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.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Can you then explain to me what the restictions are on the F-22? What makes it "so slow."
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
And why is there less friction if weapons are carried internally. One would think that carrying them internally would mean that a larger area of the planes front would collide with air, thus slowing it down.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Why?
Has the KGB (or RVS) or whatever they are these days gone out of business?
I believe the PAK-FA will be an improvement on the F-22 (which evolved from the YF-22), simply because it has been conceptualised 20+ years later. An awful lot has happened in that time, which makes the reception of initial ideas totally different.
For instance, 20 years ago when thinking about the F-22, did LM think of places to house lasers? Of course not, but you might expect the PAK-FA to.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
How come this fighter can be so fast? It can't be the engines. Russia is way behind USA on that frontier.
Therefore the only possible reason is the avionics and purely the shape of the plane. The F-22 goes Mach 1.7 because it has huge air intakes and due to the fact that it carries all of its weaponry internally.
-Stealthy 3D TVC.
Originally posted by BlackWidow23
The KGB isnt perfect. The F-22s limits are one of the most closely guarded secrets in the US. Its almost black status. Only very select people have access to the specs. For these reasons, no I dont think that the KGB or anything like them has acquired the specs of the F-22. It would be a national security uproar.
PAK-FA will be better than the F-22A, there is no doubt about that. But I am just making the point that it would not be hard to counter with the F-22B or F-22C which will undoubtedly match it. I think that in the F-22C we will be seeing:
-More powerful engines.
-Stealthy 3D TVC.
-Upgraded avionics.
-Better radar.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
One would think that carrying them internally would mean that a larger area of the planes front would collide with air, thus slowing it down.
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Not quite true. In fact, it could be said that the US has been beaten on a frontier or two there. The latest toy coming from the United States is the Pratt and Whitney F-135 engine in use on the F-35 (I won't go into the developing F-136, interesting though it may be, I'll stick with what is being used right now). This thing puts out 28,000 pounds of thrust dry, and about 40,000 with burners. The latest from the Russian camp is the AL-41F1 which weighs in at 137.5 kN dry (the F-135 is 128 kN dry). I'm too lazy to look these up in imperial measurements, learn metric. Burner spec is probably pretty impressive on that crate. And, yes, the engine is being used on the Su-35 BM whizzing around.
One more thing that the Russians have; the Al-41 variants in use have independent 3D thrust vectoring, whereas I believe F-22 has 2D TVC. For those of us who have seen the MiG 29 OVT/MiG 35, you know the kind of fun that can result from having toys like that .
The plane will have a larger surface area, but it is still less than that of an aircraft + combined surface area of all externally mounted weapons.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I disagree on this point. To me it sounds like you are measuring engine excellence purely by thrust. It gives a faulty picture in many ways.
Undoubtably, 3D TVC gives you an edge in a dogfight. It would be wrong to say otherwise. I've seen on youtube what the MiG 35 is cabable of, but as you admitted yourself it's just a toy . Even though it has excellent agility it won't match the western fighters in BVR.
Therefore tell me, would you rather sit in a MiG 35 or an F-35 in combat?
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Actually, I was measuring the engines purely by the straight facts as I could dig them up. Since I wasn't able to dig up on the facts like service lifetime, or amount of maintenance required, it would be rather arbitrary to give a guess, which coming from me, would have no accuracy whatsoever. Even if I could find these stats on the F-135, far less is known about the AL-41. I'm just trying to show the facts that I could find rather than speculating on those that I didn't.
Assuming, of course, we're looking at F-35 and MiG-35, since F-22 will likely put a dent in anything.
The sexy one.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
You are willing to discuss how good the PAK-FA is on the drawing board but you refuse to debate other areas such as the maintaining part I just wrote about?
I see, you would also go for the F-35
Originally posted by Darkpr0
If you can find me some hard facts concerning the other parts I am glad to discuss them, but speculating on something that has not been commented on by the Russians is difficult and quite likely not accurate in the least. Therefore it is quite possibly wiser to focus on things that have been released and statistics that are available for us to review. Speculating about parts on PAK-FA right now would be similar to speculating on the Raptor's successor; the sheer amount of hidden facts forces us to deal with what we've got.
The infrastructure of the Russian Air Force has changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Both the air control and airbase systems have diminished substantially, and their regional distribution has become distorted, when taking into account the current Russian groupings and operative threat scenarios. Under the prevailing economic circumstances it seems unlikely that the Air Force can take quick measures to fix the situation. Therefore, Russia is trying to fill in the gaps in air control with its relatively small AWACS fleet and cooperation with several CIS countries. However, in practice the latter usually means that Russia participates in local development projects as the bill-payer. It also seems unlikely that Russia could increase the number of serviceable airbases by much, and thus it cannot but continue to maintain the current quite close Air Force unit groupings.
The gaps in the maintenance system due to loss of depot standard facilities to neighboring countries have caused maintenance delays, and it takes time before the system can be brought up to date. This project belongs to the third phase of the ongoing reorganization program.
КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
It is rather clear to me that Russia isn't up with the USA in aircraft maintainance and "system keep alive" in general. There is no point having a Ferrari in your garage if you don't have fuel to run it. After some years, when Russia has had the time to improve they will sure be better, but at the moment they can't compete with USA.
КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!
What does this mean Don't force me to find somebody who knows Russian
On October 24, 2003 Russia opened a NEW airbase in Kant in Kyrgyzstan, just twenty miles to the east of a rented American base at Manas, used for supporting “counter terrorist” operations in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Originally posted by Darkpr0
If you can find me some hard facts concerning the other parts I am glad to discuss them, but speculating on something that has not been commented on by the Russians is difficult and quite likely not accurate in the least. Therefore it is quite possibly wiser to focus on things that have been released and statistics that are available for us to review. Speculating about parts on PAK-FA right now would be similar to speculating on the Raptor's successor; the sheer amount of hidden facts forces us to deal with what we've got.
The infrastructure of the Russian Air Force has changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Both the air control and airbase systems have diminished substantially, and their regional distribution has become distorted, when taking into account the current Russian groupings and operative threat scenarios. Under the prevailing economic circumstances it seems unlikely that the Air Force can take quick measures to fix the situation. Therefore, Russia is trying to fill in the gaps in air control with its relatively small AWACS fleet and cooperation with several CIS countries. However, in practice the latter usually means that Russia participates in local development projects as the bill-payer. It also seems unlikely that Russia could increase the number of serviceable airbases by much, and thus it cannot but continue to maintain the current quite close Air Force unit groupings.
The gaps in the maintenance system due to loss of depot standard facilities to neighboring countries have caused maintenance delays, and it takes time before the system can be brought up to date. This project belongs to the third phase of the ongoing reorganization program.
It is rather clear to me that Russia isn't up with the USA in aircraft maintainance and "system keep alive" in general. There is no point having a Ferrari in your garage if you don't have fuel to run it. After some years, when Russia has had the time to improve they will sure be better, but at the moment they can't compete with USA.
КОНЕЧНО, НЕТ!
What does this mean Don't force me to find somebody who knows Russian
[edit on 19-6-2007 by Figher Master FIN]
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
I highly doubt 3d TVC has much of an advantage of 2d TVC. The only advantage I would see is if the plane is a spin or has a high alpha which shouldn't cause the plane to loose control with FBW.
True, but you have to compare their systems with the budget allotted. I'm willing to bet that the amounts of money that the Russian Air Force has to work with aren't anywhere close to the astronomical amounts bequeathed to the USAF. In such a case, it's likely that it will be difficult to achieve the same amount of stuff as the USAF. Which is, of course, the case that we have. But you really have to admire the Russian air force. Even with the lesser amounts of money to work with, it's still an institution that is capable of doing what it has to do.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get that sourced from? I can't seem to find a link to it.
Russian Translation
Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how are you going to HAVE great pilots if you don't TRAIN? Great pilots aren't born.
You have to train to be able to fight a war. Otherwise you might as well just slap airline pilots into your fighters and send them out to get shot down.
Look at the training budgets of France, Italy, Japan, even China. They pay HUGE amounts of money every year to train their pilots, and NONE of them have fought a war recently or are preparing to.
The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. T
www.aeronautics.ru...
They realize that if they're going to be ABLE to fight, they have to TRAIN their pilots. They're willing to sacrifice in other areas to come up with the money they need for that training.
As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them?
Because they used them properly to do it. You can have an old plane, or a crappy plane, and still win a dogfight if you use the plane properly.