Do we see DSI? Do we see smooth surface? Can we find any in service or on drawing board 5th gen planes that have 4th gen under fuselage like T-50? Nope, nothing but gigantic blades, suspending engine inlets and rivets
Obviously you have not done your homework (nothing new), Lockhheed’s C-130 successor or at least the wind tunnel model has so called ‘suspending engine(s)’ as well as ‘gigantic blades’. You act like you know more than Lockheed and Sukhoi…next time be careful what you type, it keeps backfiring on you. Just like your claim about Russian not having ‘S-duct aircraft’.
The whole argument is based on current T-50 and J-20 we have now, so there is no point to discuss what future it is going to be. No one knows what changes will bring to T-50 and J-20
Great, take your own advise and leave the discussion--you are the one arguing about the T-50, I just have good rebuttals for your poor arguments.
Isn’t that too difficult to tell which surface has better control over EM energy direction? I start to doubt your knowledge of aircraft design, really! Or you are just cannot to admit that you are misinformed.
[/URL][/IMG]
pak-fa underside
Cute picture, how long did that poor and inaccurate illustration take you? This is how the real T-50 underside fuselage looks like. It is not round but flat and canted, your illustration is a pile that may pass as genuine or accurate at Sino Defense or some other Chinese circle jerk forum but not here.
So here is the real thing, and its nothing like in your picture:
Here is also a patent describing the pak-fa’s fusalage which was submitted by the head of Sukhoi which just happens to be an aeronautical engineer.
In addition a flattening of the fuselage reduces the effective area of the radar in the most likely areas of exposure: side and projection plane.
Who do you think has more credibility aeronautical engineers including the head of Sukhoi or you?
Lets also apply your criteria to the J-20:
[/QUOTE]
So lets review, the T-50’s curved fuselage provides and incident angle yet the J-20’s rounded DSI and enormous round under wing pods (4 of them) don’t? Ladies and gentlemen once again the J-20’s defies physics.
you cant be more ridicule to have this analogy, where even do you get the idea that two pieces canopies are safer than one piece, and it cost 2,3 or 4 times more?
The F-22’s canopy costs $182,205, in comparison the F-16’s canopy is about $30,000, undoubtedly the F-22’s will be more expensive because it is treated, and that is why my figure of 2-4 was extremely conservative, in reality a one piece canopy can be over 6 time more expensive than a two piece canopy. Clearly we do not have a Russian one piece canopy at least not yet so I used the closest reference and put a very conservative estimate on it. So, yes a one piece is very expensive to manufacture and it will be many time more expensive for the Russian to manufacture a one piece as apposed to a two piece, just like it is for the Americans.
Again your usual convenient assumption?
YF-23 was a demonstrator, according to your 'will add blocker later' theory YF-23 could change that too if it won the competition.
My assumption? No, try harder. The pak-fa will use a coaxial labyrinth radar blocker and that is no assumption from me.
You know USA always put survivability and user friendly on top when design any weapon systems which again Russia is not
And do you know that the K-36 was considered for the F-35 and that it was tested by the US? The K-36 set the standard for safety. The K-36 restrained the pilots arms and legs to prevent them from breaking at high speeds, it also employed a face shield to protect the pilots face and neck from high presure as well as debris, the seat also tilted back to prevent injury to the back. Moreover, the seat employed a shield to protect the pilots uper torso from the violent wind streams upon ejection, and the seat kept the pilot strapped until the altimeter automatically opened the parachute, this prevents the pilot from separating from the seat at high speeds by essentially being a rag doll. All of these functions happen within mileseconds and best of all the seat worked at zero altitude.
Your assumptions that the Russians did not care for pilot survivability is nothing more than an ignorant assumption the Russian have always taken great measures for pilot survivability and this is plainly demonstrated by the K-36 ejection seat a seat that set the standard for all others. Even Russian helicopters come with ejection seats, and the ability to withstand .50 caliber rounds to the rotor blades. Also if you did a little research you would learn that the Russians actually install expensive titanium tubs on a number of different aircraft in the name of protecting the pilot. Redundancy systems have also been a norm for some time now.
The Russians don’t cut corners when it comes to pilot safety and survivability, I can’t say the same for everyone and at least our pilot have ejection seats that deploy.
KA-50 was started in 80s
T-90 is actually T-72 upgrade which again deployed during Soviet time
What exactly 'new' technologies used on Steregushchy class, Buyan class corvette, Ivan Gren landing ship and GAZ 2975 vehicle ? And the problematic Graney class subs was planned to enter service in later 90s but due to financial and technique difficulties i have no idea when it will actually enter the services? And 117 is belonging to Al-31 family that again was old Soviet techs.
So all the kits you have listed further prove my point that the current 'new' russian toys are upgrades of old Soviet techs and half-finished projects
I meant to say the KA-52 which didn’t start production until 2008. And what new technologies do the Steregushchy class, Buyan class corvette, Ivan Gren landing ship and GAZ 2975 vehicle use? Is this a joke question, they are new ships, and the GAZ is a new armored vehicle. Again you have a weak argument (no argument actually) you claimed Russia hasn’t developed anything new but when you were disproven you resort to questioning what technology these new corvettes and armored vehicles have--by your logic I can scrutinize the J-20 by claiming it not to have new technologies because virtually nothing concrete or detailed is know about it.
And what does the Graney submarines delays have anything to do with the conversation? Do not change subjects. Topic was about post Soviet weapons systems and the Graney is a post Soviet submarine.
And please do stop making up claims the 117 and 117S have nothing to do with the AL-31, The only thing they have in common is that they are similar in size. Unless the 117/117s engineers and designers are liars and you have inspected both the AL-31 and the 117/117s its safe to say you are full of crap. Would you like me to post a video acknowledging you are full of crap? You look like a fool when you are denying official statements of actual designers.
And I said T-90AM, do a search if you do not know the difference and while you are at it compare a T-72 with a T-90, the T-90 was a development of the T-72 but by no means was it remotely close to the T-90. The T-90 has seen so many upgrades that the latest T-90 bares no resemblence or performance to the first T-90 let alone the T-72.
Different armor, turret, gun, engines, ect
So far we still fail to see that Russia has any reputable computer, semi-conductor and material industry, thats why there is Russia which the economy is entirely based on natural resources exports.
Right that is why China still continues to purchase Russian seekers and radars and a host of other military electronics, so why purchase electronics from Russia if your semi-conductor industry is so much better? Why has China been so slow to adapt crystal blade technology if your material industry is so super duper advanced?
Why wouldnt they? They give out F-22's RCS, they gave out F-35's and they gave out F-16s, F-15s, F-18s and etc, why not F-15 silent egles? As long as they dont give out the exact number we all have the rights to believe thats just their advertisement campaign.
You are dismissed, there is no official RCS for any of those aircraft, the closest thing to a RCS that Lockheed has disclosed in regards to the F-22 is that it has a marble size RCS which is vague, considering we don’t know what frequency bands and ranges the F-22 was tested under and we certainly do not know what hemesphere the F-22 was tested under.
For your own denialbility sake please have a close look at my sketch
[/URL][/IMG]
Your sketch just proved that you are clueless, ignorant and plainly confused. The frontal hemesphere isn’t going to produce the same incident angle as a side hemesphere…..dududa .
in fact its intakes are at the lowest point of the aircraft--nice try though.
