Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: And Then There Were Four T-50s In The Air
SYSOP    12/17/2012 5:17:33 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Babeouf    Actually known to be false   12/17/2012 6:03:34 AM
If you check the latest Western study on Air Power Australia you will see that your claims about the Pak T 50 are in fact false.
That Western study supports the claim that the T 50 has genuine stealth properties. And it would be strange therefore for the Russian's to admit it isn't 'true fifth generation'. In any case the same sight contains lots of information and argument to show that the worst fifth generation fighter in the world by a country mile is the F 35.  And on current estimates  a Pak T 50  fighter will cost about 2/3 or less of the cost of an  F 35.  P.S. Air Power Australia thinks the Raptor a much better bet than the F 35.  It presents arguments to show that the F 35 could have problems with the Sukhoi  SU 35.  And surely there has been no crazier weapons program in the history of the world than that of the F 35. All that money and only one engine.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/17/2012 10:50:12 AM
How about you actually read the 1000's of threads here and more importantly elsewhere that point out that air power australia is about as credible as any other enthusiast site - their analysis is amateur. i.e. there is no actual industry-experience or clearance. 
 
Look in particular at the techniques they use to analyse RCS which are based on very basic (outdated) concepts, even then those concepts are tested with polygonal models that don't in any way, shape or form demonstrate an accurate representation of shaping - i.e. it's a joke. 
 
I've yet to see a single defence professional refer to an APA analysis with anything other than derision.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/17/2012 10:59:29 AM
Specifically - in the public domain there is little or no information available as to the techniques (other than surfacing) that are used to reduce radar-signatures - if you look at the F-35 purely from a shaping point of view it has (by a country mile) the most complex (advanced) surfacing of any manned platform.
 
How can anyone analyse the performance of a VLO platform without having an understanding of the methods used to achieve this, we do know that there are exotic materials used (RAM) that are generational in nature - i.e. F-117 - B2 - F22 - F35 - these might well be actively charged materials with adaptive anistropy etc - they may well be supplemented with subsurface elements that further reduce RCS - whatever the case the analysis of sites like APA (even if they did use a valid surface model) would be next-to-useless without an indepth understanding of the materials and other elements - a valid argument is that it is pretty hard to imagine Russia or the PRC making the same technological leaps on their first platforms. 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

TonoFonseca    Chinese fighters   12/17/2012 3:25:17 PM
I get the feeling that Russia isn't really going to sell the T-50 to China.  India, for sure though.
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon       12/17/2012 5:29:44 PM
I would guess the "maneuverability" part is a marketing pitch for easy to impress buyers. What's that pilot axiom, "he who sees their enemy first wins the fight"(pardon,guessing on quote), which leads to stealth and superior electronics as the critical component over maneuverability. At some point maneuverability reaches a limit defined by the g's the pilot can handle and the higher the speed, the less maneuvering that can be done anyway. So, it sounds like the Russians(and Chinese for the J-20) are polishing a turd for their sh*t eating allies.
 
Quote    Reply

vahitkanig       12/18/2012 3:29:31 PM
 Personall  I  dont  give  credit  Russian  aeronautics techonolgy. France  more  advanged than Russia .
 But what  Russian  have  only  operation , exercise  tricks ; like  using after burner  or  thrust  vectoring.
 
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Air Power Austrailia   12/18/2012 6:36:48 PM
Seriously, where would Skippys boys pick a fight that Uncle Sam was not already there?
 
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       12/22/2012 12:43:42 PM
The idea that "Stealth" is easy, or related only to shaping, or that avionics/electronics are not far and away the single most important aspect of any combat system on the planet is silly!
The Pak-fa is a joke compared to  last Generation Western Stealth tech. Planes WO any real stealth, like the Rafale, Typhoon and F-15 have about as much chance of surviving combat with a true 5th gen fighter as a WW-II Ju-52!
Planes with less than current, ie F/A-22 Stealth like all of the rest are just so many targets in a target rich environment!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       12/30/2012 12:39:23 PM
I would guess the "maneuverability" part is a marketing pitch for easy to impress buyers. What's that pilot axiom, "he who sees their enemy first wins the fight"(pardon,guessing on quote), which leads to stealth and superior electronics as the critical component over maneuverability. At some point maneuverability reaches a limit defined by the g's the pilot can handle and the higher the speed, the less maneuvering that can be done anyway. So, it sounds like the Russians(and Chinese for the J-20) are polishing a turd for their sh*t eating allies.
You are so right about this.
The F-16 long ago reached and then exceeded the Pilot's ability to endure the loads it would impose in violent maneuvers! Given the now well known limits on both the rate of G onset and the absolute load limits the pilot can endure, and I mean that so very much, why does everyone want to get to knife fight range?
Why not enhance the Avionics, Weapons and Stealth to give yourself the largest margin possible?

 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Flyingarty   1/1/2013 12:05:40 PM


Seriously, where would Skippys boys pick a fight that Uncle Sam was not already there?

 

 

Flyingarty

Same goes for the UK.  Why on Earth we are wasting billions (£'s) on this clunker (F35) is beyond me. A total waste of valuable resources.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics