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.

 

China's 5th generation fighter exposed!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
i have seen the Russian junk fly that they compare to the f-22 it is much slower turning wise


Where have you seen it fly? And you are of course aware that it is a prototype that has not been pushed anywhere near the limits yet? Moreover the production PAK-FA will have completely new engines, that are not installed on the first prototype, and should make an appearance on the third flying prototype.

No one at this point except the higher-ups in Russia knows the functional and operational statistics of the PAK FA.
LOL bs you cant drop in new engines like its a ford pick up truck because the weight and thrust and design of the body are taken into account when making the plane. That means they would have to redesign the whole plane over again. Try you tube buddy that's where i saw both of the planes fly and make turns the f-22 stops and moves in the air with control the Russian junk makes a slow low g turn and almost sits still till the thrusters kick on they know its a bad design. LOL arm chair general try being in the united states air force with an mos of Aerospace tech.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
i have seen the Russian junk fly that they compare to the f-22 it is much slower turning wise


Where have you seen it fly? And you are of course aware that it is a prototype that has not been pushed anywhere near the limits yet? Moreover the production PAK-FA will have completely new engines, that are not installed on the first prototype, and should make an appearance on the third flying prototype.

No one at this point except the higher-ups in Russia knows the functional and operational statistics of the PAK FA.
LOL bs you cant drop in new engines like its a ford pick up truck because the weight and thrust and design of the body are taken into account when making the plane. That means they would have to redesign the whole plane over again. Try you tube buddy that's where i saw both of the planes fly and make turns the f-22 stops and moves in the air with control the Russian junk makes a slow low g turn and almost sits still till the thrusters kick on they know its a bad design. LOL arm chair general try being in the united states air force with an mos of Aerospace tech.


"ENGINES
The PAK FA was expected to use a pair of Saturn 117S engines on its first flights. The 117S (AL-41F1A) is a major upgrade of the AL-31F based on the AL-41F intended to power the Su-35BM, producing 142 kN (32,000 lb) of thrust in afterburner and 86.3 kN (19,400 lb) dry. In fact, PAK FA already used a completely new engine in its first flight, as stated by NPO Saturn.[57] The engine is not based on the Saturn 117S. The engine generates a larger thrust and has a complex automation system, to facilitate flight modes such as maneuverability. Exact specifications of the new engine are still secret. It is expected that each engine will be able to independently vector its thrust upwards, downward or side to side. Vectoring one engine up with the other one down can produce a twisting force. Therefore the PAK FA would be the first fifth generation fighter with full 3-D thrust vectoring along all three aircraft axes: pitch, yaw and roll. These engines will incorporate infrared and RCS reduction measures.[58]"

Straight from wikipedia

Looks like the T-50 already has the capacity to out-maneuver the F-22, considering the F-22 only has 2D TVC. In fact, I would already say that most top line Russian fighters with 3D TVC can already out maneuver an F-22 in a dog fight. Then again, the F-22 was assumed to only have to engage enemies beyond visual range...


PS: The F-22 can't stop in mid air like you claim, it is physically impossible. Perhaps you are thinking of the F-35 VTOL fighter. And what advantage is there to stopping in mid air besides presenting yourself as a prime target? If you're a fighter, you want to always keep moving.
edit on 3-1-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
china has some amazing jets i don't think there is much out there that can match it



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Looks pretty sexy.

Profile is reminiscent of the Su-47 Berkut demonstrator, though lacking the forward-swept wings.

Did Mikoyan corp help develop this too? I see some MiG-1.44 in it too.

looks amazing for sure.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Quite a good looking plane, indeed.

Also, to argue about the combat capability of the J-20 or even the F-22 is pointless. Neither have seen true air-to-air combat, and anything we say is pure speculation. Winning a battle comes down to a lot more than just thrust-vectoring and radar profile. Of course I would say we would win, but I'm biased


So let's just admire it for it's aesthetics.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
another plan by 601




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Yeah ok wheres the finished product. all we get from them are talk and stats and please don't use Wikipedia as a source as The Aurora is also on Wikipedia. I will believe it when i see it as for my use of lay mans terms for vectoring im sorry i was trying to paint a picture for people who haven't seen it to understand without knowing what vector means. First off the PAK is bigger so you need to factor in when vectoring it has more air restriction like a large paddle swung in the air and even when it has bigger thrust doesn't change the fact that air restriction is going to be problem because it puts stress on the weaker parts of the plane the faster you vector the more the stress thats why it will be always be slower g turns then the f-22 when vectoring more surface area. If they said they are testing stronger material i might think twice but all they have said is it has more thrust and more vectoring capabilities trust me there is a limit to it capabilities and they know it. Personally its a guess but i figure they are having a problem with fuel consumption thus a bigger plane that was the problem with the old harriers that vectoring is based on so the smaller the plane the faster the vectoring will be. Also if the usa has unmanned f-22's they will be able to pull more g's then any plane that is manned because the g's force the blood from the brain into the feet causing blackout in manned planes that's why a flight suit is worn. i could point out alot of other stuff but i will keep it simple for now. you can put on as many bells a whistles as you want your problem is surface area and air restriction.
edit on 4-1-2011 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   


"ENGINES
The PAK FA was expected to use a pair of Saturn 117S engines on its first flights. The 117S (AL-41F1A) is a major upgrade of the AL-31F based on the AL-41F intended to power the Su-35BM, producing 142 kN (32,000 lb) of thrust in afterburner and 86.3 kN (19,400 lb) dry. In fact, PAK FA already used a completely new engine in its first flight, as stated by NPO Saturn.[57] The engine is not based on the Saturn 117S. The engine generates a larger thrust and has a complex automation system, to facilitate flight modes such as maneuverability. Exact specifications of the new engine are still secret. It is expected that each engine will be able to independently vector its thrust upwards, downward or side to side. Vectoring one engine up with the other one down can produce a twisting force. Therefore the PAK FA would be the first fifth generation fighter with full 3-D thrust vectoring along all three aircraft axes: pitch, yaw and roll. These engines will incorporate infrared and RCS reduction measures.[58]"

Straight from wikipedia


(no reason given)


Wikipedia again?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Spending tons of cash on weaponry is pretty pointless. The big-nations only do it in the believe, if they don't there right open for attack by a foreign enemy, but the fact is after a few-days of being a war with each other, just say a war between China and US and it was fight. If there was an invasion of each others territory, say US- troops were heading deep into China getting closer to Beijing, or Chinese troops were 200 miles outside of Washington, the use of nuclear-weapons is strong possibility, and there no winner in that kind of war, these nice- fancy weapons will just be dusty old objects if that happened.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
How does this compare to the F-22 and J-35 ? Isn't america still in the fourth gen?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon54321
 


there is nothing we can use really to compare it with those planes. We just see some pictures not everybody is even convinced about them being real. No information of the capabilities at all is available.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


This is obviously not a fighter, but appears to be a medium-range bomber with some modest stealth attributes. They still are about 25 years behind the US if this is all they have...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by trentyh
 


Wikipedia is not a reliable news source yet again for the 2 time. And air restriction even with full vectoring capabilities there will still be a force exerted on the plane. If you don't like it go to Wikipedia and change it because thats where it gets all of its amazing stats from people wanting to top what ever America. full vectoring at high speeds will cause g's humans can only take so many g's before they pass out also the planes structure will give out after so many g's. So how is your unmanned plane research coming along I know ours is good.

edit on 6-1-2011 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well, she is a "Big Girl" and certainly shows a lineage that points to the current generation of Stealth Aircraft. I doubt very much this plane is meant to get into a furball. My guess is that is meant to sit on station for a long time with lots of internal arms and fling missles long distance at incoming foes. However that same internal space could be used to store more fuel for longer missions and or larger munitions. A nice stealthy air to surface missle set would be just the thing to load up against an incoming carrier battle group.

Anyway its amazing what investing in American debt will buy these days.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
Well, she is a "Big Girl" and certainly shows a lineage that points to the current generation of Stealth Aircraft. I doubt very much this plane is meant to get into a furball. My guess is that is meant to sit on station for a long time with lots of internal arms and fling missles long distance at incoming foes. However that same internal space could be used to store more fuel for longer missions and or larger munitions. A nice stealthy air to surface missle set would be just the thing to load up against an incoming carrier battle group.

Anyway its amazing what investing in American debt will buy these days.


Just to note... apparently there is some international agreement stating that a stealth aircraft cannot attack with stealth weapons, which is why the B2 doesn't carry the AGM-129.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
A thing most people forget is that a plane is only as good as its piolet is. We have aready seen thing during the world war.
Also who knows what surprise the chinese have in store. There are a lot of rumors running around of China hidding its more advanced aircrafts and weapons.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
reply to post by stirling
 

Even the F-22 is not designed for carrier use. It's really a big plane, but this Chinese plane and the Russian plane they show, as well, are just enormous as fighters go. Modern fighters are now about the size of WWII bombers - just think about that! The next generation plane for our carrier force is to be a variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

China doesn't have a carrier force, anyway, though they are fiddling with ideas about building some. Only France has a a full-sized carrier along the lines of the US carriers, and they only have one at that size (I think they have 3 or 4 smaller ones, too). The UK has smaller carriers, and Russia has only one as well, I believe (it carries about half as many planes as the Nimitz class carriers of the US Navy). Some other nations might have some small carriers, too. I'm not sure.
edit on 12/27/2010 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)


The US is the only nation with super carriers. No other nation has one super carrier. I believe 12 overall, with a few more expected this decade.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join