Wow! He’s proven to the World he can spell ‘Physics’, unfortunately (for him), that’s as good as it gets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapedani
…I don’t know why this needs to be said 3 times, in 2 days, but the point of the S-duct is NOT to cover the engine face. Radar waves do NOT behave like light waves. If you can’t see it, doesn’t mean radar waves care…

It really only ought to demonstrate to you that you have no idea what I’m talking about. The issue with skin deformation caused by the assembly process and daily wear-and-tear, is that it will reflect radar waves back in unpredictable and uncontrollable manners and directions (similar to the way it does with light waves). (not to mention the possibility of applying any sort of RAM treatment on that thing!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapedani
I’ve never been known to be wrong.

When you get to the 10th grade…you’ll start taking some physics classes. Till then…

——————————

If the Russians will have problems in producing / editing components for the T-50, buy them abroad. View the Iveco LMV, Thales, Mistral, etc..

There are no problems, the same applies for qualified people.
Only business and not ideology or politics (as thirty years ago).

Yes but where are they going to buy F-35s? 😉

Well.. USAF, too, once planned 750 ATFs and ended up with 187 F-22As, in the end. Life is hard, get used to it..

Thank you for the advice. We’ll see how many F-35s they also end up with. But hey, whatever makes it work for you.

By “less risky” I meant more conservative and with less break-through technologies which could eventually endanger the realization of the whole program. I think you knew it, too, but found nothing better to answer than your usual portion of trolling, so please, serve yourself.

I know what you mean, and you know I’m only teasing you.

And you know also that you are wrong. This is an issue of performance. If its too “risky” for you to get to that level of performance, then you won’t get there. But nobody will care in the real world.

Of course it is a cheaper path. Russians cannot afford to spend anywhere near the budget US has reserved for F-22 or F-35. If they want the program to live, they must avoid all costly mistakes LM has done with F-22.

Its a question of performance. It is very cheap and safe to develop a MiG-21 alternative today.

However, it means jack s*** to the real world.

Secondly, you can’t seem to grasp the concept that if you’ve NEVER done anything remotely comparable to what LM has done for 30 years…HOW exactly will you “avoid” their mistakes?? Because you read about their mistakes on Wikipedia?

Good luck.

Some of you people clearly have got very little clue of how things work in the real world.

“Since we’re doing this 20 years later, and we’ve seen the F-22 special from the Discovery Channel…therefore we will be able to come up with something better on our Vodka ration budgets! Yes we will!..and we’ll make a good glossy brochure, making sure to surpass every F-22 parameter on paper, and have Putin fly the prototype a couple of times topless! Da comrade!”

Russians obviously are not even interested in making the rear part very stealthy.

Rear, side, bottom, and most of the frontal aspect too. So what exactly DID they make stealthy?

They have apparently chosen the same approach as LM did with the F-35 – concentrated on low head-on RCS.

The F-35 is primarily a strike aircraft. And a few thousands of them too. And a few thousand support aircraft of all sorts. And air superiority with the F-22.

Somehow 60 T-50s aren’t going to scare anybody in the real world…

That’s irrelevant. The same situation was repeated over and over throughout the whole cold war yet Russians still came up with fairly competitive products in the end. They often used different approach and many designs features reflected specific Soviet circumstances and doctrine but they were mostly fairly successful to cope with the US.

In almost NO situation has this EVER happened. Russians bankrupted themselves silly to try to catch up to the US during the Cold War. It was NEVER the situation when a design firm on a shoe-string budget managed to EVER get a product superior to the US, or in any quantity matching the US, within 10 years after the US. If they did in the few rare cases…it was almost exclusively because the USSR devoted the entirety of its economy on its defense.

IE…the USSR managed to do what it did, because it devoted extraordinary efforts to defense products. FAR more than the US ever did. And it certainly never managed to catch up in the air.

And thats the point. Now you want to think…that a design team that is a shadow of its former self, is going to outperform in every respect LM? Based on what? Wishful thinking? Russia Strong??

Why is it so hard to accept what this project is? Its an export project for the Indians…and for its SCOPE…its a pretty good one too.

But it certainly ISN’T comparable to F-35 or F-22. Its not even intended to be.

BTW, I disagree that exactly LM has the brightest engineers of all.

I’m sure a tear is streaming down the cheek of an LM employee right about now.

As I said before, this is just a stupid Mk1 eyeball analysis, on top of that performed by someone extremely biased towards anything Russian.

All you really have to do is REFUTE my points…Preferably without using hypotheticals of “but Sukhoi engineers would have figured that out already in a different and better way that we just can’t see or imagine!!”

It shouldn’t be so hard…if I’m so wrong.

Of course I remember when I was telling some Jokers in here that this aircraft did not have an S-duct configuration. NOOO!! It did they said. I’m just an idiot to think Sukhoi engineers in their immense capabilities wouldn’t have thought of it. And no the situation is…well thats just because S-ducts are soooo 1990s and Sukhoi has invented a NEW way of reducing radar reflections from the engine; F/A-18E/F style!! 🙂

Looks like Russians see it differently. They have designed and tested the S-duct on S37 Berkut but chose a different solution in the end. Looking at the US designs, it seems that even American designers are not perfectly united in claiming that it must be an S-duct at all cost.

Again…for the 6th time in a row. S-ducts first appeared in 1944 with the P-80 Shooting Star

Strangely however…this was not the world’s first stealth aircraft. Why not? because simply having S-shaped ducts has NOTHING to do with reducing RCS. Because that by itself, doesn’t. Because radar waves will still produce returns that will come out of those ducts.

What does reduce the radar returns on the F-22…is what is INSIDE those ducts.

The Russians never had anything remotely similar in the S-37, certainly never tested ANYTHING that would have impressed anybody in the 1970s…in terms of RAM or RAS…and the reason they didn’t go with that design on the T-50 is simply because they couldn’t have fitted a second weapons bay if they did.

This is what I’m getting at. When you look at these designs…S-37 or T-50 or whatever…NONE exhibit anything remotely comparable to the F-22 or F-35 (or anything earlier than them) in terms of the actual contributors of RCS reduction. Certainly not in terms of actual structural design (T-50 has some edge alignments and internal weapons bays…but thats certainly not sufficient)…certainly not in terms of assembly and materials design…certainly not in terms of the RAM they have tested so far.

All are very far away…still. And they can’t be anything else. This is the first time the Russians are trying to do something similar. Only internet Warriors would assume…that 30 years of technological innovation and improvements…can be ASSUMED away 🙂

Of course the S-37 was hailed as “the best European stealth aircraft in the word!” when it first appeared (actually only 8 months ago in this very forum 🙂 ) It was nothing of the sort.

Oh, it does. It’s about weighing the reflection sources.

Please re-explain in a different way. You can’t expect an idiot like me to understand what you are saying in just one sentence.

That’s BS. A bulge reflects energy in the same way regardless of whether it sits on a normal or faceted aircraft.

Of course not. Of course not…because what it is made of, and whats underneath the skin…makes the difference. When the F-117 was first around (in 1982 mind you!) the state of RAM and RAS was such that faceted design was necessary. It isn’t necessarily the case anymore (or certainly isn’t)

Unlike you, I reserve my opinion about those skin deformations until I see series T-50 examples.

You’re free to do whatever you want. I’m just explaining to you…that the Russians have yet to demonstrate the capability of building anything similar…even in the closest sense. And if they do ever manage to develop such a design…it will take a WEEEE BIT more than 5 years, and a wee bit more than a different paint scheme.

It doesn’t matter what he does in five years. He hasn’t done that yet and you WERE wrong.

I’ve already said that I’ve never been known to be wrong…so nice try. But I win :p

Everything we discuss here is just written in brochures..

The first lesson in life (well maybe the third), is never trust the brochures.

———————–

Kapedani never ceases to amuse with his one-man attempt to take down all of Sukhoi!

Please, more. I enjoyed that thoroughly with my morning beverage.

Thank you. I have a problem though. I turns out, after Sukhoi didn’t manage to create an S-duct in the T-50 (obviously because its such 1990s technology…they wouldn’t lower themselves to THAT level)…they managed to invent something even more amazing.

THE BANANA DUCT! 🙂

Call it banana-duct

Stop making up excuses MadRat! :p

How can a operational Mig-31BM be a prototype..

Last time I checked there were 2 MiG-31BMs “in service”. There aren’t enough R-37 missiles to equip 1 of them, let alone both.

But you know I’m teasing you 😉

The same can be said about Iranian AIM-54s. IRIAF used up the whole stock of 280+ Phoenixes in the war.

Very unlikely. They still seem to be in service, and 280+ were probably never in service to be fired (many were probably cannibalized for parts). According to ACIG they also shot around 60 Iraqi aircraft in the process. Even if this number may be exaggerated, it probably shot a heck of a lot of planes.

It might add up if you don’t conveniently and intentionally miss details about the Eritrean R-27s having been delivered past their service life, sometimes even damaged, and then stored unproperly and left without any maintenance.

There’s a million different excuses for why these missiles missiles seem to fail at the most inappropriate times. And yes storage and handling probably has something to do with it. But that is a direct reflection of the weapon, if it can’t stand up to real-world war scenarios. It ain’t much of a use if its only good for parades and for putting on glossy brochures.

That seems to be a problem with a lot of these Russian missiles…the fact that they are very delicate, and therefore prone to failure.

OK, so what is all that talk about F-22 or F-35 good for, then? They are both without any combat record, AFAIK.

Yes but the PAK-FA…Glorious combat record! Putin himself shot down 362 Nazi-American planes in the first 3 flights alone.

Silly kids.

For a MiG-31 it can also carry 8 long range missiles in fact it can carry more technically is possible, it can carry 4 R-33s and 4 R-77s

No it can’t. There’s a couple of prototypes that can. Very different from a MiG-31 in 1989.

Just having no record for R-33 does not mean that it is neccesarily inferior to the sparrow

I’m certainly not calming that. However, it probably wasn’t designed to handle targets like the F-15 to begin with. The F-15 would probably have good enough situational awareness to know what and when anything was fired at it, and given the ranges involved (and the ECM involved), would have plenty of opportunities to escape.

Funny..
I wouldn’t use words like superb and success for Missiles like AIM-54 and AIM-7…

Having read the book F-15 Engaged, there was quoted several F-15 pilots saying that Aim-7 was more a ‘miss’ile than a ‘hit’ile.
There was many situation where the the first two Aim-7 missed its target, and this was within the Noez..

A 30% kill ratio for the AIM-7 in the Gulf War, is better then any other missile out there can hope to claim (except the AIM-120).

very likely but we cannot assume that all R-33s will miss just because they are not tried in combat.Foxhound has the range advantage and a pretty decent radar, dont you think that ( under most circumstances) the launch of large salvo of missiles ( by a quartet of foxhounds for example) will increase the pK ?

Unless you can catch the F-15s by surprise, you’re probably not going to get any kills that way. Same scenario as with the AIM-54 fired by the USN. At the ranges they were fired, all the Iraqis had to do was turn around.

Now in 2010 the MiG-31 can carry operationally ( because it could carry that same weapons load since the MiG-31M) 6 R-37

There aren’t even 6 R-37s in existence 🙂

—————————————-

The fact that the USA can put an equal/better sensor package (AWG-9) with a better weapon (AIM54) on an aircraft of lower weight (F-14A), achieve in most categories (except max Mach and supersonic range) same or better performance than the MiG-31, start and land this aircraft from a carrier and still achieve service-entry even before the MiG-23M … is just the lead the USA had in terms of technology plus sometimes a good understanding of the right set of requirements (the F-111B/F-14A actually started as requirement-catastrophe). Nobody needs to feel challenged by that, the Soviets achieved a lot given their limited resources and technological limitations.
The MiG-31 flew first in 1975 … when the F-14A was operational.

You are a deranged Russophobe and foaming-at-the-mouth American spy who lost his minds when the PAK-FA first flew. :p

I personally think the F-15’s pilot will immediately eject when he reflects about the Mach 2.35 of the MiG. His wingmen will also eject, the ground crew will commit suicide and the higher command will ask for peace and offer their unmarried daughters in exchange, all due to Mach 2.35.

Ahh! Now you have redeemed yourself!

Once the world got out that Su-27’s Lyulka AL-31F engines used the “Intel-8080” 8-bit micro-processor for its digital engine control, the world relaxed because of COTs circuits had become so readily available. Keep in mind that what is available among commercial products. There are custom circuits ($$$) like the new Raytheon IC that operates at “one terra-hertz”! You know the US Government has very strict limits on who is eligible to purchase such circuits.

What? Didn’t you see that Youtube video? Weren’t you impressed?

I remind you for the 100th time the Russians already have an S-Duct fighter with the requisite RAM for it, its called the Su-47. I also remind you they have experience with F-18 style radar blockers installed on the Yak-130.

You may remind me all you want. It doesn’t change the fact of whether they are as GOOD as what you think they are. (and there’s certainly ZERO evidence the Russians ever managed to develop ANY sort of RAM structures for the ducts of the “Su-47″…other than the Internets 😉

A duck is not a duck is NOT a duck.

You also seem to consistently forget that Boeing’s little X-32 went with the same sort of radar blocker they intend to put on the PAK-FA. So if Sukhoi is incompetent so is Boeing.

Boeing has little experience in this sort of thing, which is why it lost the competition. Pure and simple.

Yep, UAC with its 20 billion dollar order book is totally starving for funds — hilarious. The days of starving Russian design bureaus ended a decade ago. If anything they have more money today than projects to invest in, as you see with Rosnano which is sitting on 9 billion in cash it hasnt found anything to do with.

I’m certain they have money. You just didn’t understand what I said. I said engineers being paid $150 bucks a month aren’t going to be performing miracles without the help of the Orthodox Church.

I don’t think Kapedani follows financial or Pak Fa news (apart from forum gossip) much

Actually I calculated once that Putin’s topless excursions on fighter jets are positively associated with crude oil prices. No joke 🙂

I always claimed that there isn’t any S-duct and that Russians will use some kind of radar blocker (like in the X-32). For some reason almost everybody here wanted PAK-FA to have an S-duct. They wanted it so badly that they called me stupid blind troll. And now? When it’s clear that there isn’t any S-duct everybody say that S-ducts are yesterday’s tech and that radar blockers are the future.

:diablo:

The prototype doesn’t look very stealthy and to make it true VLO fighter Sukhoj needs to solve some issues (like off-axis IRST, FOD ejectors, round engine cowlings on the underside of the aircraft).

BLASPHEMY! You must be a rabbit Rusophobe who lost his mind this January when you saw the pictures of the most awesomest fighter for the next 134 years! You dare say that PRAVDA is wrong in its assessment of this fighter as the ultimate product of Glorious Soviet Socialist Engineering?

I’d like to add that the problems associated with RCS on this prototype go beyond the ones you mention, and that even some that you mention are very very BIG design changes, if they are going to occur (which would in essence mean an entirely new design)…like for example the entire underside of the aircraft and the entire engine arrangement.

No radar blocker is going to fix that.

How come was the X-32 evaluated as more stealthy than X-35, then?

Evaluated by WHOM? TeH Internets? The X-32 wasn’t even remotely completed in design, by the time it was rejected.

Somehow it always happens with US aircraft selections, that the worst plane gets chosen and the best one gets rejected (X-32, YF-23) :p

So far PAK-FA is destined for Russia and India. Which of these two is the mentioned tin-pot dictator?

That doesn’t seriously need to be answered.

It’s a prototype destined to explore flying performance. What did you expect?

Go to primeportal, pick a good X-32 or X-35 walk-around and see how prototypes are/were built. The X-35 even had add-on airframe strenghtening plates applied, who cares today?

And I agree wholeheartedly 🙂 Which is my point. Except that you forget a couple of other points raised here:

1) The DESIGN itself is not very conductive for stealth (thats an issue that is more, skin deep…pun intended)

2) Sukhoi and no Russian agency has EVER demonstrated even REMOTELY the capability of developing the necessary design, construction and assembly techniques, or materials, needed to be comparable to the F-22/35.

3) To do all these supposed changes, will take a very very long time.

They…might…at some point in the future demonstrate this capability. However, unlike most fanboys on here, I don’t think it is beneficial to ASSUME it will be so.

Would love to see the tools and sources for your RCS predictment your are working with..

Simple physics. And simple economics.

But thats far too complicated for this thread (or at least, for present company)

I cannot accept this.

You’ve crushed my arguments.

The whole skin of the aircraft only has ONE shot. I fail to see why exactly the intake must have more.
The whole point of the S-duct is to cover the engine face, not to absorb radar energy more than once.

😀 I don’t know why this needs to be said 3 times, in 2 days, but the point of the S-duct is NOT to cover the engine face. Radar waves do NOT behave like light waves. If you can’t see it, doesn’t mean radar waves care.

The point of the S-duct is to provide enough opportunities to dissipate the radar energy before it leaves out again.

As a simple theoretical concept, they are far more effective in dissipating the energy then any surface that gets a single shot at it.

Yes the aircraft skin itself “gets one shot at it”. But its effect is hardly comparable to an engine face.

It obviously isn’t as both LM designs have lost to their competitiors in terms of overall stealth, despite both having S-ducts.

Yes I suppose you are right :rolleyes:

It’s funny how tiny skin deformations on T-50 bug you a lot but you obviously don’t mind bulges with 10x greater dimensions on the F-35. Which only tells me how incompetent and biased your views are.

It really only ought to demonstrate to you that you have no idea what I’m talking about. The issue with skin deformation caused by the assembly process and daily wear-and-tear, is that it will reflect radar waves back in unpredictable and uncontrollable manners and directions (similar to the way it does with light waves). (not to mention the possibility of applying any sort of RAM treatment on that thing!)

Certainly true. Indians obviously chose to pay for the T-50, they surely know why.

Well we’ll have to wait and see now won’t we.

Venezuela opted for future Su-35S, never foir T-50.

Mehh…give the tin-pot some time.

It certainly is for AIM-120A and AIM-120B. Which is superior to AIM-7 of any kind.

Yes but…will it hit anything? 😉

——————————————————————-

Incredibly, LM has made no effort to capitalise on the confusion.

Incredible! LM engineers haven’t discovered this Forum yet.

Why? because the Russians know (barring the F-22) the T-50 will have no equal in A2A combat and the Indians realise this because they’re privy to far more data on the project than anyone else. The customised T-50-MKI stuffed full of Russian, Indian, Western & Israeli sytems will have their MoD guys bouncing-off the walls with glee.

Be careful not to wet your pants there…

——————————–

May be this tough stance by Mr. Pogosyan explains why no contract is yet signed.

(Nationalistic insult removed by moderator)

Pretty false, BS statement.

It might have a couple things, but it won’t exceed it in everything. Far from it. It’ll come short in a few areas, too.

Did you read that on Wikipedia?

A blocker with multiple s-duct separations need not necessarily rotate with the engine. It can just be like a grill in front of engine. It’s just a blocker.

And perhaps such a blocker could optional and detachable. On missions like first day when stealth was absolutely necessary you could put such a blocker grill to boost stealth at the expense of added drag but for later uses when stealth can take a back seat, the blocker grill could be detached to boost engine performance.

Not defensive just trying to understand.

You COULD. But in reality, you probably can’t. I wasn’t saying it would rotate with the engine (that would be silly), but that it would have some severe implication for air flow in the intake. Which would make it extremely impractical.

Which is why that Youtube animation features a variable geometry blocker. IE…it can only be used under some specific flight regimes. Now thats not a very brilliant solution…to me it sounds like a pretty stupid one.

Plus the intake of the T-50 is pretty standard, including intake ramps…which by themselves have huge implications for stealth…but why ruin all this fun we’re having with BLOCKERS…by pointing out that there’s also the FRONT intake ramps to take into consideration 🙂

So yes you can have a blocker. Some people here, however, simply can’t seem to grasp the concept of differences in effectiveness. To them a duck is a duck is a duck.

Nothing worse than pretending to be a stealth engineer.

Or better yet, knowing more than a substantial number of them!

No. Whats nothing better…is a bunch of slightly euphoric internet fanboys talking about things which they have not the slightest clue about.

One doesn’t need to be a “stealth engineer” (there’s no such thing, I’m afraid to disappoint you) to understand some very basic concepts. One doesn’t have to be a stealth engineer to understand, also, that the T-50 doesn’t exhibit some very basic concepts, and can’t have them in the current configuration.

Now I happened to be an engineer, but that has nothing to do with the subject.

One certainly doesn’t even need to know anything about anything, to know that an aerospace industry which has been sitting idle for 20 years, supported by a scientific community which is an empty shell of a previously slightly less empty shell, making toys for tin-pots of various colors, funded by trickles and spewing nonsense in the world’s most ridiculous newspapers (Pravda and sisters)…cannot be expected and cannot manage to somehow, magically, leapfrog 30 years of aircraft development in the west.

Such is a FANTASY that has existed for a long time in the minds of internet fanboys of various colors. But thats not how the world works.

I’m not saying they can’t because they’re not smart. I’m saying they can’t because they can’t. And they certainly aren’t showing that they can.

What some of the fanboys pissing on here seem to miss…when they keep saying “but we don’t know what the FINAL configuration will look like! It may have warp-speed drive and lighting bolts shooting out of its ar*e!”…is that yes it MIGHT.

But you can’t PLAN technological breakthroughs. And you can’t…assume…them into existence either.

If it were so easy to make it, boy oh boy, Locheed is waisting its money on the tens of thousands of ULTRA-bright engineers it pays exuberant amounts of money to come up with its technologies. Apparently all it needed was a couple of Sukhoi guys making $150 a month who haven’t been doing anything for 20 years.

Whats really amusing, is people who don’t understand how technological innovation happens, and why it happens. It almost NEVER happens because some smart guy sits on a chair and thinks a lot…and puff…it comes.

You think that a company that employees the best of the best (from around the world, mind you…including anyone from Russia who doesn’t want to make $150 a month at Sukhoi), that is constantly investing astronomical sums on R&D, that churns out ideas and products like a mill, that has been building upon building on designs for 30 years, and which is focusing on delivering 3,000+ airplanes to the toughest and most demanding customers in the world, and operating under the great machine of innovation, the market (well as much as there is when dealing with government contracts)…will be beaten by a company that has been practically sitting idle for 20 years and which gets a phone call from the Generalissimo ordering them to make 50 planes for him by the next May 5th Parade?

Yeah…in fantasy land (ie the internets). People who don’t understand the above, don’t understand why the Traband was such a terrific piece of c***

Fortunately there’s the Indians to make this project somewhat have a future.

Yeah, I wonder what his take on the new (B-2 inspired) chinese cruise missile will be? Since he detests innovation so much.

You don’t understand what the word innovation means, and how one goes about doing it. You think innovation can be…assumed…to exist 🙂

Whats the point of your article Otaku? That the Chinese can steal technology? Of course they can…they’re smart. They’re smart enough to know that they aren’t going to catch up technologically by developing things themselves. They’re going to buy them or steal them…and learn from them.

Here’s AW&ST 19/07/10, The PAK-FA article posted by Austin is on pgs.82-84. Interesting points: re-iteration of S-duct with blocker, 4 R-77s per w/bay and if you max zoom on the intake- it’s very, very dark

Well, there’s still dimwits in the world. They’re called journalists. Good thing there’s something to keep them occupied. (BTW, you STILL think there’s an S-duck in there?) lol

I remember the journalists from that publication, 13 years ago, explaining what a terrific stealth next-generation aircraft the S-37 and MiG 1-42 were.

The only thing valuable in there was the RuAF predictions for its future. Shocking…~100 Su-35s and about 50-100 T-50s…starting by 2016. Shocking is the only word to describe it.

And its equaly foolish to assume the first (of four IIRC) prototype of the T-50 is some how representative for the thing that eventually will be put in production.

And I agree 🙂 However, if the timetables of this thing are 2016, the answer is no. If by 2025, then perhaps yes.

However, most here just seem to miss the POINT of this prototype. The POINT is as a technology demonstrator, to entice the Indians into investing in it. The RuAF will buy regardless of what it is. They don’t have a choice. But Sukhoi isn’t doing this for the RuAF (otherwise it would have gone broke 20 years ago)

I’m not saying Sukhoi is doing anything stupid here. They’re doing a very smart move. Get a flying tech-demonstrator flying…fast…and cheap…before time slips by. Get an investor locked in, and spend the next 20 years developing a product tailored for them. Good move. It just ain’t want the fanboys in here think it is. And obviously given the SCOPE of this project, it ain’t anything comparable to the F-22 or the F-35 (and if it ever will be, is decades away from maturity to that level)

And we can assume the’ll shape up on the assambly part to create a more “smooth” skin for the when all other things have been solved.

It really has nothing to do with the “smoothness” of the skin, of course. The point of the skin is to “absorb” (or rather not re-emit) radar energy through the design of the skin itself and the structures behind the skin. The point is to minimize returns from seams and bolts by either designing the seams themselves to minimize returns (where these seams are in frequent-access panels), or to actually provide enough space between the seams to fill them in with special RAM substances (think of it as a gasket to keep water out). And of course the types of coating and paint that goes over all of that is a whole other issue.

The IDEA isn’t so complicated. How to do it, and doing it; are. Sukhoi certainly hasn’t demonstrated any capability in doing this…ever. And it isn’t a simple matter of just making some panels saw-toothed, or covering them with RAM.

And I’m sure the Russians, given time and money, can develop the same design and assembly technology the US is using. The problem is, it will take a long time and a lot of money…and they certainly haven’t demonstrated ANYWHERE an ability to build it.

Now…we can ASSUME it to exist in the future 🙂

And about the S-duct.. Didnt the MiG-1.44 and S-37 sport that design? If so, the Ruskies cant be totally unaware of its pros and cons. We’ll just have to wait and see why they didnt choose this feature for T-50 Prototype 1.

The P-80 Shooting Star from 1944 had an S-duct design. The point here isn’t the duct itself. The point is in developing the RAM structures to go in it, that will “absorb” the radar energy through multiple bounces. A simple s-duct with no such structures is not more effective then a simple straight duct…because radar energy doesn’t behave like light waves.

The difference between an S-duct optimized for stealth, and a radar blocker in a straight duct…is that one can get multiple passes at diluting the radar energy, while the other only gets one shot. Now one doesn’t need to be a nuclear physicist to know…that this MAY mean that the second method won’t be as effective as the first.

So the Russians may have experimented with such a design on the S-37, but they most likely don’t have the technology to make it successful. And the design itself limits their ability to fit weapons into an aircraft (without increasing its complexity and cost). So the obvious solution, if you want to put weapons on it, and if you want to make it fast and cheap, is the design we see. And then put radar blockers on the thing (and claim on Pravda that it is the greatest thing since slicked provolone cheese).

The issue is…how effective is it? Sure…we can ASSUME it to be super-awesome. But there’s that concept again: “assume”

He has good points and forces us to analyze things harder

Thank you. But thats the point of any thread here, isn’t it? (one would think)

Of course it is. The problem is that you got no clue how it works, despite pretending so. No one here would recognize a good blocker design from a bad one even if he was standing in front of them. ANd that includes you, as well.

Certainly true. What is not true however, is that no one can tell whether an S-duct design is better than a radar blocker 🙂

No one, except for EVERYONE on this thread of course 🙂

Russians obviously don’t think that T-50 needs a substabntial new design.

Good for them. When you’r target market is a tin-pot dictator, it really doesn’t HAVE to be better.

1. Exactly how that Su-27 style construction affects RCS?

I’ve already explained this before, but of course its been kind of drowned out by the non-concentric circle drawings of certain individuals 🙂

When one looks at close-ups of the T-50 one notices that the type of construction and the way the skin panels are put together, does not lend itself to the sort of construction techniques and tolerances needed for RAM application…at least of the type seen on the F-22 or F-35.

What you see is pretty standard assembly, with pretty standard skin deformation etc (which is not good for RCS at all). On the F-22/35 for example, you see some extreme tolerances in dimensions of the skin panels, and in precisely providing spaces for applying RAM coatings between seams. And where you have frequent access panels, you see a specific different kind of design for RCS reduction in the seams.

You can’t get this level of RCS reduction from standard construction methods, which we see on the T-50. And designing this in, isn’t a simple matter.

The devil lies in the details…

What you can do on the T-50 is put RAM paint and covering over it, sure. You’ll get the same sort of thing as Rafale. You won’t get the same effect as F-22/35 however.

F-35, too, has round engine nacelle..

From the rear, yes. It doesn’t have Su-27 style nacelles on the sides…which are pretty horrendous for RCS reduction.

3. Straight engine duct is not a problem. Compressor face is. If you find a way to cover compressor face using a different method than S-duct, then you are free to keep it straight.

I already explained to you why this is not so 🙂

Its a matter of how many times you bounce the radar energy around. How many times you get to absorb that energy. In a straight duct, you get ONE shot.

This is why an S-duct with RAM structures is NOT…NOT…the same thing in effectiveness as a radar blocker (ie, it is much more effective)

I personally see quite a few of them even on the F-35 – numerous bulges on the underside, large fins, cylindrical engine nacelle, circular engine nozzle..

There’s nothing to say whether “bulges” of this or that kind is a “bad” thing for RCS reduction. At least we can’t tell.

But we can tell if you have skin deformations and things like Su-27 style intakes and nacelles.

This has still very little to do with technical aspects. Russians are world class in SAM but I still don’t see all countries fielding Russian SAM systems just because they are good. Buying weapons is not about opening few catalogues and just comparing numbers.

You shouldn’t take all jokes so seriously 😉

Of course, at will. You can stuff the thing with Israeli avionics if you don’t like Russian (and can afford it). But you cannot replace F-35’s airframe by an Israeli one.

Once more…a liberal use of the word “can” 🙂

I have no doubt the Russians CAN have 60 of them at some point in time. I just thought it was…cute.

I don’t understand that statement…

You ought to read Otaku and some other colorful characters here, to understand.

Funny but from your post I have concluded that Russians had no know-how to offer.. Exactly what are the Indians buying, then?

As with everything else in this world, you buy what you pay for 🙂

I have no doubts French would sell Rafale to Algeria..

You might have no doubts…

Secondly, wasn’t Algeria the one that returned the MiG-29SMTs back to Russia due to shoddy workmanship?

fail to see connection with our topic

You do?

There were not dozens of other cases as there are very few countries that keep political neutrality. Just because RAC offered Su-30MK to Singapore or South Korea it doesn’t mean they had slightest chance to actually win. South Korea would never buy anything Russian, even if RAC offered a space fighter.

Which is precisely why this T-50 isn’t aimed at competing against the F-35. Its aimed for India and for tin-pots in Venezuela.

And thats the point. And if thats your aim, then slapping together a design like this for “a third of the price”, is precisely what you ought to do.

Better is relative. Many countries (Egypt, Chile, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan…) have fielded US designs with severe restrictions, like unavailability of AMRAAMs, despite French had MICA and Russians had R-77 on offer. Political strings often won’t let you choose freely..

Thats only if you think something like the R-77 is a substitute for the AMRAAM :rolleyes:

——————

i saw this, looks plausible, then again i saw it said its a foreign object diverter,

Its exactly what your eyes see. Don’t let Otaku with his circles fool you 🙂

Nooooooooooooo. Again the US-fan boy contaminating the threads with endless “arguments” about how enormous the PAK-FA RCS is! That’s getting really boring!

Its just getting to be fun

Kapedani isn’t saying anything he hasn’t already said before

I certainly aren’t. You didn’t listen to me the last time either…and went on to figure out just HOW the brilliant Sukhoi engineers managed to get an S-duct in that plane 🙂

Did you ever figure it out?

Oh yeah never-mind…that doesn’t matter. I heard they were going to use a radar blocker they stole from Youtube 🙂

The photoshopped image below, is the one kapedani tried to pass-off as the real-deal (of the above right).

Now I know that you are by FAR not the sharpest kid in your class…but I worry about your memory too. Thats never a good sign.

As I’ve said many times before (obviously to no avail because to the typical fanatic, nothing ever gets through and they keep drawing circles on pictures)…that that picture comes NOT from me but from SECRET PROJECT’S FORUM…and its PURPOSE is to superimpose a picture of the real engine face, to show that what you see is IDENTICAL to the actual picture of the T-50.

Now I know this is far too complicated for you to understand. At the very least, you don’t have any more circles to draw 🙂

Of course you also can’t understand…dimensions…and to understand WHERE on the aircraft the object you are looking at is (I already showed to you, it is exactly where the engine starts, and therefore cannot be anything other than the engine face (as if that NEEDED explanation).

Anyway, carry on boys. Carry on.

Why would UAE be interested in having its outlet of oil blocked for some time? Why would it be interested in ruining the perfectly profitable business of black-market blockade-busting with Iran? Why would it want to stir any problems with its won Shiite population? Or why would it want to make its gleaming skyscrapers targets for Iranian ballistic missiles? Its economy depends on stability.

In my opinion, they have nothing to gain, and very little chance of success.

Israel on the other hand, in my opinion, has little change of succeeding in achieving any measurable goal, and has a high chance of stirring up more trouble than it will be able to handle. Of course few people seem to be concerned that an attack on Iran will only serve to reinforce the regime in Iran and legitimize it even in the eyes of those Iranians who oppose it. Nothing makes people forget political grievances more quickly then an attack from another country. After all, Ahmedinejad may be a *******, but he then becomes their *******.

In my opinion, the best placed country to do anything militarily against Iran is Saudi Arabia. Israel might be involved behind the scenes here, but the Saudis could carry this out, and not even blink. And the Arab would won’t be antagonized; after all it will be a strike to prevent Shiite spread in the land of Sunni. These are already ideologies and countries opposed to each other. What could strengthen the Saudi regime more, and get the Arabs to support a strike on Iran more, then if the Saudis did it on what might be somewhat “legitimate” grounds (Iran trying to actively export Shiite militancy in the Arab world: Yemen, Lebanon etc). And given their air forces, they might be able to do this.

The only problem to this scenario, might be Iraq and where the allegiances of the Shiite majority there lye.

PS: Now the real question is, why would a strike on Iran benefit anybody? What do you figure the price of oil will jump to of Iran, Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc are all in a war zone? Why would the US want such a scenario? In my opinion, if you must carry out a war, you do so when you can afford it.