airsuperiority
Captain
That site is a good example that this world have people that you don't think is capable of existing due to their absolute sense of bigotry and ignorance. I actually got tired of arguing with them.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
That site is a good example that this world have people that you don't think is capable of existing due to their absolute sense of bigotry and ignorance. I actually got tired of arguing with them.
Quickie
Colonel
Stealthwise, T-50 is worse off than the other 3 stealth fighters. Their performances in the other departments are still to be seen.
airsuperiority
Captain
My guesses are, Sukhoi's so comfortable with their flankerish designs that they are compelled to stealthize that design, thinking that'd turn it into something formidable. However to me, it feels more like they aren't going to make any breakthroughs, if not remain in a deadlock of where they are. I definitely dont think the T-50 can get anywhere too stealthy, especially with the lower fuselage design, which is so conventional flankerish. It really looks like a flanker and f-22's inbred, then flattened out with a giant pizza roller
My opinion are, the Russian chooses design the T-50 Flankerish was to save on development time and cost. Also I believe that T-50 and Flankers shared many interchangable parts and components. This would greatly reduces logistic, maintanence and was a less risky route to take because these parts are matured and highly reliable.
Both India and Russia fielded a large number of Flankers in their inventories, their pilots are used to the Flanker's handling and characteristics, while their engineers and technicians are experienced with the repair and maintainence of the Flankers. I also believe that both Russia and India would have a great number of spare parts for this type of aircraft in their inventories too. Thus it would make sense to have a design that is as similar to the Flanker and share as much parts as possible to this aircraft.
The Chinese and the Americans had took a different approach in designing of their stealth plane though, but who is going to be correct remains to be seen.
both assumptions are absolutely wrong
I would like to hear your reasoning. And why is my assumptions wrong.
It's just like if you said that Raptor resembles Eagle in many aspects (gosh, they both have side intakes, high-mounted wing, two vertical tails, and boom-mounted stabilators!) ...that
"to save development time" and they share "many interchangable parts and components". I wonder if you can guess some of them? Rivets, nuts and bolts? Even many of them are different, btw.
"to save development time" and they share "many interchangable parts and components". I wonder if you can guess some of them? Rivets, nuts and bolts? Even many of them are different, btw.
First of... you never provide any reason to support your claim that my opinions are wrong. It is just a rebuke on what I think (mind you. That is just an opinion on my part) of what the Russian MIGHT be doing. And, i never said that they MUST HAVE many interchangable parts, I just said that I believe (might be wrong though).
If you want to overthrow my opinions, fine with me. But you have to provide more credible rebuke and not some general claims as you have written... as I have presented my case.
1) to save development time and cost.
2) Pilots and engineers alike in both the developers countries are familiar with Flankers.
3) They MIGHT have interchangeable parts to save on logistic and maintanence cost.
And if you have any credible resources saying that those opinions are not correct, then by all mean present them.
Oh... and I pose this question to you, "How do you know F22 didn't share interchangeable parts with F15? Do you have infor that none of us have?"
And what you have just said is like, just because two product (say, a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord) looked different, they must have have shared a single interchangeable part? Do you want to strip the vehicles down and see how many parts that these two vehicle actually shared?
Last edited:
here you go
can you start from the nose radome to the tail and say what exactly parts and components you guess to be interchangable on T-50 and T-10S? Even landing gear tires are different. Different avionics, various pressure in hydraulic system (sans different actuators), different materials (sans different fasteners, rivets etc.), everything is different. If you don't know, T-10 and T-10S that were much more closer in external appearance had the only single part in common - FLG wheel.
my knowledge is: at least three T-50 iterations studied at early stages of program (studied not on napkins, but on supercomputer clusters and in wind tunnels for thousand hours total) in early 00s were dramatically different from what took off in the air year ago. design was finally frozen just in 2006. So, was going through this an easy way to save time and money?
my knowledge is:not at all
can you start from the nose radome to the tail and say what exactly parts and components you guess to be interchangable on T-50 and T-10S? Even landing gear tires are different. Different avionics, various pressure in hydraulic system (sans different actuators), different materials (sans different fasteners, rivets etc.), everything is different. If you don't know, T-10 and T-10S that were much more closer in external appearance had the only single part in common - FLG wheel.
- Status