Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Share
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  kvs on Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:51 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    You mean like singlehandedly keeping treads about Russian Coast Guard, Icebreakers and Vostochnii Spaceport alive (even though barely anybody seems to give a shit about those) or post news about Russian Space Programe, Syrian War, Borei and Yasen subs, Crimean Bridge, etc... ?

    Singlehandedly? You are too modest...

    Your demands for heads to roll and people to be shot in the space threads is no better... you would have made Stalin proud with your short temper....



    Really? Too modest?

    Fine, here is a suggestion, a thought experiment if you will:
    How about I take a very long break from posting about Coast Guard, Icebreakers and Vostochnii Spaceport and we let that fluffer eehenie you like so much take over from me on those treads?

    What do you say guys?

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out Mr. "Russians are incompetent".
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  kvs on Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:58 pm

    Loses too much energy in high speed turns. God what breathtakingly retarded, sour grapes BS. I don't see anything in the F-22
    wing design that would reduce eddy formation and shedding during high speed turns. Perhaps when jets are replaced with shape-shifting
    blobs using anti-gravity propulsion, then minimal energy will be lost during high speed turns; the blob will deform to minimize eddy generation.
    And if the whole point rests on which jet is flying faster during its turns, welcome to apples and oranges comparisons gone wild. No shit
    that faster objects expend more energy roughly proportional to the square of their speed. So all associated high speed maneuvers
    involve more energy loss. Jesus H. Christ what intellectual excrement.
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 411
    Points : 420
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  BKP on Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:24 pm

    Really? All that flying fur over a misidentified PS? Hmm, alright...

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember all of that "loses too much energy during high-speed turns" business started coming out after F-22 lost mock WVR combats to German Typhoon and French Rafale. To save face, arguments cropped up blaming TVC manoevering generally. Also, there was this accompanying notion that if the deficiency applies to the "superior" F-22, then it must apply to to Russian TVC aircraft as well, except more so. So the Russians are doubly screwed, it followed.

    My less-than-educated guess was that the loses were likely due to US overconfidence, underestimating foreign pilots and 4th-gen aircraft, and laxity in training WVR tactics. Or maybe Raptor and/or US pilots are just overrated? dunno
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:07 am

    In one aviation site I was disscussing Su-57 maneuverability, and an alleged aerospace engineer claimed this about it:

    some westerner wrote:Streamlining has very little to do with energy loss during heavy turns like you're describing. In this case, the most significant component of drag you'll be adding is vortex drag (those fancy clouds you're seeing in your pic). Vorticies are formed like that at high angles of attack, and, while they prevent stalling, they add to drag. The problem is that increasing wing sweep causes the lift-curve slope to drop, meaning you need a higher angle of attack for the same amount of lift. Looking purely at that, the F-22 (theoretically) does have an advantage, although with an LE sweep a couple degrees less than the PAK FA, the difference is obviously going to be negligible. However, if vorticies aren't managed right, it can be a significant factor - the F-5, for example, is significantly more agile than the MiG-21 despite the MiG-21's better T/W.

    Do vortices really hurt the Su-57's drag characteristics?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17865
    Points : 18427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:11 am

    Yeah, what a dick... the problem of energy management and preventing the stall are meaningless in a MiG-35 or Su-35 or Su-57 because if they start to stall or the high drag vortexes overcome lift and lead to a stall the vectored use of the engine exhaust can be used to keep the nose pointed in any direction the pilot wants.

    In an aircraft like a Mirage with a delta wing speed bleeds off rapidly in tight turns and the only recourse is afterburner for more power... but turn hard enough and eventually you stall meaning total loss of control and your nose rapidly pointing to the ground or worse some sort of spin.

    With the Su-57 and other advanced Russian aircraft the vortexes are used to energise the air to make the vertical tail control surfaces more effective at low speeds, but in the stall or super stall the pilot can still point their nose and therefore also weapons and sensors at the enemy and launch an attack.

    And there are more versions of the MiG-21 than you can count on both hands... which model is he claiming is less agile than an F-5?

    The lift curve slope for a wing aerofoil has as much to do with its shape and thickness as its angle... but when flying at an angle of attack of more than 120 degrees none of that matters really... an F-5 pilot is falling from the sky hoping he can regain control of his aircraft while an Su-57 pilot likely has his nose and his main radar and all his internal missiles and external missiles pointed at that falling F-5.. or Typhoon or Rafale or F-22 or F-35.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:56 pm

    Thx for the explanation garry. I've also read that radar blockers(the ones the Su-57 relies on) are always less stealthy than pure S-Ducts, and that the blockers should be nothing more than upgrades for 4th gen aircraft and that an aircraft isnt 5th gen if it doesn't have S-Ducts. Also, supposedly intake radar blockers have the danger of their RAM coating flaking off and being fed into the engine blades.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:23 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Thx for the explanation garry. I've also read  that radar blockers(the ones the Su-57 relies on) are always less stealthy than pure S-Ducts, and that the blockers should be nothing more than upgrades for 4th gen aircraft and that an aircraft isnt 5th gen if it doesn't have S-Ducts. Also, supposedly intake radar blockers have the danger of their RAM coating flaking off and being fed into the engine blades.  

    First, this "generation of fighter" is just a US tool to sell their stupid fighter. Phantoms were easily destroyed by older mig-17 of previous generation in Vietnam. So no one cares about if it has all the caracteristics of 5th generation fighters described by a Lockeed and Martin's marketing staff. Specially now that upgrades bring a fighter to an all new lvl like for exemple Su-27 and its upgrades or variants like SU-35. You could put all those new technologies in a Mig-21 a have a fighter able to match a F-35.
    What is important is that it fits to what Russian air force wants.

    Second, they saw what potentiel the Su-27 has in upgrades so they made it more like a plateform for future equipement (like armata for ground forces) than a fighter design to fight the F-22. They know that in 10 years they will have newer technology so it will be easy for them to put it into it. That's not the case of F-22 for exemple which can't even be upgraded with decent air to ground capabilities. F-35 will be worse, they can't even design it now for what it was made, let alone new capabilities.

    Finally, S-duck intakes have an impact on the manoeuvrability and on the design of the Aircraft. Russian are known to make their fighter very manoeuvrable and the design is very important because they want it to have a very good aerodynamic configuration. US use Sduck because they think they will shot everything with AIM-120 from 200km and win the war like that. The stealth is very good with the radar blockers of the Su-57 as they totally hide the engines just like the S-duck intakes does. There will always be reflection but the radar waves are absorbed by RAM Inside the intakes (same way as in S duck intakes).
    The reflection of the engines is a probleme when the radar is at the same altitude and in front of you, when it is an AWACS flying higher than you it doesn't matter because first it won't see the Su-57 at very long range while a su-57 can see it at 400km and more and second you have R-37 to destroy it from 300km away. When it's another fighter the radar blockers are enough to absorbe the signal and reduce the range of detection by hundreds of km anyway specially if it is a F-16 or a eurocanard which have small not powerfull radars.

    Dr.Snufflebug

    Posts : 3
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2017-12-27

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Dr.Snufflebug on Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:36 pm

    I joined this forum only to clear up some things regarding that PS:ed photo of mine, but now I see you're engaged in a whole lot of other stuff.

    Let me just chip in regarding energy recovery... Previous generation Sukhois (Su-30MKx/SM and Su-35S) can start/stop on a dime, and retain full control authority even when the regular control surfaces don't have much airflow (if any at all) to work with. And why is that? Well, proper TVC is what it is.

    Given that they're already less draggy than the Raptor, and have way better TVC than the Raptor, I think the answer is pretty much given.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:34 pm

    Isos wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Thx for the explanation garry. I've also read  that radar blockers(the ones the Su-57 relies on) are always less stealthy than pure S-Ducts, and that the blockers should be nothing more than upgrades for 4th gen aircraft and that an aircraft isnt 5th gen if it doesn't have S-Ducts. Also, supposedly intake radar blockers have the danger of their RAM coating flaking off and being fed into the engine blades.  

    First, this "generation of fighter" is just a US tool to sell their stupid fighter. Phantoms were easily destroyed by older mig-17 of previous generation in Vietnam. So no one cares about if it has all the caracteristics of 5th generation fighters described by a Lockeed and Martin's marketing staff. Specially now that upgrades bring a fighter to an all new lvl like for exemple Su-27 and its upgrades or variants like SU-35. You could put all those new technologies in a Mig-21 a have a fighter able to match a F-35.
    What is important is that it fits to what Russian air force wants.

    Second, they saw what potentiel the Su-27 has in upgrades so they made it more like a plateform for future equipement (like armata for ground forces) than a fighter design to fight the F-22. They know that in 10 years they will have newer technology so it will be easy for them to put it into it. That's not the case of F-22 for exemple which can't even be upgraded with decent air to ground capabilities. F-35 will be worse, they can't even design it now for what it was made, let alone new capabilities.

    Finally, S-duck intakes have an impact on the manoeuvrability and on the design of the Aircraft. Russian are known to make their fighter very manoeuvrable and the design is very important because they want it to have a very good aerodynamic configuration. US use Sduck because they think they will shot everything with AIM-120 from 200km and win the war like that. The stealth is very good with the radar blockers of the Su-57 as they totally hide the engines just like the S-duck intakes does. There will always be reflection but the radar waves are absorbed by RAM Inside the intakes (same way as in S duck intakes).
    The reflection of the engines is a probleme when the radar is at the same altitude and in front of you, when it is an AWACS flying higher than you it doesn't matter because first it won't see the Su-57 at very long range while a su-57 can see it at 400km and more and second you have R-37 to destroy it from 300km away. When it's another fighter the radar blockers are enough to absorbe the signal and reduce the range of detection by hundreds of km anyway specially if it is a F-16 or a eurocanard which have small not powerfull radars.

    The eurocanards also have S-ducts as well as even the Su-47 I believe, and they're still very maneuverable. In the end the properties of the Su-57's radar blockers are classified so they may have better characteristics than westerners expect.


    US use Sduck because they think they will shot everything with AIM-120 from 200km and win the war like that.

    Isn't that how modern air combat works most of the time? From everywhere you look at it, if an aircraft can see the enemy before the enemy sees it, or can shoot BVR missiles farther, the latter is always dead.

    Also, westerners claim that the poor BVR hit rate of the western missiles is due to them being ripple fired.

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:58 pm

    Isn't that how modern air combat works most of the time? From everywhere you look at it, if an aircraft can see the enemy before the enemy sees it, or can shoot BVR missiles farther, the latter is always dead.

    Also, westerners claim that the poor BVR hit rate of the western missiles is due to them being ripple fired.

    No it doesn't. All the exemple untill today are a huge coalition against a poor country. The only exemple that shows somehow what it would be is the vietnam war.

    Russia or China would use jammers and destroy the awacs so that the f-15 that used to be invincible and eurocanards would be in the same position as migs during golf war, operating alone with non functional radars because the operating frequency would be jamed the second day after they analyze the radar emission the first day. Russian fighters have irst and R-27T... the global jaming would be catastrophic for their airborn radar while their aim120 would be useless as they operate with much less capable radar so much more easier to jam.

    The eurocanards also have S-ducts as well as even the Su-47 I believe, and they're still very maneuverable. In the end the properties of the Su-57's radar blockers are classified so they may have better characteristics than westerners expect.

    Well they are very expensive and in terms of manoeuvrability indian mki showed to be better than typhoon let alone a pak fa or a su 35.

    Su 57 is not invisible. They just need it to be stealth enough to reach WVR fight or at least detect the target passively with irst and not be detected.

    Stealth is not a so advanced technology as US pretend. Most of the reduction is made through the shapes and hidding the weapons into a bay. Just with that you can achieve a rcs lower than a clean f-16. Add a primitive RAM coating and use new composite materials and you have something with a very small rcs that will reduce drasticaly the detection range by the X band radars.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17865
    Points : 18427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:24 am

    Really? Too modest?

    Fine, here is a suggestion, a thought experiment if you will:
    How about I take a very long break from posting about Coast Guard, Icebreakers and Vostochnii Spaceport and we let that fluffer eehenie you like so much take over from me on those treads?

    What do you say guys?

    After some of your posts on the VTOL thread you might get your wish.

    Personally I could care less.

    BTW I disagree with Eehnie as much as I do with anyone else on the forum... his signature comment is directed at me BTW.

    I've also read that radar blockers(the ones the Su-57 relies on) are always less stealthy than pure S-Ducts, and that the blockers should be nothing more than upgrades for 4th gen aircraft and that an aircraft isnt 5th gen if it doesn't have S-Ducts. Also, supposedly intake radar blockers have the danger of their RAM coating flaking off and being fed into the engine blades.

    Let me describe the difference between S ducts and radar blockers and perhaps you can decide... BTW the F-117 has a mesh screen over its engine intakes... they are called radar blockers BTW too.

    A straight engine intake means radar waves from the front head straight down the tube and hit the face of the engine and strongly reflect directly back to the radar.

    An S duct just has a curve in that tube so that radar waves can't hit the engine face and reflect right back... what happens is as the tube curves the radar waves bounce off the sides before hitting the fan face and then bounce again before coming back out the front of the engine intake back towards the radar... the intake sides will have RAM on them so basically the radar signal will be reduced twice... once with each bounce of the intake sides.

    With a radar blocker like the mesh screen on the F-117 the weave of the mesh will be similar to the radar waves being directed at it so that while it is a mesh that lets air through the radar signal will see it as flat metal so any radar beams directed at the engine intake will be deflected in another direction and wont even enter the intake.

    For internal radar blockers they will use reflectors to redirect the incoming radar waves... reflecting them sideways so they reflect at a very shallow angle so they bounce a dozen or even a hundred times down the intake before glancing the front of the engine and bouncing a dozen or a hundred times back out and going off in some funny direction no where near the source of the radar signal.

    There is no free lunch of course... any radar blocker you put in the engine intake from a mesh screen to anything else will effect the air flow to the engine effecting engine perfomance.

    Remember the Mig-29 family used to have a solid door in the engine intake to stop rocks and stuff getting sucked in on takeoff or landing with overwing louvers to allow air to enter the engine.... the Flanker family had a mesh door for the same purpose without the top intake.

    It does not need to be operating all the time... just when you want to be stealthy...

    Isn't that how modern air combat works most of the time? From everywhere you look at it, if an aircraft can see the enemy before the enemy sees it, or can shoot BVR missiles farther, the latter is always dead.

    The actual combat performance of BVR missiles is not actually that good. Even worse when considering most AMRAAM kills were not that long range and the successful kills generally involved targets that didn't even know they were under attack until the last seconds.

    The fact of the matter is that if NATO is taking on Su-57s then those Su-57s will know what is going on.

    Also, westerners claim that the poor BVR hit rate of the western missiles is due to them being ripple fired.

    Western BVR missiles are never ripple fired... there is no point. Firing two AMRAAMs against one target makes no sense as if one is jammed they both will be.

    It made some sense with Soviet missiles where one was an IR guided and the other used SARH guidance, but these days not so much.

    Add a primitive RAM coating and use new composite materials and you have something with a very small rcs that will reduce drasticaly the detection range by the X band radars.

    If you have a non stealthy aircraft then you can make lots of reductions using RAM and some reshaping of some parts, but to get proper stealth requires a complete redesign...

    The first fighter with proper S shaped air intake ducts was the MiG-29 sitting on the ground with its intake doors shut and overwing louvers open...
    avatar
    MC-21

    Posts : 44
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2017-10-09
    Age : 47

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  MC-21 on Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:51 am

    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:21 pm

    any radar blocker you put in the engine intake from a mesh screen to anything else will effect the air flow to the engine effecting engine perfomance.
    So radar blockers significantly reduce engine performance? That's extremely worrisome that the Su-57 has to choose between speed and stealth while the F-22 has both in the same package.


    The actual combat performance of BVR missiles is not actually that good. Even worse when considering most AMRAAM kills were not that long range and the successful kills generally involved targets that didn't even know they were under attack until the last seconds.
    However BVR missile tech has constantly evolved and the fact that they were ineffective 30 years ago doesn't mean they aren't effective today. Also  how can we know if EW tech works as advertised in combat conditions and won't flop?  The Russians don't have an AIM-120D stock to test against the khibiny or himalayas. The americans didn't test the AIM-9X on soviet flares and phalanx with actual missile barrages and look what happened.

    didn't even know they were under attack until the last seconds.
    The problem is that an aircraft even with a little more stealth can target an aircraft without the target knowing that its being targeted, as long as the stealthy targeter doesn't use datalinks and doesnt have a high IR signature.

    Using a BVR missile without datalink is possible if its fired close enough

    https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/17/70/75/06/irbis-10.png


    Unfortunately, as we can see here, detection range as a an object gets smaller is exponentially lowered so even if the Irbis/Byelka can see a 3m^2 target at 400km, at what range can they see a 0.4-0.2m^2 target, 120km? 130km?, that means that with the AIM-120D having a 160km range, the F-22, as long as its subsonic, not firing up radar too much and keeping radio silence can fire undetected from 150-140km without its target suspecting anything before its too late. Granted, the AMRAAM's kinematic performance will be reduced by the time it reaches the target, but if the target is fully loaded with weapons, it can't maneuver much without disintegrating, thus becoming an easy target.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:48 pm

    However BVR missile tech has constantly evolved and the fact that they were ineffective 30 years ago doesn't mean they aren't effective today. Also  how can we know if EW tech works as advertised in combat conditions and won't flop?  The Russians don't have an AIM-120D stock to test against the khibiny or himalayas. The americans didn't test the AIM-9X on soviet flares and phalanx with actual missile barrages and look what happened.

    EW proved to work very well against radars and it evolved as fast as the mussiles. AIM 120 will be affected by russian system for sure. AIM 9 from US navy super hornet failed against su 22 ... Phalanx is bullshit not adapted for what it was made just like using a 9mm pistol for snipers ...

    The problem is that an aircraft even with a little more stealth can target an aircraft without the target knowing that its being targeted, as long as the stealthy targeter doesn't use datalinks and doesnt have a high IR signature.

    Using a BVR missile without datalink is possible if its fired close enough

    If it is a poor country yes. If it is china or russia the f 22 will be targeted by cruise missiles the first day. If they turn on their radar they will be spotted by the IADS and interceptors will go behind them for a dogfight. Awacs will be dead or flying so far that they won't see anything even the non stealth fighters. Su 57 is stealth enough to be safe at bvr fight and its EW suite will reduce the pk of missiles by a great % and its manoeuvrabality will allow ot to outmanoeuvre the 1 or 2 that will eventually go through.

    What is good with russian airgorce is the r-37 to keep the awacs far away from the front. The powerfull irbis and byelka allow them to use it at max range.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17865
    Points : 18427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:21 am

    So radar blockers significantly reduce engine performance? That's extremely worrisome that the Su-57 has to choose between speed and stealth while the F-22 has both in the same package.

    What are you talking about?

    Who said they significantly reduced engine performance?

    A modern jet engine chokes on supersonic airflow so as an aircraft takes off its intakes open to allow as much air into the engine as possible to maximise thrust.

    Flying at medium or high altitude at high speed however the airflow actually needs to be reduced so the air intake actually reduces the amount of air entering the engine so it is not supersonic any more... a radar blocker would actually improve engine performance for an aircraft like an F-16 with a fixed air intake and perhaps allow it to fly faster by slowing down the intake airflow speed so the engine does not choke on the supersonic air flow.

    The solution could be as simple as an array of mesh doors covering half the width of the intake... two on each side... two at the front and two at the back so the engine face cannot be seen from the front... the actual airflow could easily go around each door through an area half the width of the air intake so airflow would not be effected except at take off... but why would you need to be stealthy at take off with full AB?

    However BVR missile tech has constantly evolved and the fact that they were ineffective 30 years ago doesn't mean they aren't effective today. Also how can we know if EW tech works as advertised in combat conditions and won't flop? The Russians don't have an AIM-120D stock to test against the khibiny or himalayas. The americans didn't test the AIM-9X on soviet flares and phalanx with actual missile barrages and look what happened.

    So you are suggesting that BVR missiles have gotten better but jamming technology has not?

    The main problem for BVR missiles is that over a distance during launch and initial flight the target can change course which means constant course corrections to get the BVR missile near to an intercept course.... each change reducing energy and performance. Even a plane with no jammer or sophisticated systems that knows a missile is coming can turn and climb and accelerate a couple of times in completely different directions and that will be enough to make the incoming missile run out of energy...

    A sophisticated aircraft can do rather more... including trying to shoot down the incoming missile with its own missiles.

    The problem is that an aircraft even with a little more stealth can target an aircraft without the target knowing that its being targeted, as long as the stealthy targeter doesn't use datalinks and doesnt have a high IR signature.

    What makes you think that?

    US F-14 fighters would have a much larger RCS than Libyan Su-22s.

    Modern new aircraft will have an array of sensors to detect air threats... stealthy or otherwise. An Su-35 will have its own powerful radar but also L band AESA radar and IRST sensors. AMRAAM has a sensor range of about 20-25km so a launch from that range should make any air target visible on IRST... especially the launch. At longer range than that the launch aircraft needs to direct the missile as to the location of the target, which means datalink traffic.

    Most US stealth aircraft will be operating in supercruise mode occupying the high ground, so their IR signature will be significant most of the time.

    The advantages of operating at such heights and speeds can easily be countered by Su-35s using AB and operating higher and faster... they will also be using more fuel but they have plenty of fuel to use anyway.

    Unfortunately, as we can see here, detection range as a an object gets smaller is exponentially lowered so even if the Irbis/Byelka can see a 3m^2 target at 400km, at what range can they see a 0.4-0.2m^2 target, 120km? 130km?, that means that with the AIM-120D having a 160km range, the F-22, as long as its subsonic, not firing up radar too much and keeping radio silence can fire undetected from 150-140km without its target suspecting anything before its too late.

    What makes you think an F-22 at 140km is invisible in L band? It can't fire at 140-150km against an Su-57 as it wont be spotting such targets at such ranges.

    A UAV with a towed decoy jammer could be operating with Russian aircraft to completely defeat BVR missile attacks.

    Firing missiles at 140km without a datalink to update the course for the missiles simply wont happen unless you want the missile to miss. Course corrections from the F-22 will give away the attack and attract the attention of Su-57s and Su-35s and MiG-35s in the area... datalink signals don't just come from empty airspace... and the IR signature of an incoming AMRAAM would be easy to spot...

    Granted, the AMRAAM's kinematic performance will be reduced by the time it reaches the target, but if the target is fully loaded with weapons, it can't maneuver much without disintegrating, thus becoming an easy target.

    Or it could launch a single R-77 and shoot down that AMRAAM...

    What is good with russian airgorce is the r-37 to keep the awacs far away from the front. The powerfull irbis and byelka allow them to use it at max range.

    If the target is an AWACS aircraft then even a Yak-130 or MiG-35 could use R-37ms as they give away their own position for almost a thousand km.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:21 am

    If the target is an AWACS aircraft then even a Yak-130 or MiG-35 could use R-37ms as they give away their own position for almost a thousand km.

    You need to be able to give mid course correction. Nato awacs have also jamming suite so a yak 130 won't be enough ... i mean with a irbis or byelka you are sure to use the best you have for an important target. Yak 130 are not able to use r 37 btw
    avatar
    Luq man

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-03-26
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Luq man on Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:46 pm

    UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 342
    Points : 346
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:41 am

    Luq man wrote:UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.

    Finally....now we wait.
    avatar
    MC-21

    Posts : 44
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2017-10-09
    Age : 47

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  MC-21 on Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:14 pm

    Luq man wrote:UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.
    while i like this aircraft i prefer the MiG-29
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  kvs on Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:56 pm

    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2323954-The-Russian-T-50-PAK-FA-is-trash-and-India-wants-out

    Sample of the retards out there who can't string together two facts between them even if their lives depended on it. But are all
    experts on defunct Soviet shlock and Hollywood stereotyping.

    As the famous Chinese saying goes: if you live in a glass house, then don't throw bricks. South Asian ubermenschen. LOL.

    Would all the people posting on the Russia Defence board who claim that India covered 50% of the PAK-FA development stop spreading brain
    dead propaganda, please. The PAK-FA program is not the same as the defunct FGFA program. India has not contributed
    a single cent or shred or research to the development of the PAK-FA T-50.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6950
    Points : 7048
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:38 pm

    MC-21 wrote:
    Luq man wrote:UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.
    ...
    while i like this aircraft i prefer the MiG-29

    Well I prefer Guns'n'Roses and Bon Jovi to modern music but unfortunately 80's are over...cry
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17865
    Points : 18427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:31 am

    UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.

    The chart shows 11 prototypes but mentions that only 9 are actually flying prototypes... presumably the remaining two are ground based test beds for testing stuff that does not need to be airborne.
    avatar
    MC-21

    Posts : 44
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2017-10-09
    Age : 47

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  MC-21 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    MC-21 wrote:
    Luq man wrote:UAC confirms first flight of prototype #10. That should make total of 10 flying prototypes though and not 9 as stated in this infographic below. Weapon trials ongoing. Can't wait for pics.
    ...
    while i like this aircraft i prefer the MiG-29

    Well I prefer Guns'n'Roses and Bon Jovi to modern music but unfortunately 80's are over...cry
    well in terms of military needs the T-50 is more modern, but in terms of beauty, i prefer the MiG-29:D

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 342
    Points : 346
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 pm

    T-50 Sexy as hell in Navy cammo. Air force cammo is yuck - has been for a longggggggg time.

    Tingsay

    Posts : 55
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-12-09

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Tingsay on Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:35 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote:T-50 Sexy as hell in Navy cammo. Air force cammo is yuck - has been for a longggggggg time.

    All these multi colored cammos are ugghhhlleyy...

    White-out like Tu-160 would make it real sexy. Grey or black will do.

    One color or gtfo, imho.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:34 pm