PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

sepheronx wrote:Any new news on PAK FA?

Nothing recently but in semi-related news apparently the Iranian's successfully reverse engineered the RQ-170 and no doubt with the help and assistance from Russian and Chinese scientists and engineers:



Now we need to see the RQ-170 clone fly to determine the authenticity. If it flies like intended than it's a massive leap in Iranian defense technology, and no doubt Syria will be flying some for reconnaissance over the heads of the Israeli's. Ironically the Pentagon may have helped the Iranians to leapfrog in to stealth (now they can evolve from building full-scale mockups to creating flying air-frames with flying laboratory test-bed technology) , similarly how they helped Iran when they dethroned Saddam Huessin in Iraq, and a pro-Iran, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Bashir Assad president of Iraq (Nouri al-Maliki) came in to power.

Iran can't get past creating "modified" F-5s, them reverse engineering a modern drone is fantasy.

looks legit  

TR1 wrote:Iran can't get past creating "modified" F-5s, them reverse engineering a modern drone is fantasy.  

Hence the reason why I said they needed help of Russian and Chinese scientists and engineers, and how we needed to see some flight footage of the RQ-170 clone. The absolute hardest part of reverse-engineering the RQ-170's would be recreating the stealthy jet engine, hence the need for Sino/Russo tech experts who probably want to gather information on the RQ-170's datalink as well as how to create a small stealthy drone engine that was aforementioned.

And so it begins   

I'm more interested in seeing weapon bay testing, but great nonetheless.

Zivo wrote:I'm more interested in seeing weapon bay testing, but great nonetheless.

I'm guessing their testing to see the Pak-Fa's performance (probably ground attack scenario) when stealth isn't a high priority. But no one should get their hopes up about it, the Pak-Fa is a multi-role fighter but it's unlikely that the Pak-Fa's role will deviate much from it's air-superiority role, plus we already have Su-34's in active service with it's excellent ECM suite and will do a significantly greater and better job in the ground attack role compared to the Pak-Fa.

054 have Kh-31 missiles, so it seems they already test them for SEAD/DEAD role, not only with air to air missiles for fighter role. I hope we will soon know, if they test weapons in weapon bay too.

So PAK-FA is aimed at carrying both Kh-58 and Kh-31. Quite the ARM menagerie.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:I'm more interested in seeing weapon bay testing, but great nonetheless.

I'm guessing their testing to see the Pak-Fa's performance (probably ground attack scenario) when stealth isn't a high priority. But no one should get their hopes up about it, the Pak-Fa is a multi-role fighter but it's unlikely that the Pak-Fa's role will deviate much from it's air-superiority role, plus we already have Su-34's in active service with it's excellent ECM suite and will do a significantly greater and better job in the ground attack role compared to the Pak-Fa.

Out of the box, so to speak, the PAK-FA is designed to employ the Kh-58UShK and small new KAB bombs, all in the internal bays.

Viktor wrote:And so it begins   

quite a sight

So for now there are 4 external weapon stations for PAKFA.

Can't wait to see the internal bay test :3

Oh BTW imageurl is blocked in Indonesia cuz we have troll running ministry of information....

Anyway has PAKFA's external dimension released ?

So far i'm always have impression that PAKFA is actually larger than what published in RT's infographics (Which awfully look alike F-22's statblock.. Wing area of 78 sqm hmmm)

GarryB wrote:
Of course for other missions a Low flying Su-34 with a high flying PAK FA armed with Air to air only weapons watching over the Fullback could be the best choice too...

That's essentially the point I was trying to make, it's unlikely the Russian fighter jets would ever fly alone if they're required to attack targets, reconnaissance on the other hand is a different story (not including satellite uplinks and ground control).

KH-31P(M) compatibility seems redundant given similar performance from the Kh-58U variants?

  
http://russianplanes.net/id136892

Just saw this posted at Mp.net

T-50-5 tracked/locked Su-30MKK 310 km away

@metberkut

photoshop.

Cyberspec wrote:Just saw this posted at Mp.net

T-50-5 tracked/locked Su-30MKK 310 km away

@metberkut

detection -perhaps ,
lock-on ,...no way!

navyfield wrote:photoshop.

Looks like it.


-------------------------
edit:

navyfield wrote:detection -perhaps ,
lock-on ,...no way!

Oh look now..princess here, edited his post...well, ain't that cute?!
Well, ain't it?

navyfield wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Just saw this posted at Mp.net

T-50-5 tracked/locked Su-30MKK 310 km away

@metberkut

detection -perhaps ,
lock-on ,...no way!

And why not?

Given Irbis performance several years ago, entirely possible.

navyfield wrote:photoshop.

What is photoshop?

TR1 wrote:

navyfield wrote:photoshop.

What is photoshop?

Does look like a P-Shopped pic, you can see by the masking.
Pics often do look P-Shopped even if they aren't though. This one does seem P-Shopped though.
(nothing on the aircraft itself looks that it's been tampered with, rather as if the aircraft was put on a different background...expert opinion here   )