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.

 

Russia's next-generation warplane to make maiden flight in 2009

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoebus
 


Those are both 4.5 gen. There is no 6th gen out yet, or even close that anyone has heard of. The PAK-FA is a 5th gen, no matter what you might wish about it.




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Is the exactly the opposite! High G manoeuvers,also at subsonic regime,have a high impact on PK(probability to kill) of missiles within BVR engagements [ex.: The physics are that G-Forces in a ‘tracking’ turn of a given radius are a square of the speed. A typical engagement has the fighter doing Mach 0.9 and the Missile is arriving at Mach 3.6 - four times as fast as the fighter. If the fighter can generate a 5 G turn, the missile must track at 16 times the G to follow the aircraft, an 80 G turn. BVR missiles generally max-out at about 40G, so depending on the aspect, cannot track, so fly past the aircraft and miss. Read www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270109-1.html or the book J.A. Sterensen"The phisyc of moderns missiles"].
For chronicle: AIM 120 Pk in Serbian campaign 46% vs not jamming not alerted targets and vs Mig 29 FulcrumA(the older)without jamming pod,without Jamming pods,with its radar jammed and attacked from multiple directions, 38% !!!
The manoeuvrability is also unbelievably useful to deceive doppler or high power radars [see vayu-sena.tripod.com... ].
When i Hear :"The great manoeuvrability of russian's aircrafts is only for airshow" i convince myself the world is full of uncultured people.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
This plane looks like a response to the F-22. This picture shows it with a delta wing with cannards and internal weapon storage. I like the sensors to the left and right of the engines at the rear so I wonder if it can fire missles "backwards".






posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
This plane looks like a response to the F-22. This picture shows it with a delta wing with cannards and internal weapon storage.


Pictures of PAK-FA concepts are just speculation right now. The best real lead to how PAK-FA will look is a concept drawing done by NPO Saturn, the company responsible for the engines.




I like the sensors to the left and right of the engines at the rear so I wonder if it can fire missles "backwards".


The Su-47 had a similar tailboom setup. One of them contained a parachute for landing assistance, and the other had a rear-facing radar (Probably a V005, but I'm not sure). Also of question is the effectiveness of such radars, although it has been used on previous Russian aircraft (Su-37 and maybe earlier Flankers IIRC) which suggests that they think it is of some worth.

All in all, I'm not sure that saying PAK-FA will never come is a fair thing to say. The Russians have already signed the deal with India for their own version of it (FGFA), and I do think it would be probable that backing out of such agreement might cause some feces to meet fan. Ah, well. Draw your own conclusions.

Pr0



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
At airshow speeds. The question is- how maneuverable is the aircraft at high subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speeds. No aircraft is going to be doing Cobras, Kulbits, flips, etc... at high speeds.

Secondly, if you're within the NEZ of a modern missile, no 9G maneuver is going to avoid a 60-80G missile travelling Mach 4+.


Is the exactly the opposite! High G manoeuvers,also at subsonic regime,have a high impact on PK(probability to kill) of missiles within BVR engagements [ex.: The physics are that G-Forces in a ‘tracking’ turn of a given radius are a square of the speed. A typical engagement has the fighter doing Mach 0.9 and the Missile is arriving at Mach 3.6 - four times as fast as the fighter. If the fighter can generate a 5 G turn, the missile must track at 16 times the G to follow the aircraft, an 80 G turn. BVR missiles generally max-out at about 40G, so depending on the aspect, cannot track, so fly past the aircraft and miss. Read www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270109-1.html or the book J.A. Sterensen"The phisyc of moderns missiles"].
For chronicle: AIM 120 Pk in Serbian campaign has 46% of successful downing vs not jamming not alerted targets, and vs Mig 29 FulcrumA (the older)without jamming pod,without chaff,flares and decoys,with its radar jammed and attacked from multiple directions,only 38% !!!
The manoeuvrability is also unbelievably useful to deceive doppler or high power radars [see vayu-sena.tripod.com... ].
When i hear :"The great manoeuvrability of russian's aircrafts is only for airshow" i convince myself the world is full of uncultured people.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


ALL these pictures are old. PAK-FA program is absolutely secret. The appearance of plane is top secret. It's specifications are secret. U wont find any OPEN and RELIABLE information on it - even if it'll come from General staff. People that know something keep silence. Just like with Object-195 ("famous" "T-95")
The main difference between US Army and RuA is that the first do everything to keep their faults in secret, the second do everything to keep their achievements in secret.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


Almost looks like the YF 23...

I thought the response to the 22 Raptor was the Sukhoi Su-47 and the Mig 1.44...

But I dont really know about planes that much...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoebus
Whlie the PAK-FA, is not likly going to be used by the russians at all, seems more and more likly that it's to be a pure low-cost high manuver fighter for export purpuses.


From what I gather from different sources it looks like the PAK FA is going to be an advanced version of the 5th gen fighter for domestic use only. It's not going to be purchased in huge quantities but I think some 60-80 fighters will go to the Russian BBC (Airforce).

There will be a lighter version of 5th gen plane - with one engine and probably with some advanced tech removed (like 3rd gen plasma stealth device, if it is a real thing).

That plane is being developed in partnership with India and it will have export clearence. The fact that M. Pogosian, the head of Sukhoi has just been appointed as also a head of MiG corporation, supports the speculation that MiG will be developing a smaller plane.

As for PAK-FA I've seen an interview with Ivanov. He confirmed that there are 3 planes currently in production - one purely for ground testing and two for flight testing. In addition to that he said that a new testing facility is being built on the Black Sea as the old one where Soviet planes were tested is now located in Ukraine.

He also said an interresting thing about those pictures you can see in the internet. He said that all of them including the one from NPO Saturn web site are either early mockups for wind tunnel tests that were abandoned or artist impressions. The real thing whill be different when we see it in (most likely) August-September 2009.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


ALL these pictures are old. PAK-FA program is absolutely secret. The appearance of plane is top secret. It's specifications are secret. U wont find any OPEN and RELIABLE information on it - even if it'll come from General staff. People that know something keep silence. Just like with Object-195 ("famous" "T-95")
The main difference between US Army and RuA is that the first do everything to keep their faults in secret, the second do everything to keep their achievements in secret.


Absolutely! I can tell you that I'm Russian and when I was a student I had some subjects at the University that were classified. That meant that we had to hand over all the books and any materials we used to the person responsible for security when we left premises. That wasn't wery convenient and sometimes we managed to find information in some US sources (magazines, Internet, FIDO, etc.) to prepare for exams. A couple of times that led to funny situations when we knew more then we were supposed to know by or books.

So, I'm sure there will be no information on pak-fa until the Government decides to publish anything.


[edit on 2-2-2009 by Askel]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
www.sukhoi.org...

Seem to be the same thing...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I'll go on record to predict it will be just another flanker with a different name the Russian planes are very unoriginal with only very minimal improvements.

While the F22 is the biggest leap in technology the world of aviation has ever seen the PAK-FA will be just another Flanker with a new paint scheme.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
While the F22 is the biggest leap in technology the world of aviation has ever seen the PAK-FA will be just another Flanker with a new paint scheme.


F22 is a good plane... But can you tell me what exactly makes it such a huge leap in technology?

Stealth capabilities? NO. Just google for Pavel Ufimtsev and you will find out that structural stealth technology utilised in all US stealth planes is based on theories developed by a Russian scientist in 1957 (+/- a couple of years - not sure of exact date). For some reason this route was abandoned by Russian design centres in mid 60-es. Why? we can only speculate about the reasons (like plasma cloud being a better solution). But after abandoning that thechnology Russians stared to developp radars with separated transmitter and receiver which simply don't care whether a plane has stealth shape or not. They can see it anyway.

Maneuverability? NO. Any modern Flanker with OVT will outmaneuvre the F-22 due to a better airfraime and much more advanced vector thrust. Needless to say that according to approved technical requirements (which are publicly available) the PAK FA is going to be much more capable then any modern version of Flanker.

Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.

Anything else?

As for the "new paint scheme", well if an Su-27 and, say, an SU-35BM or SU-37 look alike when you see them it doesn't mean that the only difference they have is a paint scheme. In fact, I would call an SU-35BM a huge technological leap from Su-27.

Finally, I wouldn't be too much surprised to see PAK-FA having the good old shape of Su-27 with some minor changes. Flanker's airframe is still the best in the world of aviation. It's not structurally stealth but if the designers have really found some other stealth solution then it' doesn't have to be.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Askel
Avionics? YES and NO. F-22's major advantage can in certain circumstances become it's nightmare. F-22 can see enemy planes using data from AWACS communicated through a comm satellite. That's good when you are invading weak countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq or, maybe even Iran. However, it will be no good in a large scale conflict with a nation capable of destroying AWACS planes and communication and GPS satellites. With that infrastructure being unavailable I wouldn't give an F22 a chance against any Flanker with modern radar and OVT.


First off, AWACS doesn't use SATCOM to transmit. It uses either a standard datalink, or radio frequency.

Secondly, the F-22 is it's OWN AWACS, it doesn't need an E-3 for an AWACS capability. Obviously the E-3 is a much more capable platform for the mission, since that's what it was built to do, but the F-22 is capable of being its very own "mini-AWACS" quite nicely.

Third, the Raptor only datalink is the only one like it that I've heard of. It not only will give each F-22 an idea of where the target is, but it will allow the assigning of targets to the different aircraft in the group, as well as give weapons status, any damage to the airframe, fuel status, etc. So instead of having to take the time to figure out who has what, any F-22 in the group knows immediately. That's a HUGE advantage in a fight.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Secondly, the F-22 is it's OWN AWACS, it doesn't need an E-3 for an AWACS capability.


Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.


The F-22 is no different in that regard.


It *may* have a better datalink for spreading information around - but while all the info on the status of the aircraft is nice its superficial - the only key things are:

- how many bandits
- where they are
- where they are going

Thats it. Spread those 3 pieces of information around and you are getting what is required out to others.


Everything else is nice, has its uses - but is not core to the objectives - many are forgetting things like that when talking about advancements in systems.


Indeed the argument could be made that information saturation will eventually (if not already) result in degrading performance, as too much unnecessary information needs to be filtered to obtain the key info.


Another argument could be made that the F-22's datalink is being made less secure by transmission of such nice, but usually useless information. Why make a 0.2 second transmission of the armaments, FCS, fuel and airframe states when a 0.05 second transmission getting the radar picture out is all that is really needed.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Askel
Absolutely! I can tell you that I'm Russian and when I was a student I had some subjects at the University that were classified.


Oh, really? That begs the questions: Which subjects, and which university? If it's at one of the ones I'm looking at for graduate studies I'll search you up on the alumnus
. I like meeting people in the know.


Pr0



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


And what's going to happen when you get that information out, only to find out that the aircraft you told to target your enemy is out of AMRAAMs and the target is too long range for an AIM-9X? There is more information that is needed than just where, how many and where are they going. Knowing what's going on with your wingman is important too. That way you don't get surprised when you hear him say he's Bingo and out of there.

As for each platform being their own AWACS, aren't you the one that always goes on about how useless LPI is? So it makes a lot more sense to have just ONE platform transmitting and directing the others. The F-22 can do that more effectively than that flight of F-15s can.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Here is something that has always puzzled me... What are the holes on the pilot's helmet for. All Russian helmets have these but not American or others. Brain to plane interface ports perhaps? lol But really anyone know?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what's going to happen when you get that information out, only to find out that the aircraft you told to target your enemy is out of AMRAAMs and the target is too long range for an AIM-9X?


The guy you've allocated the target to gets on the radio and says he is out of AMRAAMs...

not exactly complex is it?


I guarantee you that is quicker and more convenient for both flight leader and wingman than the FL having to flick through screens and keep track of other planes beside his own.

Too much information will reduce situational awareness of what really matters.




There is more information that is needed than just where, how many and where are they going.


Not really.




Knowing what's going on with your wingman is important too.


At the cost of being aware of what is outside the window? Nah.



That way you don't get surprised when you hear him say he's Bingo and out of there.


"Maverick, this is iceman - I'm down to 2 slammers and a box office, also at 30% fuel"

Wasn't too hard was it - 3 seconds?



As for each platform being their own AWACS, aren't you the one that always goes on about how useless LPI is? So it makes a lot more sense to have just ONE platform transmitting and directing the others.


And is the F-22 unique in that regard?

Hell no!




The F-22 can do that more effectively than that flight of F-15s can.


I'd like to think so given the C's are what - 25 years old?!?!

How much better than EF, Rafale, E/F, MiG-35, Su-whateveritisthisweek is the F-22 at getting the important info out?


It strikes me the definition of datalinks for situational awareness is gonna start changing like supercruise did until only the F-22 can do it.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Oh, really? That begs the questions: Which subjects, and which university? If it's at one of the ones I'm looking at for graduate studies I'll search you up on the alumnus
. I like meeting people in the know.

Pr0


Moscow Aviation Institute. I studied EE there. Is it in your list?



Originally posted by Zaphod58
but the F-22 is capable of being its very own "mini-AWACS" quite nicely.


True, just like any other plane with a radar...

Anyway, my point was that during a large scale conflict you would not necessarily have all the infrastructure in place in which case your "mini-AWACS" is no better then a 4+ gen Flanker with a 5th gen radar (IRBIS). Though that kind of situation would only occur if USA decides to bring democracy to Russia (which, I hope, is very unlikely).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join