up with the USA in aircraft maintainance and "system keep alive" in general. There is no point having a Ferrari in your garage if you don't have fuel to run it. After some years, when Russia has had the time to improve they will sure be better, but at the moment they can't compete with USA.


КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!


What does this mean
Don't force me to find somebody who knows Russian


[edit on 19-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
It is rather clear to me that Russia isn't up with the USA in aircraft maintainance and "system keep alive" in general. There is no point having a Ferrari in your garage if you don't have fuel to run it. After some years, when Russia has had the time to improve they will sure be better, but at the moment they can't compete with USA.


True, but you have to compare their systems with the budget allotted. I'm willing to bet that the amounts of money that the Russian Air Force has to work with aren't anywhere close to the astronomical amounts bequeathed to the USAF. In such a case, it's likely that it will be difficult to achieve the same amount of stuff as the USAF. Which is, of course, the case that we have. But you really have to admire the Russian air force. Even with the lesser amounts of money to work with, it's still an institution that is capable of doing what it has to do.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get that sourced from? I can't seem to find a link to it.




КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!


What does this mean
Don't force me to find somebody who knows Russian



Russian Translation



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN

Originally posted by Darkpr0

If you can find me some hard facts concerning the other parts I am glad to discuss them, but speculating on something that has not been commented on by the Russians is difficult and quite likely not accurate in the least. Therefore it is quite possibly wiser to focus on things that have been released and statistics that are available for us to review. Speculating about parts on PAK-FA right now would be similar to speculating on the Raptor's successor; the sheer amount of hidden facts forces us to deal with what we've got.




The infrastructure of the Russian Air Force has changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Both the air control and airbase systems have diminished substantially, and their regional distribution has become distorted, when taking into account the current Russian groupings and operative threat scenarios. Under the prevailing economic circumstances it seems unlikely that the Air Force can take quick measures to fix the situation. Therefore, Russia is trying to fill in the gaps in air control with its relatively small AWACS fleet and cooperation with several CIS countries. However, in practice the latter usually means that Russia participates in local development projects as the bill-payer. It also seems unlikely that Russia could increase the number of serviceable airbases by much, and thus it cannot but continue to maintain the current quite close Air Force unit groupings.

The gaps in the maintenance system due to loss of depot standard facilities to neighboring countries have caused maintenance delays, and it takes time before the system can be brought up to date. This project belongs to the third phase of the ongoing reorganization program.


It is rather clear to me that Russia isn't up with the USA in aircraft maintainance and "system keep alive" in general. There is no point having a Ferrari in your garage if you don't have fuel to run it. After some years, when Russia has had the time to improve they will sure be better, but at the moment they can't compete with USA.


КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!


What does this mean
Don't force me to find somebody who knows Russian


[edit on 19-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]
On October 24, 2003 Russia opened a NEW airbase in Kant in Kyrgyzstan, just twenty miles to the east of a rented American base at Manas, used for supporting “counter terrorist” operations in Afghanistan.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Disregard. responding to something on a different page here!


The Winged Wombat

[edit on 20/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
I highly doubt 3d TVC has much of an advantage of 2d TVC. The only advantage I would see is if the plane is a spin or has a high alpha which shouldn't cause the plane to loose control with FBW.


Well, maybe.
But think about tailless fighter compare with normal plane. All of tailless aircraft like Mirage 3, 2000 are inferior than normal plane on vertical maneuver because they have shortage of more control surface. Which situation are same on OTV and 2D TVC. Fighter with only 2D TVC are lacking one dimention power to turn.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   


True, but you have to compare their systems with the budget allotted. I'm willing to bet that the amounts of money that the Russian Air Force has to work with aren't anywhere close to the astronomical amounts bequeathed to the USAF. In such a case, it's likely that it will be difficult to achieve the same amount of stuff as the USAF. Which is, of course, the case that we have. But you really have to admire the Russian air force. Even with the lesser amounts of money to work with, it's still an institution that is capable of doing what it has to do.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get that sourced from? I can't seem to find a link to it.


This is the site. It's from 2006 but it still reflects the truth very well.

You now admit that USA is better at maintaining. However you bring up a "lousy" excuse such as money. Maintaining can be taken care of without the billions, countries such as Finland and Sweden are great examples of that. My point is that we didn't start to debate money issues but purely the efficiency of the ground crew so it's pointless to bring that matter up now. I have no will nor any need to admire the Russian airforce. However I admit that they use great planes. When it comes to pure agility they have no competetors, but that's where the adoring ends from my side.


Russian Translation






[edit on 20-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how are you going to HAVE great pilots if you don't TRAIN? Great pilots aren't born.


Great pilots may not be born but you most certainly can not 'create' them training either. What you can do however is to integrate your air defenses and make ground control fly your planes to the engagement zones and back with the pilots only serving as a 'backup' system, if you like, only there to take control of the physical interception and to provide additional information when some systems fails. In this case( CGI) and in the era of BVR combat you do not need the flying skills of old and while it never hurts it can not and should not serve as a argument that consigns a entire enemy air force to so called insignificance.


You have to train to be able to fight a war. Otherwise you might as well just slap airline pilots into your fighters and send them out to get shot down.


It's not that i fundamentally disagree but that you do not seem to be interested in the contingencies inherent in different doctrines. How did the Vietnamese or Korean pilots 'learn' to fly under combat conditions with enemy planes in the sky? Did they have have the type of expansive air defenses that can prevent large scale penetration of the internal areas of their countries? Did they have nuclear missiles that could lay waste to the air bases that could threaten their own air force and did they have the means to destroy the very same type of strategic weaponry they would employ against their enemies?


Look at the training budgets of France, Italy, Japan, even China. They pay HUGE amounts of money every year to train their pilots, and NONE of them have fought a war recently or are preparing to.


Your always preparing for war and i don't understand why some still pretend that the Russians stopped flying after the cold war. According to what we know that air force were still flying 200 000 - 230 000 hours a year by 99'


The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. T

www.aeronautics.ru...


So given a force of 700 odd Su-27's and Mig-31's and a EXTREMELY generous amount of flight hours ( lets say 150 per pilot) that still leaves that alleged 30 hours per pilot for a additional 3000 pilots. To train a pilot to fly one mission type does not require 100 hours a year and certainly not when the ground controllers can and probably will be doing most of the flying in wartime situation. The NATO standard in the cold war was in fact only around a hundred hours so it's pretty clear that if the Russian are choosing to let their pilots fly on 30 hours per year they are choosing to retain a force of more than 6000 pilots.


They realize that if they're going to be ABLE to fight, they have to TRAIN their pilots. They're willing to sacrifice in other areas to come up with the money they need for that training.


Sure they do and it's apparent if they still manage to find do much funds to retain to so many pilots or fly that many hours.


As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them?


I have no idea and i suppose it was not in fact top of the line German transports or bombers? If there is no CG the pilot remains very important indeed and i know that inferior aircraft can do great damage as they proved back in Vietnam and in any number of other conflicts.


Because they used them properly to do it. You can have an old plane, or a crappy plane, and still win a dogfight if you use the plane properly.


Only if you are the veteran and the recruit fresh from basic training gets unlucky or stupid enough to not use his performance margin to stay out of your sights. In such scenarios it is as much the skill of the veteran as the mistakes of his opponent that allows for upsets but it is not true that the outcome can not be predicted if both flies within specifications and do not make tactical or doctrinal mistakes.

Stellar





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join