‘Russian Stealth’ may gain market supremacy in ten years’ time
13.02.2010, 12.39
By Itar-Tass World Service writer Lyudmila Alexandrova
…..
The plane’s shape makes it invisible in the optical, infra-red and traditional radar wave bands. …..
Classic
Great pic! 😉
Someone speaking about the fully detailed color 5 view reconstruction? Soon! 😉
awesome illustration
My guess at FGFA in light of T-50 layout. Basically just added a second seat slightly stepped to allow commonality with trainer version, and a deeper belly pan to allow carriage of KS-172 AAM.
More on my blog in a few weeks. http://planeman-bluffersguide.blogspot.com/
ok, so what I’m really asking….
From an airframe configuration perspective (assuming equal pilot training, equivalent avionics etc), which is likely to be better WVR and why:
a) F-22
b) Eurofighter Typhoon
c) PAK-FA
?
so, is it safe to say that whilst many people believe agility and maneuverability to be separate attributes, there is no agreement on what either attribute really means?
I chose the F-22 in my hypothetical scenario because of the TWR and 2-d TVC. Imagine that there was a version of the F-22 with 3-D TVC and the engines further apart. All other things being equal, which would have the natural advantage in WVR combat?
Hi,
Thanks. Sorry for my ignorance but I don’t understand your answer. Please explain (seriously).
There are some fantastic 3-Views coming out now, hats off to Paralay and whoever did the French one. Great stuff!
Re the IFR probe in my illustration, it is retractable but shown extended. The two doors on the probe makes me think they hinge up-down rather than being attached to the back of the probe, which is why you cannot see the doors in my illustration. Just a guess though.
Kapedani, thanks for the constructive criticism. I disagree for what it’s worth. I think that the photos clearly indicate that the landing gear retracts into the side of the intake area not upwards into the wing root. The S-bend in my sketch is intended to show as both upwards and laterally, and yes I think it does impede on the weapons bay somewhat.
The cross-section you show is great, but like I said not confident on the wheel arrangement. Also think the three-missiles per door is optimistic. Two missiles (total 8) is adequate. With the arrangement you show the upper missiles have to go rather close to the launch rail of the lower missile when the door is open.
My guess at general internal layout. I kept the T-50 canopy on purpose.
a couple of questions…
a) The L-band radars. Where would they be housed and how big would they be
b) the yellow bits; composites …. grey bits; metal?
c) where are the SRAAMs housed?
Hi
I rejoined this forum (old account stopped working a couple of years ago) because this is where the most experts hang out.
I have a blog where I post military analysis – mostly illustration based. I’m looking for a more knowledgeable person to co-author an objective and unbiased analysis of Pak-FA with me doing the illustrations/graphical analysis etc. Here is a sketch from a few days ago – there are several features which I’ll correct in my next attempt.
If you are interested, please PM me or contact me on MilitaryPhotos.com (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?34865-planeman) or my blog.
Serious approaches only please. my blog is here http://planeman-bluffersguide.blogspot.com/