Wet Shirt Contest
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 634
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
@Martin2 By Chinese Logic Only Saw-Toothed Edges Are Stealthy ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Haven't we missed the important part?
There are five reasons to believe the 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa is correct.
1. The stated 0.5m2 RCS is on the official Russian Government Embassy in India website. This is official Russian government information.
No it's not, you just failed in your attempt to troll because the source was clearly given in that article, but you left it out for obvious reasons. Ajay Shukla is known to be a biased and not really reliable journalist and he made estimations in his article from 2010, so from the prototype that made the first flight, not the later versions. There are many mistakes in your post and I would suggest to go through this thread and get more infos on the current T50 prototypes and the final Pak Fa and FGFA versions, instead of claiming baseless things and trolling around about J20.
Keep this thread clean of useless flame baits please!
1. I did not leave anything out. I provided the citation link. When I took the screenshot, I selected a reasonable size for legibility.
2. The information that I cited has been posted on the Russian Embassy in India official website for two years. It is impossible for Sukhoi to be unaware of its existence. The only inference is that the 0.5m2 RCS is correct.
3. There have been no outward design changes between the first two prototypes and the third prototype. The only outward change has been the cosmetic removal of the pitot tube. In the technical analysis picture, I analyzed the latest third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype (which flew threw months ago in November 2011).
Reference: Third PAK FA Prototype Flies: key.Aero, Military Aviation
"Third PAK FA Prototype Flies
Dave Allport - 23-Nov-2011
The third prototype of the new Russian fifth-generation PAK FA fighter made its maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22.
The third prototype PAK FA takes off from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22, 2011, for its maiden flight. (Credit: Sukhoi)
MAKING ITS maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22 was the third prototype of the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft, flown by test pilot Sergey Bogdan, was airborne for just over an hour before landing back at the KNAAPO factory airfield.
The flight was deemed a success, with all tests of stability and evaluation of engine performance proceeding as planned. The pilot reported reliable operation of all systems and components.
Maiden flight of the first prototype took place on January 29, 2010, also at Komsomolsk-on-Amur, followed by the second aircraft on March 3, 2011. Both prototypes made their public debut at the MAKS 2011 International Aviation and Space Salon in Zhukovsky, Moscow. The aircraft have now completed more than 100 test flights."
----------
I stand by my analysis.
By the way, none of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa problems exists on the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.
Terrific J-20 Mighty Dragon close-up photographs
J-20 taxiing
Another day of tests
[Note: Thank you to Hu Songshan and J-20 Mighty Dragon Continue Flight Testing in February 2012 ~ Chinese Military Review]
Haven't we missed the important part?
The guy clearly has obsessive compulsive disorder with the pak-fa. If you are familiar with his posts he makes claims such as IRST not being stealthy, 2 piece canopy not being stealthy, rivets not being stealthy, ‘bumps and humps’ not being stealthy but staunchly claimed that the WZ-10 was so called stealthy even though it has a large FLIR, fixed landing gears, pylons, no single piece canopy, rivets, gun, vertical stab, and various protrusions.
The guy claims defects in the F-35 and pak-fa but when confronted with the same defects on the J-20 he simply claims, oh…well the J-20 Mighty Dragon is excluded from that rule because it has stealthy shaping.
If I provide citations for each item (which I had already done in the J-20 thread for the past year), will you apologize for slandering me?
Also, I thought everyone understood the reason that each highlighted deficiency is not stealthy. Do I need to explain them again (which I had already done in the J-20 thread)?
If I provide citations for each item (which I had already done in the J-20 thread for the past year), will you apologize for slandering me?
Also, I thought everyone understood the reason that each highlighted deficiency is not stealthy. Do I need to explain them again (which I had already done in the J-20 thread)?
For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.
The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.
The enemy radar can see the T-50/Pak-Fa, because of the uneven underside. This result should not surprise you. The Su-30 (which is not stealthy) also has an uneven underside like the T-50/Pak-Fa.
This is ridicules ..please lean how radar works ...Gambit has posted lot of good stuff. If you still do not understand I can recommend some good books to polish your skill and to come back with better arguments.
Of course you did and I already quoted the from that very link, but let me make it more obvious if you still deny:1. I did not leave anything out. I provided the citation link (see post #641).
What do you expect from a guy that claimed that canards are okay for stealth because they are paper thin from the front. For someone to make such as claim they must be totally ignorant of edge diffraction which at the time of his post he probably was.
I also wouldn't take his esstimates serious this guy claimed that the J-20;s canards are 3 feet long.
Give them this plane, these expert will find drawback in this as well
NOTE: This plane was assumed better than F22 in all aspects.