At least Paralay and I seem to be on the same page 😉 His pictures so far have been very accurate to the observable reality…Very reasonable and realistic…good job.

On the other hand, I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned that this aircraft will most likely have plasma stealth :p

so if I understand you correctly, when you see the “unfinished paint” pic of the F-22 with lines and rivets apparent, it’s doesn’t ring the bell that the irregularities on the T-50 bare metal skin will be greatly reduced or even nonexistent once the coating (RAM + paint) is applied? I don’t say the T-50 will be “invisible”, but I do say, maybe we shoudl all wait to see the final result before making such “final judgement” about plane’s RCS levels, no?

Nop. Not the same. As I said on the F-22 you only see the panel seams in the frequent access panels…not in every panel. The frequent access panels are themselves edge aligned and the space is intentional because there is RAM sealants in there. But to get the same level of finish as the F-22 or F-35…you just can’t do that with the same level of technology as is being used in assembling the T-50. Riveted panels CAN be covered with RAM paint or other coatings…but you don’t get the same result as with the F-22 F-35. What you get is something similar to Rafale.

The result is several orders of magnitude less effective.

Thank you for defacto acknowledging that the picture you posted in the first place and to which you based your arguments was actually… a fake, eventhough understandably you lack the b….. to admit it. Did you know that beforehand or were you fooled too, I wonder, not that it really matters.

So, “which one is worse”? Kapedani being wrong and/or ignorant, or Kapedani being a liar? The second is something new for that matter. Moreover, if Kapedani has no problem to base his arguments on lies and/or false evidence once, what assurance there is that he won’t do it twice?

This is were the ignore list comes in handy.

:rolleyes: If you look at the original…you see the SAME thing. Go on…

That discussion is getting hotter and hotter. I can’t understand why Kapedani, who scored a goal a la Maradona proving that T-50 doesn’t use S-ducts used to fake a picture to support his further arguments. That sinks the credibility he rightfully won a few pages before.

It’s not my picture obviously :rolleyes: As I said I found it around the net…nothing more.

But it is totally irrelevant…as was pointed out before. If you look at the original picture, you see the same thing. There’s no doubt we are looking at the engine face there.

And I already explained why that is the case…what we are seeing is behind the intake deformation to accommodate the landing gear. The landing gear is situated right before the engine starts…ie…thats the engine.

————–

Kapedani, your repeated immaturity and arrogance would by itself dissuade most people from paying you any mind, regardless of the merits of your posts. If you respect yourself, or aim towards that goal, I’d advise participating in a more humble fashion so the valid merits of your perspective can be heard. The point of this forum is communication and sharing of information, not ‘winning’ or ‘proving your superiority’. It seems like you have the capacity to constructively contribute here, but your attitude seems a barrier to realizing that. What is the point of all your argumentative posts? Had you left it at “Well, this is how I see it, we’ll find out when there’s more info”, your original point about the space requirements of F-22-style S-Ducts would have been just as validated, only difference being the tone of discussion in the mean time.

Oh no don’t get me wrong…I agree 100% with you!!

The problem comes that in this forum you have to deals with characters like Otaku and lots of other fanboys who RESPOND is rather ridiculous, insulting and childish manner to any sort of reasonable observations here.

And that…unfortunately…leads to more silly responses. I take full responsibility for falling in their trap. You know how the saying goes…don’t fall to their levels.

I do appolagise to you and any others who are interested in a reasonable discussion. Unfortunately that is hard to do when people respond to observations with “why are you getting so frustrated? Russians know best!” 🙁

—————————–

Looks awfully similar to what we see in the PAK-FA duct. . . ‘

Is it a fan? Is it a compressor? No, it’s a blocker!

Its certainly not a blocker.

But here’s more. Even if it IS…something similar to the one you posted (is that the Super Hornet’s blocker)?…it doesn’t change anything. We’re still looking at the position where the engine starts.

And what people continuously fail to realize is that…the difference between the s-duct and the RAM structures inside the F-22’s intake etc…compared to radar blockers of any sort…is several orders of magnitude in difference in RCS efficiency. Yes its much better than not having it…but it doesn’t get you close to the VLO characteristics of the F-22.

So when people say “well they’ll put a radar blocker on there and solve the problem!” Well yes. They’ll make it a lot better…but its in the ballpark of the eurofighters…not the F-22.

I think earlier somebody asked why/how a radar blocker/ air-stream management device would ‘rotate’:
As I see it the rotation is related to ‘cranking’ the tightness of a virtual cone the radial elements are focused around, i.e. reducing cross-sectional area for air flow at high speeds and ‘opening up’ at low speeds… Like one end the device is a flower opening/closing. In other words, specificlly related more to the air-stream management aspect than blocking radar ‘line of sight’, though it does both jobs simultaneously. I expect it may be within the realm of possiblity for this very directional air-stream management to reduce the amount of space needed in front of the compressor face.

Anyhow, this school-yard bickering is a drag, bring on more juicy leaks!

Yes. Except that there’s a problem here with all this. Given different flight envelopes and different airflow requirements in the engine…you’ll need different settings on that screw blocker. And each time you change it you get a different RCS efficiency.

Not to mention the added weight.

Not to mention that RAM coverings and blockers will not get you the same result as the s-duct and RAM structures of the F-22.

So this is a good solution…given the nature of this aircraft…but far from the best available solution.

——————————————

Your first photo comparison between the F-35, YF-22 and T-50 was an apples to oranges one because you were comparing a huge picture showing a grazing angle of the entire nose section in relatively glossy paint (T-50) with small detail images shot normal to very matt surfaces. In fact, all indications are that the surface finish of the T-50, even in its present condition, is far superior to any previous Russian fighter and not discernable from Western competitors with the imagery we have at our disposal so far.

Absolutely not. What you see in that close up picture has nothing to do with flash or glossy paint or anything of the sort.

It has to do with riveting, skin deformation, and the same level of assembly as found on the Su-27 and before that.

What you see on the F-22 F-35 is an entirely different assembly technology…regardless of what angle or flash or paint you are looking at it from.

Now you’re comparing apples to turnips by contrasting a RAM-treated F-35 to the T-50, which at this point has no signature reduction applied at all, beyond the surface finish and its outer shape. Or do you seriously expect Sukhoi to put it into production in its current state, with careful edge alignment, internal bays, faceted fuselage and intakes but no RAM, inlet blocker or canopy coating? I’d say T-50-1 is simply intended for basic test flying rather than RCS measurements, at least for the time being.

No. If you read what I said…I said that clearly this is just a prototype and we can’t expect as much.

That being said…the Russians have yet to demonstrate the ability…anywhere…to manufacture to the same level as what we see on the F-22/35.

What I said is…if this is what they can do and KEEP doing…the result will not be comparable.

Now its a bit of a cop-out to say “well you don’t know the Russians won’t!” No I don’t…I do know what we have seen so far…and what we have seen so far doesn’t indicate they can.

If indeed that is the case that they will TRY to do something similar…this means that the design changes needed (under the skin and on the skin), are changes that will take many many years to perfect to the same level as F-22/35…assuming of course that they can afford it and can actually do it. Changing from riveting skin panels to the same technology as seen on the 22/35 isn’t a simple skin-deep change.

And I don’t see any edge alignment on any panels here…or any attempt to make them flush…or any attempt to prevent skin deformation etc etc.

Its simply conventional construction.

————————-

Also, I still believe ~90% of the comp.face is hidden anyways, the ducts may not bend as aggressively as the YF-23’s- but the principle is the same. They’re using multiple solutions.

No its not the same principle.

how effectively RAM could be applied to it’s elements etc. Certainly an engineering challenge, but clearly the T-50 was designed with such a system in mind- it wasn’t an afterthought, especially given the considerable efforts gone into frontal aspect shaping.

I’d say there’s pretty unimpressive frontal shaping here. The devil is in the details..and the more details we get the less impressive it gets.

And simply putting a RAM coating on a radar blocker…regardless of whether it covers the engine face entirely or not…will not result in the same efficiency as the F-22’s intake. It will be several orders of magnitude less. The F-22 bounces the radar waves in there several times across RAM structures…which aren’t simple RAM covering.

Here…we still have a straight line of sight view…ie you get one bounce. And RAM covering ain’t gonna cut it if you want to get to the F-22 levels.

—————————

Again…not right at all. Simply looking at the position of the landing gear in relation to the ‘structure” we are seeing here…will tell you its behind the landing gear.

But the real way to tell…is that you see it is AFTER that “bulge” in the intake wall where the landing gear needs room to retract. So its clear…behind it. But you need to know that the landing gear is situated very very close to the engine start….to go the extra step 😉

————————————

Notice the black blades in the Flanker’s inlet – those are Inlet Guide Vanes, if you now look at the T-50’s inlet this “radar blocker” has exactly the same shape as AL-31F’s IGVs. Weird Notice also, the dashed circle in AL-31F and in PAK’s inlet – again it must be coincidence If you look carefully then the fan blades in AL-31 become clearly visible but I think they are even more visible in T-50 picture ( between ladder and third guide vane from right). There is also something like a wire which is going through every blade of 1 stage fan in AL-31F and this is visible Flanker picture and (I think) in T-50 picture.

This is an engine you’re looking at

Its so plainly obvious too…

——————————-

That picture of the T-50 intake still doesnt gell with me.
We know that Kapendi’s picture was photoshopped.

It wasn’t my picture…but irrelevant.

Look at the “depth” of the intake of the T-50 compared to the Su-27 intake.
You can see its a nice looong tunnel. Yet the T-50 picture shows no such depth and appears to be just one meter from the leading edge of the intake in terms of scale.

Yet we all know how long the intake is!

You are looking at different angles there. Secondly…this is after the intake bulge to accommodate the landing gear. Try and fit that “1 m” into the intake 😉

I think T-50 will define new ways in air combat, such as dogfight in the supersonic region. If the aircraft can stay in supersonic region, it is hard for any missile to get a hit on it.

Really!

The nose section, the underside of the forward fuselage, the strakes, the movable leading edges, and the inlets all play together finely tuned. I think aerodynamically quite similar to the F-23. Not having a flat belly, but having those low-hanger intakes should offer some advantages in asymetric airflow conditions. It should also give more freedom for area ruling fine tuning

Yes and it also makes a mish-mash for stealth. The underside, the engine nacelles, the movable leading edge, the visible engine face…not conductive to stealth.

Isn’t it fair to say that a prototype would have many inspection panels for easy systems access?

Isn’t it fair to say it is wise to concentrate on the task at hand, like we see with the T-50-01?

Isn’t it fair to say the Pak-Fa program are limited in funding compaired to the F-22 & F-35 program, and thus the RCS optimizing will come with later prototypes as the initially prototypes test stages are worked out?

its fair to say the prototype wouldn’t be as fine tuned as the final version.

Its also fair to say that IF THIS level of construction and assembly technology is the best the Russians can do, its way off.

Its also fair to say the Russians have YET to demonstrate the ability to produce anything comparable.

Its also fair to say that if this is the case…the final version of a T-50 is somewhere around 10-15 years away.

Which just means the heads are sunk.

Not quite as bad as protruding – but not as desireable as flush either.

BTW – there is definitely more than 1 light source in that picture, but I accept the vast majority is right to left.

There is no indication that the particular panels we are seeing have been treated with RAM or not.

But that wasn’t the point of the picture. The point was to show the difference in the assembly. Those gaps are intentional…that is where the RAM sealants go. If those are not daily-access panels than the sealants and the RAM covering will make them disappear mostly. If they are daily access panels, like the two big ones you can see on the front fuselage of the F-22…then the gaps are also intentional and there is a different kind of sealant in there to allow for panel movement.

But the point is, the T-50 doesn’t exhibit anything close. Its the same level of construction as has been used for decades. Its not comparable at all to this level of technology. One very simple result of the way its assembled is that you will have skin deformation and even what appears like a flat piece of panel will not appear so to a radar. It doesn’t leave room for any sealants between those panels…

And this looking simply at the outer skin without knowing what sort of structures there are underneath.

Now yes this could be a prototype and not have all these features. But WHERE have the Russians shown the ability to produce in such a technique?? And if indeed the case…it means the final assembly design…if it is going to be anything like the F-22 or F-35…is somewhere many many many years down the road at best (and of course it would mean the cost of the aircraft would be a lot higher).

The materials are not changing, avionics are not changing, missiles either ready or on their independent schedule. Why should a rear re-design take 20 years? Unless you believe CFD and cad/cam take 20 years.

The result is an entirely new aircraft. Moving the engines or changing the shape of the nacelles and intakes would require the movement of the rear weapons bay…at the very least…to allow for that movement. It would also require the movement of the rear part of the spine of the aircraft and any potential fuel tanks that may be in there. It would change the aerodynamics very considerably. Can it be done? Yes…but thats another aircraft.

I don’t think many of you understand the implications of the pictures posted :rolleyes: Not surprising for people who think the T-50 remotely compares with anything 5-th generation.

First of all, its two different ways of taking picture.

T-50 was taken WITH FLASH and UNDER ANGLE, which causes surface to look highly contrasty and to show any difference in reflection.

Other two pics are taken from top, or 90deg with natural light, so of coarse it looks nice and smooth.

Its a cheap shot at manufacturing work you are trying to pull.

Try taking a photo of surface of your dining table with natural light and straight from the top, and than do the same from the sharp side angle, and with flash. You’ll get same effect.

cheers
Absolutely true, manufacturing quality on the T-50 is unequivocally very impressive indeed. The lighting conditions in that photo are the worst case scenario as far as seeing surface imperfections is concerned.

Absolutely untrue…

And that is not what I was comparing or talking about. On the F-35 or F-22 you will note that the panels are milled to precision…allowing for no protruding screw heads…and allowing for the gaps needed to apply RAM into those crevasses.

THIS is what I was comparing to.

The T-50 skin is clearly the same old technology of assembly as all previous Russian fighters…rivets…The result is skin deformation, protruding panels, protruding screw and rivet heads, and no room for applying RAM to cover all those things.

You understand now the significance of this???

What are you going to say?
You want to compare rivets?

F-35 doesn’t have rivets 😉 If thats what you mean. The difference was explained above…

I’d say that is exactly what Russians tried to avoid. To make a construction that is unfeasibly complex, almost irreproduceable en masse in Russian conditions and almost unaffordable in any meaningful numbers.

Good for them…ie they couldn’t do it anywhere near the same level as the 5-th generation fighters (or even a freaking Grippen for that matter). In a combat situation…I doubt anybody will give a damn if the T-50 ends up cheaper because of it…it’ll only make it that much easier to detect 😉

Yes looking at this picture you see the exact same construction technique as the T-50…ie…lots and lots of rivets and protruding screw heads…skin deformation etc etc.

This is not…comparable…to a 5-th generation aircraft. And its not because it doesn’t allow for room for the necessary RAM coverings and certainly not the same RCS reduction.

Now this T-50 are the first one flying, so why on earth should it have ANY skin primer/RAM coating?
It is a Flight control system, aerodynamic and engine that is important.

This has been up many times before.. ant yet another cheapshot by the ultra Biased Capedani which comes as no surprise, but nevertheless is annoying as hell.

I don’t see how reality could possibly be annoying…unless one doesn’t live in it.

Yes this is a prototype. Every prototype of every stealth fighter I have ever seen has had the features build in…because thats not an added feature to be added later…its a very very integral part of the design from the very start.

I’m not talking about RAM covering…I’m talking about what I said above 😉 The Russians have YET to demonstrate ANYWHERE that they have the technical skill or knowhow or ability or money to develop milled panels or the RAM covering techniques to go with them…

Now I’ll spare you the time and give you the answer you will be giving me shortly…”how dare you question the genius of Russian designers! They obviously know something we don’t! They obviously can and will make it in the next prototype!!”

Great…when pigs fly…

Ge here: an interesting read.

http://www.compositesworld.com/artic…e-f-35-fighter
__________________

It might be over some people’s heads as to why there is a difference between that form of assembly…and simply riveting sheet metal together 😉

Or the implications in the actual design of the aircraft. Apparently from what I hear its “just some more CAD” 😉

I don’t quite know what you are trying to show here… but the panel gaps in the first photo are horrendous, as are the protruding rivet heads. The second photo looks good, but you’ll notice that the design was specifically goaled to avoid having close fitting panels. For the third, yes, a few gaps here and there, as would be expected on a prototype, but good flushness of the countersunk rivet heads and overall mostly tight fitting panels.

From an aerodynamic perspective, 3 is the best, then 2, then 1.

Radar… unknown… but that’ll be as much about materials.

One thing I do notice, in picture 3, all of the panel corners have distinct fillets. I am under the impression this would not be good for RCS… but then again, this is a prototype.

First of all its a hugely different technology of production and assembly you are looking at.

And that is what makes a LOT of the difference between cheap target…and 5-th generation plane.

Those gaps in the panels you see (and there are no protruding heads…its the opposite of that ;))…are what is covered later on in the RAM material to precisely eliminate any returns from such places.

Now you will see that this would be an impossible task on an aircraft build with rivets and sheet metal…like the T-50.

It’s clear PAK-FA’s designers’ efforts are 3 fold:

(1) Inlet radar blocker; (2) curved duct (both lateral & vertical); (3) Toed-in engines.

Jesus H Christ this is funny how some people are just impervious to reality…

Now the really important question of this whole saga is…was I right or was I right? 🙂

Am I the only one who finds this controversy uber-tedious? Why is this even a controversy? You’ve got people on both sides assuming (unless they say otherwise, and kudos to them) that shielding the compressor face F-22A style is the only viable stealth solution (leaving aside that there’s an entire airframe facing to consider) and chortling one way or the other based on total ignorance.

There is a…very high propability…that the F-22 approach to shielding is a far more effective approach than the radar-blocker approach of Eurofighters, Super Hornet and now T-50.

Indeed the chief designer did say the RCS of PAK-FA will be no worse than F-22

What was he supposed to say? 😉

Unless one is aware of the Engineering Solution and the kind of integrated approach adopted by PAK-FA for over all stealth/RCS reduction , one can do no better job than speculate on its RCS as most are doing out here.
Stealth is the least of the problem here , the need to make sure this baby flies for atleast 2000 flight without any major issue and meets its flight test paramater.

RCS reduction measures on actual aircraft will happen in later stage ,they must have valided its RCS on design models and other RCS measuring software by the data generated by the test.

Stealth isn’t the “least of the problems here”. Its the only major selling point of this aircraft.

RCS reduction on a design that will require a very very major overhaul if it is to become competitive…isn’t a simple matter to be done somewhere down the line.

If the designer knows what his design team has achieved , then there is nothing much left to say unless one just wants to belittle their achievement and speculate.

With all due respect this continued argument of “Russian designers aren’t stupid so how dare you question their choices! Obviously they did them knowing something no one else in the world knows!”…is frankly rather silly.

Its not a question of whether the Russian designers know this or not. Of course they do. Its a question of resources, time, and ability…and clearly Sukhoi here went with an “economy class” approach in order to rush this thing through before the Indians get tired and decide to go for something else. There’s trade-offs to be made…and the Russians made the usual trade-off. Nothing wrong with this…but please don’t pretned like it isn’t blatently obvious.

The same area on YF-23. The concepts look pretty similar.

Not in the slightest.

Approximate rendition of radar blocker (in blue) vis-a-vis compressor face (in red):

Way way off. Looking at the picture where the radar blocker is visible, it is visible at a MUCH higher position than drawn on that picture (on purpose to make it seem as if there is some sort of big S-duct…where none is there.

Secondly, it is clear the radar blocker is positioned pretty deep into the intake, past the main undercarriage bay and then some…

…ie it is pretty close to the actual engine. It has to be, since the undercarriage itself begins not too far from where the engine is, and we can clearly see here that the radar blocker is past the undercarriage by some distance.

———-

Those of us who kept telling you that this was the case, are now vindicated quite nicely.

The T-50 makes even less of an effort at masking its engines than the Super Hornet.

There actually have been proposed configuration, you just fail to accept them. It’s all right, it’s not compulsory to agree, but please, stop polluting this thread.

Trying to determine what the intake configuration is…is hardly “polluting the thread”. Certainly not given many of the posts on here.

And no, there isn’t any configuration showing how the engine face can be hidden. Its not for me to “accept them”…its when you curve the duct into the area of the main landing gear for example, to try and make it so…but just ain’t so 😉