Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Nice plane. Do you think the IAF would send one of these for Red Flag or similar exercises to possibly pit against the F-22s, F-35s, Typhoons, Rafales and/or Gripens in the future? Would be interesting to see 5th-gen fighters in mock combat and see their strengths & weaknesses. It'll definately be cool to see this in an airshow as the IAF is increasingly sending its planes to the West for such events and exercises.

Edited by Commander92
Posted

Nice plane. Do you think the IAF would send one of these for Red Flag or similar exercises to possibly pit against the F-22s, F-35s, Typhoons, Rafales and/or Gripens in the future? Would be interesting to see 5th-gen fighters in mock combat and see their strengths & weaknesses. It'll definately be cool to see this in an airshow as the IAF is increasingly sending its planes to the West for such events and exercises.

 

Maybe, a lot can happen in 10 years or so. Yeah, I'm convinced a decade will pass before that aircraft will be operational in any airforce...

Besides, these excercises aren't that much revealing, since neither nation has an interest to fully expose the capabilities of their top-line aircraft.

Posted

Yeah, even though the PAK-FA has been in other contries interests since the beginning of the project...

Even Brazil's Embraer was invited to take part in the project, sadly refusing to do so, with the excuse that it wasn't what they were looking for... yeah right...

 

but letting that aside, i'm pretty sure it'll be exported pretty soon after it's ready to go ...

Posted

Optical illusion. It's shorter in height, but the length is quite close. The wingspan is only slightly less.

It's still much larger than a MiG-29.

 

I wonder what plane that hard-to-make-out twin-boom design is?

Posted

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

 

He's not trashing the F-35 per se just that, in his conclusion, the F-35 is the wrong choice to fill the role of one of the aircraft it's replacing. And in many ways he's right. There were similar debates in the UK in the 80s about replacing the Avro Vulcan with Tornado GR series. He's also a proponent of lobbying for the acquisition of the F-22. But all I'll say about lobbying the US for the F-22 is that you can hope in one hand and crap in the other; See which fills up first.

Posted

He's not trashing the F-35 per se just that, in his conclusion, the F-35 is the wrong choice to fill the role of one of the aircraft it's replacing. And in many ways he's right. There were similar debates in the UK in the 80s about replacing the Avro Vulcan with Tornado GR series. He's also a proponent of lobbying for the acquisition of the F-22. But all I'll say about lobbying the US for the F-22 is that you can hope in one hand and crap in the other; See which fills up first.

 

 

Well funny his conclusions always seem to be utter **** just like the papers he sticks on his website. The examples of Flanker Vs F-35 are some of the funniest things ive read - they are so out that these so called experts either dont know much about modern air combat - or have some other motives.

Kopp calls himself a Doctor, but puts references in the papers to other papers written by himself - sorry but wtf!!

Mainly because 90% of what he states (written as fact) has no evidence to back it up - or in the case of the F-35 and T-50 are not even in service yet. Look at the anaylis of the T-50 - I mean thats pretty impressive he can determine that capability from a few pics of a prototype.

 

I understand that on paper the F-22 would be a better airframe than the F-35 in terms of stealth, range, and power - some things that are pretty important to an Island like Australia - but not moved that the F-35 (soon to be the worlds most advanced jet) is that bad a choice in reality.

 

As far as the Vulcan Vs Tornado goes I'm glad they lost that debate, The Vulcan was designed as a long range high altitude bomber and was massive - the Tornado is a low level striker, faster, smaller and still had the range to hit its cold war targets better than the Vulcan could - IMO the Tornado fitted the low level strike role better.

Posted

Is a designation for this bird out?! a Su number and a codename by the Nato?

 

If you remember, I proposed a NATO reporting name in the Spanish Subforum, but they didn´t like it...

Posted

I think in Russia the gov't assigns numbers differently than the company that makes them. So you have Flankers being assigned the numbers 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 37, with a variety of letter suffixes when really just 3 numbers would have likely worked (27, 33, 32/34).

Changing the ability of the plane to do a particular mission profile doesn't deserve a new number, that's a suffix change. In fact, there is less in common between the F/A-18C and F/A-18E then there is between the Su-27 and Su-30.

Posted (edited)

...they are so out that these so called experts either dont know much about modern air combat - or have some other motives.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, lets just get one thing straight. I'm not defending him whatsoever. His objectivity has always been in question because he's a lobbyist for the (small) pro-F-22 lobby over here (and yeah, fundamental rule of credibility, being self-referential is a big fail). He does make a few vague points (whether he means to or not) about LR strike being a much more difficult tasking in this day and age when one considers the potential threats emerging in the S-SE Asian region with regards to advanced model Flankers becoming more common place and that the RAAF is close to losing (or has lost) it's technical superiority... which will no doubt be restored with the acuisition of the F-35. But expecting it to do what the F-111 has done in the past is flawed reasoning to begin with just as is expecting to have USAF B-1Bs participating in Jimmy Doolittle style raids, given the nature of operational requirements and the ability to deploy in theatres of conflict such as Afghanistan and Iraq. And this is something he doesn't do, otherwise you'd read about how the F-111 hasn't deployed to operational theatres. No, he just bangs on about how nothing compares to the F-22 and that's what we should have, forgetting for the moment that each F-22 costs about as much as it would to build a new ANZAC class Frigate. And I'd like to know exactly where he's getting his info on the T-50 given that not even groups like Jane's have much of an idea of what the T-50 is capable of just yet. He just gives me the impression of an advid war games player, especially if you see what he has to say about China and the PLAAF/PLAN.

 

 

And about the Vulcan... alls I'm saying is that it was a big, versitile, capable platform with legs long than Manute Bol (He was 7'7") that could have proven itself time and again. I mean, case in point: The B-52 has for more than 50 years. True, you don't see Buffs in the weeds any more, but that's not their major tasking these days.

Edited by Say What?!
  • 1 month later...
Posted

What I don`t realy understand is one design thing, maybe someone can help me with it, if you compare the F-22 and the 50 from the front view, you can see a significant difference between those birdsd.

 

The F-22 has a internal bay in the middle, also some outward of the engineintakes. Design is great and very practicly, but why has Suchoi choosed this kind of nose and the hole between the intakes. stretching the nose a bit down, and solve the gap with an internal larger weaponsbay, or even increasing the fuel capacity of this bird. All optional, but they tend to choose a more 27 like desing for this stealth fighter?! Why were is the advantage?

 

pakfa_f22_compara.jpg

Posted

The F-22 has side-by-side engines while the T-50 spread them apart a bit. There's legit reasons for each design choice (the F-14 took that route as well). Close-set engines offer less adverse yaw in a single-engine out situation, wide-set engines offer insulation from one engine failure taking out the other via debris. The nose thing, like the Su-27 before it, is likely due to the angle of flight (so the nose isn't pointing high over the line of flight at cruise speeds or lower) as well as giving the pilot a good view over the nose on takeoff and landing.

Also, the wide-set design offers a "lifting fuselage" effect which adds lift at high AOA that can be very useful.

Posted

Sounds reasonable, but the F-14 wasn`t designed to carry teh weapons internaly, so this engine layout is great for internal storage space inbetween or not?! This conclusion is just my idea, Suchoi bureau know what they do, they have buil alot good planes, I just try to understand the descision :drinks:

 

thanks for the answer

Posted

I think JediMaster is right. The Lifting Body concept is well researched by the Russian designers and as the Su-27 family and the MiG-29 show, this concept stands for high agile fighter planes.

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Soo.. now that Mr. Putin paid the testing facility a visit (and laughed with the pilot which is a detail not one article fails to mention) our dear press is saying that T-50 is going to surpass F-22 AND will cost 2-3 times less. :blink:

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..