We always have threads about F-22 and F-35 and jack off about how great they are. So let's change it up a bit and have one for the underdog.
>b-but muh slavshit
Wonderful. You really should make a F-22/F-35 wank thread for that.
>lawl not even it's real engines
No, that's true. Look what it does with the current engines though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h08AxiE2HwU (ignore the "WORLDS MOST ADVANCED STEALTH" it's more autistic than people suggesting turboprops to replace the F-35)
>FUCK OFF RIDF YOU'LL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS AMERICA USA USA USA USA
>implying this thread is anything but people liking the PAK FA instead of just saying "muh slavshit"
055-chan is being repaired,
SHE WILL BE BACK
Mock up, for fire fighter trainning
It's forgetting the two side X bands, which are used for everything from EWAR to high bandwidth secure coms.
But I do like the L-band, it can detect other stealth fighters beyond their range.
Probably it was just meant to show position of L band compared to nose.
Anyways, one of the cheek array's. It has around 350 TR modules.
Rough position of the engines. As you can see the intake is angled inward towards the body, while the exhaust is very widely spaced and lifted slightly.
This is for four reasons:
1. It hides the fan blades.
2. It improves single engine performance
3. It allows a space in the "tail" for a tiny sixth radar system, in the RWR role.
4. It allows a space in the tail for a drag parachute, needed because of Russian climate.
The fuselage provides substantial lift, that's why the takeoff run is so short, about 900 feet.
With it's TVC engines in, that will drop by another 200 feet and it will be able to operate in CESTOL role.
5. It opens up a central bay for storage.
It's a stupid plane for stupid reasons, I'd rather talk about F-35, which is better for a lot of reasons.
pic related... wtf... HARDPOINTS.... Fuck lel, why would you put hardpoints inna stealth fighter? Tough Kheik!
>inb4 slavaboos defend shit
Its current engines allready have TVC as the 117A engine is derived from the 117S (which is mounted on the Su-35S).
>pic related... wtf... HARDPOINTS.... Fuck lel, why would you put hardpoints inna stealth fighter? Tough Kheik!
Yeah, why would you? :^)
It doesnt hurt to taste the bait, see if it is any good.
>It opens up a central bay for storage.
Central Bay is too small, too. Only about 3 Kh-58UE missiles each. What are you gonna shoot down? A single AWACS? LOLOLOLOL
Fucking Russians can't design for shit. LOLd
Yeah. The L-bands are at best, crude stealth detectors (telling where ROUGHLY an enemy/friendly stealth fighters is). More realistcaly, they are meant as BVR IFF systems.
Sorry, I mean 2 Kh-58UE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Shit plane to be exported to India.
Since when were you under the impression that I was samefagging?
It needs the higher thrust engines to be a real CESTOL aircraft.
>More realistcaly, they are meant as BVR IFF systems.
Why would they need it to be AESA for that? Why would it be pointing forward? Why would they need two of them for that? Why would they even need L-band specifically?
"BVR IFF" makes no sense.
Show me the IR tech that can easily detect planes hundreds of kilometers away then.
Because you might as well have posted a normal visible wavelength picture and claim that stealth is outdated.
>Why would they need it to be AESA for that?
Why would they need two of them for that?
Why would they even need L-band specifically?
To know if something's there. Like putting noise traps on your property, if there's noise there might be something there.
>To know if something's there. Like putting noise traps on your property, if there's noise there might be something there.
But in all likelihood they won't be for finding targets.
F-22 may have IR reducing measures which bring the tail on detection to something lower than 90km, but F-35 doesn't.
Also either way just moving through air generates enough heat for them to be seen at 50km, so the point is moot.
This is not the same as "posting a normal visible wavelength picture to claim that stealth is outdated."
BVR not BWR
And it's hundreds of kilometers for bomber sized targets. Look up F-15 detection ranges for onboard radar.
The only way you get "hundreds of kilometers" against fighter sized targets is with AWACS. The E-3, which is one of the most powerful AWACS in the world, can detect a basic Flanker model at 267km, a modernized Flanker using composites and RCS reduction measures is well below that.
1 - All modern planes has datalinks, so one radar provide picture to several silent planes.
2 - If you see T-50 radar signature you anyway need to be inside his kill zone to make a shot.
For actualy finding and targetting enemies, that is what the main X-band AESA array and the OLS station is for.
>Why would they need it to be AESA for that?
AESA arrays have a low probability of intercept by design as each TR module sends out its own signal on a subfrequency of L/X/ku/S-bands. The enemy RWR doesnt know that there is a L-band radar active and if you configure an IFF message with a set of pre-determined signals on various subfrequencies, a friendly fighter with L-band array's can tune in and receive the message and knows that a friendly fighter is out there BVR.
>Why would it be pointing forward?
That is where the fighter is headed and has its missiles and main sensors pointed at that direction (OLS, main X-band AESA array etc.).
>Why would they need two of them for that?
So that they can cover a broader part of the sky. Just look at how the wings are swept back in relation of the fuselage and the typical range ESA's can cover (in degree's left of right).
>Why would they even need L-band specifically?
Its a longwave. Good for low power, long range messages.
>That is where the fighter is headed and has its missiles and main sensors pointed at that direction (OLS, main X-band AESA array etc.).
Yes but it would only work if the other guy was facing you....
>Why would they even need L-band specifically?
>All current stealth aircraft were designed to counter X-Band radars, but those shapes are getting ineffective if a radar operates in S-band and even more ineffective when the radar operates in L-band. The reason for the stealth aircraft to be detected is the wavelength of the radar, a radar operating in L-band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from invisible, to visible.
This is at the lowest grade level we have available: "bix nood".
Name an F-35 rear aspect IR reduction measure that would bring down detection range from something like OLS-35.
>The OLS-35 is an advanced infrared search and track (IRST) fire control system designed for the 4+ generation Su-35 fighter aircraft replacing the OEPS-27 sight system.
>The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target's front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere.
The fact that some of the heat can be siphoned away from the exhaust.
And it would be better to talk about frontally, seeing as that is what actually matters. That brings the OLS-35 down to 50km against unstealthed targets. Let's say its only brought down by 10km. That's a 40km range, fairly respectable, right?
Well, that's where you're wrong, because the OLS-35 can not look everywhere at once. I've heard normal IRST as like "looking through a straw". The OLS has a FOV of 10 x 7.5 degrees.
Why is Russia so fucking behind in avionics compared to the rest of the world?
>The fact that some of the heat can be siphoned away from the exhaust.
Da fuck are you talking about? Is this your retarded way of saying "higher bypass" or something? Non issue, the value is for non afterburning turbofans.
> Let's say its only brought down by 10km.
Frontal aspect detection can't be brought down since it's based on the friction an aircraft makes as it's passing through air. It's 50km for F-22, F-35, and everything in that size range.
> I've heard normal IRST as like "looking through a straw". The OLS has a FOV of 10 x 7.5 degrees.
I gave you the value for that retard, do bother to read a comment before responding to it.
>+/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation
What are you talking about then?
Active cancellation, shaping, materials... these things are all pretty much public domain.
If you want to go low tech you could just make a wooden biplane and say fuck to search radar.
They are trying to do it "on their own" and are still using stuff learned from the soviet years.
They're doing it almost from scratch.
Now the west has alot of tech that has just been sitting there on the commercial/civilian market that they could use, russia didn't have that luxury because "you didn't need that".
A big example of this is France, Sagem made alot of cellphones and consumer tech, but also has a big chunk of the defense industry there.
Or in the US, Boeing makes both commercial airliners and fighters, McDonald Douglas as well, hell Lockheed did this for a while too.
I wonder if spooks go to airshows in other countries (let's say CIA goes to MAKS) to get better look at the enemy jets.
>Supercruise capable and max speed higher than the F22.
>Greater combat radius than the F22.
>Lower wing loading, greater overall lift.
>Innovative antenna design.
>Longer range weapons.
>Greater payload capacity.
>Supposedly better than a plane designed in 1985
Wow russia, Congrats.
The only other video I found of any performances by the F35 showed it doing aileron rolls. There aren't any other videos (though the aircraft is still testing, so I guess maybe that's why?)
It's not like they don't have the means to make it insanely maneuverable, it's just not needed.
It wrote the book for western thrust vectoring and advanced fly by wire systems
<50% kill probability against non manoeuvring targets without missile warning systems. Let alone a decent fighter with ECM. Kek.
Did you open the PDF? It's explained there.
Basically once the study was done JSF goons went ballistic, Rand backpedaled and scapegoated the guys in charge of it, Lockheed shat on their subsequent careers.
Doesn't really make the simulation nonexistant.
PIRATE is about 1ms while scanning 200 targets simultaneously, the CAPTOR (AESA radar on Typhoon) can only scan 20 targets at once.
Scanning speed and number of targets simply isn't an issue for IRST. It's like asking how many vacuum tubes APG-82 needs, obviously you won't find data on it.
The PAK FA is a massive disappointment IMO.
The cheek arrays are kinda cool, as is the L Band, but N036-1-01 seems mediocre. It can detect the Su-30MKI at 310km. Based on the estimate that the Su-35S has about a 1m^2 RCS, and the fact that t's supposed to be about 1/11th the RCS of the 30MKI, we can guess N036-1-01 can target a 11m^2 target at 310km. This means it should get around 170km against a 1m^2 target. This is substantially inferior to American claims about APG-77 and APG-81 of "greater than 250km". Using the 0.0001m^2 number for the F-22's RCS, it detects the F-22 at 17km, and the F-35 at 30km. Still gets a massive 224km-254km against loaded Super Hornets, Typhoons and Rafales, but those aren't as important as the American 5th gens. Even if these are the TORs instead of max ranges, this just isn't too impressive.
While the N036B-1-01 cheek arrays are kinda cool, they almost certainly have a very short range since they have only 23% the aperture size of the main array (39km against a 1m^2 target, so around 7km against the F-35, 4 km for the F-22, and 21km for the 4.5's), so they'll likely need to be used at very close ranges, maybe for off-boresight shots, but it's not a game changer.
N036L-1-01 can't be used for targeting, but it does reliably provide warning and detection in front of the aircraft, which is nice. If all things but band are the same as the main array, it'll have 3 times the detection range of an x-band radar with equal size. That's pretty cool, but it still can't be used to target
>RWR and ECM
As for the L402 Himalayas ECM suite, it seems like it's a Russian AN/ALR-56+AN/ALQ-184 equivalent, or like the RF portion of the SPECTRA suite. It only has 3 arrays including N036, so it's almost certainly not going to give targeting data like AN/ALR-94 (9 arrays) or AN/ASQ-239 (11). We know it doesn't have RF decoys available, and we don't know about the jammer, but all and all it seems like a 4th generation western EW suite.
We don't really know too much about OLS-50M, but it seems likely to be comparable to the OLS-35 that reached IOC in 2009. The OLS-35 has a range of 50km from the front, 90km from the back. The 50 km number is comparable to old claims about the F-14's AN/AAS-42 IRST, which is likely inferior to modern western systems like PIRATE and EOTS. This is of course before we discuss the fact that tracking range is probably around only 40% of detection range (~20km).
While 101KS-U doesn't have anything inherently wrong with it, it does use UV light which attenuates more quickly than the IR light used by AN/AAQ-37 and AAR-56. Also no IRST functionality.
Patents for the PAK FA claim the RCS has "average figure of 0.1-1 m^2" That's 100 times greater than the F-35, 1000 times greater than the F-22, and the same as the Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter clean. Obviously the PAK FA has an advantage against the Eurocanards because it actually goes into combat clean, but it's still disappointing.
I gotta be honest, I don't know a damn thing about this thing. But even if it made the PAK FA totally immune to IR missiles, it doesn't seem like it would be sufficient
Where the fuck is Izdeliye 30? It seems more and more every day this thing's gonna be stuck with AL-41F1, which only give is a t/w on the order of the F-15/16.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
>This is substantially inferior to American claims about APG-77 and APG-81 of "greater than 250km"
Psst they weren't talking about fighter sized targets either. APG-81 has a detection range ov 160km for 1m2 sized target.
Also your calculation seems a bit fucked, PAKFA has a detection range of 350 km against a 2.5m2 rcs target, where did you get the Su-30MKI value?
PAKFA forward radar has 1536 modules, F-35 forward radar has 1200. So PAKFA should be able to see 1m2 targets farther out than 160km, not even counting what L-band brings to the table.
Fix your values, then come back.
>Psst they weren't talking about fighter sized targets either. APG-81 has a detection range ov 160km for 1m2 sized target.
Source that, it's going to be awful hard considering that you're wrong.
>Inb4 your post range for look down/look up max azimuth and claim that it's the same as on-boresight maximum range
>Also your calculation seems a bit fucked, PAKFA has a detection range of 350 km against a 2.5m2 rcs target, where did you get the Su-30MKI value?
I got my value from an old RT article. Where did you get yours?
>PAKFA forward radar has 1536 modules, F-35 forward radar has 1200. So PAKFA should be able to see 1m2 targets farther out than 160km, not even counting what L-band brings to the table.
Let's address how dumb this sentence is. First of all, you're factually wrong. AN/APG-81 has 1,368 T/R modules. I've counted. second of all, your focus on aperture size completely neglects all other factors, which is hilarious considering we're talking about actively scanned phased array radars.
Here's a basic explanation of phased array radar
Tell me if you're still confused as to why aperture size isn't the be-all end-all of detection range
I posted that originally, I'm not going to write up a new post every time I have the same thing to say.
Russians should've put this in mass production. It would maybe be outdated but it's still the coolest plane ever.
>not knowing that it sucks
>not knowing that you could fly a fucking P-80 and shoot them down with great ease
I thought it was obvious what you did. You can't fix stupid though anon.
Heres a simulation (not the real radar) detecting targets at 150km
Still kind of proves my point at being less, autismo.
APG-77 peaks at 12kW, if APG-81 uses similar T/R modules it would peak at 8kW.
N036 frontal peaks at 15kW (less the L-band at 4.8kW) assuming 10W rated modules similar to Zhuk AE.
So in terms of power, number of T/R modules, and size it is superior to F-35. How exactly is F-35 getting better range? Something is wrong with your calculations period, or you are taking Lockheed at their word which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
>yfw it's just as stealthy as Po-2
>UN forces named the Po-2's nighttime appearance Bedcheck Charlie and had great difficulty in shooting it down — even though night fighters had radar as standard equipment in the 1950s, the wood-and-fabric-construction of the Po-2 gave only a minimal radar echo, making it hard for an opposing fighter pilot to acquire his target. As Korean war U.S. veteran Leo Fournier remarks about "Bedcheck Charlie" in his memoirs later on: "... no one could get at him. He just flew too low and too slow." On 16 June 1953, a USMC AD-4 from VMC-1 piloted by Major George H. Linnemeier and CWO Vernon S. Kramer shot down a Soviet-built Polikarpov Po-2 biplane, the only documented Skyraider air victory of the war. One Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing to 110 mph during an intercept of a Po-2 biplane.
/k/ isn't stupid, it's just stupid how they continously fight over the F-35 and T-50 (Which both equally fucking suck honestly) and call you a faggot if you add even one tacticool thing to an old rifle or SMG.
Except for the gay ass faggot who mlp-ified his Kar98k, that was horrible.
>Heres a simulation (not the real radar) detecting targets at 150km
Because that clearly was a test of range and not of search pattern, right? That's why they used a simulated radar.
>APG-77 peaks at 12kW, if APG-81 uses similar T/R modules it would peak at 8kW.
Are you trying to linearly scale power by number of T/R modules?
You do know power comes from the exciter and that LPI radars aren't going to rail their T/R modules, right? EMCON is a thing
>So in terms of power, number of T/R modules, and size it is superior to F-35.
Number of T/R modules and aperture size are the same thing here. The factors we haven't gone over are
>Geometry (Physical but software limited)
>Noise reduction (Physical)
>Drain power (Physical)
>Amplitude control (software)
>Phase control (software)
Amplitude control and phase control are by far the most important factors here, they're the entire reason we use phased arrays over dish antennae. That's why software has had such a huge emphasis for the past 20 years.
>You do know power comes from
That value is the max power the TR modules are rated for.
You're... fucking retarded. I'm sorry you just don't know what you're talking about.
Using RT as a source? Fuck.
>That value is the max power the TR modules are rated for.
Yes, no one's going to fucking rail their T/R modules for an LPI radar. How are you not grasping this concept.
The other cute thing you're doing here is totally ignoring the fact that you're treating phased-arrays like dish-antennas.
>But now I called you retarded so we don't have to address the fact that nothing I've been saying makes sense, and I still haven't produced any of my NIIP sources
The English language version of NIIP's site mentions no stats for the N036 radar; the Russian version is down right now. Once again, you're full of shit.
>I'm not going to write up a new post every time I have the same thing to say.
Do you have any idea how dismissive that is to anyone who would talk to you? You're basically saying from the outset that their opinion is worthless, because it won't change yours at all.
If you don't even want a discussion, why are you posting?
I was starting a new discussion because the old one was boring. You'll note that my new posts are not copypastas. When the same memetic threads are posted day after day, there's no reason for initial responses to vary.
>Doesn't really make the simulation nonexistant.
Or the "simulations" could be complete bullshit, especially considering what year it was and being able to make an accurate simulation of the F-35's capabilities.
The J-10A might not be a 4.5 gen, but the J-10B is.
mad that they are stylin on you?
nice roll. lol xd chicom pirruts is best pirruts
J-10B is from 2008.
And 4.5 generation designation is given not by the year it is produced, but by its avionics and capabilities.
J-10B has a multirole AESA radar, EOS, integrated EW systems, full glass cockpit, holographic HUD and is currently powered by the uprated AL-31FN-M1 engine giving it good T/W ratio.
With this hardware, it fits the 4.5 gen specs.
I thought this was a PAKFA thread?
Post more sex.
Hey, atleast it isn't the Indian shit
>The further advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 1990s permitted rapid upgrades to the avionics over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as active electronically scanned array (AESA), digital avionics buses and Infra-red search and track (IRST). Due to the dramatic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, the US government has taken to using the designation 4.5th generation to refer to these later designs.
Yes, the J-10 is a 4.5th gen aircraft.
Why the fuck does everyone still think BVR is relevant?
When you have well over 30 seconds warning of an incoming missile, it's never going to hit you. This goes for Americans and Russians. Especially with stealth planes with fuck all RCS.
I honestly think the F-35 is in for a shock when it inevitably ends up dogfighting the T-50, and finds it can't maneuver as well, can't aim its missiles as well - if it even has any short range ones at the time - and can't dance around thrust vectoring for gun kills.
I really hope the F-35 only ends up needing to bomb defenseless sandniggers.
>Implying a multirole would ever by sent to fight air superiority
We have a plane for that you fucking idort, it's called the F-22
>also supercruise and mach 2+
It would be the Eastern Front all over again but this time are the T-50s the Bf109s and the F-35s are the poor IL-2 aircraft.
The F-35 shouldn't use EODAS but I'm sure the PAK FA should use it's shitty IRST shouldn't it?
If you think IRST has never been used for A2A, it's been used since Gen 2 fag.
Don't you have a Putin poster to worship? It's Sunday
>on a phone
>while im at work
They dont make smart slavs anymore, huh?
>starting at the end of one line, and ending a pixel in, making it one pixel to the left
As I said, they dont make smart slavs, do they?
I've talked to guys that mattered in the air force industry and they agree that the plane is a useless endeavor by the Russians, they should just make it a technological demonstrator and just use the research for drones.
They should up their missile units instead and if they really need a bird in the air, it should be an interceptor like the upcoming MiG-41.
>>EODAS can't be used for A2A
Was never said. It's just an inferior system, small leses, low resolution etc, compared to dedicated IRST systems like the future 101KS-V of the T-50 or PIRATE of the Eurofighter.
>>AIM-9x block II only can engage targets at 90 degree angles
90 degrees off boresight - it's fact.
>It's just an inferior system, small leses, low resolution etc,
You know jack shit.
Each sensor is comparable to the one used in the SNIPER pods which uses a 640x512 FLIR sensor.
Since they're stationary more lenses can be used, giving it better magnification.
>now you're saying EODAS isn't a dedicated IRST system
wow you have no idea what you're talking about
>90 degrees off boresight
lol no, you can send it to a known location and the sensor will pick up the rest.
How else would it work in an enclosed missile bay? It gets it's information after launch.
>US engineering can breaks the laws of physics
EODAS was designed as advanced MAW system with additional situational awareness capacities.
While dedicated IRST systems scan a small area like sniper optics.
It's like comparing apples to oranges.
>I like how they confirm it's IRST and not just situational awareness
>I wonder who makes all those sensors for those military aircraft
>surely that company's name isn't FLIR
What infrared search and track?
What's it doing when you're TRACKING targets or SEARCHING for them in the air or on the ground.
>still can't be used to search and track targets in the air for decent BVR distances.
Not saying it's on par with Pirate, we don't know that much. But it can more than do the job
>Not saying it's on par with Pirate, we don't know that much. But it can more than do the job
No one ever claimed it can't be used to provide tracking.
But it was designed for a different sets of tasks.
>to provide comparable range as dedicated IRST systems?
The question is, who's?
Russian systems, sure, they don't amount to much as is.
Pirate or OSF no.
But there's EOTS for that which is dedicated for that purpose
I like the PAK FA, but seriously dude, you can't discount criticism about the platform / plane by reducing it to "go back to pol lololol". That's just as cancerous as all the people that label anything they don't agree with as "edgy".
That's a different question.
Both systems do have a refresh rate faster than the on-board radars systems.
Just imagine an IRST system as binoculars. You have a reduced field of vision but you can see into the distance.
claims 30km for EODAS - though no details or a source. It's also strategypage, not the best website for military related stuff.
If you have a heat signature the size of a ballisitic missile that high in the sky, it's bound to stick out in the sky on the IR spectrum
I bet EODAS can also track the sun.
EODAS confirmed for having a range of 92,955,807 miles.
I did. Its 100% correct.
Thats a super cool story, yet it confirms that EODAS does not have a range of a mere 30 km.
But ok, ballistic missles are too easy.
How about sub orbital rockets?
It tracks them too.
How about tank fire?
Tracks that as well.
Actually, I have no problems with people criticizing the plane. What I have a problem with is people immeditately coming to the conclusion of "It's shit because slavs built it" or "but it uses last gen engines, it must be shit!". The worst of all is people claiming I'm RIDF etc simply because I like this machine. Not one point in the OP was to discourage criticism, it was to discourage shitposting, a la
What never gets mentioned in these pissing contest threads is the amount of sheer money involved
PAK-FA according to the 3 sources wiki cites costing between 8-10 billion , compared to 67 billion or so for the -22.
And if you figure at least 1/3 of the Russian program's funds were wasted in corruption/bribes....
the fact we are even comparing these planes is a victory for the Russkies
>In 2007, Russia and India agreed to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft Programme (FGFA) for India. In September 2010, it was reported that India and Russia had agreed on a preliminary design contract where each country invests $6 billion; development of the FGFA fighter was expected to take 8–10 years. The agreement on the preliminary design was to be signed in December 2010.
talking about the wrong plane shitposter
I'm not sure how you would hide an F-35 engine, it's quite a beast.
Sure front facing you could make semi-invisible to IR with the right materials, but you are not hiding this rear end from the Russians IRST.
The Russian government is subsidizing the design bureaus to attract new minds.
How well that is working is yet to be seen.
At least lately we have seen some departure from their old Soviet tech designs and new stuff is appearing.