Test =/= real life aerodynamic capabilities. Modern jets typically can maneuver more than what they are rated (tested) at, so they can maneuver like that consistently and reliably. That doesn't mean they can maneuver like that in real flight.
+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
PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°781
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Onboard the Su-26?
Test =/= real life aerodynamic capabilities. Modern jets typically can maneuver more than what they are rated (tested) at, so they can maneuver like that consistently and reliably. That doesn't mean they can maneuver like that in real flight.
Test =/= real life aerodynamic capabilities. Modern jets typically can maneuver more than what they are rated (tested) at, so they can maneuver like that consistently and reliably. That doesn't mean they can maneuver like that in real flight.
EKS- Posts : 33
Points : 32
Join date : 2014-09-04
Location : The Netherlands
- Post n°782
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Does Anyone have any information on the pak fa t 50 6/7 (static prototype) or the pak fa t 50 8?
I have spend Hours on research but haven't Found any usefulll info.
Gary B, do you have any insight?
I have spend Hours on research but haven't Found any usefulll info.
Gary B, do you have any insight?
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°783
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
I'm obviously not GarryB, but I haven't found anything more... It could be a while, so you might have to get used to the lack of news.
GarryB- Posts : 38762
Points : 39258
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°784
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
I don't have any inside information either.
The destruction testing of the Su-26 just shows that light strong aircraft can be built to take much higher stress than existing manned aircraft... currently missiles fired from artillery can withstand 100,000gs when fired... Just sayin'
The destruction testing of the Su-26 just shows that light strong aircraft can be built to take much higher stress than existing manned aircraft... currently missiles fired from artillery can withstand 100,000gs when fired... Just sayin'
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
- Post n°785
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Nice
Testing of weapons for the PAK FA will begin this year
Testing of weapons for the PAK FA will begin this year
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°786
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
GarryB wrote:I don't have any inside information either.
The destruction testing of the Su-26 just shows that light strong aircraft can be built to take much higher stress than existing manned aircraft... currently missiles fired from artillery can withstand 100,000gs when fired... Just sayin'
- I don't deny that, but keep in mind that the SU-26 is a sub-1000kg aircraft that can't hold any payload...
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
- Post n°787
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Really can't see anything exciting about Pak-fa ,its shape looks like an unfinished stealth plane and neither pretty its airframe... bring on the stealth bomber..
A much better project will have been making a stealth version of the Swan Tu=160 or TU-22. with upgraded
radars ,sensors ,weapons and electronics.
Pa-fa is ugly ,even if is advanced ,fails to impress ,looks more like a cheap try of a stealth plane that they never
needed at all. And they have plans to sell it world wide , so it will be a matter of time it will be captured and
reverse engineered. Take a look at how amazing soviet designers made their planes.. and is a plane with much
more practical use that Pak-FA in real world conflicts.
Pak-Fa is not really needed plane at all.. Su-35 was more than good enough for air superiority. And is not like NATO was going to fly Stealth planes any day over Russia with S-400s and S-500s. Far more needed plane will have been A stealth super heavy bomber or a stealth version of Tu-22 or Tu-160 or a stealth Mig 31 or a stealth version of Su-34 that is much more important.. used to counter enemy air defenses.. Pak-Fa is a redundant plane .. specially when NATO will fly F-22s or F-35s over Russia. or near its air defenses range.
A much better project will have been making a stealth version of the Swan Tu=160 or TU-22. with upgraded
radars ,sensors ,weapons and electronics.
Pa-fa is ugly ,even if is advanced ,fails to impress ,looks more like a cheap try of a stealth plane that they never
needed at all. And they have plans to sell it world wide , so it will be a matter of time it will be captured and
reverse engineered. Take a look at how amazing soviet designers made their planes.. and is a plane with much
more practical use that Pak-FA in real world conflicts.
Pak-Fa is not really needed plane at all.. Su-35 was more than good enough for air superiority. And is not like NATO was going to fly Stealth planes any day over Russia with S-400s and S-500s. Far more needed plane will have been A stealth super heavy bomber or a stealth version of Tu-22 or Tu-160 or a stealth Mig 31 or a stealth version of Su-34 that is much more important.. used to counter enemy air defenses.. Pak-Fa is a redundant plane .. specially when NATO will fly F-22s or F-35s over Russia. or near its air defenses range.
Last edited by Vann7 on 08/09/14, 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
GarryB- Posts : 38762
Points : 39258
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°788
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
- I don't deny that, but keep in mind that the SU-26 is a sub-1000kg aircraft that can't hold any payload...
G rate is most significant for a high speed aircraft... the faster you go the more gs you pull for any given rate of turn.
For instance at 20km/h in a car you can spin the steering wheel around and turn 90 degrees without pulling anything like 10g.
An Su-26 was bench tested to 26 gs because it is probably not fast enough to get that sort of turn rate either.... but as you get faster and faster then pulling gs becomes easier and easier... a hypersonic fighter will either be a very straight flying manned aircraft or a moderately manouverable unmanned aircraft.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°789
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
That gets us to the argument of "does it even matter"... All you said is true, but the extra g's at high speeds won't provide the maneuvers capable at much lower speeds. Either way there are more important requirements of maneuvering, like losing little inertia, low wing loading etc.GarryB wrote:- I don't deny that, but keep in mind that the SU-26 is a sub-1000kg aircraft that can't hold any payload...
G rate is most significant for a high speed aircraft... the faster you go the more gs you pull for any given rate of turn.
For instance at 20km/h in a car you can spin the steering wheel around and turn 90 degrees without pulling anything like 10g.
An Su-26 was bench tested to 26 gs because it is probably not fast enough to get that sort of turn rate either.... but as you get faster and faster then pulling gs becomes easier and easier... a hypersonic fighter will either be a very straight flying manned aircraft or a moderately manouverable unmanned aircraft.
GarryB- Posts : 38762
Points : 39258
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°790
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
That gets us to the argument of "does it even matter"... All you said is true, but the extra g's at high speeds won't provide the maneuvers capable at much lower speeds. Either way there are more important requirements of maneuvering, like losing little inertia, low wing loading etc.
You are missing my point.
Right now the MiG-25 and MiG-31 have a g limit of something like 4g at high speed because of its design. If it was designed from the start to be unmanned and not to be used for 30 years service then the g limits could be easily relaxed without any structural changes at all.
I am not talking about a low speed aircraft that can out manouver a very high speed aircraft, I am talking about a very high speed aircraft that is unmanned and can be built to out turn a low speed fighter or more specifically a super cruising F-22... imagine a mach 2.5-3 unmanned aircraft that can outturn a supercruising F-22 with a jammer and equipment on board to protect it from AMRAAM and AIM-9X... it wont need a payload of 10 tons of bombs... you could simply fit two nose mounted twin barrel 30mm cannon firing 3,000rpm each...
More importantly once it has shot down any F-22s near Russias border it can go around looking for strategic bombers and any cruise missiles they might have launched... linked into the VKKO system.
havok- Posts : 88
Points : 83
Join date : 2010-09-20
- Post n°791
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Wrong. Aerodynamics is about the STUDY of airflow over bodies.Mike E wrote:In order to maneuver at high-g's (12-15g), the aircraft has to be extremely aerodynamic,...
When we casually say something like: 'The XYZ body is a very aerodynamic body.', it is meaningless. Airflow over it. So what ?
But if we say:'The XYZ body is more aerodynamic than the ABC body.', now we have frames of references. One body to compare against the other. The words 'more aerodynamic' mean airflow over XYZ body is more efficient than over ABC body.
More efficient.
Here is a clue for you: It is not the brick's main body that will allows it to fly, it is the flight control surfaces that will make the brick airborne.
If the flight control surfaces -- wings, rudders, stabilators -- are efficient enough, they will lift the brick off the ground.
A brick can pull as many g as propulsion and rate of change allows regardless of how inefficient airflow over its body.
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1405
Points : 1481
Join date : 2009-08-05
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
- Post n°792
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
havok wrote:
Here is a clue for you: It is not the brick's main body that will allows it to fly, it is the flight control surfaces that will make the brick airborne.
If the flight control surfaces -- wings, rudders, stabilators -- are efficient enough, they will lift the brick off the ground.
A brick can pull as many g as propulsion and rate of change allows regardless of how inefficient airflow over its body.
This is true. sooooooooooo in turn it will be structural limit. Or depend on what it carries.
GarryB- Posts : 38762
Points : 39258
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°793
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
If the flight control surfaces -- wings, rudders, stabilators -- are efficient enough, they will lift the brick off the ground.
Actually I would split those into lift devices (wings) and flight control surfaces (rudders, stabilators, aelerons etc).
the Lift devices will allow the brick to fly once lift exceeds the gravity force holding the brick down, where propulsion over comes drag and gives forward acceleration to flight speed.
The control surfaces allow a controlled takeoff and flight.
Control surfaces allowing varying turn and climb rates depending on how far they can deflect, how large an area they have and the speed of the airflow over them.
The MiG-25 has large control surfaces so despite its 4 g manouver limit it is actually very controllable at high speed.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°794
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
You realize that I didn't try to define aerodynamics, right? In general, planes with more aerodynamic features (such as "lifting bodies", blended wings, "flatter designs"' and more control surfaces etc) will maneuver better than planes without them.havok wrote:Wrong. Aerodynamics is about the STUDY of airflow over bodies.Mike E wrote:In order to maneuver at high-g's (12-15g), the aircraft has to be extremely aerodynamic,...
When we casually say something like: 'The XYZ body is a very aerodynamic body.', it is meaningless. Airflow over it. So what ?
But if we say:'The XYZ body is more aerodynamic than the ABC body.', now we have frames of references. One body to compare against the other. The words 'more aerodynamic' mean airflow over XYZ body is more efficient than over ABC body.
More efficient.
Here is a clue for you: It is not the brick's main body that will allows it to fly, it is the flight control surfaces that will make the brick airborne.
If the flight control surfaces -- wings, rudders, stabilators -- are efficient enough, they will lift the brick off the ground.
A brick can pull as many g as propulsion and rate of change allows regardless of how inefficient airflow over its body.
Never said otherwise.... You have to realize that without lift, and power control surfaces would do nothing to get an aircraft airborne. After all, they are *control surfaces*. Also, very rarely are control surfaces large enough to generate the required amount of lift, if it was otherwise planes would just use large amounts of canards and other surfaces to generate the needed lift. That is obviously not true. The early aircraft that couldn't fly had control surfaces, and they they didn't fly!
Yes, but once again, aerodynamics greatly help in that department. Notice how not a single jet is a "brick"?
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
- Post n°795
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Indo-Russian Jet Program Finally Moves Forward
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
- Post n°796
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Austin wrote:Indo-Russian Jet Program Finally Moves Forward
You made my week Austin. My vote
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°797
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Great! I was getting worried for a while there, but not anymore!Austin wrote:Indo-Russian Jet Program Finally Moves Forward
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
- Post n°798
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
The Limits of Stealth
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
- Post n°799
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Great article, thanks for posting...
sepheronx- Posts : 8495
Points : 8757
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 34
Location : Canada
- Post n°800
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
I think the US is going back to its orriginal concept that speed = the new stealth. In other words, stealth is kinda important but as new radar and sensor systems are coming out on all sides, stealth is becoming less important. Things like speed at heavy EW and ECM/ECCM systems are more important I would say.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
- Post n°801
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Austin wrote:The Limits of Stealth
Nice article but nothing we did not knew already and very skiny/general with info.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
- Post n°802
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Austin wrote:The Limits of Stealth
To supplement that, there's this:
Stealth technology: theory and practice
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-09
Location : India
- Post n°803
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Deputy General Director for R & D EW equipment Concern "Radio-electronic technology" (KRET) Yuri Majewski gave an interview on Russian systems, electronic warfare, and philosophy of development and improvement of the correspondent of "Heathcliff".
http://vpk.name/news/118356_kompleks_hibinyi_prodolzhaet_sovershenstvovatsya.html
http://vpk.name/news/118356_kompleks_hibinyi_prodolzhaet_sovershenstvovatsya.html
Complex "Khibiny" continues to improve
- How well do we imagine the possibilities of modern Western radar and guidance systems?
- We work in advance. We are required to predict the development of systems with "the other side", to build on this all their work. Acting on the program in 2025, we need to know how the enemy may be in the 2030 m. There are various methods of forecasting and developing its advanced systems, we model as an opponent is the possibility of conditional 2030. Of course, there remains some uncertainty, and we lay in our complexes the excess capacity that can fend off this uncertainty.
Opportunities verified in practice. We are creating a system, check them, are working, take into account the error, recreate, etc. And the operation is very important for us both in Russia and abroad, in places where we deliver our equipment because the conditions are very different: the geographical, and the potential enemy.
This is the only reliable guarantee, we constantly check in practice, how it works.
- What are the key parameters for EW today?
- We have moved to digital methods of processing and signal generation. Thanks to the miniaturization of the system can be done, covering the whole operating range of communication and radar systems - previously had to produce specialized systems for each range.
In addition, there was the concept of non-energy interference. Modern means of detection and treatment allow an accurate representation of signals. And we can form their similar signal by changing the parameters that we need, for example in its structure. Now, do not necessarily apply forceful suppression, noise close full screen. Sometimes it is easier to get a signal, disassemble it, change something and come back.
- What is the role of EW systems in an increasingly "digitalization" battle management?
- Each control system - a defined set of relations. Our task, the task of EW - find these links, some break off in some, not interrupting, slip distorted information. Figuratively it can be compared to tossing a coin to the cashier accountant, who will have all night to count to find out what was going on.
Although the problem is. How to identify the most important goal, not to spend the extra resources? I'm getting a signal flow between different objects, and we have of these objects to select those that are most important to me - it does not matter whether it is about detection, control, communications, etc. Our methods allow it, and while "on the side" improve controls, we are improving electronic warfare.
- How EW equipment can compensate for the lag in the development of control and communication systems, or, for example, in firepower?
- The effectiveness of the control we consider through a conflict between the two systems. The task for each hand - the destruction of the opposing factions, the strength of which is largely determined by the control system. We should focus on those tools that will allow us to quickly locate and identify the target, faster to sight and will destroy it.
And if the enemy, say, a good intelligence system, with its high range, then our task - to reduce this distance to the point in time to first. If the opponent is better system to disseminate information, then we must act on it so that it was late, and we again would be the first. EW allows us to solve such problems.
We have made good progress and the number of concurrent trends impact and level algorithms. Otherwise, it is impossible. We have to learn to counteract the development of the system of management and communication, to create tools that can compensate for the success of the opponents. As fate makes us do the appropriate level of complexes.
I am sure that in the conceptual design, to concepts and ideas we come, on the implementation - where as, but in a number of complexes, and aviation, and land category, ranks fairly high. This is confirmed by including a foreign operation. Customers often use our system against the objects about which we knew nothing, and the results are very good.
- How is the process of developing complex electronic warfare?
- It is a continuous process, with a constant exchange of information - from the Academy of Sciences applied to structures in different directions. The basis of everything - Forecasting and testing. Stop the process impossible. Crucial feedback from the Ministry of Defence: we provide the technical basis for ensuring that it is no worse than your opponent, but the complex is operated by specific people, and we need to understand how they cope with it. Often fighting officers impose such a requirement: proper complex needs only one button - on / off. Well, we're trying to do it. Finally, often operating experience allows you to expand the boundaries of opportunities inherent in the design.
If we talk about your opponents, of course, it's not just the United States. Britain, France, Italy, Israel ... Everyone has their strengths. Israel, for example, is developing a great suppression of homing of different types - radar, infrared, combined ...
The United States to create a complex group protection by suppressing means AEW opponent. Market is sufficiently developed, competitive, but we do have their advantages. We were able to create an integrated structure - KRET, a center of competence in the development of electronic warfare, combining the company at all levels. We have excellent manufacturers of parts and assemblies, excellent designers.
A very important step for us was to acquire "Aviapribor holding", the largest manufacturer of aircraft avionics. This allowed us to greatly improve our modular system: aviapriborostroiteli actively apply these technologies in their work - we are in his. Association with "Aviapribor" much easier for us to work, including the accessories - ultimately we are using largely similar sets of parts, just differently-assembled for different tasks.
- What can you say about the system EW "Khibiny", which is set, in particular, the Su-34, as well as electronic warfare systems, complex T-50?
- "Khibiny" - a serial system designed to protect aircraft from the group SAM. But he continues to improve, including through miniaturization. Staying in the same size, with the same mass and energy parameters, the complex can get a lot more opportunities.
Another aspect: moving to a new generation of electronics, we reduce the weight and size, making it easy to plane. We must understand that there is no electronic warfare itself. If a perspective plane differs markedly reduced, it is possible to implement a range of reduced energy potential that opens up broad prospects for further improvement. This also applies to the T-50. The new generation of solid-state electronics, reduction of weight, dimensions, more compact on the plane ... Although general solutions are not so many, for each specific type of aircraft being developed something of their own, subject to the limitations on weight and dimensions, the thermal regime. Take a complex with the same type of aircraft and put on the other will not work. The problem is solved anew each time.
Published online Rosteha
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1405
Points : 1481
Join date : 2009-08-05
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
- Post n°804
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
Doing my part in making CGI LMFS :3
Will give paintscheme and other details later..If i'm still have confidence to do so.
Will give paintscheme and other details later..If i'm still have confidence to do so.
medo- Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-25
Location : Slovenia
- Post n°805
Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2
http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/53963/
First "Himalay" ECM complexes are delivered for T-50 prototypes.
First "Himalay" ECM complexes are delivered for T-50 prototypes.
|
|