PAK FA, T-50: News #1

For emergency use only, but part of the design requirements.

Never heard of this design requirement, but a thing is for sure : if that requirement was present it has been miss by production models by a very very very long margin.

The CIA was adamant that the Backfire (Tu-22M2) had a flight range of 6,000km which made it a strategic bomber for a one way mission. The actual range was much less than that. The new engines in the Tu-22M3 improved performance significantly and there are suggestions that 6,000km is an underestimate, but either way both aircraft lost their inflight refueling probes.

CIA and DIA Tu-22M3 range estimations was obviously referred to combat range.

The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) initially had estimated the Backfire's unrefuelled combat radius at approximately 5,000 km, sufficient to pose a strategic threat to the United States, while the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimate was about 3,700 km. subsequently the DIA estimate was reduced to about 4,000 km, and the CIA estimate to 3,360-3,960 km.

Adamant was also the assertions of the same Chief Designer of "Backfire":

During the mid-1990s the author discussed the Tu-22M3 with Levanovich, who was adamant that the production aircraft had a hi-hi-hi combat radius of 4,000 km (2,160 NMI) with a payload of three Kh-22M/AS-4 missiles, well in excess of then current Western estimates.

Try to guess why the first airbase foreseen to be destroyed, in the chance a "growing intensity" not-nuclear conflict with NATO, was just Elmendorf Air Base

Its destruction would have left open the entire continental USA and its entire industrial base - main Shipyards both on West and East Coast, main Airfields, Command and Control sites, Space and Air defense radars etc...-, devoid even only of the guise of a credible IAD ,to even the most simple conventional cruise missile attacks.
The event would have likely forced USA to accept a cease-fire agreement at favorable terms for URSS.

Capability ,by part of the supersonic fleet of TU-22M3, to endanger ,unrefueled, both CVBG in open Pacific Ocean (well outside coverage of NORAD based USAF coverage) and shipyard and dock basing in the entire West Coast was absolutely structural in its strategic concept of operation.

Russian Air Force to receive 5 generation fighter in 2015-2016 - Rogozin

The Russian Air Force will start receiving the prospective airborne complex of frontline aviation (PAK FA), known also as the Russian fifth-generation fighter, in 2015-2016, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said.

"We have flying prototypes, which can so far be called the first-generation PAK FA. There was a long-range flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur to Zhukovsky outside Moscow recently. This is already reality," Rogozin said.

The fighter will acquire "special superiority qualities when a new engine is launched," he said.

"The main work is concentrated now on the engine and weapons. We expect supplies to start in 2015-2016," Rogozin said.

It was reported earlier that the construction of the fifth-generation fighter is part of a program for rearming the Russian armed forces.

Specialists are of the view that the Russian fifth-generation fighter developed by the Sukhoi company is fully meeting the planned performance parameters during the ongoing flight tests.

Compared to fighters of previous generations, the PAK FA boasts a number of unique features, combining the functions as an attack plane and a fighter.

The aircraft has an unusually low level of radar, optical, and infrared visibility, which should significantly improve its combat efficiency in attacking both aerial and ground-based targets at any time of day and in any weather, according to its designers.

I didn't say anything about non stop flight... I said it could self deploy from the US to Europe... in other words it can start in the US and fly to Europe without inflight refuelling tanker support.

And what would be the alternative for this over-Atlantic self deployment ?

Conduct two/three stop-over ,in plain Ocean , aboard Wasp class LHD in order to receive enough refuelling for cover the 4700 km required to reach West Europe ?

Mindstorm wrote:Aegean i can assure you that i am not under any type of impression about the subject , instead i am under the clear impression that you have not idea about the basis working mechanism of a similar Luneberg Lens.

But I do...I used to work with these things in designing field radar tests for 'unmanned low altitude subsonic aircrafts designed to autonomously detect inevitable gaps in air defense radar nets and to navigate through those gaps via its own terrain following/avoidance radar system', and whose company shall remain unnamed.

Mindstorm wrote:It is a RADAR REFLECTOR with almost isotropic RCS magnification capabilities ,clear ?

It NEED to be irradiated in order to work, clear ?

Clear to me...

Mindstorm wrote:Obviously not; What i believe and know is that the placement of this reflector render it totally incapable to be even only illuminated by enemy radar in the most critical aspect projections of the aircraft...

Say what...??? Enemy radar? Why would we want to fly the F-22 into combat with radar enhancers?

You may know how the luneburg lens WORK, but it is clear to me that you do not know how it is EMPLOYED. There is a difference.

An enhanced -22 is to ASSIST radars to see it, assuming these are friendly radars.

Mindstorm wrote:...and would be, therefore, absolutely incapable to "hide" actual RCS of F-22...

Sure it can. The lens works by reflecting the seeking radar's signal back to source direction. Since the -22's RCS is so low, any reflected signals received by the seeking radar is an AGGREGATE of the -22's low RCS and of the lens' reflecting the seeking radar's signals, effectively masking the -22's true RCS value.

In marine safety, a small boat would install a mast corner reflector so radar equipped larger vessels could see it. Why? Because the small boat's RCS is too low or unknown. So with a corner reflector, the small boat's RCS, which is unknown to the larger vessel, is effectively masked by the corner reflector.

Like I said, you may know how the luneburg lens works, but not how it is employed.

Mindstorm wrote:...where that most count ( a purpose already laughable for itself : hide from whom ? From us ?

You clearly misunderstood the role of the luneburg lens. If we fly an enhanced -22 to MAKS, you can bet all your rubles that its RCS is hidden.

Mindstorm wrote:WE have developed the entire Phisics Theoretic architecture around which ALL the low observable vehicles around the world has been designed or constructed in the latest 40 years.

Please...You are still struggling with it...

Mindstorm wrote:It is a bit more than a radar beacon with a secondary role in preventing enemy radar operators to extract and store RCS peack data, for each aspect of illumination, linked to weapon bay opening so to "set" radar receiver's parameters on those data.

Enemy radars again? Now why would we want to fly an enhanced -22 into combat? Your comments about this so far tells me you really do not know to employ this device.

Mindstorm wrote:A EF Thyphoon , a Rafale, a MiG-31BM or an SU-35S in a typical "nose on" vector of interception with an F-22 equipped with this lens would obtain Raptor's RCS totally non influenced by it .

No, they would not. The device's location sufficiently reflect JUST ENOUGH to mask the -22's true RCS.

Djoka wrote:Oh man give it a break on that superstealth crap will you.No plane on the planet is totaly invisible to radar,yes that includes f-22.So us airforce should drop that bullshit propaganda and instead focus on making f-22 NOT to kill its own pilots.

News for you: We never claimed the F-22 is 'invisible' to radar. The word 'invisible' is usually in popular news blurbs, not official DoD or technical articles.

Mindstorm wrote:Instead to rely on the comical, demented theories circulating on hopeless places such as F-16 . net...

Please...f-16.net is populated by LOTS of people with real aviation experience. Far more than we can say for this playground.

But I do...I used to work with these things in designing field radar tests for 'unmanned low altitude subsonic aircrafts designed to autonomously detect inevitable gaps in air defense radar nets and to navigate through those gaps via its own terrain following/avoidance radar system', and whose company shall remain unnamed.

Go back some pages and reread Mindstorm's posts. You're missing some key points.

No, they would not. The device's location sufficiently reflect JUST ENOUGH to mask the -22's true RCS.

I'm curious as to how you reached this conclusion. Also, what is "true RCS"? I'm not familiar with this term. It doesn't have anything to do with polished metal marbles does it?

Havok wrote:Please...f-16.net is populated by LOTS of people with real aviation experience

OH Great Aviation experience.. about what.. Fighting Iraq with ~2500 jets( f-16,f-15, 18 etc.) against a few Migs ..
This is your avaition experience.. or serbia.. raining down bombs from a couple of thousand jets on a small country with GDP of hardly 10Busd..
Forget about lens .. sequestration is coming.. just save your .. U.S is going to blow up in fiscal bomb..

GarryB wrote:the Russians have a range of optical tracking systems that are actually rather more accurate than radar tracking systems

This can't be true . There are no such optical tracking systems that Russia has .

Zivo wrote:

You better believe it...

Zivo wrote:Go back some pages and reread Mindstorm's posts. You're missing some key points.

I have...He missed the point of the device COMPLETELY.

Zivo wrote:I'm curious as to how you reached this conclusion. Also, what is "true RCS"? I'm not familiar with this term. It doesn't have anything to do with polished metal marbles does it?

A 'true radar cross section' value is one that is best recorded in an EM isolated anechoic chamber. This value is top secret, of course.

gaurav wrote:OH Great Aviation experience.. about what.. Fighting Iraq with ~2500 jets( f-16,f-15, 18 etc.) against a few Migs ..

This will get you nowhere. Wars are state actions. The people over at f-16.net are those who have real aviation experience in working and flying, not just the -16 but other aircrafts as well. Am willing to bet you can barely tell the difference between a screwdriver and a hammer.

gaurav wrote:This is your avaition experience.. or serbia.. raining down bombs from a couple of thousand jets on a small country with GDP of hardly 10Busd..

Sure. How about this...



Six bombs from altitude to six intersections. Makes you wonder how did we figured out the coordinates of those intersections in the first place.

Mock US all you want, but far more intelligent people than you take these technical achievements seriously.

gaurav wrote:Forget about lens .. sequestration is coming.. just save your .. U.S is going to blow up in fiscal bomb..

Neither you nor your grandchildren nor your great grandchildren will see the 'collapse' of the US.

GarryB wrote:AGEAN was basically asking why there were no radar enhancers to allow ground radar to track the PAK FA prototypes during testing... perhaps a better answer would be that the Russians have a range of optical tracking systems that are actually rather more accurate than radar tracking systems, or perhaps that these early prototypes have the basic shape and design of the PAK FA but not the RAM coating full standard stealth that the final aircraft will be operating with. Of course most of the recording equipment will be on board the aircraft so ground tracking is not really that critical as the telemetry will come from on board boxes and of course chase aircraft will give an indication as to where the prototypes are anyway.

Or more likely the PAK is not as 'stealthy' as you gents here would like to believe.

A 'true radar cross section' value is one that is best recorded in an EM isolated anechoic chamber. This value is top secret, of course.

Or more likely the PAK is not as 'stealthy' as you gents here would like to believe.

Who needs an expensive EM isolated anechoic chamber when internet RCS analysts can do it from their desktop? You should call up Lockheed Martin and tell them they're wasting money.

Zivo wrote:Who needs an expensive EM isolated anechoic chamber when internet RCS analysts can do it from their desktop? You should call up Lockheed Martin and tell them they're wasting money.

Or perhaps Sukhoi and MIG should come to this forum and save themselves a lot of money. Laws of physics be damned, from what I have seen so far.

havok wrote:

Zivo wrote:Who needs an expensive EM isolated anechoic chamber when internet RCS analysts can do it from their desktop? You should call up Lockheed Martin and tell them they're wasting money.

Or perhaps Sukhoi and MIG should come to this forum and save themselves a lot of money. Laws of physics be damned, from what I have seen so far.

From images on the internet, from videos? Do tell.

How did you determine that the PAK FA is not as "stealthy" as we expected?

havok wrote:

GarryB wrote:AGEAN was basically asking why there were no radar enhancers to allow ground radar to track the PAK FA prototypes during testing... perhaps a better answer would be that the Russians have a range of optical tracking systems that are actually rather more accurate than radar tracking systems, or perhaps that these early prototypes have the basic shape and design of the PAK FA but not the RAM coating full standard stealth that the final aircraft will be operating with. Of course most of the recording equipment will be on board the aircraft so ground tracking is not really that critical as the telemetry will come from on board boxes and of course chase aircraft will give an indication as to where the prototypes are anyway.

Or more likely the PAK is not as 'stealthy' as you gents here would like to believe.

Or maybe you are pulling your hopeful thinking out of your butt .

NickM wrote:

GarryB wrote:the Russians have a range of optical tracking systems that are actually rather more accurate than radar tracking systems

This can't be true . There are no such optical tracking systems that Russia has .

LOL!

Where's mindstorm when we need him

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Where's mindstorm when we need him

The guy researches his things before he replys, on top of that he takes a while to respond, unless it's GarryB.

Mindstorm wrote:Ok i will try to be more explicit : that lens obviously is NOT placed here to "mask" the entire airframe diffraction field in an high frequency scattering regime

I will be even better...

If I put on a Batman mask, no one would be able to recognize me, even though I would stand out from within a crowd. On the other hand, if I have no mask but merely be within that same crowd, it would be very tough for anyone familiar with me to distinguish me from others in that crowd. My face is not masked, literally or figuratively, but only that my MAIN facial structures such as eyes, ears, nose, chin, etc. are common to everyone else's, forcing seekers to analyze, no matter briefly, every face they see, to try to distinguish out small differences between faces. This will require time.

A well camouflaged soldier goes one step further. Not only does he literally masked himself all over, he uses environmental factors as well. His mask have many common major and minor commonalities with the environment, forcing seekers to devote even more time and efforts in analyzing every eye movement.

The goal of radar reflector for any low radar observable body, be it a fighter aircraft or an ordinary radio tower, is not to mask its RCS returns, no matter how low they might be, but to reflect the seeking radar's signal in as highly a directional manner as possible. If those reflections happened to be of greater amplitude than the RCS value of body that is carrying the reflector, then any 'masking' of the body's RCS is coincidental or as a by-product of or of secondary intent.

American 'stealth' aircrafts flies with enhancers to assist air traffic controllers and if those radar reflectors happened to produce greater signal amplitude than the aircraft itself can produce, then both signals are said to be in an aggregate...

Definition of AGGREGATE
: formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount

All complex bodies produce a final RCS value that is an aggregate of many discrete radiators, major to minor, on their bodies. The smaller radiators can be said to have been 'masked' by the major radiators, like how a surface radiator called a 'screwhead' whose own RCS is 'masked' by the wing's RCS. For complex structures like the interior of a jet engine, there would be a combination of constructive and destructive interference between major and minor radiators so it can be argued that constructive interference is a 'masking' of sort.

Mindstorm wrote:Instead just some dozen of centimeters onward is placed a critical structural element of F-22 generating......a very distinctive RCS peak variation when actioned (and not you cannot avoid to use it if you want to engage in combat anything with that aircraft).


Clear now ?

The enhancer will not be used in combat, except simulated combat where highly dictatorial rules of engagement are in play that can be intentionally favorable to one side or the other -- for instructional purposes.

You completely misunderstood the context of the word 'mask' here. You took it to mean the Batman mask analogy.

Neither you nor your grandchildren nor your great grandchildren will see the 'collapse' of the US.

Cant discuss off topic . I have more than 10 years exp in similar
Industry as yours.
But keeping things aside. That was not mocking just to say that
your reply was upto the mark.