Russian 5th Generation Stealth Fighter PAK-FA has flown.

That bright yellow scheme won't do it any favors. Yeah, I know, it will probably be painted otherwise, still, miles behind what the U.S is playing with.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow



It's not a paint scheme, it's what aircraft look like when they come out of a factory before being painted. You aren't as far ahead as you may think. The USA might have more money, but give the Russians a mountain of cash and they'll put out anything just as good as what the USA has. And that's fact.

Here is a photo of the PAKFA with a paint scheme..

I'd say it looks like someone is planning on becoming top dog! Let's face it in this day and age you would be better off spending money on ground to air missiles. The only reason for having an air force is to attack someone else!

Interestingly the T-50 appears to have a couple of features that are MORE advanced than we see on the F-22. Its a shame that that our American members feel so threatened by the appearance of this aircraft that they have to disparage it loudly without REALLY looking at it.

It was a response that the US also gave to the Concorde, Typhoon and Tornado when they first came out, and we are on their side!


The immediately obvious features I was alluding to are the vertical tail surfaces, which are vastly smaller than they are are on the F-22 - suggesting better stealth from these components and a very efficient 3-D vector control system, plus the moving 'LERX-as-control-system', possibly the closest thing we have ever seen to a 'stealth canard' and again, suggestive of excellent control authority. But hey, lets just bitch about it instead

Finally, to ANYONE who says it looks 'exactly like the F-22', seriously man, get yourself an eye test or practice looking at some different planes. I see zero likeness here, its as different as it could possibly be and still do the job. If it looks like anything, I would say the forward section is similar to the YF-23, other than that it is unique.

Try putting a three-view of the F-22 and T-50 side by side and then try to find one thing that looks 'exactly the same'. Good luck with that.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by waynos]

reply to post by theregonnakillme


Are you pulling our leg? I don't think are being serious.

Let's put it another way.
It' like saying why invest in tanks and armored personnel carriers and fighting vehicles, when you can just put men with rifles to protect your borders.

Surface to air missiles are great, but what happens when an enemy jams them and they are rendered useless/unusable, as happened to Syria when Israel launched a strike on a suspected nuclear site?

Hopefully the point I'm making is coming across..

Going on looks, it seems alright for the criteria. Not near the extreme that the F-22 pushes on stealth though. Rather it seems somewhere between the F-22 and the stealth mods made to the later generation F-18s. (If anyones observed the changes leading edge surfaces and nacelle shapes, it's something noticable although subtle. You don't go from round shapes to angular for no reason.) If guesses on looks are enough, I'd almost be willing to say the PAK-FA still isn't as stealthy as a clean F-35.

This Russian fighter might not be entirely stealthy enough to do the job all on it's own, but if you throw up some ECM birds screaming out noise that breaks the "anti-stealth" radars, then it's more than good enough. (Although this way of doing it means those on the recieving end will know that somethings up, as where full stealth gives no opportunity to bunker down or run.)

It still amazes me that people think that stealth is the be-all and end-all of modern fighter aircraft and ships when it is so very clearly not.

If stealth technology were as special as it's cracked up to be, then how did a badly led, 5th rate rag-tag army of Serbian murder-thugs manage to shoot down an F-117A?

reply to post by Seekerof


Unless I am missing an underlying message/humor here, I'd be interested to know why you think this to be so.

The F-22 is more mature, and the T-50 has a long way to go before achieving that level of systems-maturity, but then that is like saying that the F-15 is inferior to the MiG-25 during the 70s.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by Seekerof

 

Unless I am missing an underlying message/humor here, I'd be interested to know why you think this to be so.

The F-22 is more mature, and the T-50 has a long way to go before achieving that level of systems-maturity, but then that is like saying that the F-15 is inferior to the MiG-25 during the 70s.

F-15 is the counterpart to the SU-27, and I would say that it is an inferior fighter too. The flanker was much more manuverable and incorporated advanced technologies (ie 3D thrust vectoring controls).

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

F-15 is the counterpart to the SU-27, and I would say that it is an inferior fighter too. The flanker was much more manuverable and incorporated advanced technologies (ie 3D thrust vectoring controls).

Your are kind of right, but also wrong at the same time Dmitri.

The Su-27 was indeed developed as the answer to the F-15, but incorporated much research conducted by TsAGI into fighter manoeverability, that was also used on the MiG 29, which came about as a direct result of the appearance of the F-15, which was entering service with the USAF as the Flankers development was just beginning.

The 3D thrust vectoring was only incorporated into later versions of the Flanker and this too was after the same technologies (including the Su-30's characteristic 'canard-plus-tail' layout) had also already been demonstrated on the F-15.

The difference was that with the ATF programme under way and desirous of not undermining that programme, these developments were not carried forward to the F-15 production line.

With no such considerations in the way, Sukhoi were able to shove as much as they could think of onto an already excellent airframe, resulting in all the Flanker offshoots with which we are familiar today.

In conclusion then, yes, the F-15 is inferior (barring systems) to the Flanker. But given the historical facts, you would expect nothing less.

One ugly aircraft that looks about as stealthy as a flying metal billboard.

Originally posted by fritz
It still amazes me that people think that stealth is the be-all and end-all of modern fighter aircraft and ships when it is so very clearly not.

If stealth technology were as special as it's cracked up to be, then how did a badly led, 5th rate rag-tag army of Serbian murder-thugs manage to shoot down an F-117A?

I can assure U the Serb Mil IS NOT "rag-tag" and will wip the U.S. Mil in a soilder vs soilder battle ANYTIME, it was the Serb Army that rescued 500 U.S. Airmen in WW2, my friend.

Originally posted by Dick Steel
One ugly aircraft that looks about as stealthy as a flying metal billboard.

With the exeption of the bottom, U mean to tell me the F-15/16/18 is more "STEALTHY" than this PAK-FA??????

[edit on 24-7-2010 by ATSWATCHER]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by Seekerof

 

Unless I am missing an underlying message/humor here, I'd be interested to know why you think this to be so.

The F-22 is more mature, and the T-50 has a long way to go before achieving that level of systems-maturity, but then that is like saying that the F-15 is inferior to the MiG-25 during the 70s.

What's so loong waayyish about slappin on an AESA/ECM/ECCM/ESM/ESSM/IFF/RWR/LWR (Lazer Warrning Reciever)
on this PAK-FA, the only problem I see with it is the bottom is not flat, and the intakes are not MORE SLANTED like the 22, other than that it's not a long way behind the 22 by any standerds.

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


No but the F-15 is almost 40 years old. The F-16 is near 35 years old so I expect those planes to lack Stealth but this is Russia’s 5th generation plane. Looks like 4th generation to me.

reply to post by Dick Steel


yea but this is all subjective chit chat.. The plane doesn't "look" and "feel" 5th gen doesn't mean it cant and eventually won't perform to meet that envelope.

Unless of course you are a fighter a/c connoisseur with a decent gut feel for planes by the way they look.
Now for that you need to have been around (and I mean IN and around no further than 4-5 meters) 3rd gen, 4th gen and 5th gen a/c for at least a couple of decades, following their progress in various areas such as avionics, mechanics, EW etc..

I've sat in the cockpit of a Su-30K (circa 2002) and its interior aesthetics 'looked' and 'felt' like that of a farm tractor, and in the same day I sat inside a 80s vintage Jaguar which is clearly at-least 0.5 gen behind a Su-30K and its interior looked like that of a sports-car compared to that of the Su-30K.
So if looks can be that misleading even up so close then I shudder to think how wrong we might be when we conclude by just looking at pictures.. And that goes both ways for all kinds of a/c : american, european, asian etc.

Originally posted by Dick Steel
reply to post by ATSWATCHER

 

No but the F-15 is almost 40 years old. The F-16 is near 35 years old so I expect those planes to lack Stealth but this is Russia’s 5th generation plane. Looks like 4th generation to me.

Then you DON'T know much about, 5th Generation shaping, besides the bottom of the PAK-FA, everything else IS "Stealthy"

[edit on 25-7-2010 by ATSWATCHER]

Propaganda again. I don't get why people keep buying into Russian propaganda. When they actually deploy them and shoot down a F-15, then ill be scared . Maybe a bit of a stealth with 4th gen avionics. No big deal here.

reply to post by Mike2000z28


Yea.. but then conversely there's no need to be scared of the F-22 as yet, because it hasn't shot at squat till now (except for those 'propaganda' videos).

And might I add, those videos are funny some of them.

Here the F-22 and B1-R take on the Su-30MKI and the Dassault Rafale .. Imagine the political undertones there! Min 5:25


I mean I can understand, J-10s, and Su-30MKKs, and MiG-31s, and Su-35BMs.. but this is outright funny

So this series intrigued me and I went on with it..

This one is funny too:





IR laser with a 90 mile range? BVRAAMs in non-western Air Forces can manage that range today.