Video of Second Sukhoi PAK FA Stealth Fighter's First Flight

This video is from the Sukhoi plant in Siberia and took place in early march. This fighter has been built to rival the F-22 Raptor but gives up some stealthiness for manueverability. This second prototype is supposed to be testing mission systems in the plane, while the first plane was used to test the actual design of the plane.

I have to say it kinda looks a little hoakey dokey compared to the latest stuff i see comming out of boeing and others.
If this is their catch up then we are still a step ahead or better when the new robotic space craft which the US has successfully flown.is factored in.
And the battle has historically gone to he who holds the high ground.......................

Originally posted by stirling
I have to say it kinda looks a little hoakey dokey compared to the latest stuff i see comming out of boeing and others.
If this is their catch up then we are still a step ahead or better when the new robotic space craft which the US has successfully flown.is factored in.
And the battle has historically gone to he who holds the high ground.......................

What does an unmanned orbital spacecraft have to do with the development of 5th generation fighters? That's like saying that the Soviets must have had aerial supremacy because they launched Sputnik before anyone else had satellites.

Originally posted by stirling
I have to say it kinda looks a little hoakey dokey compared to the latest stuff i see comming out of boeing and others.
If this is their catch up then we are still a step ahead or better when the new robotic space craft which the US has successfully flown.is factored in.
And the battle has historically gone to he who holds the high ground.......................

The Russians have been flying automated space vehicles for decades - their first Buran mission (their version of the Space Shuttle) was flown completely autonomously, including landing.

The Russians routinely fly Progress supply missions to the ISS, including automated docking - again, something that dates back to the mid 1970s...

Its not the Russians that are playing catch up with regard to your example...

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

What does an unmanned orbital spacecraft have to do with the development of 5th generation fighters? That's like saying that the Soviets must have had aerial supremacy because they launched Sputnik before anyone else had satellites.

Sputnik scared the bejeesus out of a lot of Americans for precisely that reason - if the Soviets could put a satellite in orbit, they could put a nuke on any American city.

reply to post by stirling


There is no catch up, the U.S. and Russia are pretty much head to head. There can't be any catch up when they are using stolen technology to propel there programs. At the end of W.W. 2 all of Germany's far advanced technology was stolen, and I'm not talking about flying saucers but rocket and jet technology among many others. At the end of the war many rocket scientists were taken from Germany. The U.S. took those that were involved with stage rockets and the Russians took those involved with bundle rockets.

Stage Rocket


Bundle Rocket


As far as the stealth fighter, again based off of German technology, it seems as though they are just trying to build a competing fighter. As new technology comes up you have to adapt and adaptation isn't always about catching up but making the right changes to improve something. They want it to be more manueverable even if it is not as stealthy as the F-22. It seems as though Russia focuses on manueverability and the fight and the U.S. focuses more on being out of sight or out of reach when developing their aircraft. Dont forget that Russia sells weapons to countries too and you have to have a competing product if you want to make money.

Originally posted by I B Dazzlin
reply to post by stirling

 

There is no catch up, the U.S. and Russia are pretty much head to head. There can't be any catch up when they are using stolen technology to propel there programs. At the end of W.W. 2 all of Germany's far advanced technology was stolen, and I'm not talking about flying saucers but rocket and jet technology among many others. At the end of the war many rocket scientists were taken from Germany. The U.S. took those that were involved with stage rockets and the Russians took those involved with bundle rockets.

Thats a nice story, but its a pity its not exactly true.

Yes, both the Soviets and the US took scientists from the Nazi rocketry programmes, but in general the US got the top tier scientists, of which tehre were relatively few, while the Soviets got the working scientists, the people who took the top tier scientists ideas and made them into reality.

Also your distinction between "bundle" and "stage" rockets is a load of bumpkiss - the Soviet Soyuz and Voshkod rockets were both derivatives of the R-7 multistage rocket, which consisted of several strap on booster rockets and a two stage main rocket. The US used the same basic concept with their Delta rockets in the 1960s, which had the capability of adding strap on boosters.

Also, how exactly do events from 70 years ago stop there being progress today? Or even 10 years after the end of the war?

An aside is that at the end of the war, both the USSR and the US were given the British jet engine designed and built by Whittle to even the situation out. All of the jet fighters flown in the Korean war on all sides were powered by Whittles jet engines - a feat that no one else can claim.

The USSR didn't base any of its jet engine designs on German technology, as they only got a few examples and none of the supporting technology - when they switched to axial flow engines with the Mig-19, it was a wholely home grown technology.

The US on the other hand employed Whittle after the war to sort its jet engine programmes out.

As far as the stealth fighter, again based off of German technology, it seems as though they are just trying to build a competing fighter. As new technology comes up you have to adapt and adaptation isn't always about catching up but making the right changes to improve something. They want it to be more manueverable even if it is not as stealthy as the F-22. It seems as though Russia focuses on manueverability and the fight and the U.S. focuses more on being out of sight or out of reach when developing their aircraft. Dont forget that Russia sells weapons to countries too and you have to have a competing product if you want to make money.

People really need to stop thinking that technology from 70 years ago has any value for todays militayr industry - yes, the Nazis flew some interesting designs, but they weren't searching for radar evading concepts, they stumbled on it while searching for other things. They also didn't plan on doing anything with it.

reply to post by RichardPrice


I was just giving a quick little synopsis of what occured thinking of the V-2 etc. The point I was trying to make is no one has ever been ahead of the other between the U.S. and Russia as they stole the same starting point and resources. I am also well aware of what scientists were brought to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip and what scientists and technicians they did not care about that the Russians attained. I know that what was researched then has little to do with the militry industrial complex research now. The aeronautic technology that is visible in Russia and the U.S. is close to each other in how advanced it is. Unless one country has some super black aircraft that can put the other countries airforce to shame then no one has advanced technologicaly beyond the other.

Originally posted by I B Dazzlin
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

I was just giving a quick little synopsis of what occured thinking of the V-2 etc. The point I was trying to make is no one has ever been ahead of the other between the U.S. and Russia as they stole the same starting point and resources. I am also well aware of what scientists were brought to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip and what scientists and technicians they did not care about that the Russians attained. I know that what was researched then has little to do with the militry industrial complex research now. The aeronautic technology that is visible in Russia and the U.S. is close to each other in how advanced it is. Unless one country has some super black aircraft that can put the other countries airforce to shame then no one has advanced technologicaly beyond the other.

Well, my point is that the starting point doesn't matter - its been 70 years of progress made, there's ample scope there for a leader to emerge, and that leader is arguably Russia for rocketry and space transport.

Also, rocketry has little to do with Aeronautics...

reply to post by RichardPrice



fantastic plane !
did I see good or what is it that flies just above the plane at 2.02 till 2.06 ??
curious ....

There is a UFO caught top of screen at 2 mins.

Have a look!


Edit
Whoops, I didn't refresh the page for 19 mins, damn kids distracting me

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

fantastic plane !
did I see good or what is it that flies just above the plane at 2.02 till 2.06 ??
curious ....

Its dirt on the chase planes canopy.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

fantastic plane !
did I see good or what is it that flies just above the plane at 2.02 till 2.06 ??
curious ....

Its dirt on the chase planes canopy.

don't think so because it is descending while the rest of the objects stay in line and also you do not see it elsewhere in the images ....

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

fantastic plane !
did I see good or what is it that flies just above the plane at 2.02 till 2.06 ??
curious ....

Its dirt on the chase planes canopy.

don't think so because it is descending while the rest of the objects stay in line and also you do not see it elsewhere in the images ....

Oh wow, a bit of dirt *disappears*...

Its dirt.

The most shocking conspiracy revelation I have ever had was when I learned that Bush and Kerry were both members of skull and bones. Later I watched the interview where they were asked by a reporter what their membership means for american society. Based on their reaction/ body language to this question I knew for sure that the whole presidential election was scam played by liers and manipulators.

What has this to do with this thread you can ask.....Well,...I noticed the simularity with the american stealth fighter and it will not surprise me if this russian fighter is constructed with the help of the americans...or...maybe more surprising....the american stealth fighter constructed with the help of the russians......better yet....it is was a russian/american partnership to design and built a fighter with this technology. This is by the way not the first time that their militairy (civilian) designs look very much the same.

Why....because of the mutual threat from....you name it.

How...because after the fall of the Berlin wall they have become close friends allthough for the 'outsider' they appear to be enemies operating independent from eachother. (Remember the weird, mason like handshake between Gorbatsjov and Reagan). The excellent performance of Bush and Kerry being eachothers opponents in the presidential elections but behind the screens serving the same agenda can also be applied to what is happening between the secret governments of the USA and Russia.

And in the end it has all to do with the NWO...

PS English is not my first language so I hope you can follow what I am trying to say here.

Originally posted by RichardPrice


An aside is that at the end of the war, both the USSR and the US were given the British jet engine designed and built by Whittle to even the situation out. All of the jet fighters flown in the Korean war on all sides were powered by Whittles jet engines - a feat that no one else can claim.

The USSR didn't base any of its jet engine designs on German technology, as they only got a few examples and none of the supporting technology - when they switched to axial flow engines with the Mig-19, it was a wholely home grown technology.

Partially correct, partially not.

The first US jet engines were based on a whittle design starting in 1941, but had actually improved upon it quickly, impressing the Brits with the J33, leading Whittle to develope the Nene. GE and Allison were both working on their own versions during WW2. The J47 in the F-86 was Axial flow too

Pratt and Whitney did produce the Nene under license, but that was the only Nene in US use, in one kind of plane, the F9F

reply to post by firepilot


On top of that, the Soviets had their own jet program long before they ever got some jet engine from Britain. There's a pretty good documentary floating around with video of their experiments, in fact it turns out that the Soviets were the first to successfully strap a rocket on a plane and use it for flight.

The Soviets were developing a lot of radical plane designs during the 40s (even submersable planes) until Stalin purged a lot of the important avionic engineers.

I can't remember the documentary off hand, but it was posted somewhere on ATS before.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by I B Dazzlin
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

I was just giving a quick little synopsis of what occured thinking of the V-2 etc. The point I was trying to make is no one has ever been ahead of the other between the U.S. and Russia as they stole the same starting point and resources. I am also well aware of what scientists were brought to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip and what scientists and technicians they did not care about that the Russians attained. I know that what was researched then has little to do with the militry industrial complex research now. The aeronautic technology that is visible in Russia and the U.S. is close to each other in how advanced it is. Unless one country has some super black aircraft that can put the other countries airforce to shame then no one has advanced technologicaly beyond the other.

Well, my point is that the starting point doesn't matter - its been 70 years of progress made, there's ample scope there for a leader to emerge, and that leader is arguably Russia for rocketry and space transport.

Also, rocketry has little to do with Aeronautics...

To begin if rocketry has little to do with aeronautics, then why is N.A.S.A. the National Aeronautic and Space Administration? Why put aeronautics in the title of an organization that launches things up into the air with rockets? For example they use rockets to launch space shuttles which are basicaly space planes that use rockets. None the less don't forget about rocket planes like space ship one, space ship two and the X-37. Now how do rockets have little to do with aeronautics? That's like saying dribbling a basketball has little to do with playing basketball. There are other ways to get down the court to the basket but some times you have to dribble.

As far as Russia being ahead of the U.S. in rocketry and space transport that is not really true. First the U.S. and Russia do alot of work together on the I.S.S. so I don't see how we could be in direct competition with each other. Secondly how would anyone know if they are ahead of the U.S. in space transportation when a great deal of what goes into space from the U.S. is classified?

Pretty Airplane, lookis kinda stealthy. I wonder abou the the straight line of the intakes back to the compressor faces of the engine and how they keep that stealthy. The fuselage seems very well blended. didn't notice any examples of control surface limitation or use of multi-directional thrust vectoring. Didn't see anytype of ram treatments in the cockpit glass. Noticed the doors for nose and main gear were all straight lines and very little of the "saw" tooth seams that appear on the f117 and f22 and f35 designs. Guess will have to wait and see if this aircraft can be locked up by other contemporary "5th" gen fighters. Looks an awful lot like the yf-17 in some respects.

Originally posted by I B Dazzlin

To begin if rocketry has little to do with aeronautics, then why is N.A.S.A. the National Aeronautic and Space Administration? Why put aeronautics in the title of an organization that launches things up into the air with rockets? For example they use rockets to launch space shuttles which are basicaly space planes that use rockets. None the less don't forget about rocket planes like space ship one, space ship two and the X-37. Now how do rockets have little to do with aeronautics? That's like saying dribbling a basketball has little to do with playing basketball. There are other ways to get down the court to the basket but some times you have to dribble.

The predecessor of NASA is NACA - National Agency for Civil Aeronautics.

NASA still does lots of work that has nothing to do with launching rockets too, quite a bit of aeronautic research.