FalconDudemothballed at Gromov LII at Zhukovsky, at restricted area, readily seen at GE photos, minus engines. Some sluggish talks of transition to Monino museum, but all jibs into declassification procedure that Air Force, the Customer, officially in charge of. No one wants to put efforts into this.
well at least it is still in one piece.
FalconDudeHe is sarcastic in case you havent noticed, i was as well
What ever happened to J-20’s grandpa in the end ? is it still alive somewhere?
FalconDudeF-35 and J-20? (in that order) ;):D
(J-20’s prototype *did* take off 12 years ago, actually… ;))
You can’t say that. It is not politically correct. The Chinese don’t like it.
Don’t you know they developed the plane from scratch?
FalconDudeI think you mis-understand me.
Unless changes are needed to the aerodynamic or structural aspects of the airframe – it is possible for machines that are rolling off the assembly line next year to be completely representative of machines that will be in the RuAF in 2020 (or whenever).
The only difference will be avionics, primarily software, some hardware.
It all depends on how their flight management systems are coupled to (or de-coupled from) their ‘weapon’ management systems and how open their system architecture is to allowing step updates in hardware.
Well. The plane flies. So the FCS is at a very large extend functional.
personally I don’t expect any changes to the airframe unless dictated by structural strength considerations.
I think the plane (not the weapon system) is as close to complete as an optimist would allow.
FalconDudeRCS argument of one piece canopy is a load of BS.
It is well known that the canopy cannot be radar transparent as it would allow radar waves to reflect off the internal cockpit equipment – which will then produce multiple returns including corner reflections and scatter.
Therefore it must be absorbent and/or reflective. Then guess what – having a frame makes pretty much no difference (assuming your gap tolerances from canopy to frame are good).
Counter arguments are just the usual from clowns that think “it isn’t what was done on F-22, therefore it cannot be right”. :rolleyes:
The main educated criticism is regarding the discontinuities the gap brings in terms of RCS and the way the frame perhaps limits visibility.
I have sat in an F-16 cockpit and I know how excellent visibility the bubble canopy can offer.
FalconDudeThank you.
last thing. Who was scratching their heads about this?
FalconDudeWhat would be the point of continuing this, you obviously have your own opinions about this aircraft, and doubt anything will change them even if proved wrong. 🙂
I would more like to hear news about the latest flights , those IFR trials, anything about the bird and the programme itself.
What do you mean? You think I have something against the plane? You couldn’t be more wrong.
To be proven wrong, I would like some views that make more sense than, they know better. That’s all.
FalconDudeWell given that there was a certain issue that had all the aerospace & defence journos (and probably intelligence agencies) the World over engaged in vigorous head-scratching since January 29th 2010- was, in fact, solved right here @ KeyPubs, you may need to reconsider your assessment.
Sorry, what are you referring at ?
FalconDudeI really don’t understand why you bother with the tyre stuff when length, width and depth of the bays are known through our mythical polish friend.
I agree.
4 missiles it is. Done.
I consider this a disadvantage , I know my opinion does’t count for anything but here it is.
Anyone agrees or disagrees I’d like to hear other opinions
FalconDudeSure you didn’t..:rolleyes:
Riight.. look, you can talk the talk and twist your words as much you like, i don’t care. But for you to say the F-16 is an Air superiority fighter and the Pak-fa is not is clear enough for me.. you are clueless.
The little we do know about the Pak-Fa is that its internal fuel volume is better than the Flanker, Sergey Bodgan did not make it clear if he ment the vanila Flanker or the Su-35S.
But eighter way the Pak-Fa will have far better internal fuel storage than the F-22.About the Radar, all we know is that it will be an big @ss AESA array.
This should be enough for now.. this thing is clearly an Air superiority fighter!We do not even know how many a2a missile the Pak-Fa can take internal, beside you that is.. your knowledge of these matter baffles me..
Most members here agree on that on an average mission fighter will most likely come back with missiles still attached.. so much for your gungwhoo 8-12 missiles launch platform tactics..
jesus, some people..
First of all, with every post you become more and more offensive.
Second, and to clear that matter up, NOT all air forces around the world have dedicated air superiority fighters. So if your inventory doesn’t have one, you make due with what you have.
That doesn’t mean that if your neighbour country has Su-30s and you have F-16s you are going to conduct air superiority missions with the same effectiveness he does !!!
and then you jesus me ? ?
I don’t think that is so difficult to understand.
Third, it is not me who said “2 missiles per bay” . It was Flateric who suggested it. I simply accepted and wondered why that was.
Fourth, You keep mentioning that in most cases fighters will come back with weapons load still attached.
Which fighters and when? The only conflicts we know of where modern fighters took part were the Serbia conflict, the two Iraqi wars and the Libya uprising.
You honestly think there were two opposing air forces involved in any of the above conflicts ? Seriously ? Is that the depth of your tactical appreciation of things?
Same thing will happen if China goes up against say Russia ???
You think that in a hypothetical conflict say between China & Taiwan any Taiwanese fighter will come back with ordnance unspent?
It is you who is placing some baffling restrictions to the whole thing and I don’t see why.
FalconDudeNice try dude!
But the issue here was, you claim the Pak-Fa is not an Air Superiority fighter, but the F-16 is..;)
See you don’t get me.
I didn’t say that.
I said that if you don’t have a dedicated air superiority fighter, you make due with what you have. That is miles away from what you say. 😉
Look, instead of arguing about it this way. Let’s look at it another way.
Let’s look at the weapons load/fuel load/Radar capability of the existing air superiority fighters up to this point in relation to the same for front line fighters.
That should be an indication of what designers seem to think.
And the F-22 is actually carrying exactly (well for MRAAMS and SRAAMS ) the same load as the F-15 or the F-14.
So the weapons load was not compromised there ..
FalconDudeAs as said earlier, you turn compcated matter into a small post which turns out totally incorrect..
The F-16 with the DT load-up config, for which it is totally depended on for moving around(mission range) is a Air superiority fighter, but the Pak-Fa(t-50) is not.. LOL!
With your own words here, i rest my case.
So how come the USAF, didn’t replace the F-15 with F-16s ? Cheaper to produce and operate !
FalconDudeDo you really understand what you wrote? Air-superiority allows you to operate over a given area for a given time only. Without that restriction you have reached air-dominance like in the last Iraqi Wars or over Libya f.e. To win the air-superiority you can use every fighter in general. Air superiority means you can exercise air-power (A2G missions) in an area of intrest. (for the ease of understanding I exclude the ground/ship based AD assests) Counter air is used to keep the hostile fighters preoccupied to allow the strikers to go in at a given time. A smart opponent will not engage counter air fighters most of the time because that pose no real threat for the own forces at first. To have a successful counter air-mission you either block the temporary use of some vital airspace for the opponent or open a path for an own strike-force to follow. In the first case you have be lucky to run into an enemy at all and in the second one you will be distracted to allow the engagement of the more important strike force. In Korea/Vietnam/Middle East counter air missions were just a confidence builder at first and changed nothing about the outcome of a war in general. In all that missions you run out of time and fuel before you depleted all your AAMs within the related performance envelope of that. Bekaa 82 was the worst case scenario about and none flight landed back with all AAMs spent.
I understand fully
You keep mentioning the Bekaa valey. the training was not on par between all sides.
We are not disagreeing on the fundamentals. Just the basic interpretation.
To win air superiority you can use any fighter in general, that is true.
Actually, other countries that cannot afford this class of fighters, carry out all air -superiority missions with say the F-16.
But that is out of necessity. Not choice.
You say a smart opponent will not engage counterair fighters because they pose no threat.
One cannot deploy their A2G assets without having a threat-less sky first.
I think I can understand where you are coming from. I think however you are thinking this removed from actual mission objectives.
the point is that both opponents are pretty much aware of where the enemy will strike. Hence defence can be anticipated. Not to mention that in an organized air defence network, one with sufficient depth air defence can be alerted.
Most people think of Iraq or Libya. Not really good examples.
One must consider conflicts between capable adversaries like China/Russia, China/Japan, USA-NATO/Russia etc.
If the conflict is between greatly unmatched opponents, then none of all this matters match. right ?
FalconDudeI’m not sure I follow your reasoning, Peregrinefalcon.
If one of these (staggered) middle launchers of either bay was missing, it would look very similar (imho):http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/f-22-raptor-shows-its-weapons-bay-doors.jpg
He means the rail clearance is double the wall clearance because it needs to accommodate both missiles, while the wall side only one.
FalconDudeThe idea is to kill the force multipliers of the opponent to take the advantage. Mig 31 won’t be able to reach close enough, because it will be detected from too far away and F22s / F15s escorting awacs or tankers will be able to protect them.
On the other hand Pak-FA might very well slip in a position to fire their R37s at those planes and deprive the F22s of their support. Forcing them to reveal themselves (by using radar which could reveal their position), or forcing them to leave because of lack of fuel…
Nic
What, the T-50 was conceived as a means to take out AWACS and Tankers?
Sign In
