Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,073
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    That doesn't show vectored thrust nor is it infrared stealthy,it has straight engine exhausts.The F-22 has heat spreading Vectored thrust deflectors in the thrust stream.It's highly reduced thermal signature is part of its stealth .
    It's also not the final stage engines. They still have a lot of development to do on that.

    "There is very much to be done, in part as regards the engine," Putin said. "But the fact that the plane is already in the air is a big step forward."
    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/...a-fighter.html

    I don't think this is going to be a cheap aircraft. It probably won't be as good as the F-22 all together, but it's still going to be a nasty peice of work to fly against.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    It's also not the final stage engines. They still have a lot of development to do on that.



    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/...a-fighter.html

    I don't think this is going to be a cheap aircraft. It probably won't be as good as the F-22 all together, but it's still going to be a nasty peice of work to fly against.
    It's not just the engine its the whole aft section of the airframe.The Russians design their aircraft for easy engine replacement and they essentially 'plug in' a new engine even in the field.

    The F-22 engines are integrated into the airframe and are a bitch to remove in a depot never mind a dirt runway.All of those thrust Clamshell deflectors are locally pumped hydraulically driven servos and need to be removed just to get at the engines.The Russians are playing the same old game of 'catchup' with us."Any thing you can do we can do better ."

    The MiG-25 is a good example of Russian 'catch up' design.When the military had its first look it scared some pentagon people shitless.When we had access to one we had a good look at Soviet shortcuts and design flaws.The leading edge of the wings was simple steel and rusted,the engines needed to be replaced every hundred hours or so of flying time.

    The design concepts of the F-22 are far ahead of anything the Soviets will be able to match for years to come.

    I wish the Aircraft designers would stop 'mucking about' and design some really modern concepts designed to go from earth into space and back again at sub orbital speeds....

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Most Of The F-22ski Flies

    The T-50 is incorrectly touted as a Russian answer to the American F-22. It isn't.

    Comment:
    The F-22 is so far advanced it is priced accordingly. Instead we now have to go with a less deadly more versatile F-35 for the future. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the Virginia class sub is to the Seawolf- cheaper, modular but unfortunately not the “baddest mofo” out there.
    ............
    The 47 minute test flight was done without the new engines designed for the T-50. Russia has always had problems with high performance jet engines, and those woes continue. "Evolving" an aircraft design, in this case, the Su-27, is a Russian custom.
    ...........
    Yeah. It's customary for them to "evolve" their design at a rate that matches the rate they can steal the details of our design.
    ...........
    the T-50 (earlier referred to as the Su-47) The Su-47 is a different design, the forward-swept wing Berkut tech demonstrator
    end Comment:
    snip

    Also called PAK FA (Prospective Aviation System of Frontline Aviation), or T-50, it’s a radical development of the Su-27/30/35 series of aircraft. The 47 minute test flight was done without the new engines designed for the T-50. Russia has always had problems with high performance jet engines, and those woes continue.

    "Evolving" an aircraft design, in this case, the Su-27, is a Russian custom. New models of a base design are given new names. The U.S. also does this, but keeps the original name. The Russian mods are often much more extensive, extending to the fuselage and basic architecture of the aircraft.

    But the T-50 contains more features that Russia hopes will make the T-50 (earlier referred to as the Su-47) more competitive against the new American fighters (F-22 and F-35, which are wholly new, and much more expensive, designs).

    Russia wants to export the new fighter, while the U.S. won't (yet) export the F-22. When the T-50 project went dormant for years, it was believed the Su-35 or Su-37 would be pimped out (a whole lot) to be the official F-22 competitor.

    But the T-50 hasn't died, not yet anyway. So the Su-35 and Su-37 will continue as advanced models of the Su-27, and not be burdened with competing with the F-22 in the marketplace.

    Last year, the Russian Air Force bought 48 Su-35 jet fighters from Sukhoi, to be delivered within six years. Aside from the T-50, the Su-35 is the most advanced of these Su-27 designs. A year ago, one of the two F-35 prototypes crashed on takeoff. .......The cause was a problem with one of the two engines.

    A third prototype is under construction. Russia had hoped to have the destroyed prototype fly over the May Day parade in Moscow on May 1st. The crash was really bad PR, since one of the consistent shortcomings of Russian warplanes has been the unreliable engines. But the project is moving forward, and Russia expects to export over 160 Su-35s in the next five years, and eventually have more Su-35s in service than the U.S. has F-22s. But the more advanced T-50 is being pushed to, if not leapfrog the F-22, at least stay in the race.

    The Su-35 is a 34 ton fighter that is more maneuverable than the original, 33 ton, Su-27, and has much better electronics. It can cruise at above the speed of sound. It also costs at least fifty percent more than the Su-27. That would be some $60 million (for a barebones model), about what a top-of-the-line F-16 costs. The Su-27 was originally developed to match the F-15, which is larger than the single engine F-16. The larger size of the Su-27/30, allows designers to do a lot more with it in terms of modifications and enhancements.

    The Su-35 is to have some stealth capabilities (or at least be less detectable to most fighter aircraft radars).

    Russia is promising a fighter with a life of 6,000 flight hours, and engines good for 4,000 hours. Russia promises world-class avionics, plus a very pilot-friendly cockpit.

    The use of many thrusters and fly-by-wire will produce an aircraft even more maneuverable than earlier Su-30s (which have been extremely agile).

    Many of the advanced features promised for the Su-35, are now earmarked for the T-50. The T-50 began development eight years ago, when the Su-47 design was selected as the successor to the Su-27/30 series, as well as the MiG-29. The MiG version of the T-50 lost the competition, but will contribute some ideas. The new aircraft is not meant to be a direct rival for the F-22, because the Russian aircraft is not nearly as stealthy. The 37 ton T-50 will carry up to eight tons of munitions, hanging from 12 hard points. This reduces stealthiness, which the F-22 and F-35 get around by using an internal bay for bombs and missiles. But if the maneuverability and advanced electronics of the proposed T-50 live up to the promises, the aircraft would be more than a match for every fighter out there except the F-22. If such an T-50 was sold for under $100 million each, there would be a lot of buyers. India has already agreed to invest several billion dollars into T-50 development, and will buy many of the aircraft if the design is successful. But that depends a lot on Russian military engine and avionics developers getting their mojo back. That is not a sure thing, not matter how much Russian politicians and air force generals want it to be so.

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hta.../20100131.aspx
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •