PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

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.

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.

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

Fires fires everywhere.

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.

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.

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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??

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... 

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??  

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.

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/

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.

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

Woops, sorry, this is what happens when i lose Internet connection for a few days, missed a lot of stuff.  

AlfaT8 wrote:

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

Woops, sorry, this is what happens when i lose Internet connection for a few days, missed a lot of stuff.  

Sorry if I was harsh. Don't mean to be like Metberkut guy on mp.net

sepheronx wrote:
Sorry if I was harsh.  Don't mean to be like Metberkut guy on mp.net

Not at all, and i don't know many guys on MP.net other then Demian, no worries, at least AA (Average American) isn't on this forum.

Regarding the fire... the location suggests to me a fire started by using the cannon... sometimes if the area is not vented properly (and on stealth aircraft it is sealed to ensure stealth) there can be gas build ups that can be explosive.

Another issue of course is that because it is often sealed then a long burst can heat up the gun and then when it goes back into stealth with a closed muzzle area the heat does not dissapate and the area can catch fire.

Of course it could just as easily have been an electrical fire.

BTW Regarding

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

Wouldn't the poisonous gas be flammable??

The F-22 has been suffocating pilots by not supplying oxygen... oxygen deprivation puts fires out.. ie smothers them.

GarryB wrote:

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

Wouldn't the poisonous gas be flammable??

The F-22 has been suffocating pilots by not supplying oxygen... oxygen deprivation puts fires out.. ie smothers them.

Got it, thx.  

They know the cause

The Board found the causes of fire fighter PAK FA in Zhukovsky

Viktor wrote:They know the cause

The Board found the causes of fire fighter PAK FA in Zhukovsky

...It's good to hear that it won't push back the Pak-Fa's schedule, let's hope that there's no negative consequences for not pushing it back... 

They said the same when a Su-35 crashed, and it did indeed slow the program.

So I don't believe this media PR bull-shit, it will have an affect on the program. These things happen however, and are to be expected. At least no pilot has yet (crossing fingers) died in the test program.

TR1 wrote:They said the same when a Su-35 crashed, and it did indeed slow the program.

So I don't believe this media PR bull-shit, it will have an affect on the program. These things happen however, and are to be expected. At least no pilot has yet (crossing fingers) died in the test program.

Don't recall any Su-35 crash.
The third prototype burned as it was still on the ground.

Such things are good it happens, especially when no one gets hurt. Reason is that it happens now before mass production, thus they can find and fix the issue. Progress should slow down so that they can spot any other issues too. In the mean time, more Su-35's and Su-30's should make do quite well.