Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I agree, one would usually have to have a visual on a raptor to find it again meaning the raptor would have a firing solution on the Pak-Fa before it's known to be in the area

F-16.net Sponsor

How do they cool the L band radars? That in itself is a limit on the power output. Assuming they are for detecting LO platforms is also invalid. They may be arrays for communication or jamming. We need an expert to tell us if a couple of low power L band arrays are any advantage for A2A.

shingen wrote:

How do they cool the L band radars? That in itself is a limit on the power output. Assuming they are for detecting LO platforms is also invalid. They may be arrays for communication or jamming. We need an expert to tell us if a couple of low power L band arrays are any advantage for A2A.

They would be of very limited use for detection of other aircraft. They have limited range(small aperture, and limited power), and a very limited elevation search volume(+/- 5 deg).

lampshade111 wrote:

Why did the Russian's put those L-band radars there anyway?

They didn't. They just plan to install them on the T-50. But I bet they wont' install them - it's just wasted weight.

The Eagle has over a 100 to 0 kill ratio. Now those pilots are flying the Raptor. Hope that answers the question. Very Happy

vegasdave901 wrote:

The Eagle has over a 100 to 0 kill ratio. Now those pilots are flying the Raptor. Hope that answers the question. Very Happy

You are making too much sense buddy! Knock it off!!!! Wink

wrightwing wrote:

primorsky wrote:

The expected advantages which are on T-50 side

- better maneuverability overall (superior aerodynamics design, more advanced controls, engine with a 3D thrust-vectoring)

The production T-50 will have 2D TVC.

Wrong. First production PAK-FA fighter jets will have engine with 3D TVC (Saturn's 117). The final engine (also known as engine of "second stage") should have 3D TVC as well. It's very unlikely that designers and Russian military will prefer 2D over 3D TVC for future engine.

Quote:

Define superior aerodynamics quantitatively. Superior at what?

"The underfuselage tunnel between the engine nacelles contributes significantly to the overall aerodynamic lift generation, just as in the Su-27 and MiG-29 as well as in the F-14 - arguably the real originator of the “centreplane lift concept."
"This lift is added to that provided by the large wing and should enable excellent manoeuvrability even at high altitude - a potential advantage of the F-22 and now the PAK FA over all their rivals."
"The fuselage sides have marked “chines”, again like the F-22 and its unfortunate competitor, the YF-23. This shaping can be assumed both to contribute toward reducing radar reflectivity and to develop, at high angles of attack, favourable lift-enhancing vortexes flowing above the inner wing upper surface just above the engine nacelles."
( (C) Sergio Coniglio analysis )

Russian airframes are well known for their superior aerodynamics designs over Western counterparts.

Quote:

- T-50 airframe and controls are designed for supersonic speeds in a better way (faster supercruise too).

What does this even mean? Designed for supersonic speeds in a better way?

PAK-FA's airframe configuration designed to sustain supersonic speeds in a better way. Aerodynamic drag significantly reduced (small vertical tails).

Also:
"The engines are fed by two-dimensional raked air intakes with the upper lip generating an oblique shock wave favourable to dynamic pressure recovery in the supersonic regime, which for the PAK FA could approach Mach 2.3÷2.5. While in appearance of fixed geometry, it is possible that a variable-position upper ramp, to generate multiple oblique shocks is part of the system for a further better dynamic pressure recovery in the high supersonic speed regime."
( (C) Sergio Coniglio analysis )

Quote:

What's the supercruise speed of the T-50?

With the current engine - unknown. Flight tests of T-50-1 with supercruise are not even started (at least, there no any publicly information about it).
As for T-50's future engine, these capabilities are also unknown.

Quote:

- five radars (primary X-Band AESA radar, two side-looking AESA radars, 2 L-band radars in the wing leading edges) and IRST (F-22 lacks the electro-optical and infrared sensors). This electronic equipment should provide better situation awareness on T-50.

None of which have demonstrated their capabilities.

Sure. PAK-FA's radars are planned for aerial trials in 2011.

Quote:

- anti-air missiles with greater range (internal weapons bays on T-50 are longer).

Limited missile load when carrying R-37s, and R-77s aren't longer ranged than latest AMRAAMs.

R-37 / R-77 are old Soviet missiles. PAK-FA should get new missiles with a highly improved range. Ramjet-powered R-77 successor is more likely will surpass AIM-120D in term of range.

Quote:

Perhaps, and only if the F-119s don't get any improvements in the next 10-12 years.

"Second stage" engine for PAK-FA is very speculative theme. Max/dry thrust and other important requirements for this future engine are still unknown.

primorsky wrote:

"The underfuselage tunnel between the engine nacelles contributes significantly to the overall aerodynamic lift generation, just as in the Su-27 and MiG-29 as well as in the F-14 - arguably the real originator of the “centreplane lift concept."
"This lift is added to that provided by the large wing and should enable excellent manoeuvrability even at high altitude - a potential advantage of the F-22 and now the PAK FA over all their rivals."
"The fuselage sides have marked “chines”, again like the F-22 and its unfortunate competitor, the YF-23. This shaping can be assumed both to contribute toward reducing radar reflectivity and to develop, at high angles of attack, favourable lift-enhancing vortexes flowing above the inner wing upper surface just above the engine nacelles."
( (C) Sergio Coniglio analysis )

I don't know. My understanding (and I wish I had flight envelopes for all the planes to back this up) is that it’s all dependent on the flight regime. The Eagle and F-16 dominate supersonic, while they’re slightly better or equal to the Russians around transonic, and the Eagle falls behind at subsonic maneuvering. The F-16 can keep up everywhere but the absolute lowest speed. However, the F/A-18 has excellent low speed handling. The F-15 is also faster/quicker to accelerate [correct me] than the Fulcrum/Flanker, and the F-16 isn’t far behind. The F/A-18 is more like a sports sedan than a sports car when it comes to acceleration though.

As for the F-22 vs T-50, vertical tail size isn’t enough to say that the T-50 has it better for wave drag. The F-22 was designed for supersonic flight so I doubt it will be easy to better in that area. They also have almost the same wing area, and while the F-22 doesn’t have the pancake, the fuselage does have some lifting body qualities, and it seems like the chines on the F-22 may be more effective than they appear because they are attached to a nice large flat surface (top of the intakes) which may function much like the giant LERX’s on the F-18.

primorsky wrote:

Wrong. First production PAK-FA fighter jets will have engine with 3D TVC (Saturn's 117). The final engine (also known as engine of "second stage") should have 3D TVC as well. It's very unlikely that designers and Russian military will prefer 2D over 3D TVC for future engine.

Actually i'm pretty certain the Russians have just recently said it will have 2D TVC.

(Though i'm pretty sure the first batch of T-50 will only have standard type nozzles due to the 2D's not being ready and available... Wink

)

shep1978 wrote:

primorsky wrote:

Wrong. First production PAK-FA fighter jets will have engine with 3D TVC (Saturn's 117). The final engine (also known as engine of "second stage") should have 3D TVC as well. It's very unlikely that designers and Russian military will prefer 2D over 3D TVC for future engine.

Actually i'm pretty certain the Russians have just recently said it will have 2D TVC.

(Though i'm pretty sure the first batch of T-50 will only have standard type nozzles due to the 2D's not being ready and available... Wink

)

And I'm very certain that the Russians have said that, which is why I pointed it out to him. Cool

primorsky wrote:

"The underfuselage tunnel between the engine nacelles contributes significantly to the overall aerodynamic lift generation, just as in the Su-27 and MiG-29 as well as in the F-14 - arguably the real originator of the “centreplane lift concept."
"This lift is added to that provided by the large wing and should enable excellent manoeuvrability even at high altitude - a potential advantage of the F-22 and now the PAK FA over all their rivals."
"The fuselage sides have marked “chines”, again like the F-22 and its unfortunate competitor, the YF-23. This shaping can be assumed both to contribute toward reducing radar reflectivity and to develop, at high angles of attack, favourable lift-enhancing vortexes flowing above the inner wing upper surface just above the engine nacelles."
( (C) Sergio Coniglio analysis )

Russian airframes are well known for their superior aerodynamics designs over Western counterparts.

Ok, so where in all of that is the proof that the PAK FA has superior aerodynamics, or is your proof "it's well know that Russian airframes are superior to Western counterparts." Rolling Eyes

Quote:

- T-50 airframe and controls are designed for supersonic speeds in a better way (faster supercruise too).

PAK-FA's airframe configuration designed to sustain supersonic speeds in a better way. Aerodynamic drag significantly reduced (small vertical tails).[/quote]

I think the word you're looking for is different, not better. Unless you know what both aircraft can do, performance wise, this is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

With the current engine - unknown. Flight tests of T-50-1 with supercruise are not even started (at least, there no any publicly information about it).
As for T-50's future engine, these capabilities are also unknown.

So would you agree that it's a lot of speculation to say that the T-50 is superior, since that superiority has yet to be demonstrated? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Sure. PAK-FA's radars are planned for aerial trials in 2011.

And there'll still be very little real info available even after these tests are complete, much less how well they perform against an F-22. A lot of people criticize the F-22 for not currently having IRST, yet somehow feel having 5 emitters is a good thing, especially on a less stealthy design.

Quote:

R-37 / R-77 are old Soviet missiles. PAK-FA should get new missiles with a highly improved range. Ramjet-powered R-77 successor is more likely will surpass AIM-120D in term of range.

blah blah blah. Saying that over and over again doesn't change reality. Those will be the radar guided missiles that the PAK FA carry. The only "new" missile is IR. The R-37 isn't currently in service, nor is the Ramjet powered R-77(and to my knowledge isn't even undergoing trials yet).
The longest range figure that I've heard for anything(i.e. new model R-77) other than the R-37/KS-172, is 160-175km, which is <180km of the -120D. If we're going to include paper missiles, then we'll have to had the JDRADM for purposes of comparison.

Quote:

"Second stage" engine for PAK-FA is very speculative theme. Max/dry thrust and other important requirements for this future engine are still unknown.

Russian sources are saying 10-12 years for the definitive engine to reach operational status, so till such time the 117 will power the PAK FA.

awsome wrote:

Only Chuck norris could beat a raptor. I wonder if Carlo Kopp has done a chuck norris analysis?

Are you kidding? Chuck Norris DESIGNED the Raptor. Why would he beat it? It's like his love-child.

It's only weakness is it can't land in a cross-wind... but that's not an issue because fortunately, the winds would never dare cross Chuck Norris.

For fun, Chuck Norris decided to fight the Raptor on it's first flight. That fight continues unstopped to this day and so far it's a draw. Chuck is expected to win by 2015.

I think Chuck Norris and the "most interesting man in the world" (Doseckies beer guy) should take each other on to see who is best Not Worthy

T-50 = POS

Looks good on paper but those big burner cans are crying for an AIM-9X to put them out.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Could anything take on a Raptor