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

[Viper0011.]

That is one heck of a built quality for a 5th generation air craft.

@Oscar @gambit @sancho @orangzaib

I hope they aren't using the wrong tool set to open up the panels. That'll definitely hinder the RCS. This is probably a trial plane. Lack of Quality Assurance is usually seen in Russian and Chinese weapon systems. The US manufacturers wouldn't have brought the plane in this shape for flight tests. They would do further work to avoid any risk during flight. I can see some aluminum and silicon conductor and composite panels that aren't done correctly or can produce drag, etc during flight. I am sure that will change when they finalize the jet but it'll be considered a flight risk had this been in the US.

Plus, this is a modified-angular version of the Flanker family airframe. This will produce a low RCS jet not a 'new' 'all aspect' wholly entirely 'stealthy' plane like the F-22. It's visible from the design, geometry and a million pictures and drawings that I've seen and reviewed on different places. Not trying to discredit this, it will be leaps ahead of the current jets due to the RCS control and advanced EM and Super Cruise, etc. But, this isn't a direct competition to the F-22 or the F-35. I will credit this airframe for extreme speed, agility and maneuvers.

I think I will go as far as to say that the Chinese J-20 and J-31 may be a closer competitor to the Raptor and the F-35 compared to the TU models. The Chinese have stolen some US technology and they've known to work on advanced surfaces, stealth designs and miniaturized supercomputers for jets and high profile EM-Avionics suite.

 

[MilSpec]

I hope they aren't using the wrong tool set to open up the panels. That'll definitely hinder the RCS. This is probably a trial plane. Lack of Quality Assurance is usually seen in Russian and Chinese weapon systems. The US manufacturers wouldn't have brought the plane in this shape for flight tests. They would do further work to avoid any risk during flight. I can see some aluminum and silicon conductor and composite panels that aren't done correctly or can produce drag, etc during flight. I am sure that will change when they finalize the jet but it'll be considered a flight risk had this been in the US.

Plus, this is a modified-angular version of the Flanker family airframe. This will produce a low RCS jet not a 'new' 'all aspect' wholly entirely 'stealthy' plane like the F-22. It's visible from the design, geometry and a million pictures and drawings that I've seen and reviewed on different places. Not trying to discredit this, it will be leaps ahead of the current jets due to the RCS control and advanced EM and Super Cruise, etc. But, this isn't a direct competition to the F-22 or the F-35. I will credit this airframe for extreme speed, agility and maneuvers.

Please elaborate the erroneous "composite panels and aluminium panels" that you have visually inspected. Please do comment on the faults in the composite panels, I would love to hear more on this.

 

[Viper0011.]

Please elaborate the erroneous "composite panels and aluminium panels" that you have visually inspected. Please do comment on the faults in the composite panels, I would love to hear more on this.

You have a pair of eyes I am assuming. If you take a look at the airframe (close up) and if you have a software that can let you zoom 40X into pixels, you'll see it. It looks low quality. I never said it is 'erroneous'. Just to state the facts straight. I also said that they'll work on it MORE as they move forward but this is just a trial plane. However, in the US, LM or Boeing or anyone else, wouldn't let this plane fly as it's a flight risk. You can go left, right or side ways. The fact is the fact. The Russians and the Chinese quality assurance isn't up to par with the West / the US specifically. THAT's what I see here.
Russians have produced some of the few amazing airframes. SU 27-30-35 are great airframes so I'll give credit to where it's due. You are taking it personal as most Indian member do here. But that's ok. I can't change the facts because you guys get emotional like 18 year old chicks!

 

[MilSpec]

You have a pair of eyes I am assuming. If you take a look at the airframe (close up) and if you have a software that can let you zoom 40X into pixels, you'll see it. It looks low quality. I never said it is 'erroneous'. Just to state the facts straight. I also said that they'll work on it MORE as they move forward but this is just a trial plane. However, in the US, LM or Boeing or anyone else, wouldn't let this plane fly as it's a flight risk. You can go left, right or side ways. The fact is the fact. The Russians and the Chinese quality assurance isn't up to par with the West / the US specifically. THAT's what I see here.
Russians have produced some of the few amazing airframes. SU 27-30-35 are great airframes so I'll give credit to where it's due. You are taking it personal as most Indian member do here. But that's ok. I can't change the facts because you guys get emotional like 18 year old chicks!

My assumption is Poor quality in composite panels as you have described refers to air gaps in facesheet, incomplete resin infusion, over curing in autoclave, excess resin deposition, facesheet separation, face sheet wrinkles, biax layer cracks.

Now I am unable to see any of them and I wouldnt claim any unless I can do a rudementary tap test, or atleast a TG analysis for DMA, but then again, you employ thousands like me and know more...

As far as the riveting is concerned I hope you do realize that these are flush fit blind friction-lock rivet, and will be coated with a high temp resin and Radar absorbent material, which will provide the surface finish as good as "your best guess".

I am guessing you haven't seen a flanker or a fulcrum up close, so please spare me your bs about knowing about these platforms. As far as maturity is concerned, we are not claiming hokum by looking at a pic, are we??

As far as flight risk is concerned ... please do enlighten me more about the TRV parameters of LM.. and please do explain how this platform in your opinion is a flight risk??

 

[Black Widow]

I hope they aren't using the wrong tool set to open up the panels. That'll definitely hinder the RCS. This is probably a trial plane. Lack of Quality Assurance is usually seen in Russian and Chinese weapon systems. The US manufacturers wouldn't have brought the plane in this shape for flight tests. They would do further work to avoid any risk during flight. I can see some aluminum and silicon conductor and composite panels that aren't done correctly or can produce drag, etc during flight. I am sure that will change when they finalize the jet but it'll be considered a flight risk had this been in the US.

Plus, this is a modified-angular version of the Flanker family airframe. This will produce a low RCS jet not a 'new' 'all aspect' wholly entirely 'stealthy' plane like the F-22. It's visible from the design, geometry and a million pictures and drawings that I've seen and reviewed on different places. Not trying to discredit this, it will be leaps ahead of the current jets due to the RCS control and advanced EM and Super Cruise, etc. But, this isn't a direct competition to the F-22 or the F-35. I will credit this airframe for extreme speed, agility and maneuvers.

I think I will go as far as to say that the Chinese J-20 and J-31 may be a closer competitor to the Raptor and the F-35 compared to the TU models. The Chinese have stolen some US technology and they've known to work on advanced surfaces, stealth designs and miniaturized supercomputers for jets and high profile EM-Avionics suite.

Why comparing T50 with F22? And moreover its prototype, prototypes fly without paint to detect any structural defects. Hope being a old member you must know it. I think the stealth aspect of this plane is not tested yet.

Its not Flanker, Its entirely new plane . Your argument that F22 is entirely stealthy is flawed (Gambit can better educate you). and please stop being expert, by just visually inspection you can't give the verdict.
@Chinese planes: No comment....

 

[Viper0011.]

Why comparing T50 with F22? And moreover its prototype, prototypes fly without paint to detect any structural defects. Hope being a old member you must know it. I think the stealth aspect of this plane is not tested yet.

Its not Flanker, Its entirely new plane . Your argument that F22 is entirely stealthy is flawed (Gambit can better educate you). and please stop being expert, by just visually inspection you can't give the verdict.
@Chinese planes: No comment....

I wasn't even daring to compare it to the F-22. But a few of your countrymen on other topics have been claiming as such. So I clarified. I know F-22 isn't a truly invisible plane. In the world of high power electronic active and passive radars, IR devices that now see for over 30 miles in 4th gen planes, DAS systems that can track an image from 800 miles away on-board an F-35, etc, etc....there is no such thing as a stealth plane unless you get into unmanned platforms. So I know how 'un-stealthy' F-22 is. BUT, believe me, it is a LOT more stealthier than anything else out there and for the purpose it was designed for.

And Gambit is a great resource with a lot more years under his belt as an expert that me....I think he'd agree with what I've posted above.

Last, yes, Chinese stealths....no one is giving out a verdict based on 'visual effects'. Indian and Chinese guys get into this weird national phobia that I don't understand. But, their jets are being built on stolen US technology. Had they been using either their own sub-par technology or Russian technology, I wouldn't have made that statement. So its capability and technology that I am referring to. Remember, Russia still runs its technology platforms on Unix - Mainframe based systems. That's why they lagged behind the American military industrial complex as it was hard to commercialize the technology through mainframes. But the US focused on semi conductor and micro processors, resulting in creating hundreds of R&D companies that come up with new innovations every year. The Chinese are doing JUST that. So hope this helps.

 

[Sergi]

I wasn't even daring to compare it to the F-22. But a few of your countrymen on other topics have been claiming as such. So I clarified. I know F-22 isn't a truly invisible plane. In the world of high power electronic active and passive radars, IR devices that now see for over 30 miles in 4th gen planes, DAS systems that can track an image from 800 miles away on-board an F-35, etc, etc....there is no such thing as a stealth plane unless you get into unmanned platforms. So I know how 'un-stealthy' F-22 is. BUT, believe me, it is a LOT more stealthier than anything else out there and for the purpose it was designed for.

And Gambit is a great resource with a lot more years under his belt as an expert that me....I think he'd agree with what I've posted above.

Last, yes, Chinese stealths....no one is giving out a verdict based on 'visual effects'. Indian and Chinese guys get into this weird national phobia that I don't understand. But, their jets are being built on stolen US technology. Had they been using either their own sub-par technology or Russian technology, I wouldn't have made that statement. So its capability and technology that I am referring to. Remember, Russia still runs its technology platforms on Unix - Mainframe based systems. That's why they lagged behind the American military industrial complex as it was hard to commercialize the technology through mainframes. But the US focused on semi conductor and micro processors, resulting in creating hundreds of R&D companies that come up with new innovations every year. The Chinese are doing JUST that. So hope this helps.

In short, it's Amerian ; only way and technology to do these things. Nothing come close to it ???
( simple question no other intentions )

 

[kingdurgaking]

Last, yes, Chinese stealths....no one is giving out a verdict based on 'visual effects'. Indian and Chinese guys get into this weird national phobia that I don't understand. But, their jets are being built on stolen US technology. Had they been using either their own sub-par technology or Russian technology, I wouldn't have made that statement. So its capability and technology that I am referring to. Remember, Russia still runs its technology platforms on Unix - Mainframe based systems. That's why they lagged behind the American military industrial complex as it was hard to commercialize the technology through mainframes. But the US focused on semi conductor and micro processors, resulting in creating hundreds of R&D companies that come up with new innovations every year. The Chinese are doing JUST that. So hope this helps.

Your inner meaning??? you ought to say every country should do and follow what america is doing??

 

[Viper0011.]

Your inner meaning??? you ought to say every country should do and follow what america is doing??

Bro, we lead the world since WWII till now and into the next many decades. So, yes, I was trying imply that the Chinese have learned from the best. So has the India. Without the US's jobs, economic and financial investments.....you think the India of 90's would be able to afford programs like ABM, Stealth, etc??? I know the internal house hold discussions that used to happen in India around 90's and before....people were scared as to what will happen in the next decades to come, extreme poverty was there, no real meaningful future....and then, BAM, the technology curve hit the world. The US made partners with India to utilize the cheap labor (and in that process, outsources 13 million jobs to India which didn't need to be outsources and people in the US defaulted on their home mortgages being jobless). So yes....any country who learns from a better one and puts in controls towards the future sees gains. You think the Chinese would be where they are today had they been following their 80's and 90's policies??

This is an off topic discussion. Open up a new thread and I'd LOVE to walk you through the globalization, business and military strategies, future markets, growth, etc. I specialize in this sh1t!!!

 

[MilSpec]

...............................................................

no one is giving out a verdict based on 'visual effects'. Indian and Chinese guys get into this weird national phobia that I don't understand.

Apparently somebody claimed, about poor quality in AL, composites from a picture. Also made some preposterous claims of this being a flight risk and hinting familiarity with flight test process at LM/Boeing... I just want to get to know how to evaluate quality from a picture....

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Apparently somebody claimed, about poor quality in AL, composites from a picture. Also made some preposterous claims of this being a flight risk and hinting familiarity with flight test process at LM/Boeing... I just want to get to know how to evaluate quality from a picture....

All that is required is the ability to talk glibly. Ever dealt with a salesman on a used-car lot?
That kind can out-talk any aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, economist, global scientist, anyone.

 

[Srinivas]

@orangzaib the surface looks rugged because that is not the final coating, once the coating is done the stealth jet will be fine.

Regarding the comment about Chinese stealth jets, China is at a disadvantage since they copied the US tech of F35 and the same tech is used by EU in F35(shape of the nose and wings etc). The signature of the J31 is already known to EU and US.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Bro, we lead the world since WWII till now and into the next many decades. So, yes, I was trying imply that the Chinese have learned from the best. So has the India. Without the US's jobs, economic and financial investments.....you think the India of 90's would be able to afford programs like ABM, Stealth, etc??? I know the internal house hold discussions that used to happen in India around 90's and before....people were scared as to what will happen in the next decades to come, extreme poverty was there, no real meaningful future....and then, BAM, the technology curve hit the world. The US made partners with India to utilize the cheap labor (and in that process, outsources 13 million jobs to India which didn't need to be outsources and people in the US defaulted on their home mortgages being jobless). So yes....any country who learns from a better one and puts in controls towards the future sees gains. You think the Chinese would be where they are today had they been following their 80's and 90's policies??

This is an off topic discussion. Open up a new thread and I'd LOVE to walk you through the globalization, business and military strategies, future markets, growth, etc. I specialize in this sh1t!!!

You have to be open and need lot of deep thinking if you think you really mean what you say... Secondly you need to define what you mean lead the world?? leading the world in common context is totally different.. US' jobs , economics etc are not coming to india like donating something to beggar .. The things go to India or some other country is because of different reason ...

If you look into the economic model of india it is totaly different , I dont want to talk more about it...

The thing you need to understand is no one will follow no one or do what other says unless they are slaves... Every one like to add there own flavor in the pizza . No one is born for that .. Every country is unique ... If china follows the path of US .. it is its own choice.. it will get its own profit and loss.. if others dont they will have there own profit and loss.. so US should let other have there own individuality ...

US is not doing any favour or help to any one.. It has its own interest... Simple promote its own company and kill the other good brands which where good in the region... (e.g.) see how coca-cola killed many companies which where better than coca-cola..

I can tell many things.... There is no concept called follow.. If you follow you are doomed... Develop your own creativity....

So what Russia is doing is correct.. Even if they dont match US quality it is fine... Until it solves there maths..

 

[Viper0011.]

@orangzaib the surface looks rugged because that is not the final coating, once the coating is done the stealth jet will be fine.

Regarding the comment about Chinese stealth jets, China is at a disadvantage since they copied the US tech of F35 and the same tech is used by EU in F35(shape of the nose and wings etc). The signature of the J31 is already known to EU and US.

I already said in the same post (that seems to be causing heartburn) that this plane was a trial plane and the actual end product will look much better. So you and I are both correct

As far as the Chinese.....RCS doesn't mean anything. RCS known or unknown means nothing. It is the plane's capability that matters. The RCS of F-22 is like a Dime. You think if the Chinese knew that, they'll be programming their radars to look for a Dime type of an RCS??? That'll include hundreds of objects, ground clutter, etc, etc......and they'll never be able to really find out where the Raptor is. The location can be guessed and approximated unless it's very close and can be tracked or visually seen. THAT's the purpose. You know it's there, you can see some signs of it but when you can truly track it....your defensive force would already be on the run or confused and scattered!!

 

[MilSpec]

All that is required is the ability to talk glibly. Ever dealt with a salesman on a used-car lot?
That kind can out-talk any aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, economist, global scientist, anyone.

@orangzaib claimed that by looking at or magnifying the picture.. poor quality of composites is visible.... Testing of composite structures is my bread and butter..... Then the next claim was such prototype wont be allowed to fly as it poses a flight risk.... I have considerable experience aerospace and structural design and our mentor in the structural design and validation is a veteran from LM skunk works... I have little bit of idea of how TRV works in SW/LM, inspired from the same; even our dept at my current company is termed TRV (testing research and validation).

When I did pose a query on "low quality", the genius seems to be implying we have some kind of heartburn for ridiculous observations of his which are not based on any facts or informed opinions. So when it comes to quasi hack professionals, all they can do is express their frustrations and eventually claim how they are superior to us poor Indians.