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

[Wet Shirt Contest]

@Martin2 By Chinese Logic Only Saw-Toothed Edges Are Stealthy ?

 

[Martian2]

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.

2. If they believed it was incorrect, Sukhoi has had two years to correct the 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa. We can only conclude Sukhoi has silently agreed to the 0.5m2 RCS on the Russian Embassy government website.

3. The Indian minister who leaked the secret RCS information was part of an Indian government delegation to negotiate joint development of the T-50/FGFA program. He did not pull the information out of thin air. Most likely, Sukhoi informed the Indian minister of the 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa. This is leaked official Indian government information.

4. The Russian Air Force Colonel pointedly avoided claiming the T-50/Pak-Fa is as stealthy as a F-22 Raptor or J-20 Mighty Dragon. A 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa is consistent with the Russian Colonel's comparison of the T-50/Pak-Fa, F-22, and J-20. (See Russia to Increase Number of 5G Fighters in Test Flights)

5. After waiting two years, a technical analysis of the deficiencies in the stealth design of the third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype justifies the T-50's RCS of 0.5m2; which we expect to be considerably higher than the F-22 or the J-20 (see technical analysis below). None of these stealth design problems exists on the F-22 or the J-20.

Sukhoi hasn't fixed a single stealth design problem in two years.

[Personal note: I hope none of you take this personally. This is merely an impartial and objective analysis from a fellow military enthusiast. If I could give a lower RCS for the current T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype (based on a reliable citation and/or technical analysis) then I would. However, I believe the information that I have presented is the most accurate and reliable to date.]

 

[sancho]

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!

 

[Martian2]

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 (see post #641). 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. Compare the T-50/Pak-Fa picture with the J-20 below for yourself. For example, notice the T-50/Pak-Fa has a radar-reflecting metal-framed cockpit canopy. Now, look at the hi-tech frameless bubble cockpit canopy on the J-20.

[Note: Thank you to Hu Songshan and J-20 Mighty Dragon Continue Flight Testing in February 2012 ~ Chinese Military Review]

 

[lepziboy]

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]

stop posting and derailing the thread with your J-20 DragonFLY

 

[ptldM3]

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.

 

[Birbal]

Ignore the troll and report his posts.

As for stealth RCS measures, it should be noted that the Russians take a more holistic approach to RCS and average RCS over all angles and lots of frequencies, whereas American quotes usually give optimal headon and wavelength RCS figures. Thus, the Russians quote the F-35 and F-22 as having RCS of ~0.3m^2!

 

[Martian2]

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)?

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.

When the same enemy radar (either airborne or ground-based) tries to detect a Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, it fails.

Both the J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have smooth and flat undersides to deflect radar away from the transmitter/detector. On this criterion, it is obvious the J-20 and F-22 are stealthy. It is also equally obvious the uneven underside of the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is not stealthy.

If Sukhoi ever fixes this problem then I would credit Sukhoi with another stealth characteristic. However, right now, the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is deficient in comparison to the J-20 and F-22 across at least 10 stealth design requirements (which I discussed in detail in post #641).

[Note: In both pictures, I performed a ray trace of the incoming radar and its reflection off of the underside of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype and China's J-20 Mighty Dragon. You are familiar with a ray trace, because you see visible light bouncing off mirrors all the time.

Radar is an electromagnetic wave like visible light. The only critical differences are that radar has a much longer wavelength and it's invisible to the naked eye. Otherwise, a ray trace of radar resembles visible light.]

 

[ptldM3]

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)?

No, never because you do two things, you post unreliable/bias sources, and you manipulate them. Moreover, your credibility, if you ever had any, is gone, due to the fact that you use double standars and China glorification such as the WZ-10. Ironic how a small IRST is not stealth as is a two piece canopy but a gargantuan FLIR, and multiple piece canopy is stealthy on the WZ-10?

As for your silly picture with a red-line, that is not how EM energy works

 

[sms]

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.

 

[ptldM3]

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.

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.

 

[sancho]

1. I did not leave anything out. I provided the citation link (see post #641).

Of course you did and I already quoted the from that very link, but let me make it more obvious if you still deny:

India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter


So all you base your believes on, is a government website, that posted an article writen by a totally unofficial (and unreliable) source!

Once again, don't try to derail this thread, because you constantly get corrected by Gambit or ptldM3 in the J20 thread.

 

[sms]

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.

Again that's ridicules .. each canard looks like in range of 2.5 ~ 3 mtr. But I'd be waiting for official version and that is scare commodity in China.

 

[Black Widow]

Give them this plane, these expert will find drawback in this as well

NOTE: This plane was assumed better than F22 in all aspects.

 

[sms]

Give them this plane, these expert will find drawback in this as well

NOTE: This plane was assumed better than F22 in all aspects.

Ophs.. currently I'm in China admiring well built Shanghai/ Beijing ..but I'm sorry to say I'm not able to access youtube not sure why? Is it blocked in China?

Sorry for off topic post.