Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[Air Force Brat]

Re: Indian Military News II

What are they suppose to say? They are trying to sell the aircraft after all. Even Chinese are saying FC-31 is better than F-35. Should I believe that too?



I think you underestimate how well some of us know the flanker series development and Russian aircraft development in general. There would require a lot of work to go from where PAK-FA is right now to an actual stealth aircraft. Considering how long it has taken the Russians to even get Su-35 in service, you can see why we are skeptical here. Based on what I've seen from people who followed program more than I have, the level of changes expected in this second stage in T-50-6-2 aren't anywhere close to what you are claiming here.

Exactly, the T-50 is a lovely airplane, and promises maneuverability that likely surpasses the F-22, I LOVE the T-50, it is probably my favorite airplane ever, its gorgeous, flies well, slightly underpowered, but hey, you can't have everything, but there is NO SUCH THING as stealth after the fact, or stealth by sprinkling with "pixie dust", and trust me, the Russians have and will continue to sell a KRAP-LOAD of pixie-dust, in any color you want and with sprinkles, but it AIN'T stealthy, its just NOT!

Yes there are lots of people who know these things, just by looking, and no I don't have any special contacts, not looking for any contacts in the Pentagon or anywhere else, I've never made any false claims, and even though I am one of the few active pilots on the Sino Defense Forum, my experience is civilian aviation period,,,,,,, but, I am a pilot, and yes I do know a lot relatively speaking about aerodynamics, because that is my thing, I understand fluid dynamics because I have run water over anything and everything, including some stuff that I have completely and utterly destroyed in the process, just because I love to see what happens. I fly my plane and everything else in my head, in my dreams, on my computer, and yes I do have a very nice flight simulator, with lots of different aircraft....

Yes stealth is far beyond my expertise, but I do know people who do understand, and those who have proven trustworthy are few and far between, they are the exception, not the rule. SDF folks who will tell you this and that, and this and thus and so, but their data is from sources that the rest of the real world knows are "pixie dusters", when those same people call men of integrity "liars" because they don't agree with what is being said, or because it shows the "pixie dusters" to be "charlatans" and "poop scoopers", some are so full of it that they have "brown eyes" from such a high "krap content" in their system....

So if I'm wrong, I change my mind, I tell the truth, and I move on to the next thing, because it won't be the first time, and it won't be the last... LOTS of folks on SDF, that I do NOT agree with on anything, but I "respect them", because they are looking for the truth, and they do their dead level best to be honest. I work very hard to get the facts, put them together, ask the smart guys questions, because there is a lot to know, and there are lots of angles on everything....

I'm on the bar brother because I expect him to tell the truth, and I expect him to be respectful, most posters will agree that I give love and respect to my fellow posters by the buckets full. When I meet my SDF superiors, I snap to, and give them a very sharp Air Force Brat salute, and even our Jr. Officers who are bright and articulate, get the same respect and treatment, for example Mr. Aksha is a bright and very honest respectful lad, to everyone, and that folks is what SDF is about. So Merry Christmas to each of you, and thanks for you friendship and camaraderie, particularly to you bar brother, maybe that pixie dust will work, and if it does, I will be the first guy in line to say "holy cow"???? Here's hoping that we each have a happy and healthy, prosperous new year, and blessings to each of you and your families!

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: Indian Military News II

Wait a moment there. I think we were talking about your conspiracy theory that "Russia held back on AL-31 engines to delay J-10 export prospects" (a conspiracy theory that you have admitted lives only in the land of faked Apollo moon landings and Elvis being abducted by aliens).

Russia has little issues supplying engines for the Su-35, but suddenly has issues supplying less capable engines to China?

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: Indian Military News II

I think you underestimate how well some of us know the flanker series development and Russian aircraft development in general. There would require a lot of work to go from where PAK-FA is right now to an actual stealth aircraft. Considering how long it has taken the Russians to even get Su-35 in service, you can see why we are skeptical here. Based on what I've seen from people who followed program more than I have, the level of changes expected in this second stage in T-50-6-2 aren't anywhere close to what you are claiming here.

The changes should be gradual, with the biggest change being the engine. We will have to wait for the prototype that flies with the Izd 30.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: Indian Military News II

Based on what you are saying there is effectively two streams with the Russian program (apart from FGFA) and that is T-50 and T-60. The obvious question is what differentiates the two streams? In other words, what is the strategy that is driving such a development path?

In terms of timeline, the 6 existing prototypes are principally T-50. In order to achieve 2017 IOC, I would imagine the following dates necessary in the development pipeline :
At least a preproduction prototype by 2015
The first LRIP by 2016 to achieve IOC in 2017
The obvious question is do we know what the development gaps are in the existing prototypes and are the gaps sufficiently bridgeable to say a preproduction prototype is round the corner? What are the facts do you know of or are we looking at pure speculation?

Please excuse my questions if they are rather shallow as my understanding of aircraft development is practically zero.

The T-60 is a typo. Sorry about that.

The Stage-1 timeline is what we all know of today. We will have to wait for more information on the Stage-2. Both are T-50.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: Indian Military News II

Yes there are lots of people who know these things, just by looking,

No. There isn't anybody in the world who can say anything about a stealth aircraft just by "looking." It is impossible. There is no such thing as eyeball stealth. You are going to have to submit the aircraft to actual measurements if you want to know if an aircraft is stealthy or not.

How many doctors do you know who can "guess" what disease a person has just by "looking?"

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: Indian Military News II

I would agree with @Equation, it is hard to discern exact data on various level of stealthiness. For example, Russians claim their fighter is more stealthy then F-22.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is basically sales brochure filler, of course they make those out-rageous claims, as they hope to sell a few PAK-FA, its always been the Russian style to exaggerate their capability, just the way its always been done. Now we might ask well if that's the case why meet the "supposed" threat, but I would remind all that initially the Mig-15 put the hammer on a lot of lesser WW II based equipment then operated by the US military in Korea. North Korea took great advantage as the US was in a "draw-down" after WW-II, the national psyche drained by the massive effort to engage OP-For, and defeat them... back to the T-50 and the F-22, the F-22 is no doubt far stealthier and more capable than the T-50, though the T-50 will be very agile by design, and the Flankers have done very well historically kinematically, particularly with OVT.

Even after the lovely F-86 came along, the Mig was no push-over, but it was a guns-up arrangement, strictly WVR. The Mig could climb and turn, the name of that game, but the F-86 was a much more refined airplane, and more than a match for the Mig if fought intelligently.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: Indian Military News II

No. There isn't anybody in the world who can say anything about a stealth aircraft just by "looking." It is impossible. There is no such thing as eyeball stealth. You are going to have to submit the aircraft to actual measurements if you want to know if an aircraft is stealthy or not.

How many doctors do you know who can "guess" what disease a person has just by "looking?"

"Every Dr."==== every medical assessment begins with how the patient "presents" or appears, so a visual assessment of each patient is the very first thing written in each Drs. note---I am not a Dr. by the way, but I have been mistaken for one many times as I conducted my "clinical visits" for my Hospice patients, particularly those in long term nursing facilities.

I had an RN who had mistaken me for an MD, undress a particularly "horrid" wound that one of my patients with esophageal cancer "presented with", this young lady was very distraught and wanted some support as she cared for our patient, I didn't have the heart to tell her I wasn't the Dr., but offered her my support and encouragement to continue treating the wound following the standard protocol for wound management.

As a patient, you are ignorant no doubt of what your Dr. is observing about you in a clinical visit, he is very carefully observing your appearance, noting any obvious physical abnormalities, your complexion, skin tone and condition, eyes, for instance if your Dr. notes you have bulging eyes, he would suspect thyroid problems and possible "graves disease", asking you questions about how you feel, any pain or discomfort, what and when you last had eaten, etc, etc, in short by the time your Dr. finishes his initial visual assessment, he or she may have very well made an accurate diagnosis, and even have a treatment plan in mind?

You make an arrogant and erroneous statement again when you state that "there isn't anybody in the world, who can say anything about a stealth aircraft just by "looking". It is impossible". end quote
Really, and yet you are more than happy to quote PAK-FA chief designer Alexander Davidenko as he professes that PAK-FA is superior to the F-22.
So you have made an ignorant statement, based on your own obvious ignorance of stealth shaping principles, stating it is "impossible", when any engineer, designer, even an experienced laymen who is familiar with stealth shaping rules and principles will look at any new supposedly "stealthy or L/O aircraft" and depending on his, depth of knowledge, make a very accurate initial assessment of the basic RCS of a given aircraft..

Every pilot, particularly a test pilot, is trained to LOOK critically at EVERY aircraft that he is preparing to fly and do a pre-flight inspection, he is assessing the airworthiness or not of each and every aircraft, at his discretion he may "ground" that aircraft, and deem it "unairworthy", we all do it, all the time. IT IS THE LAW!

 

[thunderchief]

Re: Russian military news thread

Russia claims they produced more fixed-wing combat aircraft in last year then US

Russia surpassed U.S. in production of new combat planes, Russian United Aircraft Corporation says

According to the Joint Stock Company UAC (United Aircraft-building Corporation), Russia has produced more combat aircraft than the U.S., in 2014.

As reported by Russian media outlets, in an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station, Vladislav Goncharenko, deputy head of the military aviation programmes department at UAC (the a Russian holding which encompasses Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Beriev and Yakovlev), Moscow has surpassed the U.S. in the number of produced combat aircraft.

Whilst in 2013, UAC companies delivered 68 planes, 100 aircraft, 95 of those are combat planes for the Russian Air Force were produced and delivered in 2014.

Along with the production of more planes, UAC subsidiaries have carried out the modernization of existing aircraft and the development of new weapons systems, Goncharenko said.

Even though we don’t know the corresponding U.S. figures, the number of new aircraft delivered to the front-line units of the Russian Air Force is a clear sign Moscow is strongly supporting its renascent military power.

For sure “quantity” does not always come with “quality” and, most probably, U.S. technology will still be ahead of Russian (or Chinese) one for several decades. However, it’s impossible to foresee the outcome of a dogfight in which few, advanced American 6th Generation fighter jets, face outnumbering Russian 5th Generation warplanes.

In the meanwhile, PAK-FA T-50 prototypes have been quipped with Himalayas EW defense systems to increase jamming resistance and self-protection capabilities. The delivery of the first production PAK-FA 5th Generation stealth jet to the Air Force is planned for 2016 whereas new type of combat and reconnaissance drone will appear by 2018. 6th Generation aircraft are being studied as well.

By 2020, 55 PAK-FA fighters will be in service with the Russian Air Force.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tphuang]

Let's make this one the home of all PAK-FA/FGFA. I'm moving recent PAK-FA discussions from other threads here.

Also, the theory that Russia deliberately stalled 99M development to not allow J-10 export is nonsense. China's export of J-10 is dependent on WS-10A's availability. It has nothing to do with Russian engines. And up to this point, it has not even given permission to export J-10 to any country other than Pakistan. So let's drop this theory.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: Indian Military News II

You make an arrogant and erroneous statement again when you state that "there isn't anybody in the world, who can say anything about a stealth aircraft just by "looking". It is impossible". end quote
Really, and yet you are more than happy to quote PAK-FA chief designer Alexander Davidenko as he professes that PAK-FA is superior to the F-22.

It is not an arrogant statement, it is a factual statement. A doctor will also ask for blood and pathology samples before a diagnosis. He doesn't jump to conclusions all by himself, it is the same for any radar scientist.

Even cars go through anechoic chambers for measurements even though it is expensive. Companies don't arbitrarily give figures to the cars, and there are more people who know about cars than they do about aircraft. They don't jump to conclusions either. There are some things which are impossible to judge based on looks, and stealth is one of them.

And the PAKFA's design chief should be in the know about far more things than laymen. For one, he is part of the country who sent out Ms. Chapman. Then the Russians make frequent visits to Alaska, one of the bases of the F-22. You are already aware of the number of times the Russians have been caught flying near the borders. Satellites and UAVs can pick up RCS signatures as well. There is no other country apart from the US with as many satellites as the Russians have.

So you have made an ignorant statement, based on your own obvious ignorance of stealth shaping principles, stating it is "impossible", when any engineer, designer, even an experienced laymen who is familiar with stealth shaping rules and principles will look at any new supposedly "stealthy or L/O aircraft" and depending on his, depth of knowledge, make a very accurate initial assessment of the basic RCS of a given aircraft..

No, he can't. Nobody can make an accurate assessment of RCS. It is impossible even for the F-22, J-20 and PAKFA designers. All a person can say is, "Hey look, it seems they have added shaping to the airframe, it looks like a stealth aircraft."

An astronomer can look up in the night sky, stare at a star and say, "That star is 68,432.55 light years away." And he could only be wrong by a 100,000 light years. Some things are impossible. If you are mentally capable of thousands of calculations instantaneously using Fourier Transforms, while being able to receive thousands of data points every nanosecond, then please give me a call, I will worship you. Basically, if you can personally see in the RF spectrum (no human can), and are a computer, then you are capable of putting a "rough," not exact, but rough, figure of RCS on an aircraft. And even then you could be grossly wrong.

That's why people laughed off Carlo Kopp's attempt to put a rough figure using physical optics. His base was good, he did the right things, but he relied partly on "looking."

Every pilot, particularly a test pilot, is trained to LOOK critically at EVERY aircraft that he is preparing to fly and do a pre-flight inspection, he is assessing the airworthiness or not of each and every aircraft, at his discretion he may "ground" that aircraft, and deem it "unairworthy", we all do it, all the time. IT IS THE LAW!

The US pilot relies on a radar for RCS figure of the aircraft he is about to fly, did you know that? His pre-flight inspection for RCS should be datapoints from a technical officer (with a high level security clearance) that he received when the aircraft was tested in a base facility that checks the RCS of the aircraft during maintenance. He can't rely on his eyes for that. IT IS THE LAW OF NATURE!