Sukhoi PAK-FA / FGFA: Updates,News & Discussions

[he-man]

no need to go all ballistic here people.
shaping shows it quite clearly that pakfa will be highly vulnerable to the ground radars and untill the shape of inlet changes, it will remain like that only.

on the tech level i know what a 5 th generation means and what we are getting in the pakfa,,,i am deliberating only on the shaping

Thank you, amazing how you can judge how an aircraft performs by looking at a picture. The picture was obviously meant to show how different the pak-fa is compared the the Flanker.

tell me more about the differences!!

 

[sancho]

a photo speaks a thousand words

this has been taken from paralay.com forum

no matter how we try to justify but russians just screwed up in designing this bird,period

Only when you only see what you want to see and not what the picture really shows!

- non shaped nose and airframe for the old Flanker => stealthy shaped nose and airframe for the T50
- old wing design of the Flanker => modern wing design for the T50 with stealthy shaped angles
- increased reflecting of radar waves via canards, vertical fins above and below the Flanker, the air intakes, as well as several right angles => movable LERX, angled tail fins, deleted vertical fins, deleted right angles and shaped air intakes for the T50
- external weapon carriage for Flankers => internal weapon carriage for T50
- mainly active sensors for the Flanker => active and passive sensors all around the T50 (less detectable)
- limited Supercruise performance for the Flankers => high Supercruise performance for the T50 (less detectable)

Bottom line is, the Russians developed a fighter with stealth shapings and reduced detectability against radar and various sensors and that even in the current prototype / early Pak Fa stage!
The problem is only, that people only see the seperated engines and the tail sting as the design feature and the uncovered/untreated engines, to conclude that it's "just" a Flanker or not stealthy. The fact however is, that the Russians used the same lift body design for the Mig 29s as well, so simply followed their way of fighter designs and took it to the next level, but changed anything else of the design!
Just like we know that the current engine are only stop gaps till the type 30 is developed and that they are the ONLY part of the T50 that is not shaped in angled ways, which should make clear that it's not the permanent solution. But as said, people only see what they want to see!

Btw, the pic is out of proportion, the T50 is roughly 2m shorter than the Flanker and has less wingspan either.

 

[he-man]

Only when you only see what you want to see and not what the picture really shows!

- non shaped nose and airframe for the old Flanker => stealthy shaped nose and airframe for the T50
- old wing design of the Flanker => modern wing design for the T50 with stealthy shaped angles
- increased reflecting of radar waves via canards, vertical fins above and below the Flanker, the air intakes, as well as several right angles => movable LERX, angled tail fins, deleted vertical fins, deleted right angles and shaped air intakes for the T50
- external weapon carriage for Flankers => internal weapon carriage for T50
- mainly active sensors for the Flanker => active and passive sensors all around the T50 (less detectable)
- limited Supercruise performance for the Flankers => high Supercruise performance for the T50 (less detectable)

Bottom line is, the Russians developed a fighter with stealth shapings and reduced detectability against radar and various sensors and that even in the current prototype / early Pak Fa stage!
The problem is only, that people only see the seperated engines and the tail sting as the design feature and the uncovered/untreated engines, to conclude that it's "just" a Flanker or not stealthy. The fact however is, that the Russians used the same lift body design for the Mig 29s as well, so simply followed their way of fighter designs and took it to the next level, but changed anything else of the design!
Just like we know that the current engine are only stop gaps till the type 30 is developed and that they are the ONLY part of the T50 that is not shaped in angled ways, which should make clear that it's not the permanent solution. But as said, people only see what they want to see!

Btw, the pic is out of proportion, the T50 is roughly 2m shorter than the Flanker and has less wingspan either.

again u are misquoting me.
my argument was that with this shape its just too vulnerable against the ground radars.

and yeah it has some modifications but those are just.................well modifications.
they could have done a better job at designing if money was not the problem which unfortunately was.

as for the shape,,,its 100 % final,,if u don't want to believe it then its ur wish

 

[sancho]

again u are misquoting me.
my argument was that with this shape its just too vulnerable against the ground radars.

I didn't and showed you instead that they purposly changed nearly everything wrt to the shape / design to reduce the RCS, or detectability compared to the older Flanker design!

 

[atlssa]

my argument was that with this shape its just too vulnerable against the ground radars

Patent analysis shows how PAK-FA differs from F-22 in air combat philosophy | Russia & India Report

 

[he-man]

@atlssa

browse back some pages,i think i was the one who posted this patent here,,,,along with the basic flight architecture patent too.

the problem here is the poorly shaped underbelly making pakfa extremely vulnerable to the ground based radars and sam radars.and whether u believe that or not but it will remain the truth untill the shape changes which will never occur,unfortunately.

pakfa has a lot of unique features but stealth is not one of its strong points,thats the truth buddy

I didn't and showed you instead that they purposly changed nearly everything wrt to the shape / design to reduce the RCS, or detectability compared to the older Flanker design!

the crux was little change in the underbelly

 

[atlssa]

pakfa has a lot of unique features but stealth is not one of its strong points,thats the truth buddy

Every single design has its weak points. See the controversial F-35, for example.
From my point of view, a jet fighter has to be effective. Low RCS is just one among many features. An important one, btw.
I really believe PAK-FA will be a great fighter, not stealth as the F-22, but still effective. Besides... The F-22 is a half billion dollars fighter (each).

In the case the Russians developed a fighter as good as the F-22 and costing about the same, India would be willing to pay this price?

 

[he-man]

Every single design has its weak points. See the controversial F-35, for example.
From my point of view, a jet fighter has to be effective. Low RCS is just one among many features. An important one, btw.
I really believe PAK-FA will be a great fighter, not stealth as the F-22, but still effective. Besides... The F-22 is a half billion dollars fighter (each).

In the case the Russians developed a fighter as good as the F-22 and costing about the same, India would be willing to pay this price?

the point is design here.
russians let go of s-ducts to make more space and reduce weight.even superior kinematic performance.

but i think s-ducts were better,,it would have solved both rcs problem and the uneven underbelly issues both

 

[atlssa]

the point is design here.
russians let go of s-ducts to make more space and reduce weight.even superior kinematic performance.

but i think s-ducts were better,,it would have solved both rcs problem and the uneven underbelly issues both

got you!

 

[Sergi]

I didn't and showed you instead that they purposly changed nearly everything wrt to the shape / design to reduce the RCS, or detectability compared to the older Flanker design!

An old saying " Choose your battles "

 

[he-man]

An old saying " Choose your battles "

once again to clarify,,,,the point was underbelly of pakfa which dosen't differs much from a flanker.

 

[sancho]

the point was underbelly of pakfa which dosen't differs much from a flanker.

Again, people see what they want to see, but I see...

- not shaped air intake for the Flanker => shaped air intake for the T50
- straigth inlet and engine position for the Flanker => curved inlet, forward and inward angled position for the T50
- gears folding into the wings for the Flanker => gears folding into the intake for the T50
- 2 external centerline stations for the Flanker => 2 internal weapon bays for the T50
- much larger tail sting of the T50, with more space for radar, EW sensors, brake parachute and the newly positioned flares

There are infact only 2 things that are similar, one the already mentioned commonality of Russian fighter design and secondly the engine coverings, that are not shaped or treaded like the AL 31 and 117S engines of the Su 30 / Su 35.

 

[he-man]

Again, people see what they want to see, but I see...

- not shaped air intake for the Flanker => shaped air intake for the T50
- straigth inlet and engine position for the Flanker => curved inlet, forward and inward angled position for the T50
- gears folding into the wings for the Flanker => gears folding into the intake for the T50
- 2 external centerline stations for the Flanker => 2 internal weapon bays for the T50
- much larger tail sting of the T50, with more space for radar, EW sensors, brake parachute and the newly positioned flares

There are infact only 2 things that are similar, one the already mentioned commonality of Russian fighter design and secondly the engine coverings, that are not shaped or treaded like the AL 31 and 117S engines of the Su 30 / Su 35.

how does any of these points protect pakfa against the ground radar vs a flanker??
answer----little

the points u mentioned will reduce the frontal rcs and will have a small effect at most on the below aspect rcs.

here let me help u

what russians did was to use the huge space between the 2 engines of a flanker as a weapons bay............a cheap solution.
and for that there will be consequences,,,huge consequences.

s-ducts would have eliminated this.

 

[sancho]

how does any of these points protect pakfa against the ground radar vs a flanker??

LOL, first you claim that there are no changes and when I prove that wrong you distract? And no, an angled shaped air intake won't have any effect on radar waves. Strange that all stealth fighters have similar shaped air intakes. Just like the curves (partially because of the gears folding into the inlet) in the inlet and the angled position of the engine hides parts of the compressor already, even without a duct or radar blockers installed. And no, internal weapon bays won't improve the RCS either...

what russians did was to use the huge space between the 2 engines of a flanker as a weapons bay

Wrong! They created internal weapon bays "in" the fuselage above the air intakes and engines and not just between them. So they created new space and not just used the space that was available there anyway, but you didn't even saw that, no wonder that you can't see the other differences.

 

[atlssa]

LOL, first you claim that there are no changes and when I prove that wrong you distract? And no, an angled shaped air intake won't have any effect on radar waves. Strange that all stealth fighters have similar shaped air intakes. Just like the curves (partially because of the gears folding into the inlet) in the inlet and the angled position of the engine hides parts of the compressor already, even without a duct or radar blockers installed. And no, internal weapon bays won't improve the RCS either...



Wrong! They created internal weapon bays "in" the fuselage above the air intakes and engines and not just between them. So they created new space and not just used the space that was available there anyway, but you didn't even saw that, no wonder that you can't see the other differences.

I totally agree with your point of view. As I said before, each single project has its own particularities. I just don't believe everybody who develops a fifth-generation fighter has to follow absolutely the same steps as the F-22. Of course, the Americans are showing the way, but even that didn't prevent the F-35 to be susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum.

The way I see people criticizing the T-50, it seems that they would like to have a F-22. Would also they be willing to pay the price? Even the Americans couldn’t keep up with it and the project was canceled.

It is matter of cost benefit. PAK-FA / FGFA should be seen as the Indo-Russian approach for this technology. Not even that, with exception of USA no one yet uses fifth-generation fighters, and when happens, it will be the American allies with the F-35 (which has lots of problems) and China with its J-20 (which still has a lot to answer).

So, if the T-50 is not as stealth as the F-22, what is problem? Is India going to war against USA any time soon?

Please... Come on guys!!!
T-50 is a great fighter. An effective solution with a fraction of F-22 price.You need to celebrate!