MarcellogoHappens to every plane.
Irony not detected, happen even with smilies added.
MarcellogoYF-23 was rated better for ALL AROUND stealth. this doesn’t mean just the front, it means all over.
it was rated better than the YF-22 not F-22.
YF-23 has a Y-duct. to see the engine blades, you have to stand at an angle, not head on
pak-fa is similar in that you can only see the blades from a certain angle, but not directly in front.
And the same is valid also for PAK-FA, with the added feature that their engines are canted outward from plane’s centreline of about 15°.
So it would probably be that they are visible just on a very strict angle, like staring from a keyhole: you have to be on the same exact quote on a certain (divergent) angle and at a certain distance to look at them, 100mt quote or 0.5 degree difference and you see nothing.
A surface based radar wouldn’t have any advantage from it and also an airborne radar would in the best of case get just a pair of bips before respective position change again.
MarcellogoUS strength is technology base.
Weakness is the bloated, risk adverse government acquisition bureaucracy which drags out development programs for 20 years. In the 40s and 50s airplanes were designed built tested and delivered within 24 months. If a problem was found it was quickly corrected in the “B” version of the airplane. The.old way was more responsive to operational needs faster and cheaper.
So almost two person agree on a point there. Given the standards of such type of threads::D ASTOUNDING RESULT!:D
MarcellogoWhy we are ALWAYS forgotten?
ITALY
weakness: ridicule military budget, pacifism of ruling class.
Strenght: concentered in some niche of products others (of the same overall dimension) left away.
So they absolutely rule in these yet still in the game in the big ones through multinational projects.
For the rest I’would differentiate about the innovation capability of US: in the basic technologies they are unbeatable thanks to the sheer numbers of their own civilian market in such products.
In the final military product they instead tend between two extremes: or they capitalize on such advantage to keep proposing updates of decades old items or at the contrary embark themselves into the production of wunderwaffen than 9 cases over 10 end in nothing and 999 over 1K into massive cost overruns.
That’s IMHO also for acquisition processes that are went totally out of control and fell totally into the hands of big firms on a side and the Congress in the other.
So let’s put development/acquisition as an american weakness (together with the multinational euro projects also, not a chauvinistic approach there) and instead as a sthrengt for Russia where their own very peculiar system (design bureau, state trials, first serials, production concern) allow a military and in the end government’s iron grip over the whole phases of it togheter with the possibility of a flexible approach to production and reliability issues (i.e. not putting all eggs in one basket).
Marcellogo…and now, all this last crazy discussion (or trollfest) back to square one, please.
MarcellogoSorry, but a huge difference between “sought to acquire” and they already got. I’m sure also a few Russian and others were more than interested. However how likely is it that a full engine of either the F119 or F135 can be acquired by anyone outside the USAF ??? … and even more I’m surprised that You take sputniknews.com as a reliable source !???
Yes, we know that ultimely Putin’s Russia is coming out great time but to have even Sputnik cited by americans, that’s is too much even for me…
MarcellogoHow can cost be “the” main reason to have a two-seater as they have shorter ranges & higher crew costs?
Compared to what the aircraft cost nowadays, crew cost is outright laughable.
Let’s try to repeat it, we are talking about making a 2-seat variant of a existing 5 gen plane.
It would mean to recalculate its RCS a second time, a very costly thing indeed, for just a pair of it for each squadron.
This when, just as an example, Russia acquired just a mere 20 Su-30MK2 to act as the OCU of all of its new acquired Flankers instead developing an ad hoc version of each of them.
So, probably we will see two seat 5gen just when they would made the substitute of a plane that is actually comes in two seat version only, unless the advance of technology would allow to made the second one redundant.
MarcellogoThe allegations that the first stage can be seen through the air intake does not arbitrarily mean that the Pak Fa doesn’t have S ducts. It does have , what is called an S duct configuration.
Nor does it exclude it from being considered stealth.
In this urge to repeat that S-duct are not the only way to cover sight of engine blades and above all that neither US are using them anymore.
I don’t know how they have instead become the proof of a plane superiority over the others, it’s like to say: look, my car have a carburetor and your not.
MarcellogoAerodynamic ducts, Photoshop. S-duct arguments. Did some other forum shut down recently? The outbreak of stupidity and flame posting is at a new high.
It’s not the only one sadly, also chinese one.
Y-20 with S-duct, the epytome of absurdity…
Also because the absence of S-duct was a typycal ‘Murica argument against the Pak-fa, utterly absurd as neither the F/A-18E nor the F-35 have
them anymore, radar blockers and DSI having superseded them.
MarcellogoCan Byoin, KGB, and Starfish Prime get in their own thread so we don’t need to deal with this retarded rubbish here (or in the PAK FA thread too). I’m tired of seeing China-bot, Russia-stronk, and Murica-great getting their stupidity everywhere.
Just ‘murica, please.
I were one that contributed (on military photos) to launch the term .
In my own version it was ‘America!, as we use this world in Italy to refer to some boastful pretense.
It was later changhed in the “original” language ‘Murica that obviously added a most resentful meaning that in my own is not present but it is what ultimely sticked…
MarcellogoCan China-bot and Russia-stronk take their retarded rubbish to their own thread?
And leaving also this to ‘Murica like it happened to the Syrian intervention one?:rolleyes:
MarcellogoMaybe , first thing not to do would be talking about a person that it’s not even taking part to the discussion in such a way…
MarcellogoAlthough what Spudman say is correct in the sense that there is not the same needs of two seaters than before for certain types of missions having them is considered still quite useful.
Difference is that in the case of a 4,5 gen fighter, that share most if not all of the characteristics he has mentioned, developing a two seater is not such big issue, for 5 gen it is all another matter.
Stealth depends mostly by shape, so when the latter is modified in even an unsubstantial way a great part of rcs reduction calculations have to be remade so let’s think about a two meter longer cockpit.
Probably when a 5gen equivalents of planes that actually comes in two seater version only would be made the situation would change, but actually they are instead gearing toward unmanned planes instead, so let’s wait and see.
MarcellogoI am not sure how similar the Pak Fa airframe is to the SU 27 family but even so, how is that a bad thing ? The SU 27 100% proven. What could be a better platform to start with ?
Or should they make some new landing gear from scratch just for the F of it ?
When the Pak Fa is done, unlike the Raptor, it probably won’t be discontinued a few years out. They are building it right and it will be around for a long time
I think the most productive thing would be looking inti not what it’s similar but to what is marketly different between not just those two very fine looking planes but between all the 5gen planes and their respective predecessors in the same role, if any.
Flankers and PAK-fa are amongst the best candidates for this as they are based on the same, wonderfully performing basic layout and there is not such a great years divide between them like happened, just to say, to Viggen and Gripen.
So,given that you doesn’t need to reinvent a functioning thing, it’s what had to be changed anyway to give out the clearest signs of the modification you have to introduce to made your plane stealthy.
Most evident one is the reduction of the moving surfaces and a different shaping of components, passing from the most aereodinamically convenient to one that reflect the radars waves.
About engine nacelless t, surely the ones of PAK-FA show some clear differences but to really assess them and their relation to sthealt is not such a straight one thing.
Intakes are for an example quite large when compared to the ones of Flanker when the contrary would be expected in case of a design oriented excusively to RCS reduction…
MarcellogoOut of morbid curiosity, do you know the story of how the Aspide was designed? The Sparrow M and the Aspide were built by different companies, with different components ( same control surfaces, btw). Both the Skyflash and Aspide offered some advantages compared to the “F”. Raytheon was a partner on Aspide, and the Sparrow M incorporated that technology.
No, either control surfaces were different: Aspide get initially a foldable four steering fins (Sparrow had only two, other were fixed) in the surface to air version but it was in a second time changed into pentagonal small diameter monolitic ones to prevent corrosion problem.
Sign In
