What's new

Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals

Even if T-50 is not as good as F-22, having some of and the capability to produce more if needed, is better than not having it.
 
. .
These materials are pretty much the equivalent of god, the applications of meta materials are so fast and the F-22 is chock full of them.


I'm interested in a link showing the meta materials in the F-22, post a link.

And stop ignoring the fact that most the the F-22 is made up of titanium, aluminum and even some steel . Of course there are other advanced composites but Russia also uses advanced composites in it's aircraft and has been for some time. Earlier you mentioned that the metals used in the F-22 make it light and strong, but conviniently you didn't mention the fact that Russian aircraft even such aircraft as the Mig-29 are also extremely light and extrememly strong they are also able to withstand 12+ G's, and the Mig-29's aircframe is primative compared to the pak-fa, in terms of composites.


Just because you have experience making cars that run on gasoline does not translate to success in making an all electric car.


What about the 1970's F-117, America didn't have any experience in 'stealth' yet they managed to build a very impressive LO platform, the equations used for the F-117 were actually Russian, the Americans got their hands on Peter Ufimtsev's equations.

And a little know fact; Russia was actually working on a 'stealth' program or low observability aircraft back in 1954 at Institute 108, one of the people working there was Peter Ufimtsev. Unfortunately Soviet anothorities rejected institute 108's findings, if they would have been permited to work the Soviet Union would have had a stealth aircraft. If you take anything away from me it should be that even the Soviet Union had done research into 'stealth', and by now Russia has constructed many 'stealthy' platforms including various UCAV's, ships, and of course aircraft.



Now a demonstration of the power of Meta materials

Meta materials can deflect radiation

Meta materials can control noise

Change magnetism

You can configure them



The possibilities are endless unless Russia is capable of breaking into this field, Russia has no hope of making something that can fight the F-22.




I'm shocked beyond words, now your are just making assumptions and blatently putting down Russia.

Do some research next time, here some abstracts of Russian metamaterials from a scientific database i subscribe to, no link since it's a private subscription:




Metamaterials comprising lattices of small resonant scatterers and (optionally) infinite wires are considered. The crystal planes of these lattices contain magnetic dipoles and electric dipoles (or wires). The set of so-called Bloch material parameters is discussed. A class of lattices for which these parameters describe the transfer matrix of an individual monolayer is considered. These lattices are called as Bloch lattices. It is shown that for Bloch lattices and only for them the Bloch material parameters can be directly extracted from the S-parameters of a finite-thickness metamaterial slab. Material parameters retrieved in this way in the previous literature are either Bloch material parameters or senseless (not invariant with respect of the number of monolayers in the composite slab). Explicit examples of Bloch and non-Bloch lattices are presented. Some intermediate results (two definitions of the Bloch impedance, frequency bounds of the Lorentz–Lorenz formula for the local material parameters, etc.) having practical and theoretical importance are discussed.





We describe novel physics of nonlinear magnetoinductive waves in left-handed composite metamaterials. We derive the coupled equations for describing the propagation of magnetoinductive waves, and show that in the nonlinear regime the magnetic response of a metamaterial may become bistable. We analyze modulational instability of different nonlinear states, and also demonstrate that nonlinear metamaterials may support the propagation of domain walls (kinks) connecting the regions with the positive and negative magnetization.





We discuss a relationship between the traditional framework of the frequency-dependent dielectric permittivity (ω) and magnetic permeability μ(ω) in the electrodynamics of continuous media and the spatial dispersion framework utilizing the dielectric tensor depending both on the frequency ω and wavevector . For electromagnetic waves, the latter approach includes the former as a specific limiting case for small k within the k2 accuracy. While the dispersion of the transverse electromagnetic waves in this approximation is captured by the (ω)–μ(ω) phenomenology, the dispersion of the longitudinal electric waves would be missed. The general framework also accommodates more complex situations such as excitonic resonances and additional electromagnetic waves. We also review the well-known Landau–Lifshitz arguments on the physical meaning of μ(ω) at sufficiently high frequencies. In that context, the need is discussed for the effective medium response to include contributions from the spatial dispersion of the electric-dipole polarization and from the electric-quadrupole polarization on an equal footing with contributions from the magnetic-dipole resonances.






In this work we consider a special case of the Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) divergence which is observed by the simulation of the planar periodic structures such as photonic crystal slabs or antenna arrays. This divergence is caused by an excitation of long-living artefact evanescent waves in these structures by an incident external pulse. We study the application of the known remedies to this problem: increasing the distance between the structure and PML, employing the κ parameter, employing non-PML absorbers. We also suggest a new simple and effective solution, where the usual PML is backed by an additional absorbing layer.






Propagation and tunneling of light through subwavelength photonic barriers, formed by dielectric layers with continuous spatial variations of the dielectric susceptibility across the film are considered. Effects of giant heterogeneity-induced non-local dispersion, both normal and anomalous, are examined by means of a series of exact analytical solutions of the Maxwell equations for gradient media. Generalized Fresnel formulae, showing a profound influence of the gradient and curvature of dielectric susceptibility profiles on the reflectance/transmittance of periodic photonic heterostructures, are presented. Depending on the cutoff frequency of the barrier, governed by the technologically managed spatial profile of its refractive index, propagation or tunneling of light through it is examined. Non-attenuative transfer of electromagnetic energy by evanescent waves, tunneling through dielectric gradient barriers characterized by real values of the refractive index decreasing into the interior of the medium, is shown. Scaling of the results obtained for different spectral ranges of visible, IR and THz waves is illustrated. The potential of gradient optical structures for the design of miniaturized filters, polarizers and frequency–selective interfaces of subwavelength thickness is considered.






In allowed photonic bands of one-dimensional photonic crystals (Bragg mirrors) light modes propagate with negative effective masses at certain frequencies. We demonstrate theoretically that this effect allows for the negative refraction of the visible light. We propose a structure made of two porous silicon Bragg mirrors with one rotated by 90° with respect to the other. This structure that may serve as a Veselago lens with a focal distance of the order of 10−5 m.


I don't car for public patents, or civilian toys, material science to an axtent, but if you want to looks at all of those feilds than you better count all of India's contribution since it's a joint project, so now it's not just Russia's materials science or Russia's patents, but an Indian/Russian material sciences and Russia's/India's patents.





This means that the rest of the world is speeding up past Russia, a country as big and wealthy as Russia should not have such a small and declining percentage

Like who China? The same country that still has to import Russian engines for the JF-17, why isn't China able to make a better engine if they are so renound in material science, after all engine are made up of extremely advanced alloys, and alloys dictate how long the engine will last, how long it can stay in afterburner, the T/W ration among other things, so why is it that Russia can make engines last 4000 hours? How's that possible? According to you, Russia can not acheive such a thing becaue according to you they lag in composite materials.

Better yet how did Russia create an AESA radar small enough to fit into the nose of a mig-29? How is Russia only the second other country to put a fighter size AESA into serial production? Shouldn't have someone else beat us to it? Afterall AESA radars contain exotic composites as well as alloys and extremely powerful microprocessors, and all of those feilds fit into material science.




So basically your entire argument is that Russia is technologically advanced, but they just keep it a secret from the world. We just don't produce any scientific breakthroughs or have industries that utilize our technological advancements.

Russia has plenty of technological advancements, but from inside information i know much of their advancements do not get published, much like tank armour is classified. The same holds true for most countries. Much of the scientific "breakthroughs" and "patents" can be anything from condoms, to toothpast, or even eye drops, thus much of it can be totally disregarded as useless when talking in the context of military applications, do not get me wrong, much of the time civilian advances can be applied to the military world, but when a government (any governement) sets a requirnment it's up to the head contractor or contractors to begin research and development.

Again think Israel.



Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia doesn't even field a single stealth ship



Wrong, next time do some research intead of looking at Wekipidia.


Project 2038.0 / Project 20381 Steregushchy Corvette

The design of this 2,000 ton (Steregushchy) stealthy corvette was developed by the Almaz Central Marine Design bureau. Almaz was chosen over six other competitors to develop the Project 2038.0 class.


And like i mentioned earlier Russia has created many different 'stealth' platforms.



syntax_error said:
hey is this the Mig Skat ???
wats its current status .

Yes it is, current status, not revealed.
 
Last edited:
.
Do some research next time, here some abstracts of Russian metamaterials from a scientific database i subscribe to, no link since it's a private subscription:

The reports for China, Russia and India are all up to 2007


Take a look at this, basically a report on China's science

China's Science Surge Rolls On - ScienceWatch.com

And compare it with this, basically a report on Russia's science

02.22.2009 - Russian Science, 2003-07 - ScienceWatch.com

Russia's percentage of materials science papers = 2.62

China's percentage of materials science papers = 16.01

Also India's percentage of materials science papers = 6.13

India's New Millennium in Science - ScienceWatch.com

Relative citations are also of note, Chinese papers in materials science by 2007 are .85

India papers are are .75

Russia papers are .49

And this is composite by weight, it doesn't tell how much of the airframe is advanced materials (metamaterials, nano materials all fall under composites)

The F-22 isn't some junk that was meant to be exported to other countries, its a super fighter stuffed with the most expensive and cutting edge stuff that they could find.

Boeing: F-22 Raptor - F-22 Aft Fuselage Facts

The aft fuselage is 67 percent titanium, 22 percent aluminum and 11 percent composite by weight.

And for comparison purposes the United States up to 2007

http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09janfebFea/

Materials science = 18.10
Relative citations = 1.47
 
Last edited:
.
^^^^What exactly is your point man ? Why are you degrading Russian tech when the majority of your own tech is either Russian or tech transferred from Russia ? Your whole Air Force is pretty much Russian or Russian influenced technology.

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
 
.
^^^^What exactly is your point man ? Why are you degrading Russian tech when the majority of your own tech is either Russian or tech transferred from Russia ? Your whole Air Force is pretty much Russian or Russian influenced technology.

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

The topic of the thread is can the T-50 exceed the F-22. I am just voicing my beliefs.

While the Russians have made some very fine flankers, most of the technology are upgrades of 1970's technology.

Torino.jpg


hummer.jpg


You wouldn't say that the hummer 21st century car is incorporates technology that wasn't in the Gran torino a 1970's car. Just like you wouldn't say that the technology of a Mig 29 was radically different from a flanker.

In the year 2010

Many fields such as nanotechnology, metamaterials, Quantum physics, nanomaterials, Quantum physics, High energy physics, advanced composites are fields that were not considered separate fields of science. Many of the major advancements and the creation of these fields only occurred 1990-2010.

The F-22 was constructed using advancements from all these fields.

China's inability to create a Jet engine is just more evidence supporting that there is a clear split between modern science and 1970's science. While China may be able to build supercomputers and teleport atoms they still can't build a 1980's-1990's jet engine.

Saying that Russia can build a F-22 because they can build jet engines, is like saying that China can build a F-22 because they can teleport atoms.
 
.
The reports for China, Russia and India are all up to 2007


Take a look at this, basically a report on China's science

China's Science Surge Rolls On - ScienceWatch.com

And compare it with this, basically a report on Russia's science

02.22.2009 - Russian Science, 2003-07 - ScienceWatch.com

Russia's percentage of materials science papers = 2.62

China's percentage of materials science papers = 16.01

Also India's percentage of materials science papers = 6.13

India's New Millennium in Science - ScienceWatch.com

Relative citations are also of note, Chinese papers in materials science by 2007 are .85

India papers are are .75

Russia papers are .49


I could care less if China rights more scientific papers than Russia, clearly all the scientific papers arn't helping China develope better engines.

And to stop straying from the subject, you claimed Russia has not broken into the metamaterials feild. However, i gave sources proving otherwise, clear you made a epic blunder, and thus far i have not heard you admit that your're wrong, same thing goes for your comment about Russia not having 'stealth' ships, among other claims.

By the way you still havn't provided a source showing that the F-22 is full of meta materials. Having an AESA radar and RAM doesn't constitute as "chock full" since AESA is also available in Russia; the same for RAM, if anything the pak-fa is also "chock full" of meta materials since it has multiple X-band radars as well as L-band radars, instead of just one.



And this is composite by weight, it doesn't tell how much of the airframe is advanced materials (metamaterials, nano materials all fall under composites)

The figures i gave are from the fusalage manufactured by Boing, the intire airframe is as followed:


F-22 Materials and Processes

Titanium 64 (Ti-64) 36%
Thermoset Composites 24%
Aluminum (Al) 16%
Other Materials* 15%
Steel 6%
Titanium 62222 (Ti-62222) 3%
Thermoplastic Composites >1%


Over 60% of the airframe is made up of commonly used alloys, be it the use of titanium is impressive and by far the most important alloy, in my opinion. Thermoset composites are nothing more than common resin based products such as carbon fiber, or honeycomb. 15% of the airframe is unknow, this could likely include a variation of thermoset composites, RAM, or even avionics equipment.


And in case you didn't know, the geometry of an aircraft is the most importand aspect of LO since it diffracts radar waves, if the surfaces are sloped at atleast 30 degrees than most radar waves will scatter off of the aircraft.

The F-22 isn't some junk that was meant to be exported to other countries, its a super fighter stuffed with the most expensive and cutting edge stuff that they could find.

Who said the F-22 was junk? Certainly not me. It's you that started the provications by boasting that China will surpass the pak-fa. And ironically it is you that is implying that the pak-fa is junk.
 
.
@Chinaownseverything

Has the U.S. not taken a similar route just faster though? Think about it F-15 and F-16 was 4th gen tech they both evolved into 4.5 gen platforms with the F-16 Block 60 and the F-15SE so you can make the argument they were both 1970s tech planes (in 1970. But Soviets at the time had the Su-27 and MiG-29 to counter this. Eventually the Su-27 family was evolved into the SU-35BM and the MiG family evolved in the MiG-35 both these aircraft are a far cry from 1970s technology they are radically different as not only did both specific variants see substantial upgrades but both lines saw consistent upgrades (Like the American counterparts) Now the U.S. once again ahead has moved into the 5th gen market with the F-22(nothing to do with 1970s tech) which is an amazing aircraft which was a totally new design and the Russians have answered it with a totally new design of their own PAK-FA(Nothing to do with 1970s). Plz explain where the 1970 lays at this point with Russia ? A F-16A Block 5 is 1970s tech and a MiG-29 (Product 9.12) is 1970s tech. Both these aircraft are not even in service anymore.

Simply put are the Americans ahead yes. Is Russia still working with 1970s tech. Definitely not.
 
Last edited:
.
While the Russians have made some very fine flankers, most of the technology are upgrades of 1970's technology.

Again your are wrong, there was no such things as PESA or AESA radars in 1970s Flankers or fly-by-optics, or TV engines, or HMC. These technologies are not upgrades of anything becuase they are completely different from the systems that were in place before.

What the designers of the Flanker did was they developed an airframe that was ahead of it's time much like the F-15 and F-16. As time went by they installed more capable avionics.



Saying that Russia can build a F-22 because they can build jet engines, is like saying that China can build a F-22 because they can teleport atoms.

It's not because we can build jet engines but because we have already build a prototype and several tech domonstrators, not to mention that Russia has the ability to create advanced radars including AESA as well as other advanced avionics that are so important in 5th generation aircraft, and it kind of helps that the stealth formula used to construct the F-117 was Peter Ufimtsev's formula (a Russian). It also helps that Russia has been reasearching stealth aircraft since the 1950's.

Your're acting like the pak-fa is built in Zimbabwe.
 
Last edited:
.
And to stop straying from the subject, you claimed Russia has not broken into the metamaterials feild. However, i gave sources proving otherwise, clear you made a epic blunder, and thus far i have not heard you admit that your're wrong, same thing goes for your comment about Russia not having 'stealth' ships, among other claims.

Fine I admit that I was wrong about the stealth ships

Based on scientific papers along Russia is only at the tip of the iceburg, countries in Africa have papers on metamaterials and etc... too but one would not say that they have broken in

By the way you still havn't provided a source showing that the F-22 is full of meta materials. Having an AESA radar and RAM doesn't constitute as "chock full" since AESA is also available in Russia; the same for RAM, if anything the pak-fa is also "chock full" of meta materials since it has multiple X-band radars as well as L-band radars, instead of just one.

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out

Its a well known fact by most scientists and engineers that metamaterials are used in stealth technology, and are used in most advanced sensors. The first discovered nanomaterials were used on stealth warships

Again the argument that it is doubtful that Russia can build such a jet is based on the fact that the proficiency in metamaterials that has been demonstrated many times by the USA

The figures i gave are from the fusalage manufactured by Boing, the intire airframe is as followed:


F-22 Materials and Processes

Again this is BY WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, meaning that if I wear to build a plane out of wood and then put a lump of depleted Uranium in it the plane would have Uranium as 99% and wood as 1% even though clearly the plane is not made out of wood.

Saying that 60% of the weight comes from commonly used metals provides no relevant information, just like saying that 99% of the weight from my wooden plane comes from depleted Uranium gives no information about the other part of it.


And in case you didn't know, the geometry of an aircraft is the most importand aspect of LO since it diffracts radar waves, if the surfaces are sloped at atleast 30 degrees than most radar waves will scatter off of the aircraft.

And this is the most easily copied part, countries like North Korea could easily build the outer shell of the F-22 and attach an engine, but that is all it is a shell what separates the shell from other shells is whats inside the shell and the materials that make up the shell.
Who said the F-22 was junk? Certainly not me. It's you that started the provications by boasting that China will surpass the pak-fa. And ironically it is you that is implying that the pak-fa is junk.



My argument was based around the fact that the F-22 uses an entire tree of technology thats different from the F-16.

a tree of technology that China has shown itself to be adept at or rivaling the USA in most of them. A tree of technology that Russia has not demonstrated proficiency in, but from publically available data like scientific papers is behind countries like Italy.

I think that coming up with the conclusion that the PAK-FA probably would not be able to compete with the F-22 and that China probably has a better shot of making something more similar to the F-22 than Russia is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence and arguments that I presented.
 
. .
@Chinaownseverything

Has the U.S. not taken a similar route just faster though? Think about it F-15 and F-16 was 4th gen tech they both evolved into 4.5 gen platforms with the F-16 Block 60 and the F-15SE so you can make the argument they were both 1970s tech planes (in 1970. But Soviets at the time had the Su-27 and MiG-29 to counter this. Eventually the Su-27 family was evolved into the SU-35BM and the MiG family evolved in the MiG-35 both these aircraft are a far cry from 1970s technology they are radically different as not only did both specific variants see substantial upgrades but both lines saw consistent upgrades (Like the American counterparts) Now the U.S. once again ahead has moved into the 5th gen market with the F-22(nothing to do with 1970s tech) which is an amazing aircraft which was a totally new design and the Russians have answered it with a totally new design of their own PAK-FA(Nothing to do with 1970s). Plz explain where the 1970 lays at this point with Russia ? A F-16A Block 5 is 1970s tech and a MiG-29 (Product 9.12) is 1970s tech. Both these aircraft are not even in service anymore.

Simply put are the Americans ahead yes. Is Russia still working with 1970s tech. Definitely not.

Theres a clear difference between something new and something that is an upgrade.

Say building a car engine, now car engines have been around quite awhile. The first car engine had extremely efficiency, but every 10 years changes have been made to the car engine that made it more fuel efficient every year.

Most people would say that the car engines made in the year 2010 are just advancements made on 1880's technology. And that our cars todays are nothing more than advancements made in 1880's technology, because the concept is still the same you have a engine that takes fuel, burns it to turn a crank and then transmits the power via axele's and differentials to wheels.

If Ford were to come out with a brand new hummer tomorrow, would the general public think of it as new technology?

On the other hand most people do indeed think of electric cars as new technology.

Clearly the F-22 is new technology while the Flankers are not
 
.
Theres a clear difference between something new and something that is an upgrade.

Like the PAK-FA



Say building a car engine, now car engines have been around quite awhile. The first car engine had extremely efficiency, but every 10 years changes have been made to the car engine that made it more fuel efficient every year.

Most people would say that the car engines made in the year 2010 are just advancements made on 1880's technology. And that our cars todays are nothing more than advancements made in 1880's technology, because the concept is still the same you have a engine that takes fuel, burns it to turn a crank and then transmits the power via axele's and differentials to wheels.

If Ford were to come out with a brand new hummer tomorrow, would the general public think of it as new technology?
That comparison is irrelevant is it like saying because a 1973 Honda civic

std_1973_honda_civic-bw-max-.jpg

Compared to the newest model

Brazilian_Honda_Civic_LXS_Flex_2008.jpg


Is just 1970s tech right ?

Once again the PAK-FA is new technology. Inline with 5th gen aircraft. Stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise. Again i am asking you where is 1970s tech in this. It is a completely new design. Name something that is 1970s tech ? AESA radar is not 1970s tech, stealth with internal weapons is not 1970s tech, Sensor fusion is not 1970s tech, supercruise is not 1970s tech.

On the other hand most people do indeed think of electric cars as new technology.

Clearly the F-22 is new technology while the Flankers are not

Clearly your wrong.
 
Last edited:
.
Tell me is if a gran trino was was kept in production and a 2010 model came out would it not be 2010 technology ? Or are you trying to explain specific breakthrough leaps like how WW1 Aircraft used inferior material and a Rotary engine. While WW2 aircraft had Radial engines and better build from materials. Just like 4th gen aircraft had Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shoot-down missiles. And 5th gen aircraft like the F-22 and PAK FA have 5th gen characteristics.
 
.
Like the PAK-FA





Once again the PAK-FA is new technology. Inline with 5th gen aircraft. Stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise. Again i am asking you where is 1970s tech in this. It is a completely new design. Name something that is 1970s tech ? AESA radar is not 1970s tech, stealth with internal weapons is not 1970s tech, Sensor fusion is not 1970s tech, supercruise is not 1970s tech.



Clearly your wrong.

I never called the PAK-FA 1970's technology

I called the Flankers 1970's technology just like people would call the hummers 1970's

Sensor fusion is not new, it is technology that has been used in factories for a long while now factories sensors would measure the weight and temperature and a host of other goodies to feed back into a computer that controls the process.

Supercruise is the same as regular cruise except faster, Super cruise came from increasing the efficiency and power of the 1970's jet engines so that planes can move faster. Nothing different from making a car engine 1% more efficient

We have had AESA and PESA radars for many years, they were just too big to be put on planes
 
.
Back
Top Bottom