the T50 flys, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 16-8-2011 @ 07:38 PM by Shugo
reply to post by Clisen33


A simple google search would return you with links to Wikipedia, and then some:

Wikipedia Link
Google Search


Maximum speed: 2,100 - 2,500 km/h (Mach 2+)[71][74] (1,300 - 1,560 mph) ; at 17,000 m (45,000 ft) altitude
Cruise speed: 1,850 - 2,100 km/h[74] (1,150 - 1,300 mph)
Ferry range: 5,500 km[65] (3417 miles)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,616 ft)


Nothing special about the spec's really.


reply posted on 16-8-2011 @ 10:59 PM by Aim64C
Honestly, I have to say I like the way this aircraft is turning out. The real question will be in how Russia (and India) hold up in their avionics and in the quality of their materials/parts. Conceptually, they seem to have struck a nice balance between low-observable features, serviceability, and practicality.

The F-22 has become all too well known for its low operational readiness and man-hour intensive maintenance cycles.

A point-by-point comparison to the F-22 is almost meaningless, as there is still so little -known- about each aircraft. Russian systems have long differed from Western systems - the U.S. has long favored radar and the Russians seem to invest considerably more in infrared detection systems. In some cases, it's apples-and-oranges comparisons. An F-22 on an intercept vector with an AWACS is going to be punching the throttle to give its AMRAAMs a good boost through the sound barrier and greatly improve their kinetic performance - which is going to light up on an IRST (and even the engine plume will likely reflect enough radar to make the AWACS crew take note) - it's a performance fighter, not a B-2. So, T-50 escorts will likely be able to make a successful intercept on an encroaching F-22 in a realistic scenario where the two aircraft are likely to encounter each other (even an SU-35/37 would likely be able to make a similar successful intercept).

That said - the T-50 would be hard pressed to not be intercepted by F-15s or F-22s in escort of an AWACs.

The two would likely not engage while filling other mission roles.

As for the F-35... just... no - let's not even mention the Penguin.


reply posted on 18-8-2011 @ 12:07 AM by Aim64C
reply to post by peck420


A conflict between China and India is plausible.

However - the J-20 does not appear to be designed as an air superiority fighter. Its overall design seems to imply a strike role. China has yet to really produce their own air superiority fighter from concept to production - and I don't see that they have attempted to in the design of the J-20.

What it all boils down to is that the PAK-FA would, more than likely, overwhelm the J-20, but China would have an edge in naval conflicts against India that were not within range of PAK-FA air superiority. China is taking the high road on their own, and India is partnering a lot of new development with Russia - which is going to pay off for them in the long-run.

Although it really has yet to be seen what Russia's response to a Chinese-Indian conflict would be (or America's, for that matter). It's unlikely the two countries would be going at it, alone, for very long - a conflict between those two would trigger another World War, more than likely - or trigger a number of peripheral wars following the collapse of both countries' labor outsourcing.

Honestly, I would be interested in seeing what Russia and/or India's export options may be on the T-50/PAK-FA - were I a Private Defense Contractor with the financial capability - a couple of these aircraft would be bad-ass in a mercenary squadron.


reply posted on 18-8-2011 @ 03:52 AM by Maestro28
For a change, a video showing the plane actually flying @MAKS2011
Its definitely beautiful

edit on 18/8/2011 by Maestro28 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18/8/2011 by Maestro28 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 20-8-2011 @ 07:09 PM by Daedalus3
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by peck420


A conflict between China and India is plausible.

However - the J-20 does not appear to be designed as an air superiority fighter. Its overall design seems to imply a strike role. China has yet to really produce their own air superiority fighter from concept to production - and I don't see that they have attempted to in the design of the J-20.



Yea we Indians keep trying to do the math on that, and see how the J-20 would be operationally relevant in a conflict with us.With not much publicly available info on the J-20 that is hard, but as you say it does look like an interdiction deep strike fighter-bomber.
If you try to make sense of how that would be helpful against India in a conflict on the borders they share: perhaps taking out forward airfields, or getting lucky with an AWACS or two. Does not seem to have the range to take out strategic airbases deep within India, that house AWACS, CnC etc. especially because it will not be launched from bases close to the Indian border for its own safety in the fear that the Indians may also look at deep strike poaching (damn those Jaguars fly low!), or picking off a J-20 (low on fuel and not enough stamina to engage enemy aircraft) or two returning from a particularly heart-piercing and successful deep strike mission.

The J-20 could be used to neutralize permanent Indian military assets (Naval air stations etc.) in the Bay of Bengal: launching from southwest China and flying over Thailand/Burma. This seems to be a very effective strategy because the lead in and lead out paths would mostly be unchallenged until the last 100-200 miles.
And then there's then bit about carrier killing; an opportunistic strike on an Indian carrier loitering in the Bay of Bengal, would be worth its risk.

All this is theorized keeping presuming that stealth aircraft in this kind of conflict do not aggressively hunt out their counterparts; they're meant as means to hurt quick and hurt deep. Think of it as a turn-based thing rather than a real-time thing . for these countries, such a/c may be too valuable to toss up in a fight where they may even fall prey to inferior missile-cart a/c.

But enough of this fantasy; unless quite literally forced to do so, the Chinese will not prefer to deploy the J-20 for operations against India. It seems to be 'lovingly' meant for friends in the RIMPAC/PACRIM: again as I mentioned before: permanent naval assets, carriers etc etc.


What it all boils down to is that the PAK-FA would, more than likely, overwhelm the J-20, but China would have an edge in naval conflicts against India that were not within range of PAK-FA air superiority. China is taking the high road on their own, and India is partnering a lot of new development with Russia - which is going to pay off for them in the long-run.


Well I'd like to respectfully disagree. China cannot 'directly' project any substantial naval capability in the Indian Ocean Region that would be threaten the semi blue-water Indian Naval presence there. Similarly, India cannot do the same in the Pacific or South China Sea because it is not a full fledged blue water navy. Now note that when it comes to SSNs and SSBNs China did have the lead for a good number of years and still sort of does now:
a indefinitely lurking PLAN SSN and/or SSBN in the IOR would be quite vexing for the Indian Navy who's ASW capabilities are not like that of the US.
However, with the induction of indigenous SSNs, and russian-leased Akula SSNs into the Indian Navy; that gap will close in the near future (2-3 years).
Again, nothing to do with aircraft so I will not elaborate here


Although it really has yet to be seen what Russia's response to a Chinese-Indian conflict would be (or America's, for that matter). It's unlikely the two countries would be going at it, alone, for very long - a conflict between those two would trigger another World War, more than likely - or trigger a number of peripheral wars following the collapse of both countries' labor outsourcing.


Interestingly, Russia's response would very much depend on America's response in such a conflict. India is at better terms with Russia and America than is China at this point in time. I do not see that changing. I wager both would mostly try to sit out and a negotiate for a end to hostilities, while covertly probing weaknesses of the Chinese who could be a potential foe to both of them.


Honestly, I would be interested in seeing what Russia and/or India's export options may be on the T-50/PAK-FA - were I a Private Defense Contractor with the financial capability - a couple of these aircraft would be bad-ass in a mercenary squadron.


I'm sure the T-50 will not be sold to any random mercenaries. But with 1000 planned, and Russia/India currently taking only half of that amount, its interesting to see who the other buyers could be:

Here's my list in most probable order (Assuming the F-22 never flies in any other colors except red, white n blue):


Brazil
Somebody in South East Asia
South Africa
France
Australia
Japan
Israel OR its foe(s) in the Middle East


reply posted on 21-8-2011 @ 09:04 AM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by michael1983l
Can I just point out that "stealth" means it is invisible to conventional Radar. That does not mean that it cannot be detected. The UK Tracked one of the US's Stealth Bombers when on show at an air Show in the UK. It is quite a clever concept really as the Radar detection descriminator is programmed to use complex algorythams to detect the lack of Radar return rather than the return itself. The shape and surface of Stealth Aircraft is so efficient that it soaks up more of the Radar radiation than any normal natural object would. Therefore using algorythims and extremly sensative Radar detection, Radars can infact work out there is a stealth aircraft present prescicsely by the lack of Radar return from that aircrafts location.


Thats a nice ability to have, but you only have it if you know what radar return you should be getting from the backdrop behind the target aircraft - and when that backdrop is the huge open sky with changing weather patterns, you are screwed.

The BAE radar system you describe worked from very high and very low frequency radar signals, which don't scale well currently, and the B-2 was not designed to wholly mitigate against.

You see, while you are correct in that the shape and surface of a stealth aircraft reduces the radar return, and thus reduces the radar cross section, it doesn't work as efficiently for every conceivable radar frequency out there (basically, the entire electromagnetic spectrum) - the USAF, Northrop and others spent a lot of time determining which frequencies to mitigate during the development of the aircraft (and indeed after - the whole "aurora" name came from a budget line item for further B-2 leading and trailing edge modifications).

Also, the shape and surface merely reduces the return, it does not eliminate it - you might not get a usable response for a radar in the X MHz range, but bump the power to that same radar up a few orders of magnitude and that response starts to become usable.

This is why the B-2 (and F-117) had to fly specific avoidance patterns when infiltrating opposition airspace - even in a B-2 you couldn't fly directly overhead an operating radar site and expect to remain totally undetected.

Stealth isn't the ultimate defence mechanism, its just another tool the arsenal of protection - if you don't use that tool correctly, its useless.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Amazing video of 747 lifting in place in extreme wind conditions
  Posted 2 days ago with 11 member flags
Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 17 days ago with 4 member flags
HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags