It kinda looks like a Raptor with a heaping dose of Russian Bodybuilding and vitamins. When they roll out the prototype, it wouldn’t surprise me if the jet itself somehow speaks “I must break you.”

😀 I can see it now: the Su-50 Drago.

Hey! you evil Yanks! “say hello to my little friend”

[ATTACH]160743[/ATTACH]

any 3-view drawings?!

This appears to be of the same basic design as that of the following images (posted previously by medal64 and Otaku):

[attach]159681[/attach]
[attach]160691[/attach]

Is wanting world domination evil? They claim evil Mr Putin wants it and that is what makes him evil, so I guess them having a military domination of the world makes them by their own criteria evil… Yes I agree with you. 🙂

First you asked about “wanting” as being evil and then described “having” as being evil. While this is far more complex a subject than I’d want to get into in this thread about the PAK-FA, you could at least compare the same things. 😉 Then we could get into the whys and hows.

I think if how Russians create PAK-FA it will like F-22 or F-35 and after that everybody will say they copied these aircrafts.

Right, and then people will say that similar requirements lead to similar designs, and then other people will point out the vast differences between the ATF proposals (F-22 versus F-23), and then someone will bring up the F-15 and MiG-25, and then someone else will bring up the A-5, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. :rolleyes: This stuff practically writes itself now. 🙂

But we shouldn’t forget that all this aircrafts will be fifth generation aircrafts and their shapes will be similer.

I just knew it! It’s starting even before the prototype has been revealed! 😉

But they will be put their differences with their systems and stealth materials.

If the PAK-FA is claimed to be a VLO fighter, then I can only imagine how comparisons with the F-22 and F-35 will go, as comparing the F-22 and F-35 has been problematic enough, despite their obvious differences. Then again, maybe comparisons have always been just as problematic….

However, another interesting comparison may be between the PAK-FA, once more is known about it, and the Flanker series. If, for example, the PAK-FA is VLO but is also noticeably less maneuverable than the Su-35, which I base loosely on rumors in this thread, then I wonder how Flanker fans around the Internet at large are going to react.

How capable are the Russians when it comes to surface treatment of aircraft, i mean to create a stealthy jet there gonna need a level of surface smoothness and quality equal to the raptor – how on earth are they going to achieve that when one looks at the current jets surface finish which are undeniably rough as, well rough. :confused:

I wouldn’t underestimate Russian capabilities to accomplish anything in scientific or technological terms, but the question is how quickly they can develop all of the necessary technologies and techniques, and how cost-effective the end result will be. The F-22 is so expensive largely because it is difficult to manufacture, and that’s largely because it is VLO, which has to take into account so many things that aircraft manufacturers normally don’t have to deal with, and most never have dealt with.

Bush is always there 😀

I guess that would make Putin the world’s superhero, then. Yay. :rolleyes:

The only replacement I can see would the SU-34.

The Su-34 is a great aircraft, but it wouldn’t fully replace the F-111 any more than, say, the F-15E would–neither have quite the F-111’s payload/range performance nor its low-level flight performance. While the F-35 doesn’t either, it will have far better survivability than any of the others.

F-22 and F-35 is equipped with a AESA and today “without” a SAR function.

The F-35 will have SAR modes, and the F-22 is getting the same modes as we speak (should be ready by 2009-2010).

With a SAR function in air to ground attacks roles you absolutely need an operator to reduce the pilots workload.

The pilot will be the operator, as there should be enough automation to make flying the aircraft simple enough. Of course, having a separate WSO would be better, but it’s not essential.

F-22A is a typically very advanced, agile and a very impressed air defence fighter but for what use more than the air defence? Can anyone describe that better than those trying it earlier?

What makes you believe that the F-22 can’t do ground attack? While it won’t have the F-35’s EOTS (at the least the A model), it will have ground-attack radar modes that give it autonomous capability. Its current onboard equipment also gives it a potent SEAD/DEAD capability, and new weapons are being developed (e.g. SDB II) to enhance this. The main limitation, aside from internal bay space, is that the USAF is probably not going to clear the F-22 for a wide range of air-to-ground weapons, since they’ll have the F-35, so this would be left to other operators (if there ever are any) to do if required.

F/A-18F Super Hornet and F-15E have all functions and is the most capable, affordable, and effective multi mission fighter-attack aircraft in the world today until Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen have their AESA, advanced sensors, pinpoint targeting equipments and can fuze all AESA informations in its network centric system for use in all other weapon system than only in the air defence roles – they all are cheaper than F-35 and F-22.

They’re all cheaper and more vulnerable to being destroyed. These are all fine aircraft, though–it all comes down to what an air force is willing to afford and what they’re willing to accept.

Those who argue that the F-22 would actually be a cheaper solution, ask your self, did the USAF plan to buy ten times as many JSF as F-22s? Scarcely!

Did someone actually argue this? :confused: I must have filtered it out, so to speak.

Both cost too much, I think, and they absolutely can’t bring you more than the F/A-18F can do better.

The F-35 will have better range, equivalent air-to-ground capability, and much greater survivability than the F/A-18F. The question is whether the Australian Air Force needs the F-35’s capabilities and whether they’re willing to pay for it.

I know you’d argue that the second seat in the F/A-18F is going to make a tremendous difference, but that’s because the enemy knows where it is from almost the moment it takes off. It’s a good thing that there is a separate pilot to help manage the constant state of peril, but it’s not as necessary for the F-35. By the way, I’m not saying that the F-35 is invulnerable by any means, but it’s still much easier to manage in this regard for a single crewmember.

Something is getting wrong in some air defence planning and the transgress in F-22 and F-35, I think.

The USAF have a lot of experience with both single- and two-seat attack aircraft, and they seem to be quite comfortable with their decisions. Of course, they could be making a big mistake, which wouldn’t be the first time, but I don’t see where they’re going wrong here.

Worth considering: Su-30/-35 is not more stealth today than tomorrow and reachable even for a F/A-18F crew, I think.

Sure, I think that the Super Hornet can stand up to modernized Flankers, although the new Su-35 is pretty scary. That said, I’d feel a lot more confident in an F-35, personally (and an F-22 would be even better).

The capabilities shown by the F-15K or SG would beg to differ on the “STRIKER” part of your statement, but you are correct about it being the best stopgap measure. Especially the ability to give them/sell them at a reduced price to the USN when they are no longer needed. A couple dozen lightly used (non-carrier landed or launched) Superbugs would be a nice thing to have in 10-15 years when the first batches start to show their age.

That’s rather pragmatic as long as the F-111s really need to be retired.

I agree that Russia has the best SAM capability in the world.

I think the reason that they are ahead of the US in this area though is because the US plans to destroy most enemy aircraft with its own missiles fired from its own aircraft, and not to rely on surface to air missiles to destroy aircraft.

Well, I guess it’s analogous to evolution: where there are faster prey there are faster predators, and vice versa. Falling behind in this area would be unacceptable for Russia and their arms market, so they will very likely stay ahead. By the way, the US Navy is sort of in the same boat, so to speak, so they too have excellent SAM systems, although we’re talking about ground-based systems at the moment.

In contrast, US air and ground forces make attaining air supremacy a prerequisite of every operation. They don’t have as much incentive to compete in ground-based SAMs as long as they control the sky in terms of aerial combat, as you said. This is why the USAF invests so much in this area, and they don’t like to be told that their aging fighters are good enough while everybody else’s keep getting better.

There’s really no need to have SAMs all around the US mainland if no air force can get there, right?

I don’t think that the US has any SAMs defending CONUS at all, although there were a few Avenger systems (Stingers on a Humvee) deployed around the Pentagon for a while after the building was attacked on September 11, 2001. These days, there are regular interceptor patrols being flown over certain areas in addition to the usual early warning radar systems and occasional intercepts of Russian bombers coming over to wave hi. You won’t find anything even remotely similar to Moscow’s air defense system, though.

It’s not difficult to figure out the capability of a F118 because the re-fan did not significantly change it from the F110 or F101. The non-augmented thrust from those engines is known.

That’s exactly what I was thinking.

The sensitive information about F119 isn’t it’s maximum thrust as much as it’s non-augmented thrust at 60K+ feet.

While true, this seems counterintuitive, unless the F-22 is going to be supercruising faster than we’ve been let on and/or maneuvering hard at high altitude in dry thrust (makes us wonder, as intended). And as for altitudes of 60K+ feet, that must be in regard to future applications of the F119 other than the F-22, unless the pilots are going to start wearing pressure suits, I’d imagine.

its a cover-up, no B-2 crashed… its a UFO that was downed in Guam 😛 lol

I swear, those EBEs think they’re so intelligent and all advanced, but their safety record is horrid! I’ve lost count of how many crashes there were in “The X-Files” alone. :rolleyes: The real tragedy, though, is that Michael Jackson may never be able to go home. 🙁

Internal carriage of 12 missiles means big bay(s), meaning big aircraft, meaning not F-35 class.

“Not knowing is like a bitter pill- yet knowing could be worse still!..”
[ATTACH]160691[/ATTACH]

According to the June 2007 “Russia & CIS Observer” article quoted in an earlier post, the PAK-FA is expected to carry the KS-172 internally–this thing is about 7.4 m long! 😮 A suitable weapon bay would take up just about the entire usable length of the aircraft. Depending on the PAK-FA’s actual configuration, there may be enough room for one of these monsters that can be traded for four R-77s (2×2). There could also be two additional bays under the intakes that flank the long bay, which seems feasible, but only on a very large fighter, as you say (perhaps even larger than the one in the image you attached).

Just seven months earlier, an article in the same publication had claimed that the PAK-FA would be “considerably smaller than the F-22A, Su-47 or MiG 1.44” (at 21 t, closer in weight to the F-15 or F-35, for example). I wonder whether they redesigned the whole PAK-FA during that time or switched to an alternative design that they already had, but either way, something major happened around that time.

🙂
[attach]160692[/attach]

It would take a mighty fancy launcher to make this arrangement work. 😉 But seriously, how would the missiles on top be launched? Well, I guess you could put additional bay doors on the top of the aircraft :), but you’d still need launchers that take up some space.

The Su-27SM is claimed to be better than the Su-30MKI by Russian officials. Of course, this forum’s geniuses know better.

Are you sure about that?:rolleyes: I know many Russians who do not trust every word that a “Russian official” has to say – Russian offficials have not been too accurate in their predictions or announcements, now have they…:rolleyes:

As in mathematics, all you need is one example to prove something false (read his third response in bold):

http://www.russiatoday.ru/guests/detail/98

I’m not saying that all statements made by Russian officials are false, or that all statements made by officials from other countries are true, but the mere fact that a statement is blatantly false won’t stop every official spokesman from saying it! 🙂

And what way is a Su-27SM more advanced than a Su-30MKI?? does the SM have 3-D vectoring thrust? Explain to me how the avionics on the Su-27SM might be more advanced than on the Su-30MKI…

It’s hard to tell without detailed information. Unless things have changed, the Su-27SM is equipped with the N001V radar while the Su-30MKI has the N011M, which most people would probably consider more advanced, placing some doubt on the statement in question. On the other hand, the Su-27SM is slated to get much-upgraded engines.

With the Americans, that does not surprise me that much. I remember having talked to a proud owner of L-39 jet and after telling him that the jet was produced few hundred miles from where I live he stated that the jet only can be American made because all gauges are in ft and that stupid Czechs could not design a bicycle, let alone a jet trainer.. A nice example of explosive mixture of arrogance and stupidity..

Are there any exceptions among Americans regarding explosive arrogance and stupidity? If not, then I feel truly sorry for them. Can all Czechs design a jet like the L-39? If so, then that is extremely impressive.

Well you’ll have to take it with a pinch of salt i think as it came from a Bill Sweetman book (no offence Bill) , but he claims the B-2 when in combat mode shuts off the split ailerons things and instead uses differential thrust.

While Sweetman sometimes writes things that make me scratch my head, he’s generally pretty knowledgeable and has access to those in the know. I’ve never heard this idea before, and as I had admitted earlier, I’m not that knowledgeable about the B-2 specifically. Just speculating here, but it’s quite possible that if differential thrust would suffice to keep the B-2 stable enough in yaw under “combat” conditions, then using it instead of split ailerons could help avoid some unnecessary radar glints, which is obviously good for stealth. And of course the FCS could automatically use differential drag whenever necessary, so safety and capability should not be a concern under normal circumstances. Hmmm…intriguing…thanks for bringing this up. 🙂

Early days, but possible cause of crash:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/02/b2-crash-revives-memory-of-199.html

Four “redundant” computers tied to a single resistor on a hot circuit board?! D’oh! 😮

Geez Dork, I used a rolleyes smiley to clearly ID that comment as sarcasm and you think it is serious… 🙂

No problem, I’ve used a couple of sarcastic strawmen myself recently–just making a general observation. 😉