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 New fighter on airfield near Moscow for tests

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClearJustMind
I adore how people get a hard on when they see new Russian or Chinese weaponry! I realize after saying this that most of you already realize this but I still find it funny.

A half dozen of these new "Stealth Fighters", couldn't go toe to toe with a single F-22 or F-35 of any platform. As far as I'm concerned Russia can have our 1980's and early 1990's technology. It will for sure help with troop morale for the Russians!

To see what these eyes see everyday and you would understand. To go along with policy and code I can inform you that I work on a project that no longer requires clearance but once did. (V-22 Osprey MV/CV Configurations).

I also work on other items which can not be discussed. Call me a phony or a fraud. It doesn't really bother me. I still draw a paycheck and would like to continue to do so!




And I love how instantly the moment someone shows interest in hardware that isn't from the United States of America, someone shows up and trumpets how unbelievably superior the F-22 or the F-35 are, and how the aircraft at hand could be trounced even when in superior numbers.

Give it a rest - you are not a military analyst, and you have no technical knowledge of any of the platforms at hand. You did however work on an aircraft that is rapidly proving itself to be a death trap to those who fly in it.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The computers lowered the radar cross section by several hundred orders of magnitude.


An order of magnitude in science means a power of ten. If you are saying that they decreased the x-section by ten to power of -200, this can't possibly be true


You likely misspoke.


Nope, I suggest you read the Ben Rich book and come back to the discussion - they really did decrease the cross sections by that much, and the B-2 went even further.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Yes. A Master of Aeronautical Science degree is useless these days! Also tack on the MAE and MSAE and gee whiz! I truly have no clue what I am talking about. I appreciate you pointing that out though. I should just quit my job and go take up another profession.

/end sarcasm and truth.

The Russians and Chinese have just reverse engineered and old antiquated product of the Cold War. It is nothing more then a re work and hybrid of the F-15E/K!!! Throw in a little thrust vectoring and a fancy new Apple IIE processor for its flight controls and you have yourself a gorgeous new flying item for target practice for our boys flying the F-22.

In short it is true. I am trumping how far ahead and superior the F-22 is. I base this on flight tests, scientific fact, and combat performance. Until a country is capable of producing a superior aircraft than the F-22 I will continue to compare and benchmark everything to it. The Raptor is the Platinum Standard in fighter aircraft. The elites have set it up to be this way.

As for your jab at the V-22... There is an ongoing investigation. Per the code of conduct at Boeing I am not allowed to comment. (Per Public Realtions).
I will gladly engage you in debate about it at a later date.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClearJustMind
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


A Master of Aeronautical Science degree.....MAE and MSAE.


and


It is nothing more then a re work and hybrid of the F-15E/K!!!


WOW!! Spot the mismatch!


All that education and STILL completely in the grip of jingoistic claptrap, thats a pity.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClearJustMind
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Yes. A Master of Aeronautical Science degree is useless these days! Also tack on the MAE and MSAE and gee whiz! I truly have no clue what I am talking about. I appreciate you pointing that out though. I should just quit my job and go take up another profession.

/end sarcasm and truth.


And all of those 'qualifications' mean nothing because you have no access to the PAK-FA project and thus cannot make a judgment on technical merits, only 'patriotic' merits.



The Russians and Chinese have just reverse engineered and old antiquated product of the Cold War. It is nothing more then a re work and hybrid of the F-15E/K!!! Throw in a little thrust vectoring and a fancy new Apple IIE processor for its flight controls and you have yourself a gorgeous new flying item for target practice for our boys flying the F-22.

In short it is true. I am trumping how far ahead and superior the F-22 is. I base this on flight tests, scientific fact, and combat performance. Until a country is capable of producing a superior aircraft than the F-22 I will continue to compare and benchmark everything to it. The Raptor is the Platinum Standard in fighter aircraft. The elites have set it up to be this way.


This is precisely my point - another American swaggering around claiming total superiority over everything and talking competitors products down, when they have no grounding to do so having never been in a position to judge the technical merits of the competitors.

It just makes you look childish, has anyone told you that before?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Wow, this thread turned interesting.

I hope you are all flagging this thread-to draw attention to it so everyone can read and share in your insights and discussions.

I am fasinated. Please continue. I'm learning....



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ClearJustMind
 


Yeah... I wonder what would happen if a Russian/Chinese counterpart of you were to bump into you on such a thread/forum.


The ensuing discussion would be most entertaining. Claims upon claims matched by counter-claims, without a shred of evidence due to prior oaths and commitments.

Well, I guess you would sort it out over a one-on-one on COD: MW 2 or something then aye?


Sometimes I wonder why people even bother using 'I wish I could tell you but I cannot.' It doesn't generate awe and respect just a


So cheesy. Fodder for sniffers though. Why I bet those hackers working out of the bunker complex in Chengdu have already sniffed threads, poster IPs etc on ATS a ton of times. There's got to be a real leak here amidst all these claims!

Go get em' boys!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
LOL where do they get the money



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I'm fairly certain the simulation for A2A combat between the F22 and SUV-33 said that for every F22 taken down aproximately 20-27 of the Russian fighters would be taken down. Even when the Russiand came out with more advanced aircraft our avionics and electronics superiority were able to keep 25 year old aircraft designs on par with brand spanking new models.

The movable tails remind me of the YF-23.

I am also of the opinion that if an aircraft is too good at what it does then it's not available for sale. We still aren't selling em. AAnd Russia is coproducing theirs with India, 200 each and 600 for sale...



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I find statement A:


Originally posted by ClearJustMind
I adore how people get a hard on when they see new Russian or Chinese weaponry! I realize after saying this that most of you already realize this but I still find it funny.

A half dozen of these new "Stealth Fighters", couldn't go toe to toe with a single F-22 or F-35 of any platform. As far as I'm concerned Russia can have our 1980's and early 1990's technology. It will for sure help with troop morale for the Russians!



and statement B:


Originally posted by ClearJustMind
To see what these eyes see everyday and you would understand. To go along with policy and code I can inform you that I work on a project that no longer requires clearance but once did. (V-22 Osprey MV/CV Configurations).

I also work on other items which can not be discussed. Call me a phony or a fraud. It doesn't really bother me. I still draw a paycheck and would like to continue to do so!



are mutually exclusive.



Anyone with a fundamental knowledge of engineering will state the PAK-FA is not the F-22, and it does make different compromises for different performance. Whether it is a better mix of compromises or not will remain unknown until (if) the two ever face off on what can be regarded as an even playing field.


Do you know the max sustained turn rate of an F-22?
Do you know the max sustained turn rate of a prototype PAK-FA, never mind the production version? (if you do, you'll know more about the aircraft than the Russians)

Do you know the full RCS spectrum of the F-22 from all azimuthal angles and for a range of radar wavelengths?
Do you know the full RCS spectrum of the PAK-FA from all azimuthal angles and for a range of radar wavelengths? (Again, if you do, you'll be one step ahead of the people that built it)

Do you know the performance of the PAK-FA IRST?
Do you know the Pks of AIM-120Ds launched based on AN/ALR-94 information alone? (if you do, you'll be the first in the US to know that)

Do you know how the PAK-FA gets information from offboard sensors? How does it use them?

Do you know how well the ECM and defensive systems on the PAK-FA and F-22 work when exposed to the full capability of each other's arsenal?



Being generous, at best you will know the answers to two of the above questions. However, given the ignorance of your post, I'm quite comfortable asserting you don't have a clue what the answers to any of the questions are.



[edit on 21/4/10 by kilcoo316]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Nope, I suggest you read the Ben Rich book and come back to the discussion - they really did decrease the cross sections by that much, and the B-2 went even further.


The reference point being the YB-49?


Yeah, I'd believe that.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa

They say that stealth is one of this new planes strong suits and yet it does not have the same degree of facets and chines as say the F117 maybe there is a trade off with aerodynamics and the need for speed at least that seems logical to me.


Sherpa, the F-117 used older styled stealh techniques that were cumbersome in practical usuage in planes.

With improvements in RCS reduction, planes could be made stealthy just as much as the F-117 but with the outer skin of the aircraft more smoother for better aerodynamic performance.

So it is entirely possible for this aircraft to be extreemly stealthy whilest being just as aerodynamicaly smooth as a Flanker.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClearJustMind
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Yes. A Master of Aeronautical Science degree is useless these days! Also tack on the MAE and MSAE and gee whiz! I truly have no clue what I am talking about. I appreciate you pointing that out though. I should just quit my job and go take up another profession.

/end sarcasm and truth.

The Russians and Chinese have just reverse engineered and old antiquated product of the Cold War. It is nothing more then a re work and hybrid of the F-15E/K!!! Throw in a little thrust vectoring and a fancy new Apple IIE processor for its flight controls and you have yourself a gorgeous new flying item for target practice for our boys flying the F-22.

In short it is true. I am trumping how far ahead and superior the F-22 is. I base this on flight tests, scientific fact, and combat performance. Until a country is capable of producing a superior aircraft than the F-22 I will continue to compare and benchmark everything to it. The Raptor is the Platinum Standard in fighter aircraft. The elites have set it up to be this way.

As for your jab at the V-22... There is an ongoing investigation. Per the code of conduct at Boeing I am not allowed to comment. (Per Public Realtions).
I will gladly engage you in debate about it at a later date.


---

Please tell me you're joking that they're using MC65C02 CPU's for flight
controls on a Russian T-50! That old 8-bit boat anchor for flight controls?
They're nuts!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh...I'm constructing my own home-built UAV and even it uses
a motherboard with a 128 IBM Cell Processors and 128 TI DSP chips
all running at over 1.5 GHZ (overclocked and liquid immersion-cooled)
for real-time 6-axis, 1920 by 1080 pixels video capture at 32 bit RGBA
colour for 2000 frames per second autonomous object recognition and
terrain feature recognition system...with...a total aggregate bandwidth of
99.5 Gigabytes per second uncompressed 6-stream HDTV video.
(stereoscopic X-Y-Z axis cameras).

While the above may be a bit of braggadoccio, I'm basically a home
consumer and even my equipment is better than that 100 million dollar
jet that uses a 6502 CPU originally built for the Commodore 64-Apple II
and Atari 800 computers from 1982! Why the heck would they do that
when a Cell processor is waaaaaay more powerful and much more reliable?

If they want to do EMF or Rad-hardening just encase the consumer-level
Cell processors in a lead lined box/MU-metal Faraday shield and use
electrical induction through an isolated and sealed charging port for the
charging of a sealed within-box battery. Works like a charm in my case
for reasonable RAD-EMP-EMI-EMF-hardening! I also embed a Surgex
Varistor-type power-conditioning and surge-protection box to prevent
overloads from induction pulses.

I'm not even an electrical engineer and even I think it would be foolhardy
NOT to use the most powerful processors out there for flight controls.
These days power is easily supplied by pro-grade lithium ion batteries
which can be cascaded for maximum power generation so I don't really
understand why someone would use 30+ year old processors for
systems that are life-critical like a jet aircraft.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by StargateSG7

Please tell me you're joking that they're using MC65C02 CPU's for flight
controls on a Russian T-50! That old 8-bit boat anchor for flight controls?
They're nuts!!!!!!!!!


He's being deliberately facetious and comparing the Russian 'state of the art' to 30 year old US tech - I wouldn't take him seriously. The PAK-FA uses much more modern avionics.



While the above may be a bit of braggadoccio, I'm basically a home
consumer and even my equipment is better than that 100 million dollar
jet that uses a 6502 CPU originally built for the Commodore 64-Apple II
and Atari 800 computers from 1982! Why the heck would they do that
when a Cell processor is waaaaaay more powerful and much more reliable?


I know you are using the Cell processor as a throwaway example, but I wouldn't necessarily use it for aviation - its hard to develop for, is designed for serious multithreading and is only a few years old.

Avionics systems typically do not consist of the cutting edge of processing power, but then for most tasks they do not need to be - heavy duty processing is done by specialist hardware such as Digital Signal Processors or FPGA hardware designed to do specific tasks. The actual general use processors don't have to be all that powerful, and are typically based off of technology several generations old (the F-22s CIPs are based off of the PentiumPro series).

Why is older generation hardware used? Because its proven, the bugs are known and fixed (or work arounds have been issued) and in general its easier to harden against electronic warfare and other issues. Secondary concerns are usually its cheaper to integrate, runs cooler and uses less power.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Actually, I'm using Cell processors for just that very reason
of serious multithreading. Because of basic issues with finding
distributed processing software that works on CELLS and DSP's,
I decided to start from scratch and create a C/C++ real-time
control system that has it's own video-streaming oriented file system
and process interrupts guaranteed to be in the 1/10,000 of a second level
because I'm working at 2000 frames per second and many gigabytes per
second. This sort of bandwidth could only BE SERVICED WITH a custom
operating system which is NOT a trivial matter to code or design.

I've been working on it for at least 8 years now and have got
it up to the point where I can consistently get 2000 fps with
3x3 edge detection convolution filters on a 1920x1080 frame
and a secondary object & terrain matching filter that has a latency
of only a single frame. This gives me a top possible speed of
1500 knots using just autonomous vision recognition alone as a
terrain/collision avoidance mechanism for flight control
device. Since my UAV uses small turbines for propulsion
i'll never get to 1500 knots but 400 knots ain't bad either.

And since my payload is in the 120 kilo (300 pounds) range
that's enough for the cameras and multi-CPU motherboard
which was custom designed and built just for my UAV application.
128 Cells/128 TI-DSP's is enough horsepower for pretty much any
type of flight control. The key is software and I can tell you that
it takes enormous amounts of time that usually takes 5 times
longer than one thinks!!!!!!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Video of the PAK FA here reputedly showing it thrust vector engines

www.liveleak.com...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
that really is one hell of a good looking aircraft

gorgeous



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


I just saw this today and was going to post it up for the fans of flight. Amazing plane, it appears.

Not much manuvering in this video-pretty much flying along AFTER the terrific start up and prep footage. You aren't going to get any closer that this video. Seriously. No doubt they put some work and thought into this.

I also saw a story about Russias plan for the next generation of Helo's-claiming it will be able to take on fighter and fighter/bomer jets. Hmmm. Probably BS but with the Russians, you never know. They also just increased it's helo compliment to grow in the next two years.

As I said in the original post- Tic Tic Tic.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Back when I was in the military, we were awed and a lot scared of the Mig "Foxbat" when it came out.

Finally we got our hands on one,thanks to a pilot that defected to Japan.
I remember reading that they tore it down and put it all back together. They were impressed with the power of the engines but the airframe was a mess of bad welds.

Anyway, while still respected, after going over the whole aircraft, it was determined that our worse fears were never there and the hoopla died down.

Suppose its that way with all new military aircraft.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by dcmb1490]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
More interestingly is that Sukhoi is preparing a second prototype T-50 for flight.


I have been informed that there will be six prototype and preproduction aircraft will be built, with the last 4 being remanufactured to production standard after the type enters service.

Prototype 1 (the one currently flying) will validate the aerodynamic basics, flight controls and certain avionics systems, life support systems and maintenance basics.

Prototype 2 will validate the new engines, stealth and sensory systems.

The preproduction aircraft will integrate weapon systems and validate combat abilities.

People made a big thing about how the weapons bays on the first T-50 were 'fake', and how there were visible construction components visible (screws et al) and on the basis of that, the T-50 was already dismissed as a capable aircraft. You guys should have seen the first F-22s (not the YF-22 but the actual F-22) that were flown - those were in much the same state.



mm, would be cool if they can make a Berkut (Su-47) type of prototype, for the first prototype?.. for increased maneuverability and unobstructed bomb bay..



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join