Never said the Pak-fa wasn’t designed to be a stealth aircraft, never said the Sukhoi didn’t have a solution.

Just called you out on making up B.S. No need to reply you’ve been exposed as full of it-done with you.

After all of what we’ve been through on this thread, he injected this into one of his responses:

Originally Posted by FBW
The reason it is being brought up on the Pak-Fa because IF there is a LOS view of the compressor face without a blocker, it is a huge RCS issue. That however, is still tbd.

He clearly is not interested in objectivity. He is only interested in prolonging this myth about the air intakes on the Pak Fa and how its stealth could be compromised. To quote him, it is to be determined apparently.

And how dare I bring up the inconvenient fact that the YF 23 STEALTH aircraft has an almost identical setup.

And he isn’t the only one that is interested in prolonging this myth.

KBG, draw lines on scematics all you want. Means nothing. Your idea that an exposed compressor face does not compromise RCS was B.S. from the start. Trying to compare the YF-23 prototype with lower RCS (compared to the production F-22) was also B.S. We don’t know what the penultimate F-23’s RCS would have been compared to the RCS model as the model did not have an engine.

Your making things up to cover some inferiority fear for the Pak-fa which, frankly, may not even be a problem. The YF-23 and the Pak-fa may have some compressor exposed at certain angles. In the case of the YF-23, the production version may have hid the face better. In the case of the Pak-fa, Sukhoi may have a blocker or different solution (or none at all because testing revealed it was only a minor issue at certain angles).

Does not change the fact you make up a bunch of crap, for no reason other than your very shallow understanding of LO shaping, for an issue that most likely does not exist. Let those who actually have intelligent things to say on the pak-fa post without having to read your stupid comments on the YF-23, Pak-fa and s-duct.

P.S-wasn’t it embarrassing enough when you tried to sell area ruling on the underside as an s-duct? Apparently not.

P.S.S.- when drawing your line on the schematic, it didn’t occur to you to look at the topside view as well? The F-23 engine duct bent up and in (so your line wouldn’t have been possible).

I am making up nothing. I posted actual diagrams and pics of the YF 23. It is your ilk that is trying to plant this seed of doubt about the RCS of the Pak Fa specifically because of the intakes. And I am proving that its pure BS and you don’t like that. You want it both ways.

In the case of the YF-23, the production version may have hid the face better.

May have ? That’s not going to cut it. Not here. I posted the diagram of the production version.

PS I knew you were going to say something about the top view. Well guess what. The Pak Fa isn’t centered from the top view either. Think about what you are saying. The Pak Fa is designed to be a stealth aircraft.

Nonetheless, a tiny fraction of the fan face remains visible as shown in the front view (upper inner inlet corner).

This entire discussion is moot though – yes, the T-50 inlet ducts are only modestly curved, but does anybody expect either Sukhoi or NG for that matter to design an aircraft with internal bays (and all the attendant structural nightmares) without taking care of the inlet in some (other) way?

Why waste time on a discussion as pointless as this?

Because this is the bellweather excuse for the critics to claim that the Pak Fa doesn’t even deserve the stealth designation.

They had external vents, pitots, untreated canopy. RCS testing used full scale models not the flying demonstrators. In other words, the Shaping of the YF-23 was better than the YF-22. Not the freaking flying models with engines fitted. Second the F-23 EMD as shown above had significant changes from the width and shape of nacelle to position of duct and weapons bays. The YF-22 was not the F-22 either (there were sigificant changes to everything from vertical stabs to wing sweep and shape)

So in summary, the YF-23 did not have a lower RCS than the F-22. The YF-23 model had a lower RCS than the YF-22 (alledgedly- never confirmed but likely true). So please, KGB, stop repeating that the exposed compressor of the YF-23 still led to a lower RCS overall, it is not true. If your knawing insecurity over the Pak-fa ducts is so profound, find another B.S. excuse why it does not impact RCS, the one your using currently is obviously false.

Here is the YF-23 RCS mockup, show me the inlet or engines KGB:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249178[/ATTACH]

KGB is going to keep repeating this without understanding that the YF-22 and YF-23 were technology demonstrators.

Speaking of tired excuses..

Second the F-23 EMD as shown above had significant changes from the width and shape of nacelle to position of duct and weapons bays. The YF-22 was not the F-22 either (there were sigificant changes to everything from vertical stabs to wing sweep and shape)

DP

So it is quite possible that first orders for the next years will be small while they will ramp up production at a later stage. It may make sense as they can find ways to reduce overall costs by re-tooling plants and or finding alternative means of materials and technology. As well, KRET is indeed working on Radar using Photonics than standard electron flow between electronics by around 2020 so they may wait for that technology as well.

Curious though if they will opt for improving Su-35 and Su-30SM once the newer technologies come out (AESA as example) or if they will just leave it more or less like it is now.

Kret says on their website that the SU 30sm has 5th gen avionics already. Are you talking about tech beyond that ?

more clear pictures of the nature of the intakes

[img]http://i.imgur.com/jxlnigd.img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/rgcb25J.img]

What is your point ? You are sidestepping the question.

The YF 23 scored as good/better than the Raptor with at least the same/more engine fan showing as the Pak Fa. Here are both designs. They are very similar. One variation of the design is confirmed passed for stealth with flying colors.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249175[/ATTACH]

That chart is deceptive. When Russian stocks were at the bottom in March 2014 the MICEX was at 1237 and the USD/RUB rate was 36.50.
Today the MICEX is at 1957 and the USD/RUB rate is at 62.40

That means the real change in the MICEX was: 33.89 (1237/36.50) to 31.36 (1957/62.40), a loss of 2.52 or 7.45%.

Meanwhile the S&P500 has gained from 1841 in March 2014 to 2141 today, a gain of 300 or 16.2%

So the White House made the right call in 2014 to get out of Russian stocks and into US stocks. Obama also called the bottom in US stocks in 2009.

As another poster has already pointed out; Russian stocks actually represent real companies in real industries that are doing something useful in the world.

US stocks are just balance sheet ledgers for the big oligopoly banks. Their performance is just based on passing digital Federal reserve money through the Wall St sausage machine.

One only needs to look at share buybacks. US listed companies get the easy Fed money through Wall St. They issue debt and rather than invest in real productive expansion, they instead just buy back their own stock to gun their stock price so that the boards of directors can cash in on stock options.