PAK-FA takes to the sky!

[Myth_buster_1]

Calling Indians a stupid won't make your own comments any less stupid. Feel free to come out with some technical defination to prove your point of being intakes as unstealthy.

I are not qualified to be proved anything!

 

[saurabh]

seriously i had my doughs but now i am fully convinced that indians have no brain to comprehend anything!
I clearly said if we "EXCLUDE" stealth technology F-35 has less RCS comprehend to PAK-FA. and yes genius F-22 is by far the most stealthiest fighter in the world. And now these fanboys are claiming PAK-FA has better stealth technology then F-35 despite being almost twice the size of F-35 and with some un stealthy characteristics such as the intake design.

You cant exclude stealth like this. Its not just ram coating. The whole plane has to be designed in the manner to keep low observability.
Fine, you want to believe f series is better, I accept. I dont know about PAKFA, and we all have faith in US. So I agree. Happy now?

 

[Mahakaya]

seriously i had my doughs but now i am fully convinced that indians have no brain to comprehend anything!
I clearly said if we "EXCLUDE" stealth technology F-35 has less RCS comprehend to PAK-FA. and yes genius F-22 is by far the most stealthiest fighter in the world. And now these fanboys are claiming PAK-FA has better stealth technology then F-35 despite being almost twice the size of F-35 and with some un stealthy characteristics such as the intake design.

point taken but its condradictory to what you say - size has nothing to do with the stealthiness of the plane - exclude that then yes probably - but then again - the original F-15 is smaller than the SU-27/30 yet has a bigger RCS at 25m2 a diff of 5m2. so again size can make a difference but then again can you exlain the conundrum here?? - you forgot the emphasis on design - and what do you mean keep the Stealth out??? how do you keep it out from a plane that is built on that platform with the airframe based on such dynamics!! cmon man come up with something more meaningful than just blabbering for no reason at all!

 

[Tiger Awan]

Oh Man!!! "Serious Stealth" - cmon does it not already have serious "STEALTH" - Its a prototype - though Putin only refers to the engine and armament - I dont think many structural changes will happen but definitely it should reduce the IR Signature i.e. incorporating the new engine should hopefully get the detection down further!

Hmmmmm

So you think incorporating an engine and armament while keeping plane stealthy is easy?

I do not say that that Russians cant design a stealthy plane but this prototype was just meant to give all those air-force message that have got Mig-29 that donot think of buying F-35. Replace it with PAK FA.


Listen to the commentries of Russian analyst. They say it will compete International market due to cost effectiveness.

PAK FA is not as early as you think.

Got my point?

 

[saurabh]

my point remains under belly is almost that of a flanker & please avoid personal attacks

So to add a few things. First off the current nose and cockpit from what I understand are straight from an Su-27. I.e. the final ones will look different. This should also put the size of the fighter a bit more in scale. Thirdly, it wasn't even flying with it's production engines. It was flying with 117 engines. The actual engines for it are still underdevelopment, but as Growler said pictures are speaking...

​

If you look closely, nose is not round, rather has edges, just like the f35/22. About picture speaking, he, you or me, or anyone else, non is qualified enough to listen to the pictures and say, its not stealthy.

Yes, I agree, than I cant say its stealthy either. But than I have to take words of the makers. They are experienced AC makers. They say they make a low observability AC, up to fifth gen level. Cant we trust them this much?

 

[DaRk WaVe]

not true at all...zoom all the pics you have...and notice the plan forming done at the air-intakes...the engine is very close to the fuselage...the T-50 DOES come from the basic su-27 design but has all the right stealth traits...
we can discuss this further if you are not satisfied.

well i have posted the picture & moreover i have used the word 'almost'
as for intakes can you people see the holes just below the tail fins, Sancho pointed it out

The horizontal bend/non-allignment can be seen clearly from this angle.
There are huge debates on other forums on how much of the Engine compressor blades are hidden or showing through the Air-inlets.Would like you to tell us about it

​

 

[Mahakaya]

Hmmmmm

So you think incorporating an engine and armament while keeping plane stealthy is easy?

I do not say that that Russians cant design a stealthy plane but this prototype was just meant to give all those air-force message that have got Mig-29 that donot think of buying F-35. Replace it with PAK FA.


Listen to the commentries of Russian analyst. They say it will compete International market due to cost effectiveness.

PAK FA is not as early as you think.

Got my point?

I am not speculating on the time of its release! I dont know and I will refrain from saying that it will or it will not enter service on time! lets just WAIT and see how things go on! - I dont think we really need this jet before 2017 - by 2017 we should have atleast 60-80 Tejas (48 to be delivered by 2012-13, should have about 60 MMRCA and more of the new MKIs which will go through the MLU in 2014. So anytime till 2017 we should be placed fine when it comes to replacing the depleting fleet, but yeah if we end up with 250 of these beasts by 2025 time frame then it should be pretty good!

 

[DaRk WaVe]

If you look closely, nose is not round, rather has edges, just like the f35/22. About picture speaking, he, you or me, or anyone else, non is qualified enough to listen to the pictures and say, its not stealthy.

Yes, I agree, than I cant say its stealthy either. But than I have to take words of the makers. They are experienced AC makers. They say they make a low observability AC, up to fifth gen level. Cant we trust them this much?

they have to make it stealth
low observability of an Air craft is what we see in late 4th gen air crafts

 

[AVIAN]

seriously i had my doughs but now i am fully convinced that indians have no brain to comprehend anything!
I clearly said if we "EXCLUDE" stealth technology F-35 has less RCS comprehend to PAK-FA. and yes genius F-22 is by far the most stealthiest fighter in the world. And now these fanboys are claiming PAK-FA has better stealth technology then F-35 despite being almost twice the size of F-35 and with some un stealthy characteristics such as the intake design.

If the size is the only matter which makes PAK-FA unstealthy, then certainly USAF was backstabbing US by using much bigger F-117 's and B-2 as a stealth bomber.

 

[Mahakaya]

well i have posted the picture & moreover i have used the word 'almost'
as for intakes can you people see the holes just below the tail fins, Sancho pointed it out

​

wats ur point? if you are going to say it does not add to the stealthiness - please back up with relevant research paper or a qualified opinion - else please refrain!

 

[Mahakaya]

they have to make it stealth
low observability of an Air craft is what we see in late 4th gen air crafts

Please name the ones with 0.5m2 RCS or lower - 4th gen or even 4++ gen planes else again please dont just POINT OUT WITHOUT ANY BACK UP!

 

[paritosh]

seriously i had my doughs but now i am fully convinced that indians have no brain to comprehend anything!
I clearly said if we "EXCLUDE" stealth technology F-35 has less RCS comprehend to PAK-FA. and yes genius F-22 is by far the most stealthiest fighter in the world. And now these fanboys are claiming PAK-FA has better stealth technology then F-35 despite being almost twice the size of F-35 and with some un stealthy characteristics such as the intake design.

your doughs are unfounded.
you shouldn't talk of size alone as even in the 60 and 70s when the worl on stealth and radars hadn't reached the maturity of this day and age...subjects were there to prove the dependence of rcs on size to be fallacious
the British Avro Vulcan due to it's shape had a very low RCS and at certain angles used to evade detection as well...and it was a bomber!
the Tupolev-95 (nato-"bear") otoh used to give a very large RCS becuase of it's very large rotors...
and more than the lenght of the aircraft...the area of cross-section is of more relevance...

 

[DaRk WaVe]

wats ur point? if you are going to say it does not add to the stealthiness - please back up with relevant research paper or a qualified opinion - else please refrain!

FOR GOD SAKE WHEN DID I SAID THAT

I loose

 

[syntax_error]

my point remains under belly is almost that of a flanker & please avoid personal attacks

So to add a few things. First off the current nose and cockpit from what I understand are straight from an Su-27. I.e. the final ones will look different. This should also put the size of the fighter a bit more in scale. Thirdly, it wasn't even flying with it's production engines. It was flying with 117 engines. The actual engines for it are still underdevelopment, but as Growler said pictures are speaking...

​

Hi
i am a total novice when it when it comes to this ... but i thought id ask anywayz ....in the t-50 in the picture ...there is a height diff bettween the engine intakes and the main fuselage so if that difference is removed by increaseing the height of the fuselage on the lowerside... it will also have a flat belly like the f-22 ...im not good with photoshop so cant do it .... if some1 can pls do it .. i think it would be interesting to see that ...
if this question is foolish pls ignore ... but i would be really gla if any1 can answer this for me ..

 

[saurabh]

they have to make it stealth
low observability of an Air craft is what we see in late 4th gen air crafts

Stealth is term used to describe to laymen.
The correct term is Low observability.
An AC is called stealthy if it has extremely low observable.

The reflected signals from a stealth AC are so weak that for large distances radars neglect them. Only when very close, some calculable signals reach the radar. This is what LO means.