JB2013 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 It's amazing! A Russian fighter with stealth features. It looks like a Flanker/Raptor hybrid to me but it's NICE! Where did you find this wallpaper? Jack Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Skull Leader Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Personally, I am still most interested in the moveable leading edge extension. I'm curious if its function is, as I suspect, to perform like the forward canards of the later-Flanker models. It could be something entirely different though, more in line with controlling aerodynamic flow over the upper wing and into the engine inlets. In any way similar to the way the intakes on F-15s work? (and I guess to a lesser degree, the inlet ramps on a Tomcat, in regards to airflow into the engines) or something different? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lulldapull Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Boy! This thing is a sure beast and looks much bigger than both the F-22/ 35. :D And also Lerx's that double up for Canards. One of the Sukhoi guys at Key publishing was quoted as saying that the large body holds enough internal fuel to more than a 3500 mile radius of action, more than any fighter in history. Also he quoted the same for the widely spaced engines....hinting at massive three dimensional thrust vectoring which has decreased the fin size......understandably. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sebastijan Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 well looking at the video and comparing it to the chase Su-27, the PAK-FA is smaller than Su-27 and F-22 yet larger than MiG-29 and F-35 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FAR148 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (Zmey Smirnoff @ Jan 29 2010, 10:19 AM) This is a great day for all aviation enthusiasts. Lets rejoice together. 2nd that! Isn't imitation is the most sincere form of flattery? :D Funny how some many people underestimate Russians aircraft! Steven L :wub: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) So, how stealthy is the PAK FA? From the frontal and side cross section, it seems to me the RCS is even lower than the F-22. The only thing that bothers me with the PAK FA is the intake seems to expose the blades of the engine. Maybe they have some RAM coating or zig zag edge along the length of the intake tube to solve that problem. We dont know how stealthy it is. Heck, we don't even know how stealthy F-117 is. It is classified info. It is likely that we wont hear about F-117's RCS (in different angles) within next 20 years. Regarding the intake issue, let me give and example: ;) What about the bumps on the underside of the wing just outboard of the gear? The ones suspiciously sized for short range AAMs? We don't know just yet regarding bumps on the sides. Regarding the underside of the wing, i think people are seeing things there tbh... Where did you find this wallpaper?Jack It isn't his picture. Boy! This thing is a sure beast and looks much bigger than both the F-22/ 35. And also Lerx's that double up for Canards. One of the Sukhoi guys at Key publishing was quoted as saying that the large body holds enough internal fuel to more than a 3500 mile radius of action, more than any fighter in history. Also he quoted the same for the widely spaced engines....hinting at massive three dimensional thrust vectoring which has decreased the fin size......understandably. Well, from info released on russian sites, it is 22 meters long and have 14 m wingspan. So, about same size as F-22. I wonder where that fuel will fit, since weaponbays take a lot of place. I guess the biggest concentration of fuel is in the wings. Range wise, no way it is going 3500 miles. I will be happy with 1500. Also, i doubt we will see 3D TVC. You don't want that IR signature in all angles... Nice and civil so far, me like. :) Edited January 30, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Previous pictures, but in higher res now: http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploa...16-300110_s.jpg http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploa...16-300111_s.jpg http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploa...16-300112_s.jpg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shadowy_one Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) We don't know just yet regarding bumps on the sides. Regarding the underside of the wing, i think people are seeing things there tbh... Pretty sure imaginations don't cast shadows. <_< Terrible drag count if it isn't absolutely needed... Also, i doubt we will see 3D TVC. You don't want that IR signature in all angles... The 3-D axisymmetric nozzles aren't a big deal for IR--the heat is what it is, 2-D or 3-D. These aren't simple turbofans buried deep in the fuselage like the 117 or even B-2 has--these guys are big, hot, naked engines, hanging out the rear. But, they clearly are going for a shoot you in the face design--that thing would light up like a Christmas tree from behind on radar. You can mask inlets, but nobody has been clever enough yet to mask the hot section deep cavity. Also, switching to a 2-D nozzle at this point, given the cylindrical tail profile for the engines, would be a huge redesign effort. Like it or not, they are married to that design, given the tiny vertical stabs--they need axisymmetric TV. They need the yaw authority they are losing with tiny tails. I'm assuming they have mastered the reliability and maintainability issues of that type of TV arrangement, otherwise, the supportability costs will be much worse than they hoped. Is India's participation a done deal? Or can they still walk away? They wouldn't be buying this to deal with Pakistan, that's for sure. I'm assuming after the recent Flanker flap, China is NOT on the foreign sales list... Edited January 30, 2010 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Pretty sure imaginations don't cast shadows. :D Terrible drag count if it isn't absolutely needed... No, that is not what i was talking about. People said in the beginning (when first high res pictures of take off showed up) that the area at the sides of the *engines* had weaponbays. I am thinking of the area at the sides of the bare metal on the engines. I was not talking about those "bumps" you pointed out. It seems now it is pretty much confirmed that they are indeed weaponbays. The 3-D axisymmetric nozzles aren't a big deal for IR--the heat is what it is, 2-D or 3-D. These aren't simple turbofans buried deep in the fuselage like the 117 or even B-2 has--these guys are big, hot, naked engines, hanging out the rear. But, they clearly are going for a shoot you in the face design--that thing would light up like a Christmas tree from behind on radar. You can mask inlets, but nobody has been clever enough yet to mask the hot section deep cavity. IR is my biggest concern with this bird. Stealthwise, it looks good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hemspilot Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I wonder if this is going to provide the push needed to reopen the Raptor production line. It definitely seems to be able to carry more stuff internally. And I bet you they are willing to export it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I wonder if this is going to provide the push needed to reopen the Raptor production line.It definitely seems to be able to carry more stuff internally. And I bet you they are willing to export it. If keeping 45,000 jobs around couldn't keep the F-22 alive, nothing can. I have to say this is fun though!... I thought the days of "westerners" pouring over photos of Russian stuff in an attempt to analyze size and performance were over. Can't wait to learn about this machine :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I dont see the Raptor line being reopened, but I can see the USAF taking a better look at the F-15SE, or maybe this is why Obama wanted the F-35 line accelerated? Maybe 2500 F-35s is sufficient? I think the F-22 still has an advantage, and I am sure the USAF has been training F-22 vs F-22 and developing stealth vs stealth tactics. It is sounding that the T-10 traded some stealth for a cheaper price. Edited January 31, 2010 by Oroka Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjo Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I read this and i cant help but notice the hacking on similarities to the f-22 or f-35, this is just my opinion but what you will find is that aerodynamics and physics are the same no matter what part of the world youre in :-) russia's air is the same as the rest of the worlds... kind of like f-16 to mig-29, to f-14 to f-15, to su-27, and interceptor of such a weight and range or level of stealth no matter how you go about it will always end up being similar. if we were all clever enough and had all the materials to do something and we all had the same task im sure most of us would turn up similar designs for the task. T-50 sure looks like a weapon though. Its a shame that they think the need to make it but i sure wouldnt mind one of those sitting on my table in 1/32 scale :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I read this and i cant help but notice the hacking on similarities to the f-22 or f-35... I don't think anybody is hacking on anything. I think people are making observations and commenting. It is natural to try and figure out what the thing looks like overall based on a handful of pictures. People are inevitably going to try and compare it to something else in order to determine what exactly it is they are looking at. I'm pretty sure that's what people are doing in this thread. However, I do think there is a growing fallacy out there. People continually quote the following belief: what you will find is that aerodynamics and physics are the same no matter what part of the world youre in interceptor of such a weight and range or level of stealth no matter how you go about it will always end up being similar. I'm kind of sick of hearing this argument. Frankly it's the most ridiculous red herring I've ever heard of. So to sum up, if I give multiple competing teams the same requirements and performance specifications, they will inevitably come up with the same design? I agree that, certain design requirements will drive certain design considerations. But to argue that attempts to create an aircraft that can do X, Y, and Z will always result in configuration A is ludricous. If that were true, then.... How come THIS: Looks so different from THIS: Or how about these design differences, also derived from the same design requirements and specifications: We've already covered THIS and THIS, which were competing for the same design requirements and specs: Similarly, PAK-FA's roots lie in the MFI competition, which had previously resulted in completely different designs to meet specifications: So I HARDLY think that the universality of the laws of physics will ALWAYS, given the same set of design criteria, result in designs and vehicles of roughly the same layout and appearance. Utter and completely false. Edited January 31, 2010 by Waco Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I'm kind of sick of hearing this argument. Frankly it's the most ridiculous red herring I've ever heard of. So to sum up, if I give multiple competing teams the same requirements and performance specifications, they will inevitably come up with the same design? I agree that, certain design requirements will drive certain design considerations. But to argue that attempts to create an aircraft that can do X, Y, and Z will always result in configuration A is ludricous. If that were true, then....So I HARDLY think that the universality of the laws of physics will ALWAYS, given the same set of design criteria, result in designs and vehicles of roughly the same layout and appearance. Utter and completely false. I agree with your point. Proof is even shown in the T-50 and F-22 that they are not "exact" there for your theory is correct. Apposition to said point? The aircraft you have shown, One can come to the conclusion the looser did not meat X, Y, and Z criteria since they were not chosen. Everything in life as similarities specially when they are shown to be proving concepts "what is known". Modeling is no different, nor is R/C Aircraft for that matter. Unless one goes against the grain and thinks outside the box and hopes their thinking works for others to fallow. Edited January 31, 2010 by Wayne S Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 The YF-22 & -23 are perfect examples of two radically different designs for the same objective. They also are perfect examples of politics in acquisition. Don't forget the much loved B-2 and C-17 we're DOGS budget wise in the early 90s, and their primes were the team for the -23. It was pretty clear at senior levels that Northrop and MD would win over the dead bodies. They also were good examples of what thinking too far outside the box will get you. The -22 was essentially a straightforward evolution, but the -23 was a little too far outside the box for comfort. Same thing with the engines--PW was safer than GE, even though the GE had greater (undeveloped) potential. Ultimately the US chose the lowest risk option, and it still took 10 years to develop and field. One point my aero professors impressed on me: there is no such thing as plagiarism in aero design. I now understand why--copying the skin lines does little to give you a final product, and is often more trouble than worth due to constraints it imposes. Unless Sukhoi had the exact guts of a F-22 ti put into a T-50, it would be a disaster to copy the outside. Back to the plane, still really interested in drag predictions. The frontal are is kind of big, even with the two engines. Any idea of what the mil power thrust is for the 177S? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Back to the plane, still really interested in drag predictions. The frontal are is kind of big, even with the two engines. Any idea of what the mil power thrust is for the 177S? It seams like to have a form of stealth one must have Drag. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hemspilot Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Yeah, it "SEAMS" alright between the F-22, the YF-23 and the SU-27 family. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 YF-23 fanboys will have to get in line.Can I join in yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hemspilot Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 You're kidding, right? General layout of the flight control surfaces, overall shape of the wing, overlap/sawtooth between the flaperons and the horizontal stabs...the entire outer mold line is pure F-22, including the line formed by the PAK-FA's LERX. It almost perfectly matches the upper line of the F-22s intake/chine. I'll grant that the wing is more swept than an F-22, but seems to very closely mirror the wing sweep of the YF-22. Additionally, the stabs look more YF-22ish, but that is consistent with the degrees of wing sweep. Even the actuator housing blisters derive from the F-22 bloodline. Don't know Waco, but apart from a similarity in the wings planform, the PAK-FA is definitely more closely related to the Sukhoi family of fighters than anything else. Even the Boeing 737 and the Airbus 320 have similar wings with flaps and slats. Also, I am not sure that low observability is as extreme on it as it is in the F-22 and the F-35. A good compromise towards stealth technology is the fact that this fighter can carry far more weapons internally than the Raptor, and the volumes involved also give reason that a far larger fraction of fuel is carried internally. Supercruise is going to largely depend on how much military thrust the engines are going to provide, but maneuverability is going to be great due to the TVC nozzles. The issue that is most worrisome with the PAK-FA is that it shall be available for export to those countries tat can afford it, even though it will be no less than three to five years before this happens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Av8fan Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Can I join in yet? Hmm.. Any update yet ??? Just waiting for that Yf-23.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Hmm..Any update yet ??? Just waiting for that Yf-23.. No, not yet... the entire outer mold line is pure F-22, including the line formed by the PAK-FA's LERX. It almost perfectly matches the upper line of the F-22s intake/chine. I'll grant that the wing is more swept than an F-22, but seems to very closely mirror the wing sweep of the YF-22. Additionally, the stabs look more YF-22ishI agree that the similarity is undeniable, but does it really matter? I do see a little similarity to the YF-23 in the forward fuselage profile, being flat on the bottom. Also a slight similarity in the canopy shape from certain angles. But it's certainly no YF-23! My bottom line: I like it and need one in 1/32! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 The discussion on the Key Publishing forum has been largely civil so far, and has produced some interesting imagery. Here's a post comparing F-22 to PAK FA, whilst this post does the same with the YF-23 in place of the Raptor. Then there's this drawing, which looks like a decent preliminary interpretive sketch. the entire outer mold line is pure F-22 What do you mean by "outer mold line"? My knowledge of aeronautical engineering is lacking, and the best reference I could find that defines OML is this page. How does that apply to the F-22/PAK FA issue? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hemspilot Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I REALLY cannot wait for a 1/72 one with all the weapon bays (four at last count) opened and detailed, it will be better than a B-17! By the way, its far better looking than the F-22 in my opinion, almost as pretty as an F-15 or a YF-23. Anyone has any idea of what the final designation or NATO code name will be? Edited January 31, 2010 by hemspilot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.