Sukhoi PAK-FA / FGFA: Updates,News & Discussions

[he-man]

Lol, explaining to you the features the Russians used at the belly to reduce the RCS is ducking? You don't have even any point here, other than that you don't like the belly design, but your preference doesn't mean that there is an issue wrt RCS or ground radars. But that's just another conclusion you ran into, just based on looks and your theories. One of the few that we have seen from you in the last few weeks on many topics isn't it?

truth hurts dude,,,,try any argument but deep down we all know the truth and compromise we had to do with pakfa.

Forgive me for not being a goody-goody poster here,,,thats not my nature to paint everything rosy

 

[gambit]

15 years ago a dead broke former soviet satellite state (Yugoslavia) brought down an F-117 "stealth" with a Cuban missile crisis era SAM. The F-177 had the sleekest underbelly at all.

Can you explain why only one F-117 was lost ?

 

[he-man]

Can you explain why only one F-117 was lost ?

very valid point

 

[sancho]

truth hurts dude,,,,try any argument but deep down we all know the truth and compromise we had to do with pakfa.

Forgive me for not being a goody-goody poster here,,,thats not my nature to paint everything rosy

I am know here for being pessimistic and even accused for being anti Indian developments too, so that is not the issue, but that you get to fast into conclusions, that turn out to be very simplistic and wrong at the end. Try to understand things first and see them from different angles, before you say it's like this or like that!
Btw, we don't made any compromises yet, since what you see and what you judge here is only the T50 prototype of the early Russian Pak Fa version. We know that our version will have differences, even if the most visible one might only be the engine coverings or TCNs, so here again, wait and see.

 

[he-man]

I am know here for being pessimistic and even accused for being anti Indian developments too, so that is not the issue, but that you get to fast into conclusions, that turn out to be very simplistic and wrong at the end. Try to understand things first and see them from different angles, before you say it's like this or like that!
Btw, we don't made any compromises yet, since what you see and what you judge here is only the T50 prototype of the early Russian Pak Fa version. We know that our version will have differences, even if the most visible one might only be the engine coverings or TCNs, so here again, wait and see.

i do hope u are right from the bottom of my heart but any structural change looks difficult

As far as opinions go,,mine haven't been wrong thanks to hal/drdo inefficiency.
But yeah i take ur point

 

[atlssa]

Can you explain why only one F-117 was lost ?

very valid point

Using spies and observers, Serbians found the US planners were so cocky that they put the F-117s on repetitive routings, flying the same inbound/outbound routes every night. They went alone. There was no SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) and no jamming.

The Serbians used SA-3's to flood a portion of the sky they though the F-117 would be in on the return flight and got a hit. Skilled operators using totally outdated technology. The F-117 went only 13 kilometers away.

Stealth jet aircraft are vulnerable to IR detection just like any other jet – although measures are taken to REDUCE the IR signature, it cannot be made to zero. They all kick out lots of hot air and IR missiles are harder to detect approaching because they are passive – and the F-117 uses passive defensive aids (for obvious reasons) so it relies on ‘seeing’ the missile approaching.

 

[gambit]

Using spies and observers, Serbians found the US planners were so cocky that they put the F-117s on repetitive routings, flying the same inbound/outbound routes every night. They went alone. There was no SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) and no jamming.

The Serbians used SA-3's to flood a portion of the sky they though the F-117 would be in on the return flight and got a hit. Skilled operators using totally outdated technology. The F-117 went only 13 kilometers away.

Good. Now you know how much work was involved to take out the F-117, which have no radar and no self defense weapons.

Do you really think that the US is going to make the same mistake of putting our F-22s under the control of another body, even an alliance body like NATO ?

Stealth jet aircraft are vulnerable to IR detection just like any other jet – although measures are taken to REDUCE the IR signature, it cannot be made to zero. They all kick out lots of hot air and IR missiles are harder to detect approaching because they are passive – and the F-117 uses passive defensive aids (for obvious reasons) so it relies on ‘seeing’ the missile approaching.

It is easy to simply say the obvious -- that A, B, and C fighters are vulnerable to IR detection.

Of course any aircraft, even prop jobbers, are vulnerable to IR detection. The question are to what degree, how capable are seekers, and how to position IR missiles in the most advantageous position -- directly in the rear. If it is as easy as you declared, IR missiles would have pushed all aircrafts out of the sky decades ago. Instead, we have IR seekers that can be seduced by the sun, glint, flares, or even water reflections.

 

[atlssa]

Good. Now you know how much work was involved to take out the F-117, which have no radar and no self defense weapons.

Do you really think that the US is going to make the same mistake of putting our F-22s under the control of another body, even an alliance body like NATO ?

It is easy to simply say the obvious -- that A, B, and C fighters are vulnerable to IR detection.

Of course any aircraft, even prop jobbers, are vulnerable to IR detection. The question are to what degree, how capable are seekers, and how to position IR missiles in the most advantageous position -- directly in the rear. If it is as easy as you declared, IR missiles would have pushed all aircrafts out of the sky decades ago. Instead, we have IR seekers that can be seduced by the sun, glint, flares, or even water reflections.

You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. Didn't try to prove anything, just gave you the facts.
Regarding to the F-22, I never said the it was a bad fighter. Actually it is the best one, nevertheless it's subject to the same rules as any other aircraft. The F-22 is better because is has the proper packing. It's not about magic.

Also, I never said US was going to put the F-22 under control of NATO. Actually, it is not even possible to do it.
The F-22 was designed during the Cold War to be a solitary hunter, able to silently swap radar-based targeting data only with other F-22s using a special, hard-to-intercept radio datalink. Accordingly, the Raptor does not have the full Link 16 datalink installed on all other USAF and NATO fighters, support planes, warships and ground-based air defenses. Link 16 is what allows different air, sea and ground forces from the U.S. and its allies to securely swap information back and forth during wartime. To be clear, the F-22 can only receive Link 16 data. Again, the F-22 it is a solitary hunter, not a team player.

In order to use the F-22, a no-fly zone has to be established without any other airplanes in the area (USAF and NATO). The F-22 can be considered a solution for one or two potential scenarios, specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet and also would require it to be deployed in large numbers.

 

[gambit]

You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. Didn't try to prove anything, just gave you the facts.
Regarding to the F-22, I never said the it was a bad fighter. Actually it is the best one, nevertheless it's subject to the same rules as any other aircraft. The F-22 is better because is has the proper packing. It's not about magic.

Also, I never said US was going to put the F-22 under control of NATO. Actually, it is not even possible to do it.
The F-22 was designed during the Cold War to be a solitary hunter, able to silently swap radar-based targeting data only with other F-22s using a special, hard-to-intercept radio datalink. Accordingly, the Raptor does not have the full Link 16 datalink installed on all other USAF and NATO fighters, support planes, warships and ground-based air defenses. Link 16 is what allows different air, sea and ground forces from the U.S. and its allies to securely swap information back and forth during wartime. To be clear, the F-22 can only receive Link 16 data. Again, the F-22 it is a solitary hunter, not a team player.

In order to use the F-22, a no-fly zone has to be established without any other airplanes in the area (USAF and NATO). The F-22 can be considered a solution for one or two potential scenarios, specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet and also would require it to be deployed in large numbers.

What you have been trying to do was to downplay the tactical advantages that low radar observability have in any battlefield.

Please do not tell me what the F-22 can and cannot do. I know things about the F-22 that are not in the public domain, and you should know by now that I know more about radar detection than you do.

 

[atlssa]

What you have been trying to do was to downplay the tactical advantages that low radar observability have in any battlefield.

Please do not tell me what the F-22 can and cannot do. I know things about the F-22 that are not in the public domain, and you should know by now that I know more about radar detection than you do.

First of all, I have no idea who you are nor what you do for living. I don't actually really care!
I wasn't trying to downplay anything. It was actually the other way around. All the conversation is there. If you disagree, good for you!
I made my point, you made yours...
Cheers!

 

[longlong]

First of all, I have no idea who you are nor what you do for living. I don't actually really care!
I wasn't trying to downplay anything. It was actually the other way around. All the conversation is there. If you disagree, good for you!
I made my point, you made yours...
Cheers!

Don't expect US or his son NATO will set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine by F-22.

F-22 is a legend.

Legend cannot be shot down. Otherwise, the legend will be discovered fake and whole system collapse.

You can you up, no can no BB ---- to F-22.

 

[atlssa]

Don't expect US or his son NATO will set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine by F-22.

F-22 is a legend.

Legend cannot be shot down. Otherwise, the legend will be discovered fake and whole system collapse.

You can you up, no can no BB ---- to F-22.

I don't think they would use as well...

 

[SR-91]

What you have been trying to do was to downplay the tactical advantages that low radar observability have in any battlefield.

Please do not tell me what the F-22 can and cannot do. I know things about the F-22 that are not in the public domain, and you should know by now that I know more about radar detection than you do.

Hey @gambit

Can you shed some light on AURORA, black project?

 

[gambit]

Don't expect US or his son NATO will set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine by F-22.

F-22 is a legend.

Legend cannot be shot down. Otherwise, the legend will be discovered fake and whole system collapse.

You can you up, no can no BB ---- to F-22.

A lot more real than the J-20 with its 'Chinese physics'.

 

[janon]

Hey @gambit

Can you shed some light on AURORA, black project?

If it's a black project, then by definition noobody will shed any light about it!