Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    [ F l a n k e d ]
    [ F l a n k e d ]

    Posts : 11
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2017-04-04

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  [ F l a n k e d ] on Sun May 27, 2018 1:11 am

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 15273210

    Finally, a missile launch is revealed !
    Lockheed brides are frenetically spinning damage control propaganda across all forums. Their reaction ranges from questioning the credibility of the footage to casting doubt over its location, or outright dismissing the entire launch as a "dangerous" publicity stunt.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun May 27, 2018 4:11 am

    If it can hold 2 of these missiles in one internal bay than it means that it can carry 4 cruise missiles and 2 AA missiles all internally.

    Great! This means each bay can hold more than 2 R-77s making the whole 4 R-77 claim officially BS cheers
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 874
    Points : 1041
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 27, 2018 11:33 am

    [ F l a n k e d ] wrote:
    Finally, a missile launch is revealed !
    Lockheed brides are frenetically spinning damage control propaganda across all forums. Their reaction ranges from questioning the credibility of the footage to casting doubt over its location

    This was easily foreseeable ,even if one of the "point" is correct (the video do not show the actual operational weapon test conducted in Syria, but a much earlier weapon separation test Wink )

    Anyway thing more interestin remain obviously the direct comparison with the possibilities offered by the so much vaunted (by the huge LM marketing machine) over-ocean product: the F-35.

    Joint STRIKE Fighter born with the central purpose to provide a networked "5th generation" platform with increased combat range and air to ground capabilities in comparison with the F-22 Raptor at the cost of significantly lowered air to air performance parmeters (to the point that the same Pentagon heads have been forced to admit that the ISF fleet will rely on F-22 air coverage against advanced opponents ).

    Well, if anything go well, F-35 will receive for end of the the next year (combat representative weapon separation test has been conducted in April of this year) capability to employ its more efficient weapon for internal carriage : JSOW-C , one for each bay.

    As already explained four years ago, the much more lucid initial concept and design of the ПАК ФА allow today a Су-57, in comparison with a F-35 supposedly optimized for air to ground missions, to deliver on enemy ground targets the double of competitor's air to ground weapons from more than 5 times greater range,each with about 1,5 times the warhead mass, with immeasurably greater approach flight pact selection and immunity to EW and masking countermeasures.

    This crushing difference in air to ground potential will become even more marked (with particular reference to warhead's variety, mass and destructive potential) when a direct comparison with ГРОМ...and another product now still not revealed.....will be conducted.

    LM apologists have any reason to go for "damage control mode" Very Happy



    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 27, 2018 3:09 pm

    Adding advantage in cruising speed to all of the above, the difference between both platforms is exaggerated indeed...

    Claims appearing now that Turkey may buy the Su-57 if US blocks the F-35... don't take it seriously by now but given how tense the relation between US and Turkey is growing, this could develop into something interesting Very Happy

    https://ahvalnews.com/f-35/turkey-eyeing-russian-su-57-jets-if-us-f-35-jets-fall-through-pro-govt-daily
    https://sputniknews.com/world/201805271064853249-turkey-jets-buy-russia-us/
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4152
    Points : 4142
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Sun May 27, 2018 3:16 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    If it can hold 2 of these missiles in one internal bay than it means that it can carry 4 cruise missiles and 2 AA missiles all internally.

    Great! This means each bay can hold more than 2 R-77s making the whole 4 R-77 claim officially BS cheers

    You don't need to know that to know it's bullshit. Su-57s weapons bay were made from the start big because they learned from f-22 and f-35 experiences. R-77 are small compare to those air ground munition of course it can carry more than two.

    It's only a question of space management inside the bays, how to put the missiles and lunchers to be able to carry the maximum. Nothing special. You can design hundreds of different combinations on a computer to see which solution is the best. No need to have hundreds of enineers working on that.
    [ F l a n k e d ]
    [ F l a n k e d ]

    Posts : 11
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2017-04-04

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  [ F l a n k e d ] on Sun May 27, 2018 6:10 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    As already explained four years ago, the much more lucid initial concept and design of the ПАК ФА allow today a Су-57, in comparison with a F-35 supposedly optimized for air to ground missions, to deliver on enemy ground targets the double of competitor's air to ground weapons from more than 5 times greater range,each with about 1,5 times the warhead mass, with immeasurably greater approach flight pact selection and immunity to EW and masking countermeasures.

    This crushing difference in air to ground potential will become even more marked (with particular reference to warhead's variety, mass and destructive potential) when a direct comparison with ГРОМ...and another product now still not revealed.....will be conducted.

    This is but a taste of things to come. Just as the vanilla flanker not only outdid its contemporaries but also retained sufficient novelty to form a platform for much more capable developments such as the Cy-35c, likewise the pakfa airframe is of sound design and meant to secure the nation's position well into the future. Clearly, it has ample upgrade potential yet to be taped as the avionics and payload become increasingly potent and versatile.
    The Cy-57 was the product of a clear requirement for the Russians to forge ahead with their aircraft industry and addresses the raptor's shortcomings as the patent states.

    The Fatso-35™️ on the other hand, even at the dawn of its career, suffers from fundamental limitations of the base design which are already manifest and inflict unacceptable penalties, if not retrograde performance upon its hapless operators.
    I'm quite positive the Pentagon/Lokhheed marketing team will spectacularly demonstrate its misunderstood 400% efficiency against opponents with virtually prehistoric air force and SAM coverage, if any.
    The Fatso's chief talking points of being affordable & versatile have been debunked, leaving behind an extravagant carcass that is extremely expensive and yet mediocre in performance. The worst of both worlds.
    However, the programme can afford such failings as NATO captive satellites will subsidize it at gunpoint, and Lokhneed will present sales as evidence of what a triumph of voodoo technology they have created.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1059
    Points : 1100
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  dino00 on Sun May 27, 2018 7:27 pm

    Wha they mean with tiny weapons bay? Suspect


    Last edited by dino00 on Sun May 27, 2018 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Forget interrogation point)
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun May 27, 2018 9:42 pm

    Is there a way to debunk this analysis?

    These aren't official values but given that the analyser is an aerospace engineer, I cant debunk his mathematical results.


    Kopp never did RCS modelling of the F-35, when I spoke to him he said it was because the university funding it wasn't going to pay for a third project. He certainly did do the Su-57 and J-20 though, and when one ignores the noise of his skewed conclusions on the F-35 which completely contradict his data results, the analysis of the Su-57 specifically is damning.


    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

    Basically, as per the RCS results from Kopp's simulation, the RCS of the Su-57 is highly problematic. His article mentions the 6 lobe characteristics of the aircraft's side aspect. Given its high operating altitude, its numerous RCS lobes from it's side angles expose it to enemy fire for extended periods of time.

    What Kopp doesn't analyse in sufficient detail in his article is what the impacts of lobe A and B in the chart above have on the aircraft's ability to remain undetected. At high altitude, RCS lobe located high on the aircraft (such as A and B) result in the lobe extending further out to the horizon (the higher the aircraft, the further out they extend) meaning radars can detect these lobes at longer ranges than aircraft with lobes situated much lower due to consistent surface angling.
    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Su_ang10
    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Su_ang11
    As the lobes also spread out horizontally in a 10 degree arc, a lobe that is detected from range takes much longer to pass over the radar, meaning the target aircraft can be tracked for a much longer period of time.
    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Lobe_r10
    Image shows how far the highest lobe projects out to for: (top to bottom)

    a) F-35 at 36k ft
    b) F-22 at 50k ft
    c) F-35 at 50k ft
    d) Su-57 at 50k ft

    Subsequently, networked launchers can fire from greater distances to intercept an aircraft which has lobes that take a long time to sweep over the engagement radars. The image below shows the possible firing distance from launchers to the intercept a pair of aircraft that have their farthest reaching lobe detected from the side aspect from maximum range. The model assumes a missile with a maximum speed of M4 and the Minizap tool was used to model the flight time.

    The aircraft on the left is the F-35 flying at M0.8, 36,000ft based on its highest lobe being located 25 degrees below vertical. The right aircraft is the Su-57 supercruising at M1.5, 50,000ft and it's highest lobe is located less than 5 degrees below vertical (the engine nacelles).

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Missil10

    As can be seen, the length of time the aircraft is exposed from long range greatly impacts the length of time an IADS has to react to the aircraft.

    Below is my own RCS modelling tests of the equivalent cross sections of the side aspects of 3 aircraft. Created by modelling the the angles of the aircraft based on data from numerous sources. All models were built to scale and all represent 0.5m lateral cross sections of the 3 aircraft. The results on the lobe placements are exactly the same as Kopp's findings. While the RCSs don't indicate the actual aircraft RCSs and are all based on exactly the same materials used, these give a reasonable indication of side lobe placement (as does Kopp's analysis, though he never modelled the F-35 nor the F-22).

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 My_rcs10

    Finally, the lobe placement on the F-35 for comparison, showing lobe observability range at various altitudes. You can see that strict adherence to set angles makes all the difference.


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 F-35_a11

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 F-35_a10





    The guy in the end says that it isnt a problem that the SU-57 isnt stealth because Russia only cares about fighting on its borders.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2383
    Points : 2381
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Hole on Sun May 27, 2018 9:50 pm

    In short words the Russians are idiots that can not even measure the RCS of their own aircraft.

    With other words: typical western BS.

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Guest on Sun May 27, 2018 9:59 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a way to debunk this analysis?

    These aren't official values but given that the analyser is an aerospace engineer, I cant debunk his mathematical results.

    He is famous contributor to AirPower website, alot of his work is published online on many places, in general there is no reason to doubt his work.

    However he himself said that the data he collected are coming from the visual representations of the aircraft, the pictures to be precise. And he himself said that it cannot be taken as completely exact values due to limitations of imput data that he worked with.

    It is more than obvious to everyone that Su-57 is not built around all-round stealth, and its expected for it to have more than few design features that had to be that way or either we sacrifice this or that in the eyes of desiegners.

    He himself also says that certain design features he cannot explain, simply due to lack of data to why such decision was made instead of some other solution that would provide reduced RCS as end result.

    So his math is right, i myself found interesting data on prolonged higher RCS exposure to ground based radars.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun May 27, 2018 10:24 pm

    However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Guest on Sun May 27, 2018 10:47 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.

    Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.

    Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4152
    Points : 4142
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Sun May 27, 2018 11:11 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.

    Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.

    Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.

    They have priorities. They are fully aware of what air wars are. They want supermanoeuvrability over full stealth. They also want better ecm which they know are better than stealth design because they can be adapted to different threats. Spending billions into rcs reduction is useless. Even non-stealth fighters but which have reduced rcs like Rafale, Su-35 or typhoon can evade any missile launched at them because the mix low rcs and good ecm and chaffs is enough.

    US want stealth to let their people think they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.


    Last edited by Isos on Mon May 28, 2018 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon May 28, 2018 12:05 am

    Militarov wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.

    Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.

    Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.


    And Russians have ufimtsev's full set of equations and all software tools(which were still in their infancy when the F-22 was designed) at hand for efficiently and quickly determining how to make each surface of a fighter as stealthy as possible. Russian efforts to make stealth aircraft are still 2 deacades old and also given the parts of the F117 the serbs gave them its not exagerration that they could in thoery build an aircraft as stealthy as the F-22. Technological imrovements dont always go at the same speed in all times in all countries.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon May 28, 2018 12:07 am

    US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
    You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4152
    Points : 4142
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Mon May 28, 2018 12:19 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
    You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.

    Can you develop why ? I don't get why you say that.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6664
    Points : 6731
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  JohninMK on Mon May 28, 2018 1:04 am

    I think that the different development profiles of the US and Russian aircraft we are discussing can be explained by the different objectives they are expected to satisfy.

    The US needs maximum 'stealth' as its attack aircraft's prime task is strike so it has to try and penetrate to eliminate defences without being seen and destroyed. Whereas Russia's military is primarily a defensive one over a vast country and when a strike is needed a missile not a plane is used. Hence reduced need to achieve a low and really expensive RCS.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1812
    Points : 1807
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon May 28, 2018 1:18 am

    Militarov wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.

    Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.

    Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.

    Well there's probly one project where they wont compromise on Stealth, the Pak-DA, it'l be a subsonic flying wing (more or less), it's primary job would be to hide and drop it's payload.
    Although the new Nuclear cruise missile would put it's development under scrutiny, nevertheless they still need some thing to "deliver" the normal stuff.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon May 28, 2018 1:20 am

    Isos wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
    You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.

    Can you develop why ? I don't get why you say that.

    You're saying that Russians dont need their fighters to be better than US ones because they have cruise missiles to destroy US fighters on the ground. Americans say they dont need good artillery or AA because US fighters can bomb troops and be AA.
    [ F l a n k e d ]
    [ F l a n k e d ]

    Posts : 11
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2017-04-04

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  [ F l a n k e d ] on Mon May 28, 2018 6:44 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a way to debunk this analysis?
    These aren't official values but given that the analyser is an aerospace engineer, I cant debunk his mathematical results.


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Su_ang10

    Finally, the lobe placement on the F-35 for comparison, showing lobe observability range at various altitudes. You can see that strict adherence to set angles makes all the difference.

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 F-35_a11


    What kind of obscure mathematics has he harnessed to derive these numbers?
    Oh right, his "Detection Range" is a purely geometric result that takes no account whatsoever of the radar type, antenna shape, power output, or a myriad other parameters.

    Suppose we have an aircraft or a tiny drone with an arrangement featuring an 88 degree angle, using the same genius formula we obtain:

    Detection range @
    65kft = 65000 * tan(88) * 0,3048 = 567km
    55kft = 480km
    45kft = 392km
    35kft = 305km
    25kft = 218km

    Wow, who needs ufimtsev or the entire electro-magnetic field theory when you can play with triangles and compute "detection ranges" on the go?
    The guy may be Maxwell reborn for all I care, but he's still not interested in rational discourse to support his opinion, resorting instead to crudely cherry picking angles and (unspoken) assumptions with the sole purpose of having a 'cooked' infographic of Su-57 with lots of red thingies around it in order to convey just how rusky baddy it is.
    I make no claim of being an expert on the subject, but I can recognize loose ends when I see them.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4152
    Points : 4142
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Isos on Mon May 28, 2018 8:34 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
    You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.

    Can you develop why ? I don't get why you say that.

    You're saying that Russians dont need their fighters to be better than US ones because they have cruise missiles to destroy US fighters on the ground. Americans say they dont need good artillery or AA because US fighters can bomb troops and be  AA.

    I never said that. I said they don't see stealth as a super tool like US see it. Most of their fan boys think f-22 can destroy all russian airforce without 1 single downed raptor.

    In war you don't use su-57 to destroy only f 22, t-14 to destroy only abrams ... if you see f-22 parked on a airfield you don't wait them to come avove your airspace to use s-400 but use some kalibr or iskander to destroy them on the ground.

    First thing that you do in a war is attack with cruise missile everything you can and f-22 and carriers are the main targets. So if you know where they are you attack them while they are on the ground.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS on Mon May 28, 2018 12:28 pm

    [ F l a n k e d ] wrote:
    What kind of obscure mathematics has he harnessed to derive these numbers?
    Oh right, his "Detection Range" is a purely geometric result that takes no account whatsoever of the radar type, antenna shape, power output, or a myriad other parameters.

    Suppose we have an aircraft or a tiny drone with an arrangement featuring an 88 degree angle, using the same genius formula we obtain:

    Detection range @
    65kft = 65000 * tan(88) * 0,3048 = 567km
    55kft = 480km
    45kft = 392km
    35kft = 305km
    25kft = 218km

    Wow, who needs ufimtsev or the entire electro-magnetic field theory when you can play with triangles and compute "detection ranges" on the go?
    The guy may be Maxwell reborn for all I care, but he's still not interested in rational discourse to support his opinion, resorting instead to crudely cherry picking angles and (unspoken) assumptions with the sole purpose of having a 'cooked' infographic of Su-57 with lots of red thingies around it in order to convey just how rusky baddy it is.
    I make no claim of being an expert on the subject, but I can recognize loose ends when I see them.
    While I have not seriously tried to analyse those results because I find this effort too much of an oversimplification, I think the fact that the aft fuselage of the T-50 and particularly the engine nacelles are roughly cylindrical should lead to wider radiation lobes compared to say a F-22. I am not 100% convinced of how this guy chose the angles for the T-50 and the F-35 but I would not dispute that the first argument could have merit and could indicate the PAK-FA not being an aircraft devised for deep penetration in heavily defended air space. What, based on Russian sources, is consistent with their view of radar stealth as a very limited tool against multi-layered, multi-band IADs. So nothing strange here.

    Having said that, the T-50 showed just these days that it can internally carry 4 CM with 300-500 (depending on the source) km range. Stand-off weapons are better than the best stealth IMO. And the presence of 3D TVC allows for unusual manoeuvres like flat or inverted turns that permit additionally controlling the exposure of those radiation lobes to enemy radars. So the issue is not as clear cut IMHO and the plane indeed has a couple of tricks in the bag to fulfil its missions without needing to bet all on stealth.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS on Mon May 28, 2018 2:09 pm

    Addtional drawings related to the weapon bays:

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Deoeue10

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Deoeuq10

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 214
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  RTN on Tue May 29, 2018 6:41 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    As already explained four years ago, the much more lucid initial concept and design of the ПАК ФА allow today a Су-57, in comparison with a F-35 supposedly optimized for air to ground missions, to deliver on enemy ground targets the double of competitor's air to ground weapons from more than 5 times greater range,each with about 1,5 times the warhead mass, with immeasurably greater approach flight pact selection and immunity to EW and masking countermeasures.

    This crushing difference in air to ground potential will become even more marked (with particular reference to warhead's variety, mass and destructive potential) when a direct comparison with ГРОМ...and another product now still not revealed.....will be conducted.

    LM apologists have any reason to go for "damage control mode" Very Happy      

    So you do concede the fact that the Su 57 just like the F -35 is not a stealthy platform, at all ? US DoD realised the limitations of the F-35 & that's why the F -22 will carry out the air to air role against both stealthy & non stealthy aircraft.

    The Su 57 will only carry out air to ground attacks, the air to air role over domestic airspace will still be confined to the Mig 31 & maybe the Su 35 to a lesser extent.

    The Su 57, hardly being stealthy can easily be detected by the S-400 at BVR. No wonder, once China started deploying S-400 on its border with India, India pulled out of the SU 57 project.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS on Tue May 29, 2018 9:27 pm

    RTN wrote:
    So you do concede the fact that the Su 57 just like the F -35 is not a stealthy platform, at all  ? US DoD realised the limitations of the F-35 & that's why the F -22 will carry out the air to air role against both stealthy & non stealthy aircraft.

    The Su 57 will only carry out air to ground attacks,  the air to air role over domestic airspace will still be confined to the Mig 31 & maybe the Su 35 to a lesser extent.

    The Su 57, hardly being stealthy can easily be detected by the S-400 at BVR. No wonder, once China started deploying S-400 on its border with India, India pulled out of the SU 57 project.

    Sorry, but  this only qualifies as unhinged trolling as far as I see it. Would recommend you to practise it somewhere else.

    Sponsored content

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 29 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:38 pm