Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA - first flight!

[JediMaster 451]

Aren't the MiG-29's engines the same way? Angled outward so that loss of one doesn't result in sudden "yaw of death" like the F-14 suffered sometimes?

 

With planes with close-set engines like the F-15 or F-22 thrust is close to the centerline, but those with some separation have engine-out yaw to deal with. I don't think the Su-27 has it, though, and being MiG-29-ish in planform you'd think it would need it too.

[Abhi 3]

And do what with it? the LeT prefers to take potshots at our civilians not dogfight over the Himalayas./quote]

 

yes thats true but we also need to modernize our defense forces,as with terrorism it lies within ,there is denying the fact that in every terror strike there was a local hand.despite how much we train our law enforcement there will be some traitors.so it is upto ourselves which path to choose.

patriotism is a thing which comes from within you cant teach it or learn it.

[+lindr2 19]

Hi-Res...

 

http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpaper/1_29_01_10/29_01_10_30.jpg

 

http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpaper/1_29_01_10/29_01_10_31.jpg

 

http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpaper/1_29_01_10/29_01_10_29.jpg

 

new Hi-res

 

 

 

[JediMaster 451]

Yeah, I'm thinking they could have yaw issues at high AOA with the vertical stabs that small size...the LERXs could blank them. Unless the LERX/wingroot join notch is such that it creates a vortex that hits the stab just right...

[Karyovin 0]

TVC and FCS may nullify that problem and the fact the tailplanes are all moving

[xclusiv8 35]

I wonder how big of a RCS this jet will have.

[Karyovin 0]

I wonder how big of a RCS this jet will have.

Carlo Kopp from Ausairpower.net is guesstimating it to be 0.01 m2 all aspect (worse case,best for west scenario)

F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2

F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2

These are for X-band radars (APG-81/most modern radars)

The more zeros the better

Sorry to keep editing

Edited February 10, 2010 by Karyovin

[xclusiv8 35]

Carlo Kopp from Ausairpower.net is guesstimating it to be 0.01 m2 all aspect (worse case,best for west scenario)

F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2

F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2

These are for X-band radars (APG-81/most modern radars)

The more zeros the better

Sorry to keep editing

 

Thank you, do you know how these numbers were calculated. I mean its all guesses. Somehow it feels wrong that it would have the same as the side and rear aspect of a F-35. I mean it almost looks like the F-22, should it not have something similar to it.

[+Brain32 265]

Will they have the money to maintain them and can the pilots get the hours they need?

It's Russia, not Burkina Faso lol

[Karyovin 0]

Thank you, do you know how these numbers were calculated. I mean its all guesses. Somehow it feels wrong that it would have the same as the side and rear aspect of a F-35. I mean it almost looks like the F-22, should it not have something similar to it.

I agree that it shold have something similar to the Raptor however cost and other structural issues as well as the fact it is going to be exported to other countries means that along the line the stealth was comprimised (Like how it doesn't have a radar blocker to the rear of the engine.)

Sorry I'll give you the link to his NOTAM

His sources are erring towards a pessimistic evaluation of the F-22 and F-35's RCS and radar capabilites.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

Edited February 10, 2010 by Karyovin

[JediMaster 451]

The truth is RCS is more an art than a science right now, and until you have a real thing to measure it's guesswork. I should say you can mathematically work out the theoretical minimum RCS, but the actual RCS needs to be measured once you have a real object to be placed on a range. It will be higher based on paint properties, weather conditions, manufacturing process errors, etc.

 

The comparison to an F-35 is probably valid in theory, but my guess is as this is their first (not black world, anyway) stealth fighter they're going to have kinks to work out like we did.

[xclusiv8 35]

I agree that it shold have something similar to the Raptor however cost and other structural issues as well as the fact it is going to be exported to other countries means that along the line the stealth was comprimised (Like how it doesn't have a radar blocker to the rear of the engine.)

Sorry I'll give you the link to his NOTAM

His sources are erring towards a pessimistic evaluation of the F-22 and F-35's RCS and radar capabilites.

http://www.ausairpow...M-300309-1.html

 

Good read

[Karyovin 0]

His full article on the T-50 is something I can't wait to read.

But his conclusion will most likely be the same many of his others which is that the RAAF is screwed because of the past two governments choices (ie. F-35A & F/A-18F).

However the Growler could change that until the R-77P and the R-172 start trickling down to South-East Asia

[+lindr2 19]

His full article on the T-50 is something I can't wait to read.

But his conclusion will most likely be the same many of his others which is that the RAAF is screwed because of the past two governments choices (ie. F-35A & F/A-18F).

However the Growler could change that until the R-77P and the R-172 start trickling down to South-East Asia

 

R-77P & R-172 is almost ANTI-AWAKS.

 

Since in ~ 1985 we have heard for the first time about a stealth we have started to work over this problem: resonant scanning and air radar with wavelength 70cm (tested in ~90-95) some of possible decisions. However RCS pak-fa it is possible to reduce by COLD-PLASMA SHIELD which is successfully introduced in our new cruise missiles. {no for all plane but for some parts}.

 

One my familiar scientist has told: stealth is very simple, at the plane of thousand faces but only 50-100 of them form 99 % RCS, simply find and clean them.

[Silverbolt 104]

R-77P & R-172 is almost ANTI-AWAKS.

 

Since in ~ 1985 we have heard for the first time about a stealth we have started to work over this problem: resonant scanning and air radar with wavelength 70cm (tested in ~90-95) some of possible decisions. However RCS pak-fa it is possible to reduce by COLD-PLASMA SHIELD which is successfully introduced in our new cruise missiles. {no for all plane but for some parts}.

 

One my familiar scientist has told: stealth is very simple, at the plane of thousand faces but only 50-100 of them form 99 % RCS, simply find and clean them.

 

Lindr, i have a question...

 

did the Ks-172 ,R-77M or R-77P ever went to production?

 

about the stealth matter...i saw in a Discovery channel a program about Skunk works and the F-117(about a decade ago) they said that they got the Stealth idea from a russian scientist study,he published in US after he runned away from USSR, do somebody know the name of this man and his study?

 

 

thanks.

[Karyovin 0]

R-77P & R-172 is almost ANTI-AWAKS.

 

Since in ~ 1985 we have heard for the first time about a stealth we have started to work over this problem: resonant scanning and air radar with wavelength 70cm (tested in ~90-95) some of possible decisions. However RCS pak-fa it is possible to reduce by COLD-PLASMA SHIELD which is successfully introduced in our new cruise missiles. {no for all plane but for some parts}.

 

One my familiar scientist has told: stealth is very simple, at the plane of thousand faces but only 50-100 of them form 99 % RCS, simply find and clean them.

 

True, but surely those missiles could be used against stand off mass jamming aircraft that could make life difficult for the S-300 operators trying to find F-22s & F-35s.

Would that plasma stealth be used where aerodynamics may compromise stealth or just where it's easier to install?

[JediMaster 451]

The problem with the plasma idea is it's active, not passive. So if you suffer some kind of malfunction, you're suddenly visible...like a cloaking device in Star Trek failing. All the stealth planes in US service have been passive, and as long as they didn't emit or leave a door open or suffer battle damage, they were fine.

 

As for that Russian scientist, I don't recall when he left or his name, but I recall the paper came to light here in the early 70s I believe (regardless of when he wrote it, that's when it was noticed). I think his paper was on the "aligned edges" idea, as back then it was all that was really possible. I'm not sure if he took the stories of Northrop's flying wings being hard to detect on radar back in the 40s into his ideas or not.

[+lindr2 19]

Lindr, i have a question...

 

did the Ks-172 ,R-77M or R-77P ever went to production?

 

about the stealth matter...i saw in a Discovery channel a program about Skunk works and the F-117(about a decade ago) they said that they got the Stealth idea from a russian scientist study,he published in US after he runned away from USSR, do somebody know the name of this man and his study?

 

 

thanks.

 

ks-172 It is planned to enter as a unit of arms of a su-35bm. This project (k-100/ks-172) has designed for Tu-22pd project firstly... curretly we not have enough 'ks-172 carriers'

 

about r-77p it's question: 'HOW many R-77 producted? r-77,r-77t,r-77p same missile with different seeker head

 

some sources say about active-passive seeker new latest r-77 batch. for compare: P-27P, R-27EP production started in 1987

 

http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/rocket/urocketvb/data/ic_nomenrussiarocketurocketvb/5/

http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/rocket/urocketvb/data/ic_nomenrussiarocketurocketvb/3/

 

 

Actually the major problem it ECM, recently we tested a new radar (AA/GM/SAR/ISAR ect) on home-on-jam mode it should find jammer and simulate attack at first we used that ECM time made still in USSR - there is no result: a radar at all has not noticed any ECM - no noise at all.

 

Then we have organised PROVOCATION against the NATO chip it some time did not wish to turn on jammer, but soon we have received that wanted...

[+Gepard 11,323]

Stealth is not bad. And the passive american stealth sounds good. But it can be beaten as the Serbs showed when they downed a F-117 with outdated SAM systems.

[+lindr2 19]

But it can be beaten as the Serbs showed when they downed a F-117 with outdated SAM systems.

 

S-125M Pechora (Neva-M export version) with TV/IIR channel.

[Caesar 305]

Well, considering how successful the F-117 had been up to, and following that point, I'd say passive stealth has been pretty successful. It took reconfiguring the SA-3 to get enough of a return to spot the plane[1], knowing flight patterns to know where to look[2], and to be at extremely short range [3] just to bag one of them. The newer generation of (passive) stealth aircraft are going to be harder to detect than the -117. Now, obviously that doesn't mean you can't detect it, nor that other detection methods won't be more effective, but it seems to me it works quite well.

 

Then again, I don't deal with tactical radars, only really friggin' big ones, so my opinion or thoughts on this matter really don't mean sh*t. Nor will anyone really be able to accurately discuss this subject, considering the level of classification for an in-depth discussion on radar/stealth/jammer theory, and the systems involved with such technologies...

 

 

[1] "We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret..."Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."

 

[2] "At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes.

 

"I personally listened to their pilots' conversations, learning about their routes and bombing plans," Dani said

 

[3] Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers (8 mi) away.

[Gr.Viper 131]

But it can be beaten as the Serbs showed when they downed a F-117 with outdated SAM systems.

I can't remember all the details but the fact that the system was outdated actually helped. Nighthawk was designed with more modern systems in mind and an older radar with greater wavelength was able to burn though the shielding at close range. + NATO mission planning just got careless.

[Karyovin 0]

Carlo Kopp Analysis has been completed and posted here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

NOTAM here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-150210-1.html

Sorry can't read it now gotta sleep its 12:30am here

Enjoy

[JediMaster 451]

Also, stealth reduces the range at which a radar can see you. At a range of 13km ANY plane is visible...you're not supposed to fly that close to a hostile SAM unless you're attacking it. It was an embarrassment not because the plane was "seen" by radar (which it barely was) but because of the multiple failures (like broken comms and flying the same route) that let a trap be set for it. In other words, it wasn't a technology failure, it was a procedural one.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Carlo Kopp Analysis has been completed and posted here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

NOTAM here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-150210-1.html

Sorry can't read it now gotta sleep its 12:30am here

Enjoy

 

Taken with a pinch of salt - as all his other work in trying to put down the F-35!