agree with you sir on that. invisible is impossible. may be she is just too enthusiastic about PAKFA's 'LO' signature.
Sir,
I just posted the Abstract , the rest of the Article can be read here
but sir, he has a sound basis for that. even a rand corp. run simulation puts down F-35. this became a contoversy. this also will help -
I was wondering when APA's analysis was going to be posted... time to start debunking.
False, the competition hasn't even started due to lack of funding. MMPP Salyut is the leading contender with their planned 6 stage AL-31FM3-2.
False, PAK FA has low area canted stabalisers which gives little of the horizontal and vertical control surface of the F-22. The Su-35BM not only has the same TVC capability, but better vertical stablisers. Russia has made a compromise by planning on using TVC to make up for the lack of area, it certainly isn't better.
The available evidence suggests no such thing. It suggests the Russians had to make design compromises to get a flyable bird before the project ran out of funding. The prequisite to the Indians paying money was seeing it fly. You can tell alot of shortcuts were taken from the control surfaces, to the IR reduction, to the LO reduction, and production methods.
False, the PAK FA will not reach IOC by 2015 in the mentioned configuration. The new engines won't be ready until 2020 by best estimates, the smaller UHF AESA radars are nowhere near a reality. If the Russians want this in production by 2015 it will go with 117S engines, just a production model of the Irbis AESA and largely the current generation of weapons. The rest of it will be Su-35 avionics.
PAK FA has a frontal RCS of .5m^2, it is LO but hardly a 5th generation stealth. It certainly isn't a match for the F-22. Allied TACAIR would do well to buy more and improved Rafales.
Does a .5m^2 RCS make it VLO? I doubt it.
Back in the day when the F-22 was looking like it might hit export, Kopp was a bit more reasonable with his analysis. Now his obssesion has taken him to the limits of insanity. He not only advocated Australia to buy Flankers, but he gave interviews to Russian papers saying how superior they are. His ranting and raving has turned him into a self-made Russophile. He not only buys into Russian propoganda, he is part of it.
Won't the rear facing OLS of the PAK FA detect the missile/missile launch and allow the pilot to take appropriate action.
Exactly,especially when he does not know if the aggressor is carrying a bomb or a long range air-to-ground missile (which could target a place 100s of miles away from the plane).
Serbs did it all the time. They would keep their radars turned off to avoid detection until USAF passed and launch. That is how they brought down the F-117's fat ass with an ancient missile system.
capital may have been a problem for the russians. but indian involvement will address that to a great extent.
one needs to remember the PAKFA which flew is only a prototype. initial tests would be basically to determine aerodynamics and stress factors and validation of the airframe and certification of fly control systems. so i disagree about your claim of shortcuts. the RCS reduction applications in terms IR, LO will happen only later as airframe and the fly control systems are validated. we have to wait.
i tend to agree with you on this.
one will have to wait. there are contradictory statements about it being there and not there on the prototype. even if it was not there, i guess it will come much earlier (may be in the next 2 yrs) considering the work has been on for a great amount of time. they are close.
an AESA model was unveiled in MAKS 09. why are you doubting?? in any case it will take another 5 yrs or more to make PAKFA operational. they must be in the process of integrating and validating it on a SU 35 parallely before sticking it on to PAKFA.
kopp talks about frontal aspect of RCS -
firstly he quotes a figure of 0.5 - 2 m sq for SU 35, which is also more a speculation. even if one were to take it at face value, then he quotes sukhoi claim of 1/40 of this - which amounts to - 0.0125 to 0.05 m sq.
Very nice!! When kopp's analysis supports your view you use it as an undebatable source and when it doesn't then you just blast him, i remember back in the day when you and P2prada were having a long drawn argument about mmrca and MKI vs SH you were quoting APA as a credible source, good going.
Speaking at MAKS 2009 on Thursday, August 20, Russian Air Force Chief Alexander Zelin acknowledged problems with the development of FGFA engines.
Err.. incase you were sleeping when the first videos came out ... those verticals are all moving , more area to move more authority over YAW.....yes it might be less maneuverable then a Su-35 .. but then it might be even more maneuverable then it, and nobody will know except sukhoi ... so stop speculating unless you have some hard data.
Wouldn't you know ..........after all mikhail pogosyan personally told you all about the amount of funding and shortcuts he had to take in order to get the bird flying didn't he? ......you just crack me up
It's good to be patriotic .. but you're becoming a chauvinist now ... please don't try to sell the rafale in each and every post.
False, the only citation I ever made from APA was a reprint from the Zhuk AE brochure.
Key word there is research... they aren't even at the design stage.
Canted tailfins means less vertical control but more horizontal. The F-22 is able to make up for this with larger control surfaces. PAK FA is going to have to make up for this with TVC.
The evidence is clear from the prototype. It is more a tech demonstrator than an actual working sample. The funding for PAK FA was laid out long ago. The Russian government only provides 20% with the rest on Sukhoi. India will take some burden off the company but funding to this point has been abysmal.Wouldn't you know ..........after all mikhail pogosyan personally told you all about the amount of funding and shortcuts he had to take in order to get the bird flying didn't he? ......you just crack me up
The author was quoting an IAF official briefed by Sukhoi, evidence is clear enough. When the statement was about "Allied TACAIR, that refers to France, in my context that refers to Rafale. The statement didn't have anything to do with you.
Where did you get these stats from? I'd wager PAK-FA is VLO from frontal arcs.
Yes, I didn't mean to dismiss his assessments and observations out of hand, or encourage anyone else to do so; well worth the read. I have a huge amount of respect for his site, though inevitably it draws controversy in large part because of certain views. But a fantastic resource and now increasingly hosting other expects such as Sean O'Connor who I respect 110%.
given , you had deleted your posts so i couldn't find it.
They made AL 41 ,they used its tech in 117, its not like they are starting from scratch. and you need to brush up your definition of research , research is done on existing technology also , why don't you give me a credible source which backs your claim.
Control surfaces are the surfaces that move and in PAK FA the whole verticals act as rudders whereas in SU-35 and F-22 only the back part of the vertical acts as Rudder, so you cannot be bloody sure that it won't be more agile than the F-22 or Su-35.
none of this BS proves that they will take shortcuts in a mature product the same product that Kopp is talking about.
go read the authors comment in the comments section on the same blog , as for allied TACAIR , does allied tacair consists of only france?
not confirmed yet. This looks awfully close to this imageguys not p.s.....
picture was taken 13 feb............
Credible people over at MP.net are saying it is a real photo and there is going to be a flood of them soon by sukhoi PR people.not confirmed yet. This looks awfully close to this image
