PAK FA, T-50: News #1

Viktor wrote:I think its only because India will buy just one seat version of the PAK-FA in the start and later as the two seat version of PAK-FA

gets done we will see it as a model just like this one now.

Sujoy wrote:It's clearly missing some basic stealth features

Corrosion wrote:Like What??

TR1 wrote:Seriously, we are talking about Sukhoi and HAL, two organizations far better versed in details fanboys like ourselves can spot; just have some patience and wait for the final product .

When the F-22 was flight-tested there were reflectors on board to make it visible to ground stations.

Werewolf wrote:Such comments are always amusing.

Aegean wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but so far the T-50 has not been seen flying with Radar enchancers attached to it.

When the F-22 was flight-tested there were reflectors on board to make it visible to ground stations.

The T-50 has been flying extensively and surely tracked by ground radars. It is standard procedure to monitor test planes in flight.

No ?

really ?? ?

let me amuse a bit more by showing you the said device on the F-22! It is called 'luneburg lens'

Mindstorm wrote:

really ?? ?

let me amuse a bit more by showing you the said device on the F-22! It is called 'luneburg lens'

Aegean are you serious ?

Do you truly pretend that someone here has any need to be explained what is a Luneberg Lens ?


You have said that F-22 (or for better say YF-22A) was flight tested with radar reflectors "to make it visible to ground stations" , letting from that infering that Edwards AFB's radars would have been incapable to maintain track of it without.
That is very amusing .


You could start examining instead when that Lens is really employed and the precise reason for its peculiar and selective placement .

Just to aid you at eliminate from the possibilities the one ,very likely, present in your mind about that Luneberg lens real employment's rational you should observe what F-22 used in reality scrambling missions of true potential "enemy" aircraft

I am sorry you lost me in that last bit, can you try again?

Mindstorm , Can you tell us some of the few qualities that the new 2nd Stage engine will bring for PAK-FA ?

Beyond More Thrust and Longer Engine Life are they targetting something like Variable Cycle Engine ?

Mindstorm wrote:I don't know.

Mindstorm wrote:

I am sorry you lost me in that last bit, can you try again?

Ok i will try to be more explicit : that lens obviously is NOT placed here to "mask" the entire airframe diffraction field in an high frequency scattering regime .

Instead just some dozen of centimeters onward is placed a critical structural element of F-22 generating......a very distinctive RCS peak variation when actioned (and not you cannot avoid to use it if you want to engage in combat anything with that aircraft).


Clear now ?

I find it lacks any substantial basis. You can elaborate of course but really I see no merit here.

Mindstorm wrote:

I find it lacks any substantial basis. You can elaborate of course but really I see no merit here.

Oh...i am sure that you don't see any merit ,but i am equally sure that you will perfectly see ,instead, any empirical evidency


1) F-22's airframe is not constructed with polyetherimide composites
It is NOT radar transparent in any scattering regime !


2) That lens (leaving even a part the problem of its inherently limited RCS magnification's magnitudo capability....) cannot in any way mask F-22's airbody diffraction field for almost ALL most important re-radiating cones for unavoidable geometrical questions.

The element in question, in facts, is placed in the third rear segment of lower body fuselage ( just after weapon bay ) where the frame, already "covered" by the the bow section for effect of the asymptotic curvature starting at the duct opening, join with aft section.

The obvious empirical result of what just said is that the lens in question would be TOTALLY outside ANY reradiating point not only of the fundamental over-median line frontal projection (critical in BVR air to air engagements)














but even perfectly same-plane frontal aspect !!















3) F-22s also in peacetime over NORAD patrol missions carry similar lower fuselage recessed Luneberg Lenses, but avoid ,obviously, to mount anywhere possible fuel tanks to retain its reduced RCS

















4) When engaged in real peacetime interception missions of real "enemy" aircraft over the same NORAD areas F-22s have always mounted external fuel tanks






The effect on RCS of which in the critical frontal projection are self-evident







5) Instead to rely on the comical, demented theories circulating on hopeless places such as F-16 . net and similar (where AIM-120B has an engagement range of 105 km ,AIM-120D 200 km , missiles with 30G pull charge limits render irrelevant aircraft capable to produce 9G maneuvers , F-22 has a relevant RCS of 0,0001 square meters , USAF F-15s had won engagement against SUI-30MKI at Red Flag 2008 etc..etc...) if you are seriously interested in the subject in question you could start with a book like "Computer simulation of aerial target radar scattering recognition, detection, and tracking" by Prof. Gorshkov, S., Leshenko, S., Ollenko, V., Sedyshev, S. , Sukharevskiy, O., it is also present a fair model of the B-2's RCS with RAM at different radar frequencies ; i am sure that ,after , you will finds some positions and "theories" on similar subjects simply nauseating.