KF-X/IF-X & TF-X for Europe?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216403[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]216404[/ATTACH]

There are many indications, that (results of the) projects KF-X/IF-X & TF-X can be a very good alternatives for future air forces of European countries in 2030s and later.

Because:

– there will be no other alternative to F-35 for NATO/western countries

– both should be more affordable than F-35

– both will be full NATO compatibile

– both will use results of European R&D and can help and bring benefits (and employees) for European industry in many areas (SAAB, Eurojet etc.)

– many European countries will need relatively cheap and affordable replacement for 4th generation fighters in 2030s and later, for example: Finland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, (Germany? :rolleyes:)…

(BTW both fighters could have good export potential: KF-X/IF-X especially in Southeast Asia and Pacific region – Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore… – and TF-X in Middle East and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco and…Azerbaijan of course.)

Geo

This is complicated. Lockheed is a quasi superstate entity. They have people in defense departments. It is going to be really really hard for these companies to penetrate markets

To sum up, you made the assessment that PAK-FA is smaller than F-22 and F-35 which is wrong ( and can be checked rather simple), then you also made the assessment that physical size has the same level of important as shaping and material in stealth design which is also wrong according to any book about stealth since forever, then you concluded that PAK-FA will has smaller RCS than F-22 , F-35 , J-20 because ” it has smaller profile” . Not only that your statement is wrong, you have not even tried to support them by any source but now you want me to provide you research paper ?. Are you for real ? How can you not see the irony ?

Nobody has produced the numbers that show that the frontal profile of the Pak Fa is bigger or smaller than the Raptors.

The only numbers we have so far is the height numbers from Wiki.

YF 23 Height: 4.30 m (13.11) Wing area: 900 ft2

Pak Fa Height: 4.74 m (15.6 ft) Wing area 848.1 ft2

Raptor Height: 5.08 m (16.8 ft) Wing area: 840 ft²

Yes, if we trust the drawings

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25ACH]

Where did you find those actual numbers. I searched them everywhere and found nothing.

The Pak Fa is shorter in frontal height than the Raptor.

area of this projection:
Su-27 – 10 m2
T-50 – 9.47 m2
F-22 – 9.25 m2
F-35A – 8.12 m2
F-35B – 8.36 m2

the difference between the T-50 and F-22 is negligible

So that is from a downward view ?

YF 23 Height: 4.30 m (13.11) Wing area: 900 ft2

Pak Fa Height: 4.74 m (15.6 ft) Wing area 848.1 ft2

Raptor Height: 5.08 m (16.8 ft) Wing area: 840 ft²

Have to look at photo first. It has alot to do with what they aim for as well
Iam not saying that PAK isn’t a stealth aircraft or those features are deal breaker but they do have RCS penalty. To deny them is simply dishonest. To claim that physical size has anywhere the same order of importance as shaping is either dishonest or ignorant

Have to look at photo first.

Wait a minute.. That is pure conspiracy. To think that one of the great aircraft manufacturers is going to make a fake stealth aircraft is conspiracy. Do you really believe that ? Or do you just want to leave that door open so you can have your own definition of stealth ?

I am no fan of the British state. I have no cordial view of it at all. But if BAE said that it was going to design and manufacture a 5th generation stealth aircraft for 2028, I would believe them.

We have to have some way of defining and quantifying stealth.

KGB, having found your ‘murican ecquivalent doesn’t mean anyone there is interested in that sort of male reproductive organ measurement context about respective RCS.
This also because it is in direct contradiction with that other your polemical argument, IMHO much more well founded, of VLO absolutism i.e. if I understand correctly what you mean with it the shifting between stealth being a mean to an end into being an end in itself.
So why such an heated debate about what would probably be a RCS difference of a pairs of tenths or even hundredth of square meters RCS?

2 pages ago, there was a ceasefire established between me, JSR and FBW, mig 31mb and a few others. Concessions were made by both sides.

But then someone came along and started using very unhelpful and combative language.

I get your point though. Im calming down..

if I understand correctly what you mean with it the shifting between stealth being a mean to an end into being an end in itself.

I moreso mean that minimizing profile is just as much of a stealth feature as a rounded corner or something like that. But the profile minimalism of the Pak Fa gets almost no recognition as a stealth feature by some people.

[QUOTE=OooShiny;2370750]

This goes for the PAK FA as well. The attention to detail in signature reduction on it is primitive and clumsy compared to what has been done with the F-35.
– Little/no attention to surface discontinuity management (even the Rafale handles this better)
– Fat, rounded leading edges.
– Horrible surface alignment, especially for the side facing surfaces.
– Portions of the side surfaces almost vertically facing.
– Protrusions exposed directly to the sides
– No buried canopy frame.
– Exposed, forward facing blockers (a feature that F-35 designers only deemed suitable for the F-35’s butt).
– Non-VLO, forward facing IRST

This is a prime example of the tragically pathetic, obtuse and delusional misunderstanding of stealth. Every single thing on his list are gimmicky little unverified details that add up to NOTHING when the aircraft itself has not been optimized for low profile ie stealth. And most of them ,especially the angles that he likes to talk about, assume that the Sukhoi RCS computer design and testing overlooked a detail so badly that it is visible to the naked eye.

Stealth is the science of making things appear SMALLER than they actually are on RADAR. So the PROFILE has every bit as much to do with the stealth of the aircraft design as anything else.

Now tell me which aircraft out of these 3 pictures has been optimized to be as SMALL as possible to begin with. (stealth)

The Sukhoi engineers cant even screw the gimmicky little details up enough to ever exceed the comparative girth of the other aircraft. Yet he keeps going on and on and on about gimmicks. He cant see the forest for the trees.