Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sukhoi PAK FA News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    It is kind of tough to accurately compare an aircraft that is still somewhat classified to one that doesn't exist yet.
    That's probably it's biggest advantage. By the time it does come out, it'll be able to take advantage of tech that wasn't available to the F-22, as well as a lot of insight on what works and what doesn't...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
      That's probably it's biggest advantage. By the time it does come out, it'll be able to take advantage of tech that wasn't available to the F-22, as well as a lot of insight on what works and what doesn't...
      Yep, because Americans never revised their planes.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        Yep, because Americans never revised their planes.
        The systems, engines, etc, sure. The baseline aircraft? Fuselage, structure, that's another thing altogether...

        Comment


        • I would imagine that an aircraft that is 20 years newer will have a few more advanced features in there somewhere. That being said, I’m not yet convinced that the Russians have caught up to the U.S. in stealth techniques. When there are enough T-50s have been produced to have a few squadrons flying around we may get a better idea of how successful the project was.

          I also wonder how much the T-50 will end up costing. As bad as cost inflation tends to be with American defense projects, the Russian’s recent track record in delivering on defense projects (INS Vikramaditya) is rather embarrassing. If the price gets too high, most of Russia’s potential export customers could end up cutting down their orders or pursuing other options.

          Comment


          • While newer materials may become available, there's nothing magical in there. I don't think you can say that an F-22 airframe is all that superior to an F-15E airframe. It has different features and may behave differently in various parts of the envelope, but it still has two wings, two engines, and is rated for 9g. Same with Su-27's and PAK-FA's.

            I'll also add that the F-15A came out in the 70's, the Su-27S in 1986 and it still wasn't aerodynamically superior to the its contemporary eagle-A in any way (the A received OWS which allowed them to go to 9g instead of 7.3. IIRC). And before you start mentioning LERX' and turn rates, the F-15 designers knew all about that since such devices had been employed in other aircraft. It was a design choice, and as a result the F-15 ended up with superior acceleration and top speed.

            Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
            The systems, engines, etc, sure. The baseline aircraft? Fuselage, structure, that's another thing altogether...
            Last edited by GGTharos; 17 Jan 14,, 16:15.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
              While newer materials may become available, there's nothing magical in there. I don't think you can say that an F-22 airframe is all that superior to an F-15E airframe. It has different features and may behave differently in various parts of the envelope, but it still has two wings, two engines, and is rated for 9g. Same with Su-27's and PAK-FA's.

              I'll also add that the F-15A came out in the 70's, the Su-27S in 1986 and it still wasn't aerodynamically superior to the its contemporary eagle-A in any way (the A received OWS which allowed them to go to 9g instead of 7.3. IIRC). And before you start mentioning LERX' and turn rates, the F-15 designers knew all about that since such devices had been employed in other aircraft. It was a design choice, and as a result the F-15 ended up with superior acceleration and top speed.
              As I recall, the Su-27 airframe was actually more efficient aerodynamically than the F-15's (the Russians had the benefit of an additional 10 years of wind-tunnel testing), but I'd still take an F-15 to a knife fight rather than the Su-27; wing loading is a little lower on the F-15 (73.1 lb/ft² vs. 76 lb/ft²), which should give it a slight edge in manueverability, and the avionics are definitely superior.

              So, as you can see, just because a design is 10 years newer doesn't necessarily mean it's that much better.
              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

              Comment


              • The aerodynamic tools used on the Su-27 were already known to the US designers and had been used in other aircraft also, so I still believe that it is simply a different design with different goals. The F-15 has lower CCTs in various regimes, which means it will have an advantage in a knife-fight. The F-15 also has generally superior g-loading, but that doesn't figure into fights too often IIRC. Basically all this boils down to is that the F-15 will execute complete combat maneuvers in less time, and that wins fights.

                What the Su-27 does have as an advantage is the ability to use the Archer, if we're talking pre-AIM-9X - and in some cases it can move the nose faster ... but it can't get back up to speed to keep moving the nose like the F-15 can.

                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                As I recall, the Su-27 airframe was actually more efficient aerodynamically than the F-15's (the Russians had the benefit of an additional 10 years of wind-tunnel testing), but I'd still take an F-15 to a knife fight rather than the Su-27; wing loading is a little lower on the F-15 (73.1 lb/ft² vs. 76 lb/ft²), which should give it a slight edge in manueverability, and the avionics are definitely superior.

                So, as you can see, just because a design is 10 years newer doesn't necessarily mean it's that much better.
                Last edited by GGTharos; 17 Jan 14,, 20:38.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
                  While newer materials may become available, there's nothing magical in there. I don't think you can say that an F-22 airframe is all that superior to an F-15E airframe. It has different features and may behave differently in various parts of the envelope, but it still has two wings, two engines, and is rated for 9g. Same with Su-27's and PAK-FA's.
                  Not so sure I agree. I can think of two critical factors. First is weight savings for a given air frame strength. Weight savings can make a huge difference in performance in a number of ways. Pounds saved can be directly related to better range, more weapons, faster speeds, tighter turns, what ever the designers want to devote that savings too.

                  The second major area I can think of is fatigue. Designers use a lot of aluminum because it is light. But aluminum gets weaker over time and then fails. Steel doesn't. As long as steel is protected from the elements and not over loaded it will bear its design load for eternity. If modern carbon-fibers or advanced metal/ semi-metal alloys allow weight savings and better resistance to fatigue, that could become critical in an era of reduced budgets.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    The second major area I can think of is fatigue. Designers use a lot of aluminum because it is light. But aluminum gets weaker over time and then fails. Steel doesn't. As long as steel is protected from the elements and not over loaded it will bear its design load for eternity. If modern carbon-fibers or advanced metal/ semi-metal alloys allow weight savings and better resistance to fatigue, that could become critical in an era of reduced budgets.
                    For clarification, are you claiming aluminum will inherently weaken, or that it will weaken due to airframe flex? Because that flex can and will kill a steel frame as well.

                    Comment


                    • flex isn't dangerous (its about management of that metals characteristics under given load conditions/constraints) - you actually need it as part of your aerodyanmic handling in some areas - lack of flex leads to tension and premature failure

                      eg there was a fad at one stage to try and use stainless steel for rigiidty purposes - not only was there a weight penalty but it killed some of the inherent flex needed for handling

                      aircraft are like subs - we use different metals in sections of the platform to not only provide strength but also to contribute to a desired effect in handling

                      eg a small sub will have over 37 different metal types used in its construction - all serve a purpose
                      Last edited by gf0012-aust; 19 Jan 14,, 19:49.
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • My point is that steel is not immune to metal fatigue. I'm sure I can dig up a few links about F-15 longerons disintegrating in-flight.

                        Comment


                        • You are right, although this was also a manufacturing defect (those longerons were thinner than specified, and the fault resulted in several retired airframes, aside from the one that failed in flight).

                          @zraver, Steel fatigues. All airframes have a limitation of g-hours/flight-hours. There exist no magical materials, and I will point out that the F-22 and F-35 both grew in weight as they were developed. A really, really doubt the Russians got things right on the first go, and if they did, then I suspect they aren't aiming very high.

                          Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                          My point is that steel is not immune to metal fatigue. I'm sure I can dig up a few links about F-15 longerons disintegrating in-flight.

                          Comment


                          • Russian rubbish?

                            Russian rubbish? India reportedly disappointed with stealth fighters from Moscow


                            Is the Russian arms industry getting soft?

                            Despite initial high expectations, the Indian Air Force appears to be souring on a joint development deal with Russia for a new fifth-generation fighter jet, according to the Business Standard, a major Indian business publication. The Russian prototype is "unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered,” said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar at a Jan. 15 meeting, according to minutes obtained by the Business Standard.

                            That contrasts sharply with high hopes voiced by the Indian government when the joint project, to which the Indian government has contributed $6 billion, began.

                            “[The new plane] will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities,” the Indian government said in a December 2010 press release. Those are all hallmarks of “fifth generation” aircraft.

                            “Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards."
                            - Robbin Laird, consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force
                            The Indian Air Force did not respond to a request for comment.

                            But it is hardly surprising that the invisible-to-radar Russian fighter planes don't quite live up to the billing, according to defense experts reached by FoxNews.com.

                            “The Russians are certainly not up to speed in avionics,” Robbin Laird, who has served as a consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force and started the website Second Line of Defense, told FoxNews.com. “For them to pull off a stealth airframe, and for it to actually be stealthy, the engine technology has to be very good. Americans have done it with the F-22 and F-35. But it’s not easy to do. No one has done it but ourselves.”

                            India is the largest arms importer in world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and its military import large amounts from both Russia and western countries.

                            “The Indians for a long time have split their fighter industry between western work and Russian work,” Laird said.

                            “Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards. You only have so much money to go around, and like everybody else they've got financial pressures,” he added.

                            Other security experts said that India has a history of incompetence when it comes to military procurement, and so it did not necessarily reflect badly on Russia.

                            “India has had so many problems absorbing modern equipment and supporting it that it’s difficult to know whether it says anything about the Russian systems at all,” Anthony Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.

                            Laird said that the Indians may be souring on the Russian deal in part to save funds so they can build more French-designed Dassault Rafale fighter jets, which can be built relatively quickly, unlike the still-to-be-designed “fifth-generation” planes under development with the Russians.

                            “The Rafale is a very nice aircraft, and they'll look at all the stuff the French are putting on that aircraft, and they'll look at the Russian stuff and say, why am I going down that path? Do I trust the Russians really are going to reach to the standards we set?”

                            Laird said that India would be best off purchasing the already-developed fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 – but that the United States government had not given permission for such a sale, even though Indian officials had asked several times to be able to consider the plane.

                            “If they get a chance to really look at the F35, they would want it," Laird said. "The Indians have requested 3 times to talk to people about the F-35B, which is the true revolutionary aircraft -- and the administration never answered the mail, they've blown them off, it's typical of the Obama administration. We love our allies except if you want anything.”

                            He added that India may in fact not be at the level where it should be trusted with F-35s, however, so the administration would be right to turn them down. But he argued that the F-35 is ahead of what Russia has.

                            “The Russians are good aircraft designers, and they know how to build an agile aircraft, and [the new plane they are working on] is a step forward the path of more agility and flexibility, but the problem is -- it's not all about the frame, it's about what your put in it. The F35 can see around itself, 360 degrees, can see a missile take off 820 miles away, it has a radar that's extraordinary, and the systems are integrated. The Russians I think are nowhere near that at this point.”

                            Laird admitted that there was a kind of “ho-hum” aspect to those types of features, but said that the information they provide to pilots and commanders would pay off in a combat situation.

                            Cordesman also said that he was unsurprised by the Indian complaints, given what he knew about Russian air capabilities.

                            “They’re very good at building airplanes,” Cordesman said. “The problem that Russia, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has been putting out the military equivalent of show cars. They look good, but it isn’t always clear how practical they are and how many of the specifications they can actually meet.”

                            The author of the piece can be reached at [email protected] or on twitter at @maximlott
                            Link

                            .....but then again, this is Fox News :).
                            Last edited by Zinja; 25 Jan 14,, 15:24.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                              Link

                              .....but then again, this is Fox News :).
                              * it's typical of the Obama administration. We love our allies except if you want anything.*

                              Yeah... Fox at it's best. Specially describing India as a US ally!!!

                              I'm guessing all those arguments with Russia is just India taking a hard look at the cost of all the aircraft programs it's running. It's finally dawning on them how much they are really spending...

                              Comment


                              • I assume you are comparing Fox to the likes of the BBC? As Fox is superior in terms of American news sources.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X