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.

 

PAK-FA Tests Underway

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


I guess you help build the f22 with that answer, Slate all that the Russians have done without any info on the subjet. Should have know it was going to get like this. Facts please, Take care




posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


I have been out of action for some time, but this is very interesting to me. Is your source able to give you the structural breakdown of the wing roots? This would let us know how tight she can turn. What would give me this information is the percentage of materials in the wings and wing/body interface. Can you tell me the percentage of aluminum to carbon, titanium,stainless steel, boron and other materials? Do you know how many g's she can pull? Even knowing the model of ejection seat tells me a lot. What about the fuel? Can you tell me the percentage of kerosene to other materials? As you can tell, I really want to know.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


took longer than i expected for this kind of post to come. Tell me, how exactly is this plane not stealthy at all?


He is obviously an expert on classified RCS systems and designs.

Also, expect to see numerous changes on the production aircraft.



reply to post by arbiture
 


His source was Aviationweek. Go look there.

[edit on 29/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by tomcat ha
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


took longer than i expected for this kind of post to come. Tell me, how exactly is this plane not stealthy at all?


He is obviously an expert on classified RCS systems and designs.

Also, expect to see numerous changes on the production aircraft.



reply to post by arbiture
 


His source was Aviationweek. Go look there.

[edit on 29/1/2010 by C0bzz]


Or maybe cause he can actually see the jet. He was probably expecting an invisible aircraft, you know like the Raptor... there could be one behind you right now... tum tum tum....



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
These are not the proposed stead-state engines for the PAK-FA correct?


The current prototype is running off of Saturn 117S, an advanced derivative of the AL-31F powering the Flankers. It incorporates technology and concepts from the AL-41 program, but at the basic level is still an AL-31. PAK-FA is intended to run off of AL-41F core engines in production models, though there should be minimal design change as the 41 is designed with the same geometry as the 31 series.


Update: One of the guys in a blog linked on a post here, thinks that larger 3D TVC engines in fact help reduce the size of the vertical and horizontal tail fins thus reducing signature..


Probably true. We've talked about the F-22 being able to leverage its thrust vectoring for trim and maneuvering without incurring excessive drag, and this is a 3D system which probably only helps its use as such.


Originally posted by arbiture have been out of action for some time, but this is very interesting to me.


Specifics like that aren't exactly the sort of stuff I have on hand, but there are those around the 'net that do. Some of it you just don't know, other parts you can figure out. I notice that the aircraft has an enormous fuselage and wing area, which probably causes fast energy loss during high-g maneuvers.

To the opposite effect, however, PAK-FA has movable leading edges to aid in maneuvers. As well, you can see at the front root of the wing an extremely swept area that's very large in size, and IIRC these cause vortices that allow continued control even at high alpha.

You can see that the Russians went into this with particulars in mind, but it's hard to tell exactly what they were aiming for with this just yet. Hard to believe that they wouldn't have met the objectives, though.

[edit on 1/30/2010 by Darkpr0]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
The current prototype is running off of Saturn 117S, an advanced derivative of the AL-31F powering the Flankers. It incorporates technology and concepts from the AL-41 program, but at the basic level is still an AL-31. PAK-FA is intended to run off of AL-41F core engines in production models, though there should be minimal design change as the 41 is designed with the same geometry as the 31 series.


The general director of the Saturn said that the prototype has the final izdelije (object) 117 engines (without the prefix "S" - this is it, its not AL-41F anymore). It can be true, but I doubt it. The izdelije 117 engine made its first flight only a few days ago during 21st January on the modified T-10M-10 testbed (one of the twelve "original" Su-35 prototypes), while in the same time the AL-31 derived izdelije 117S engines are flying for some three years already. It can be done to have the new plane with the new engines (combination of the YF-22/YF-23 with the PW F119/GE F120 comes to mind), however considering the difficulties during the development of the izdelije 117 from ca 2006, it is then the very high risk.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Probably true. We've talked about the F-22 being able to leverage its thrust vectoring for trim and maneuvering without incurring excessive drag, and this is a 3D system which probably only helps its use as such.


True. T-50 cant do (or in fact is not designed to do) high G maneuvers without the thrust vectoring. It can fly, but it cant reach the peaks of its (expected) flight envelope without the TVC. This is why the vertical tails can be so small. Remember that the proposed experimental YF-22A derived X-44 MANTA (multi-axis no tail aircraft) with full TVC didnt have the tail at all.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tomcat ha
 


Because it doesn't cloak!! Darn those Romulan Raptors!!


This guy seems to think it to be a flop too. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
My congratulations to all those involved in this project.


[edit on 30/1/10 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3Because it doesn't cloak!! Darn those Romulan Raptors!!


Well, if it cant cloak, then it has to float!



This guy seems to think it to be a flop too. en.wikipedia.org...


Pavel.....


Fvck that dude. He is a crazy M*therFvcker!

That dude is senselessly bashing the Russian Defence system.

[edit on 31/1/2010 by James R. Hawkwood]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


I think that link demonstrates a classic case of 'inferiority complex' through pointless denial.

The T-50 that we have seen is a first prototype, and impressive in its own right. To simply dismiss it would be extremely foolish



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
This announcement may be what we need to resume the F-22 program. Looking at it's intended specifications, I really can't see the F-35 going toe to toe with this beast.

But I am not an expert - insight from others would rock.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I think it is still too early for real analysis. BTW, has there been any mention of plasma stealth with this prototype? I remember it was a hot topic a while back.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
You know what they say - if it looks good, it probably flies good. And this thing definitely looks the business.

Glad to see that at least something will survive of the YF-23s looks



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think we're going to see a long production. This aircraft in its current form is most likely focussing on the flyability of the platform.

We see:
-Rivets and screws visible
-Fake weapons bay
-No RAM or bonding of composites



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


nothing yet. the scare mungers need to spin it around first



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
....
-Fake weapons bay
.....


For some reason, the sound of this made me roll over with laughter..





posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
The biggest failure appeared on PAK·FA was that weapon bay under the transition section. It should be called weapon bulge rather than weapon bay in my opinion. yes, this weapon bulge extends internal weapon capasity, but this weapon bulge destructed aerodynamic shape of transition between wing and fuselage.

I'll be strongly looking forward this ugly bulge will be integrated into transition and air-intake on the product version of PAK·FA。



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Loads of nice touches to the design... quite impressed.


Initial impressions are of a very pragmatic take on low observables, and probably a more effective weapon than its counterparts.




Note: By effective I do not necessarily mean better in all, or even most ultimate performance measurables.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
The biggest failure appeared on PAK·FA was that weapon bay under the transition section. It should be called weapon bulge rather than weapon bay in my opinion. yes, this weapon bulge extends internal weapon capasity, but this weapon bulge destructed aerodynamic shape of transition between wing and fuselage.

I'll be strongly looking forward this ugly bulge will be integrated into transition and air-intake on the product version of PAK·FA。


Without indepth analysis of aerodynamic models and wind tunnel tests, its hard to ever be sure about these things, buts its entirely possible that the location and design of those bays were specifically chosen to aid in air flow in that area.

Remember, these people are designing top of the line aircraft, they don't just slap something wherever it fits, theres an entire process to determine if it affects performance, and if so what are the trade offs.

Also remember that this aircraft is a prototype - its not production grade, its a proof of concept for many things. This goes a long way to explain the 'fake' weapons bays, the screws and many other things - not all prototypes in a project are meant to cover all aspects of the program, its likely that another airframe will handle weapons integration, and a third or fourth the full stealth characteristics.

I think too many people are expecting too much out of the first aircraft to fly. Don't.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Redhercules
 


That thing is about as stealth as an F-18. Raptor pilots are going to laugh so hard if they ever go into battle because the Russians will be shooting each other down thinking they are hitting Raptors. The Raptors will be very safe for along time, Especially with their new cloaking abilities.


Good job at thinking outside the box Mr.Sakoi.


I agree this plane does not have many "Stealth" features and by the looks of it Russia traded stealth for performance. No doubt that it will out manuever the F-22 and most likely have more thrust as well. Russia makes some incredible planes but they lack the advanced computers that USA has been using for years and are well versed with its functions and capabilities, many of which are still highly classified. The use of highly manuverable planes is kinda obsolete anymore since "dog-fights", are a thing of the past and missles can be fired from hundreds of miles away. Most of US technology in their generation 5 fighters is mind boggling. Russia does make some nice looking jets though.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join