+70

Kimppis

Rmf

szo

Kyo

type055

kvs

tempestii

2SPOOKY4U

EKS

Mike E

navyfield

bantugbro

mutantsushi

gaurav

mig7

RTN

Morpheus Eberhardt

Indian Flanker

Zinuru

Djoka

George1

Airbornewolf

lulldapull

Hannibal Barca

Alex555

Hachimoto

Giulio

havok

eridan

etaepsilonk

magnumcromagnon

Cyberspec

ali.a.r

Werewolf

CaptainPakistan

GJ Flanker

macedonian

Arrow

zg18

BlackArrow

Vann7

flamming_python

KomissarBojanchev

a89

JPJ

Rpg type 7v

Department Of Defense

collegeboy16

quetzacol

dionis

AlfaT8

sepheronx

NickM

TheArmenian

coolieno99

nemrod

Zivo

Firebird

mack8

Mindstorm

Sujoy

Deep Throat

Stealthflanker

SOC

TR1

Flanky

medo

Viktor

Austin

GarryB

74 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 15 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 34 ... 40

PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38977
Points : 39473
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°691

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:52 am

I agree, I'll add my input:

The biggest mistake they could make is to try to make the smaller new fighter into something better and more capable than the bigger fighter... with the result being the small cheap fighter is too expensive to buy in numbers... which defeats the whole purpose.

I'm no expert but it doesn't look worth repairing. It depends on how much of the internals are damaged I guess

I am not expert either, but it probably looks rather worse than it really is with lots of surface smoke damage. Most of the skin will need replacing and likely some of the internal structure will need replacing, but I doubt it would be that much of a problem to fix it.

Wonder what caused the fire... it looks too far forward to be engine related...

Maybe it was gun testing related?

Can some one provide more details on how Sukhoi is trying to deal with rear aspect of RCS , Including Engine ? If some patients says so

There was talk of development of a flat exhaust but they were still working on it.

Equally it is possible they might develop sawtooth exhaust nozzles for the engines themselves and the ability to vector them and hide the internal compressor blades should reduce RCS too, but with ground radar support they should know where all enemy aircraft and threats are and generally face and attack the nearest first so radar cross section of the rear is not as critical as it is for the F-22 which is supposed to operate on its own over enemy airspace.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°692

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Vann7 Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:10 am

Imho.. Russia will be Rich with China Gas deals.. there is Japan ,South Korea and India saying me too.. and there is also another
pipeline in discussion for the western side of CHINA. And Building Nuclear reactors Russia is going to make a lot of money too ..
Turkey, Egypt ,Jordan ,Iran ,India ,Britain ,Armenia ,Kazakistan ,Argentina .Vietnam,Sooth Africa etc... is just a few names of the complete list of Nations that wants a Nuclear Reactor from Russia.Each reactor can cost as much as $300 millions dollars to make and many wants more than one reactor.. Iran for example wants 8 of them.

So with the big boost Russia will receive from its economy , they should seriously consider developing a 5th Generation airforce from top to button and in this order ....

1) A mesosphere high altitude ,supersonic or hypersonic tactical Stealth Bomber that can launch conventional or nuclear precision strikes.
with super long range replacement for TU-160.
2)A heavy weight Stealth fortress ,with Huge capabilities to carry almost any bomb or ICBM.. Similar to B-2 but much bigger and more lethal.to replace the TU-95. (Pak-da)
3) A 5th generation stealth version of Su-31 interceptor ..
4)A 5th Generation stealth version of SU-34 bomber.
5)A 5th generation stealth version of Tu-22M
6)Sukhoi Pak-FA
7)5th generation version of Mig-35.
8)a Stealth Attack drone

The first two heavy bombers ,just a couple of dozens of each will be fine ~30 of them..
the Interceptor too.. and the for the smaller multi role combat planes from 200-300s will be fine of each.

Giulio

Giulio: Posts : 181
Points : 206
Join date : 2013-10-29
Location : Italy

Post n°693

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Giulio Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:28 am

Vann7 wrote:

So with the big boost Russia will receive from its economy , they should seriously consider developing a 5th Generation airforce from top to button and in this order ....

1) A mesosphere high altitude ,supersonic or hypersonic tactical Stealth Bomber that can launch conventional or nuclear precision strikes.
with super long range replacement for TU-160.
2)A heavy weight Stealth fortress ,with Huge capabilities to carry almost any bomb or ICBM.. Similar to B-2 but much bigger and more lethal.to replace the TU-95. (Pak-da)
3) A 5th generation stealth version of Su-31 interceptor ..
4)A 5th Generation stealth version of SU-34 bomber.
5)A 5th generation stealth version of Tu-22M
6)Sukhoi Pak-FA
7)5th generation version of Mig-35.
8)a Stealth Attack drone

The first two heavy bombers ,just a couple of dozens of each will be fine ~30 of them..
the Interceptor too.. and the for the smaller multi role combat planes from 200-300s will be fine of each.

I'm an aviation fan, but I think it's money stolen to the Russian citizens. They told me that the land and house in Russia are very expensive (like in Italy ...) and the Russia is the bigger country in the world! The land should cost less, not more!!
A large economy to make big weapons? For what? Making enrich a few few people?
In Italy, the lobby wants at all costs the F-35, but the Italy now is a country on its knees!!! The F-35 is absurd to Italy! The Italian Police has problems with the gasoline for its cars!! Many families have problems with the money for books for the childrens to the school and they would like to buy the F-35 ... We are surviving thanks to Russian and Chinese tourists and their rolls of 500 Euros banknotes, but also in Italy: "they should seriously consider developing a 5th Generation airforce from top to button and in this order", or a: "mesosphere high altitude ,supersonic or hypersonic tactical Stealth Bomber ..." .................................... Thus, only the Banks celebrate with champagne, thanks to the debt that the State will do with them for the next fifty years!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by Giulio on Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38977
Points : 39473
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°694

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:05 am

I'm an aviation fan, but I think it's money stolen from the Russian citizens. They told me that the land and house in Russia are very expensive (like in Italy ...) and the Russia is the bigger country in the world! The land should cost less, not more!!

They have plenty of cheap land... just not down the main street in Moscow.

In places where people don't want to live they have land cheaper...

But I agree that spending big on uber hypersonic stealth bombers would be a total waste of time and money.

Doing it in smaller steps... get hypersonic missiles into service first and then look at hypersonic aircraft.

I must admit super high speed aircraft are exciting to me mainly because a plane with scramjet engines just has the heat barrier to defeat and then really high speeds including orbital speed become possible...

A large economy to make big weapons? For what? Making enrich a few few people?

Exactly. You should aim for the best, but also for a high standard of living for the people of Russia. A lot of the high tech stuff developed for the military will have spinoffs for the civilian population... they have developed a DARPA like organisation to look at new technologies and how the military can use them... they also want a civilian DARPA that looks at how technology can help in civilian life too... and commercialise the technology developed for the military and use it to make things better for civilians.
For instance electric motors for tanks can be used in cars and trains, more powerful, more efficient batteries etc etc. Stored hydrogen to power fuel cells as a means of storing energy that is not effected by extreme cold like a battery... so you send electricity and store it in batteries... the extreme cold means battery life is extremely reduced, but using a fuel cell and distilled water to separate the hydrogen and store it means any time you want electricity and a little bit of heat byproduct you run the hydrogen through the fuel cell...

The amusing thing is that even if Russia spent trillions on these super bombers... what would protect them from ground based laser stations using megawatt or even gigawatt lasers? They don't exist now, but Russia having such bombers would create a requirement for solutions and these could be one solution.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°695

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Vann7 Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:04 pm

GarryB wrote:

But I agree that spending big on uber hypersonic stealth bombers would be a total waste of time and money.

Doing it in smaller steps... get hypersonic missiles into service first and then look at hypersonic aircraft.

But Russia do have Hypersonic Missiles since soviet times.. there is nothing new with that.. ICBMs are mach 22 ,Iskanders are hypersonic ,
Scuds too , and they have hypersonic cruise missiles too and already testing a new generation Brahmos-2 missiles which are hypersonic too..
So Russia is already there. Moving to Hypersonic/Supersonic high altitude planes have enormous advantages ,like the ability to decapitate
any nation leadership and provoke a coup in a hostile country you know you will have to fight, and will make any nation hostile to Russia very worried if told there are flying planes above their heads with precision bombs. It can truly avoid wars.. because of the magnitude of the deterrence . Also with very high altitude bombers/spy planes you can be the eyes of your army and provide direct information of enemy movements and in real time ,the plane for example can illuminate the targets to bomb for the army artillery in the ground. And the High Altitude Stealth planes will remain at safe distance.. Drones can do that but they are very easy to shot down. The plane could also be used to sabotage satellites and intercept ICBMs from space.. Is a game changing weapon. Much more than any Pa-FA program..

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38977
Points : 39473
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°696

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:25 am

There is still plenty of work to be done... most of their current hypersonic missiles are rocket powered... solid in the case of Iskander and liquid in the case of Scud and Kh-22M/32.

For practical hypersonic bombers and indeed hypersonic long range cruise missiles you need a fully functional and tested scramjet engine, and the technology to resist high skin temperatures for hours rather than minutes.

Another thing is that I think you over estimate the safety of hypersonic high flying aircraft... S-400 can already engage targets flying at rather more than 2km/s and S-500 will greatly increase the speed of the targets intercepted and the altitudes the can be intercepted to.

Personally I see hypersonic aircraft bringing Vladivostok and Kaliningrad closer together, and greatly reducing the cost of getting payloads into space.

Currently a MiG-31 with a modified rocket flying a zoom climb is a cheap way to get small satellites into space.

A Hypersonic bomber sized aircraft should be able to deliver multi ton payloads into space almost directly for the price of a few dozen tons of kerosene.

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°697

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Austin Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:34 pm

Interview with UAC General Director Victor Polyakov , Has some details on T-50/PAK-FA avionics/cockpit design etc

http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/arsenal/1341492-echo/

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°698

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Austin Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:36 pm

GarryB wrote:Another thing is that I think you over estimate the safety of hypersonic high flying aircraft... S-400 can already engage targets flying at rather more than 2km/s and S-500 will greatly increase the speed of the targets intercepted and the altitudes the can be intercepted to.

For S-400 the number is rather 5 km/sec target speed

and for S-500 it is 7 km/sec

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°699

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

magnumcromagnon Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:42 pm

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another thing is that I think you over estimate the safety of hypersonic high flying aircraft... S-400 can already engage targets flying at rather more than 2km/s and S-500 will greatly increase the speed of the targets intercepted and the altitudes the can be intercepted to.

For S-400 the number is rather 5 km/sec target speed

and for S-500 it is 7 km/sec

If what you say is true then S-400 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 14.6 and S-500 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 20.5?

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia

Post n°700

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Viktor Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:56 pm

magnumcromagnon wrote:If what you say is true then S-400 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 14.6 and S-500 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 20.5?

Thats right. S-500 will therefore be able to shoot down even ICBMs

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°701

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Austin Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:58 pm

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another thing is that I think you over estimate the safety of hypersonic high flying aircraft... S-400 can already engage targets flying at rather more than 2km/s and S-500 will greatly increase the speed of the targets intercepted and the altitudes the can be intercepted to.

For S-400 the number is rather 5 km/sec target speed

and for S-500 it is 7 km/sec

If what you say is true then S-400 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 14.6 and S-500 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 20.5?

Not just BM but the more difficult and futuristic Hypersonic Platform that are under development and can travel within upper atmosphere at very high speed.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°702

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

magnumcromagnon Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:30 am

Austin wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another thing is that I think you over estimate the safety of hypersonic high flying aircraft... S-400 can already engage targets flying at rather more than 2km/s and S-500 will greatly increase the speed of the targets intercepted and the altitudes the can be intercepted to.

For S-400 the number is rather 5 km/sec target speed

and for S-500 it is 7 km/sec

If what you say is true then S-400 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 14.6 and S-500 can intercept ballistic missiles traveling at speeds of Mach 20.5?

Not just BM but the more difficult and futuristic Hypersonic Platform that are under development and can travel within upper atmosphere at very high speed.

Well from the theoretical S-500 design floating on the internet, the S-500 missile canister doesn't look much larger than that of S-400 canister, of course it could be much wider, and the question is how many missiles per TEL? Interestingly enough they could of went with the brute force approach to create a ABM SAM (Not named A-135) and used the same TEL as the TOPOL-M complex and used a missile and canister of similar size of the TOPOL-M complex (maybe with versions that are quad-packed canisters, multiple missiles with different ranges and speeds, single stage to 4 stage missles), with ranges well-over several thousands of KM's in range. Of course if they do that then they would need to make a radar with sufficient range, using the same TEL they can have lengthy radar arrays that open up and unfold in to a much larger arrays, maybe even utilize encoded up-links to communicate with strategic early-warning land based radars to improve range and accuracy of a mega SAM complex's massive unfolding radar arrays. Lastly it'll need tons of energy to power such massive mobile unfolding radar arrays, again using the same TEL they could create a a small compact LFTR reactor that's armored to withstand 30mm caliber fire or armor even comparable to tank frontal armor to insure safety of the crew.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°703

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

TR1 Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:49 am

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-fire-breaks-f-35-eglin-air-force-base-pilot-safe

Fires fires everywhere.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38977
Points : 39473
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°704

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:18 am

Well from the theoretical S-500 design floating on the internet, the S-500 missile canister doesn't look much larger than that of S-400 canister... <snip>

There is no reason for S-500 to be that much bigger than S-400.

Making a missile smaller and lighter means less powerful boosters can be used, or it can go further and faster.

The S-400 has to be able destroy a range of targets including cruise missiles and UCAVs right through to B-2s and B-52s and SR-71s etc etc. It has the capability to engage long range ballistic targets too.

The S-500, on the other hand is primarily designed to hit small fast ballistic targets, but as a consequence is also able to hit larger targets like hypersonic bombers... the closing speed alone means that S-500 could use a bucket of nails outside the atmosphere to kill the target... as it spreads then a collision becomes more and more likely while the lethality of even a single nail traveling at a closing speed of perhaps 10-15km/s means any manned vessel would be totally penetrated and explosive decompression would kill all on board and destroy the craft...

The S-500 system will be fully mobile and there are rumours it will have a rather large X band AESA array radar with a range of 2,500km or so, but it will also be tied in to the IADS of Russia and therefore be warned about threats fairly early on.

I am sure China will be interested in an export version too.

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°705

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Zivo Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:29 am

TR1 wrote:http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-fire-breaks-f-35-eglin-air-force-base-pilot-safe

Fires fires everywhere.

I'm not a believer in karma, but the Lockmart fanboys should have kept their mouth shut.

The Chinese should just keep quiet. At this rate, the J-20 is next. There's a serial arsonist on the loose.

Morpheus Eberhardt

Morpheus Eberhardt: Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20

Post n°706

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Morpheus Eberhardt Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:48 am

TR1 wrote:http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-fire-breaks-f-35-eglin-air-force-base-pilot-safe

Fires fires everywhere.

Were in the hell is Greenpeace now, with F-35 being a Baby Seal.

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2465
Points : 2456
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°707

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

AlfaT8 Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:56 am

TR1 wrote:http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-fire-breaks-f-35-eglin-air-force-base-pilot-safe

Fires fires everywhere.

Wasn't aware that spontaneous combustion was also one the F-35s "features", maybe they should start installing fire suppression systems on all F-35 variants. Wink

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur

Post n°708

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

collegeboy16 Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:03 pm

AlfaT8 wrote:
Wasn't aware that spontaneous combustion was also one the F-35s "features", maybe they should start installing fire suppression systems on all F-35 variants.

easy fix, just install the F-22s oxygen reduction system.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°709

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Werewolf Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:06 pm

Actually it would be a miracle with all the new and fancy aircrafts if even one would leave prototype phase without any failures like engine fires.

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2465
Points : 2456
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°710

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

AlfaT8 Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:18 pm

collegeboy16 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Wasn't aware that spontaneous combustion was also one the F-35s "features", maybe they should start installing fire suppression systems on all F-35 variants.

easy fix, just install the F-22s oxygen reduction system.

Wouldn't the poisonous gas be flammable??

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°711

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

magnumcromagnon Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:47 pm

collegeboy16 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Wasn't aware that spontaneous combustion was also one the F-35s "features", maybe they should start installing fire suppression systems on all F-35 variants.

easy fix, just install the F-22s oxygen reduction system.

...Or they could leave it the hangar 30-40 hours for ever hour of flight... Wink

...and If that fails then they could just let the garage doors on the hangar close, and if aircraft maintenance in the real world is anything like Grand Theft Auto than the airplane will be fixed automatically by the time the garage doors open up again... Cool

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2465
Points : 2456
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°712

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

AlfaT8 Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:08 am

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Wasn't aware that spontaneous combustion was also one the F-35s "features", maybe they should start installing fire suppression systems on all F-35 variants.

easy fix, just install the F-22s oxygen reduction system.

...Or they could leave it the hangar 30-40 hours for ever hour of flight... ...and If that fails then they could just let the garage doors on the hangar close, and if aircraft maintenance in the real world is anything like Grand Theft Auto than the airplane will be fixed automatically by the time the garage doors open up again...

Thx Magnum, you reminded me of a question i had about the PAK-FA.

How many hours of maintenance does the PAK-FA need per hour of flight, and how does it stack up compared to the F-35?? scratch

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38977
Points : 39473
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°713

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:24 am

Not really that important on a prototype... once they go into serial production to operational units then we will know if it is a hangar queen or not.

They will have calculations... but they likely also predicted rather better numbers for F-22 than they actually got with the in service aircraft.

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2465
Points : 2456
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°714

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

AlfaT8 Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:28 pm

Well.....this is offward, apparently the PAK-FA also has this "spontaneous combustion" feature, go-figure. Embarassed

PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 29 10974611

http://englishrussia.com/2014/06/10/t-50-jet-caught-fire/

sepheronx

sepheronx: Posts : 8532
Points : 8794
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada

Post n°715

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

sepheronx Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:05 am

AlfaT8 wrote:Well.....this is offward, apparently the PAK-FA also has this "spontaneous combustion" feature, go-figure.

http://englishrussia.com/2014/06/10/t-50-jet-caught-fire/

I hope you can read, because this has already been discussed.

Russia Defence Forum

PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Similar topics

Similar topics