Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

[quote="elp"]

MKopack wrote:

donk14N wrote:

EDIT: Alright, I found the image I was looking for. After looking at the high-res image it looks extremely fake.

Hope they have some really big hangars, what would that thing be 100-120 feet long? Look at the people standing under it...

Mike

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that this alleged aircraft is very clearly a copy of one of the unsuccessful ATF bids, the General Dynamics bid, to be more specific. What's next, Firefox? Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

That aircraft is from the Ace Combat video game series.

skrip00 wrote:

That aircraft is from the Ace Combat video game series.

Which in turn is based on the failed General Dynamics ATF bid...

Last edited by donk14N on Feb 07, 2007 - 06:30 AM; edited 1 time in total

Firefox...Only this time you must think in Mandarin Chinese to fire the rear facing missiles. That, and since Clint Eastwood is up there in years, and would hardly pass for a Chinese pilot, who can we send in to steal it?

The site I originally saw this aircraft on was very reputable (it was not a forum site, or a fan site, think SIPR). The image had nothing in the back or foreground, so there was nothing to judge the size from, so it looked a little more believable. So I originally thought it was some sort of scale model. Oh well. I still stand by my claim that it looks cool.

Last edited by PhillyGuy on Feb 09, 2007 - 03:51 AM; edited 1 time in total

donk14N wrote:

That, and since Clint Eastwood is up there in years, and would hardly pass for a Chinese pilot, who can we send in to steal it?

Jackie Chan??? Anyway, I must say those Chinese CGI poster are real good at drawing fantasy J-XX and PAK-FA fighters. Check out this one.

[quote="idesof"]

elp wrote:

MKopack wrote:

donk14N wrote:

EDIT: Alright, I found the image I was looking for. After looking at the high-res image it looks extremely fake.

Hope they have some really big hangars, what would that thing be 100-120 feet long? Look at the people standing under it...

Mike

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that this alleged aircraft is very clearly a copy of one of the unsuccessful ATF bids, the General Dynamics bid, to be more specific. What's next, Firefox? Laughing

You've never seen the GD bid have you?

sferrin wrote:

You've never seen the GD bid have you?

My apologies. I got confused with the Boeing bid. Of course, neither the GD nor the Boeing bid had canards. This is not so much a copy as it is a composite (based on the Boeing bid), with the requisite canards Russia seems to like to stick on any aircraft they can get their hands on.

A relatively OT question: why is it that non-American egineers seemed to have arrived at canards as being almost a requisite for any new fighter, but American engineers have repeatedly shunned them, both in production aircraft and in failed bids for both the ATF and JSF?

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

I have found some new photos. There is a fighter and bomber version. They are rumored not to be much larger then an insect on radar.Sorry about the quality of the photos, it is hard to get high quality espionage photos.

Kidding aside, it sounds like it has some real possibilities and very interesting.

japps wrote:

The PAK-FA (T-50) has been touted on other websites as the Russian answer to the F-22 (even obviously looking like a Raptor). Most items I've read stated that the Russians hoped to have a prototype flying in 2006. Has anyone heard anything about this? no disrespect (some of my favorite planes have been Russian designs), but do the Russians really have the hi-tech sector to pull off the avionics of such a program? I mean the Raptor is more than just a shape. On a similar note, why does it seem that when ever the Russian aviation sector gets behind the west they copy a design? B-29, F-111, B-1, this design, even their space shuttle.

post on the PAK-FA here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread130829/pg1

LOL! How many times I've heard about the PAK-FA and the J-XX or whatever with "plasma stealth" and yaddy ya ya? Yeah...I'll believe it when I see something tangible. We (Government & industry) worked long and hard to get what is now the F-22. Everybody else has found out, or is finding out, that it isn't easy trying to copy us and build a 5th Gen fighter.

idesof wrote:

sferrin wrote:

You've never seen the GD bid have you?

My apologies. I got confused with the Boeing bid. Of course, neither the GD nor the Boeing bid had canards. This is not so much a copy as it is a composite (based on the Boeing bid), with the requisite canards Russia seems to like to stick on any aircraft they can get their hands on.

A relatively OT question: why is it that non-American egineers seemed to have arrived at canards as being almost a requisite for any new fighter, but American engineers have repeatedly shunned them, both in production aircraft and in failed bids for both the ATF and JSF?

Looks a Mig 1.42 and the F-23 had a love child.

donk14N wrote:

The Chinese J-XX is loosely based on the Russian MiG 1.42 or 1.44. I found some images of the aircraft that were generated from open source material (i.e. some Chinese website) but have not yet been able to obtain them through any searches on the NIPR side. If I can find these images I will try and post them later. But basically, the Chinese J-XX fighter in the images looks like a mating between the MiG 1.44 and the F-22. Basically, the layout is the same as the MiG (canards, large delta wing, ect...) incorporating F-22 style stealth features (distinct angles, internal weapons bays, ect...) This is just judging from the pictures.

Of course it may look stealthy yet will it be?

Pat1 wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

shinning beacon for IR sensors

This part is not true.

dwightlooi wrote:

Lots of electric power (I mean power station class power)

and

dwightlooi wrote:

lots of reactive gases

are also not true.

However, good luck to the Russians in developing, deploying and maintaining something which IMO has dubious benefits.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you claim those to be false?

rokolev wrote:

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you claim those to be false?

You're seriously responding to a three year old post with that?

Old topic no doubt. There are at least 2 threads on the Pak Fa in the "Modern Military Aircraft" forum where its more appropriate to discuss that aircraft if one wants to.

I'd recommend this one:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13323.html

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

PAK-FA Russian 5th gen fighter