PAK FA Busting Myths Video

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post14 Jul 2017, 23:37

Looking at all these pictures....

Don't the F-22's have a washing pool? Most are way :P overdue.. :P
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post14 Jul 2017, 23:40

Oh, the poor PAK-FA. Completely naked and undressed. A/C porn.

The poor thing went sooooo fast, it stripped all the paint off..... :P :P :P
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1203
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 00:15

paint is a good way of hiding inperfections...


I wouldn't call them imperfections. Or say that PAK-FA has poor build quality. Simply that its external skin is clearly not designed with the same purpose as the F-35 or F-22. It's designed and built the way one would design and build the skin of a conventional 4th gen fighter.

Angling a couple on panels doesn't make it 5th gen or VLO. Putting some RAM coating in certain areas doesn't make it VLO. Not if we're taking the F-35/F-22 exterior skin design as a benchmark to compare against.
Offline

hythelday

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 00:16

arian wrote:YF prototypes also were similar in conventional "fit and finish", but the finished products aren't. One could argue that the current planes are just prototypes and, like the YF planes, is not the final product.

Ok, maybe. One would think by 9 prototypes they would have gotten to the stage where they're actually finishing up the final version. And if they aren't, then PAK-FA is far away from getting into operation. So it can't be both "soon to enter service" and "not the final product"


Gonna tell you all a little secret... PAK-FA in russian stands for "frontline aviation - promising weapon systen" (loose semantic trabslation). T-50 is factory designation for airframe, much like T-10 is Flanker. So until it becomes Su-##, it just a prototype that Russkies try to get right. 9th prototype iteration? No engines, no AESA, no proper weapons yet? They should have had 60+ finished product planes by this year according to some estimates. Let's wish them the best of luck!

juretrn wrote:.. but I guess that a part of the reason their jets are generally cheaper to buy.


Both Su and MiG are state owned; they will sell you planes for 1$ a piece if there are other indirect benefits they can gain (certainly not oil-gas contracts for other russian state owned oil-gas companies, god forbid)
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 00:43

hythelday
State owned companies can technically operate at any kind of loss they like as long as the state can cover their as*es for them... at least to a point.
Great example - any ex-communist country and what happened to their industrial behemoths after the state wasn't interested in padding employment rates anymore post-1990.
But of course, you are right, Mig/sukhoi products can be exported for other gains and be technically greatly discounted, kind of like the Serbian MiG-29 upgrade package was done recently.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 00:52

hythelday wrote:
arian wrote:YF prototypes also were similar in conventional "fit and finish", but the finished products aren't. One could argue that the current planes are just prototypes and, like the YF planes, is not the final product.

Ok, maybe. One would think by 9 prototypes they would have gotten to the stage where they're actually finishing up the final version. And if they aren't, then PAK-FA is far away from getting into operation. So it can't be both "soon to enter service" and "not the final product"


Gonna tell you all a little secret... PAK-FA in russian stands for "frontline aviation - promising weapon systen" (loose semantic trabslation). T-50 is factory designation for airframe, much like T-10 is Flanker. So until it becomes Su-##, it just a prototype that Russkies try to get right. 9th prototype iteration? No engines, no AESA, no proper weapons yet? They should have had 60+ finished product planes by this year according to some estimates. Let's wish them the best of luck!

juretrn wrote:.. but I guess that a part of the reason their jets are generally cheaper to buy.


Both Su and MiG are state owned; they will sell you planes for 1$ a piece if there are other indirect benefits they can gain (certainly not oil-gas contracts for other russian state owned oil-gas companies, god forbid)



No sh*t not surpised there are less prototypes have I mentioned that to you that they have only spent 4 billion dollars? It has engines the 2017 engines have a 3,500km and 2020 engines which they are striving for has a 5000km range no external and no refuel.....People assume just because they have not upgraded it means they dont have engine ready? No AESA yes i agree its avionics are the final stage as stated......God i hate this forum for giving me less responses.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4218
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 00:57

wewuzkangz wrote:which they are striving for has a 5000km range no external and no refuel.....


:lmao:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 01:04

Oh well this will be my last response for now time to cause an upheaval here bigger than Milo in Berkley :twisted: ......http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png and https://i0.wp.com/www.ausairpower.net/X ... -2004D.png in terms of farther lower RCS detections. N036>Irbis>an/apg-77v1>an/apg-81.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 01:08

wewuzkangz wrote:No sh*t not surpised there are less prototypes have I mentioned that to you that they have only spent 4 billion dollars? It has engines the 2017 engines have a 3,500km and 2020 engines which they are striving for has a 5000km range no external and no refuel.

Some credible sources would be great.

If not then this is just another nonsense quote from blablaland.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 01:26

wewuzkangz wrote:No sh*t not surpised there are less prototypes have I mentioned that to you that they have only spent 4 billion dollars? It has engines the 2017 engines have a 3,500km and 2020 engines which they are striving for has a 5000km range no external and no refuel.....People assume just because they have not upgraded it means they dont have engine ready? No AESA yes i agree its avionics are the final stage as stated......God i hate this forum for giving me less responses.

Did you join with the specific intention to troll this board?
5000 km?
Well, I heard the F135 engine upgrade is going to give the F-35 the capability of a SSTO.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1562
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 17:11

5,000KM range is real bad a$$ :D

Any other tidbits you can share? Hypersonic with the new engines?? Look, if any of this were true then why proceed with the Mig-31 replacement? The PAK FA already has fantastic range (or does it?), killer BVR weapons and can detect aircraft (even stealth aircraft) from hundreds of KM away.

Really. If the PAK FA were all that why not pump out a few hundred more copies for Russian/Homeland defense vs. fund a new interceptor? You could even forgo the PAK FA super stealth in that arena..
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2447
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 18:47

wewuzkangz wrote:




No sh*t not surpised there are less prototypes have I mentioned that to you that they have only spent 4 billion dollars? It has engines the 2017 engines have a 3,500km and 2020 engines which they are striving for has a 5000km range no external and no refuel.....People assume just because they have not upgraded it means they dont have engine ready? No AESA yes i agree its avionics are the final stage as stated......God i hate this forum for giving me less responses.


Consider the fact that this was your third post here, all of which have been unserious, unsubstantiated, and asinine. If you want to be taken seriously, then the level of discourse needs to be higher than youtube level comments.
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 03:48

arian wrote:
paint is a good way of hiding inperfections...


I wouldn't call them imperfections. Or say that PAK-FA has poor build quality. Simply that its external skin is clearly not designed with the same purpose as the F-35 or F-22. It's designed and built the way one would design and build the skin of a conventional 4th gen fighter.

Angling a couple on panels doesn't make it 5th gen or VLO. Putting some RAM coating in certain areas doesn't make it VLO. Not if we're taking the F-35/F-22 exterior skin design as a benchmark to compare against.



What do you attribute the poor quality to? Are the Russians simply not capable of such precision work? We know they have very capable engineers, but this is a country that can't make a high quality car, and as of the 80s made TV sets with a tendency to explode. In the 80s TV set explosions were the most common cause of home fires in the Soviet Union. Quality control has been a consistent problem, but what is your take?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1562
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 13:19

I'll take a stab at it..

Two issues: Lack of a skilled labor force and lack of appropriate tooling. Because true stealth aircraft require 100% attention to detail, they can no longer stamp them out with "good enough" workmanship. Getting "close" doesn't get you to the grocery store.

This is exceedingly new vs. the Russian's historical practice of building planes like... tanks. They can't continue to play that game in the 21st century...
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1203
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 02:42

tincansailor wrote:
arian wrote:
paint is a good way of hiding inperfections...


I wouldn't call them imperfections. Or say that PAK-FA has poor build quality. Simply that its external skin is clearly not designed with the same purpose as the F-35 or F-22. It's designed and built the way one would design and build the skin of a conventional 4th gen fighter.

Angling a couple on panels doesn't make it 5th gen or VLO. Putting some RAM coating in certain areas doesn't make it VLO. Not if we're taking the F-35/F-22 exterior skin design as a benchmark to compare against.



What do you attribute the poor quality to? Are the Russians simply not capable of such precision work? We know they have very capable engineers, but this is a country that can't make a high quality car, and as of the 80s made TV sets with a tendency to explode. In the 80s TV set explosions were the most common cause of home fires in the Soviet Union. Quality control has been a consistent problem, but what is your take?


Well I don't think it's poor quality at all. It's comparable quality with US 4th gen fighter construction (superficially at least). I think that the level of technology and design is very different between 4th gen planes and what we see with F-35 or F-22. It's a different "skin" design, which as mixelflict says requires a different set of skills, different set of tooling and machinery, different materials, different designs etc.

Poor quality would imply that you wanted to design it a certain way but just did it poorly. I think it's more of: they couldn't design it in the way the F-35/F-22 external skin is designed in the first place.

It's like trying to build a super-car. To make a Bugatti "skin" you need the right materials, the right machinery, the right scientific knowledge, the right production capability to get the weight, air-resistance, structural strength etc. Now you could design a Bugati using more traditional production technology of steel or aluminium materials and panels fitted the traditional way etc, and do it well (ie not poor quality). But each is a different design and doesn't get the same set of performances.

Same concept with civilian airliners. To make a 787 "skin" (and by extension internal structure) requires a different design from making a conventional aluminum-skinned plane, even if you do a really good job of the aluminum skinned plane.

The Russians appear to be pushing 4th-gen construction technology to it's limits, but haven't yet moved into the set of construction technologies used in 5th gen planes. Which is not surprising because Lockheed has been doing this for decades and has a gigantic production base to experiment with. Probably many other US manufacturers couldn't get there either.

Brushing all this aside as many people on the internet do and simply saying "well the Russians have smart people, they can figure it out!" is being more than just a bit naive.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests