I But I assume your main purpose of your claim of the PKFA was to upset the US-fraction here. 😀

Why instead of posting a counterargument you post this kind of comment?

I will tell you, if the F-35 had come with the automated maneuverer ideas, this board would be full of this, the 35 killer robot, The terminator of the skies, etc..

But the¨PAKFA is truly the first step on this, is the single program addressing it, so is worth the comment, is the truly first step for a fighting UAV

People babble over all this issue, showing automated cruiser missiles as true UAVs, when russians are pretty alone doing the real research

This might hurt your ego, Sens, but is the fact

I’m pretty confident, that due the size of the plane, and the 15TM projected engines, this pakfa thing will achieve the design goals

Of course the goals will be greatly surpassed when the new engine arrives

The Su-27 has achieved better supersonic ranges on proved and verified testing than the F-22’s claimed supercruiser performance, with an older Al-31 variant, no internal bomb bay, and outdated aerodynamics and engine control, will it use AB sometimes?, will it be on dry power constantly?, really is not important to me, to me the final result is the important one, BTW, supercruiser was defined in the mid 70’s for the ATF program, way before the stealth requirements were discussed, so your IR signature tale won’t work on me 🙂

New engines are needed when the old core cannot achieve the desire performance

If the old core can be improved to achieve better performance if there is still room for upgrades, etc, why to rush a new engine?

This plane will achieve it goals.

That Eurocopter thing is just a mess. They can’t be serious about it.

— Those two props make passenger ingress/egress dangerous and/or time consuming.
— They block a door gun.
— They limit weapons carry ability on those stubby wings and I bet they induce nice vibrations.
— How would they shield the fuselage from darting prop blades in case of damage? Or from ice flying off?
— Makes one hell of a radar reflector.
— Props next to your window is extremly loud.
— It’s a pain when landing on slopes.

It’s a me-too plastic monster. Hide it in the hangar you cobbled it together!

The Sikorsky X2 is by far better thought-out and could be a real competitior to the VTOL-challenged tiltprops. That Europcopter X3 – never.

I really think the tilting engine concept does carry most of the same issues, the radar reflection, for me is quite irrelevant for this king of machine, compared with the weight savings between each design, for example.

The tilting design is way unsafer, since to take off/landing it does need to change their engines positions, something that i see pretty difficult on emergencies, and if one of the engines are out, the plane is pretty doomed, how the Osprey did pass safety auditing? is out of my understanding…guess too much money was invested already..

While the Eurocopter solution does not looks better, than for example the Cheyenne solution, does not carry the gearing issues of integrate all the rotors, I’m not saying the mechanical problems of having let’s say, bevel gearings everywhere, but the RPM requirements between the propellers and the rotors, since speed and height are not related on helos, thus propellers would need an independent source of power.

Edit: Seems that the X3 does have its propellers integrated with the main engine, I thought there were small turboshafts, to see the gearing of the thing would be interesting, either way, seems way safer than the tilting concept, and probably a lighter configuration.

I can think on a number of factors of hy these props are there, weight balance can be one…I still think the Cheyenee solution was more ‘elegant’, but regarding gearing and shafts..there are not ‘elegant’ solutions :), either way, stuffing the gearing for a double propeller in the tail had to be a bit messy.

Wonder if people don’t get bored with this kind of discussions, ‘oh God, dont have the zigzag thingy’, ‘oh jesus, does not have the s duct’, ‘oh christ, that rivet..it looks suspecting’

Aerodynamics are still the rule number 1 for the industry, and for the 5th gen planes, with or without stealth, so all you guys yelling and crying because this thing is rounded, this one is not, this thing has a flat belly (as the f-15,f-18-f-4), and this does not, can stuff your stealthy thing in your rear part, thank you.

Impressive how Janes has proliferated so much stupidity

Check the belly of the F-23, congruent topology, if you think this is a nice thing for ‘stealth’ considering optic postulates, you are wrong

BTW, structurally, the PAKFA/T-50 seems to be way more advanced than the F-35/F-22, the pakfa structure is based on pretty large panels assembled on well determined areas so the same panel does have many riveting lines, while the f-22/35 structure is based on small panels all around the airframe, with independent assembling, ie. the conventional way.

I don’t know if this has to do with stealth or not, i don’t care, but is a clear sign of superior engineering, large structural panels with many accesses

BTW, for the non-rivetting tale, there you go

Oh look, my Janes book told me it should not have rivets, tss

Yes is the F22, the most overrated piggy piece of failed military hardware, how did this happened?..

I think awacs are pretty much like every radar over there, and it detection range/probability depends on the time of exposition, which would be relative with the RPM of the disc, so probably for a big target 6rpm should be enough, while for a small and fast target it would require 1-1/5 rpm (40 seconds)

Happens the same with modern fighter radars

You guys really think that planes are designed against other planes.

So the soviets got the 29’s and then the USAF needed something to counter it?

There were doctrinal mistakes with the 4th gen, the USAF found it out later

And the ATF born

We are not – combat moved on slightly from WW2 – energy fighting was still important in this era – but you had to take ever improving missiles into account which by the 70s/80s were not to be ignored.

Actually, accounting missiles, energy fighters became even more important

20-mi (32-km)

Firts, keep on dreaming . second, fighters are not used for early warning systems, their radars are small and cannot work at full power al the time

The Advanced Tactical Fighter -ATF was a way to get a ‘generational’ jump on the Soviet AF. There was a design competition in which eight companies submitted designs, two designs were picked… LM and Northrop to build prototypes. LM won the competition.
Had the Cold War ‘not’ ended, the F-22 was on schedule to become operational around the beginning of President Clinton’s second term!!

Debatable, quite debatable…and probably not for this topic, the fun thing is that now with the international crisis the USA is considering the F35 risk (actually, even before the crisis) as a better alternative, than the ‘well proven’, ‘successful’ and “finished“ program…

Anyways, there is way lot more history on the ATF studies than you think

Hasn’t it been replaced with a helmet mounted display?

I know this 🙂

TVC, an air shows dream. .

Funny, because the F22 was designed to be a fighter

Was on a contest for a 5th gen fighter, an study that lasted 15 years which adressed supermaneoverability

Is using TVC’s and these TVCs were critical for it selection

Ok, these stupid russians know sh!t about air combat and the USA is the land of freedom and greatness…i can tolerate that garbage, many people are stupid

But at least be consistent.