FalconDude[ATTACH=CONFIG]224160[/ATTACH]
What is the red circle indicating? Too wide? Too fat? too far, too short?
To be honest I noticed some things at the rear rather than the middle..
FalconDudeIf i am honest, those shapes don’t look good at all.
That is fine, can you elaborate on what seems to be out of order for you?
FalconDudeI have managed to find a 3D model of the T-50-1
It is a pretty simple model and I had to use Blender as I didn’t have any CAD program outside of work. Can you guys and especially Jo et al. have a look to verify it is good enough. I think they got the upper engine cowlings wrong but I could be wrong.
More images to follow. If the model stands up to scrutiny as good enough, I (or others, the model was available for free) can proceed in making placements of the engine and possible blocker devices to verify all claims made so far.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224150[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224151[/ATTACH]
FalconDudeWasn’t it shown somewhere that the photo of the T-50-1 is a photoshoped one ? (IIRC)
(Happy New Year guys)
FalconDudeDo we know if this photo is real?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224070[/ATTACH]
if it is we have another frame of reference for the object. There is a somewhat clear view of something in the intake that we can use for a similar “analysis”
FalconDude…of course, why didn’t I think of that?! Your words may have just helped solve one of the PAK-FA’s greatest riddles.
The devices’ general placement is shown in cross section B-B (Б-Б in pic 1, below), however the key point in the patent is that it (item 9) is described as a “device” and a “screen”- but never a ‘grille’ or a ‘mesh’ as inferred by the schematic (pic 2). These last two terms are used to describe the auxiliary intakes with specific radar wave spacing (“fine mesh”).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224023[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]224024[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]224025[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]224026[/ATTACH]
What would be the opposite of a ‘grille’ device that interferes with the airflow to the compressor? -One that is shaped to assist/guide the flow yet simultaneously interferes with as many incoming radar waves as possible 9 (pics 3 & 4). The rest are left to the modified PMC IGV, 1st stage fan and “areas of localisation for radar wave absorption” (including cant) described in the patent above and duct wall treatments/RAS.
Reconciling the misalignment issue of the notorious ‘phantom compressor’- the most crucial description in the patent is that the device is “aligned straight” in the duct with the intake 😉
I think all these could easily be tested if we had a 3D model of the T-50 in some kind of CAD format. I am nowhere good enough, or patient enough to do one. But if we had one, we could test all these hypotheses. That would indeed be nice.
FalconDudeAnd the award for most sensible thing said in the history of aviation goes toooooo……..
IMHO the JSF program suffers from corporate control more than idealism. If the USN had sway to define a bigger plane with two engines while the USAF and USMC got their wish for a lighter plane, but all three shared the core electronics, communications, sensors, and so on then is it really such a performance unfriendly program? The manufacturers in the contest had no reason to aim high in the performance realm when they were allowed to jointly barter the parameters beforehand. You get what you ask for, and in the end they’ve stepped back yet further in the publicized specs.
I personally don’t see it lacking performance as much as the true combat capabilities are classified as to never be revealed, but that is another issue altogether.
well done, well said
FalconDudeNot vis a vis the PAK FA.
So what you’re saying is that for small air forces the F-16 is a more cost effective option than the F-35. We’ve had this debate before albeit with the Gripen in lieu of the F-16.
What it comes down to is the air force’s responsibility. When you say ‘enough to provide capability’, you’re unfortunately using a vague description.
If the air force is just required to carry out air policing it could go much cheaper than the F-16/Gripen. The KAI FA-50 is more than sufficient. However if fighting a war under the NATO aegis is called for, then you must keep in mind that this will involve the pooled resources of European airforces (including upto 500 F-35s) and with the US with all its supporting assets (again including a huge F-35 fleet) at the core of it.
Well if the T-50 is marketed for export then the same thing would apply if it has a similar price tag.
And no I am not being vague. You are forgetting that an air force to be effective needs training. How can one service be effective when it has 20 or so frames to train with and international joint exercises are less than 10 a year (not everyone is invited or wiling to go to everyone even). The european theater may have up to 500 F-35s but not all will be there at the same time (LM deliveries) and not all will be willing to train with you when you want them or you can afford. We are talking about established air forces, which in the previous years have acquired front line capable fighters such as the F-16/18. Not airforces that were obliged to simple air policing duties.
FalconDudeThis is an interesting line of debate but X vs Y comparison is missing an essential factor – cost.
The F-15E was superior to the F-16C in nearly every department (except for RCS). Was it a better aircraft? Not necessarily. The Su-30MK series was on the market in the 90s for $30-40 million each. That certainly was great value for money.
Are they any reliable estimates for the PAK FA’s cost? The latest AESA equipped Su-30s are priced at upto $100mil/unit. The PAK FA’s cost would be most likely $150mil+. The Russians have traditionally enjoyed a cost advantage over the competition especially vis a vis the Europeans. But with wages rising over the last decade and likely to continue growing, it remains to be seen how far that advantage will endure. Plus as a larger heavier aircraft the PAK FA is likely to have a significantly higher life-cycle cost particularly with continued growth predicted in global oil prices.
I think there is another, important parameter that one needs to consider when examining the F-35.
The F-35 is meant to equip allied air forces around the world. Most of these air-forces NEVER had the budget for the resources the USA had. Some over the years have managed to acquire a (limited) number of AWACS and Tankers, but by far nowhere near to cover a full scale conventional engagement. Most actually did proceed with these procurements to be able to fulfil their NATO role contribution.
Having said that the mainstay for NATO and allied airforces have been mostly a combination of F-4/F-5/F-16/F-18 with a few F-15s been purchased here and there. Most of the NATO and allies have been able to perform most of the combat mission requirements with the F-16, notable examples are Turkey, Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Norway.
Even air superiority missions were carried out with the F-16 in absence of a more suitable fighter.
Now the F-16 wasn’t cheap, but it was and still is a hell of a lot cheaper than the F-35, every way you look at it. The aforementioned air forces have been able to build a significant capability both in terms of aircraft ability as well as fleet numbers relying on the affordable F-16.
How many F-35 does $2bn buy you and how many F-16s ? In the current economy I don’t see countries being able to acquire more than 20 to 25 frames. Are these enough to provide capability? Especially when maintenance is (rumoured) to be..pricier in contrast to that of previous types?
FalconDude………………………… Money laundering?
It seems more and more likely as time goes by. I never liked that plane idea, I have to be honest.
FalconDudeIt is nothing else than Rogozin talking out of his @ss.. again.
Has he been accurate about anything in the past? …just in case..
FalconDudeUAC’s President Pogosan already denied that there is a LMFS going in his Corp.
I only used google translate, but It seems to me this is not about UAVs. Unless it is just wishful thinking.
FalconDudeYeah, but flying @ M4, if the missile goes active 3 miles from target that’s a ‘ping’ time of <3 seconds. Upcoming S & L-band AESAs for their new AWACs should be easily able to put a missile within that range to the target, closer still with a DLed high power X-band. This type of network already exists for the S-300PMU and S-400.
Not only would the Su-35S know where the V/LO target was @ a considerable range and with a good degree of accuracy, but it would also get the first shot. Totting 10 of these babies, it can even afford a miss or two. It wouldn’t be overly worried about closing down the V/LO target either, because it could use it’s GaN radar in the EA/jammer mode defensively for which the closer the better.
I wonder if anyone is looking into data-linking AA missiles of that size between them.
FalconDudeIn a World first, K-77M MRAAMs for the PAK-FA to feature AESA seeker heads, production to commence in February 2015:
http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/44702-pak-fa-ukomplektujut-cifrovymi-raketami.html
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222606&d=1383498165
Very interesting. However, isn’t it true that AESA or not a missile has a distinct disadvantage against a VLO target due to its small antenna and relatively small power? I was actually looking about this last night, I can’t see anything that heads toward a solution for this.
FalconDudeUm… now that we are relatively free of various trolls, with all due respect why don’t you two just cut the crap as well please. You’re doing the same thing as them. You can and SHOULD put your stance/ information forward in a civilized matter you know. Oh and please don’t give me the “oh but he’s stoopid i know bettar!” Probably both of you are wrong on one issue or the other, unless you work under M. Pogosyan himself and hang around the PAK-FA construction hall every day! (probably that would actually be Dik_A thank you very much):)
Please don’t waste knowledge you posess and the value of the information you provide about this program with pitiful insults. Thank you.
Enough with the troll (witch) hunting. It’s sad. Some of you have major major chips on your shoulders.
More to the point now. Can anyone provide any more info on this 6-1 and 6-2 business ? Any indication why the programme has slipped by a year or so? Is it airframe, avionics or engine developments that made the schedule appear to slide?
Sign In
