PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Perhaps they want to test the gun but don't want to have to deal with the issues of vibration on the optics or have to clean them just yet?

Lots of talk of the PAK FA having two cannon... I have suspected this might be an error and that they might have just fitted a twin barrel 30mm cannon instead of a single barrel weapon to boost rate of fire?

DIRCMS turrets or MAWS balls...


(Directed IR Countermeasures system... ie laser turrets used to dazzle the IR and optical seekers of incoming missiles, or Missile approach warning system sensor balls... ie detect the presence of incoming missiles through the thermal plume of their rocket motors or the friction heating of their noses and the leading edges of their control surfaces... )

Hahaha... the purpose of prototypes is to test and integrate systems individually. Later pre series production models are for testing lots of systems working together...

The prototype testing stealth will include all the external elements of the final aircraft but it will not be a flying prototype and it wont have the internal equipment and systems... just the external antenna and things that effect the RCS.

The Stealth prototype may never be revealed in photos... the Mig 1.42 and Mig-1.44 include one stealth and one flying prototype... we have still only seen the flying prototype...

It will be the stealth prototype where the RCS is first tested and then changes introduced to various antenna and sensors to reduce RCS by reshaping and redesign etc etc.

In the mean time the Pak Fa 5th prototype will be testing the systems behind the antenna and sensor balls etc to optimise their effectiveness and later in a serially produced model to integrate it into the avionics suite.

BTW given the choice of being very stealthy (ie low RCS) or DIRCMs I would prefer DIRCMs as DIRCMs will stop FPA Sidewinders... low RCS will have no effect on IIR missiles.

Russia needs to show their final Pak-FA model airframe ,if they want to impress traditional US clients that have the opportunity to buy the F-35.

If they had a final production airframe ready why would they bother with testing prototypes?

If the US really wants to impress the world it should show a fully operational hypersonic bomber... what they haven't built it yet? Where is their credibility with Algeria?

US clients locked in to buying F-35 are hardly going to consider a Russian aircraft as an alternative.

F-35 will be built... they have signed contracts.

Pulling out now would be very expensive but they would get no aircraft at the end of it.

Usually when Russia sells something to India..India says ok we buy the plane ,but they pick the electronics and avionics of israeli and or an european country. and this needs to change if Russia really wants to more easily sell their stuff.

India is free to choose the maker of the contents of their new aircraft... lots of stuff in the PAK FA will not be cleared for export anyway, so a French or Israeli alternative is often better for India than the downgraded export Russian model.

The hidden advantage is that if the Indian aircraft is compromised it reveals less about the Russian Aircraft... and vice versa.

So Pak-FA as is now.. could be the best plane ever .but always gets negative reviews for not being "stealthy enough".

Anyone who complains it is not stealthy enough is an idiot... they are prototypes... used for testing certain parameters and certain systems... photos of the RCS prototype may never be released and you need to see those to make a sensible judgement.

From the Rear. So is kind of Sick , of reading that a million of times everywhere including from so called Experts sites.. Its like Russia do not get it.. how important is the appearance for the western markets in everything they sale. And the offering Pak-FA in what appears to be in an unfinished airframe.

IF the L band AESA arrays on fighter planes reveal fully stealth fighters then what is the point in spending billions on making planes stealthy when technology is entering service to make them NOT stealthy?

because coatings can be made selectivly to be transparent for certain ranges of frequencies ,that was done long ago in F-22...

There is no coating that could be applied that is more transparent than no coating at all...

Do you perhaps mean coatings that are radar and radio wave absorbent?

The Russians want an overall better fighter than the F-22A, not necessarily a more "stealthy" one.

You get it.

No level of radar stealth for an aircraft the size of a fighter will effect its radar appearance in VHF ranges.... ground based detection stations detecting F-22 sized aircraft at hundreds of kms range passing on data to PAK FA who can fire lock on after launch AAMs with IIR seekers can then clean up the skies of enemy aircraft.

Hahaha.... WTF would America know about affordable stealth?

Love your source BTW... perhaps I could counter by suggesting an F-16 can detect an F-22 at 200km range and quote www.f16.com as my source?

And Page 3 on the pdf in the link you posted states the opposite of what you talked about.

You were talking about coatings being transparent, yet clearly on page three of the document you posted it talked about external skin composite materials used in aircraft design being transparent or partially transparent and needing metallic coatings to stop radar waves penetrating the composite outer skin and then reflecting off internal structure and wiring that is not shaped for stealth.

In other words the partial radar transparency of the outer skin of the F-22 means they needed skin coatings that reflected radar, not that let radar pass through.

Well Duh... most radar radomes have those attributes...

An aircraft
’s radar is usually a very significant
contributor to an aircraft
’s signature.

The same for every fighter flying and they all are the same in the sense that they are radar transparent in the radar frequencies used by the aircraft itself... otherwise the radar inside wouldn't work, but also opaque to other frequencies. Most aircraft and even missiles offset the angle of the main radar antenna array so that enemy radar waves entering the radome are nod reflected directly back to the target as that would create an enormous radar signature... a bit like a luneburg lens effect or corner reflector.

The F-22 radome is one of the
most complex structural components on the F-2The radome
’s primary design considerations were:
•In-band radar performance

In other words very transparent and low distortion of the F-22s own radar waves... pretty much the same for every fighter since WWII.

•Low Observables

Well duh... the basic shape deflects waves directed at it elsewhere...

•Structural loads including bird strike integrity
•Rain Erosion
•Maintainability, and
•
Lightning strike integrity

Birdstrike, lightning and rain are things all radomes are designed to deal with...

The Raptors radar is an active element array which
is tilted back to reduce direct reflection.

Nothing new here... most are.

because coatings can be made selectivly to be transparent for certain ranges of frequencies ,that was done long ago in F-22...

Coatings cannot be made EFFECTIVE in all frequencies.

By EFFECTIVE I do not mean transparent... a radar transparent coating does not effect radar waves and therefore is useless as a stealthy coating.

Coatings can be made that are effective against high frequencies like X band radar... but coatings effective against VHF would need to be several metres thick... only shaping is effective and shaping to be effective needs a large shape... like the size of the B-2.

The size of a modern fighter is too small... VHF radar does not see shape, so the stealthy shape of the F-22 is not effective, nor would any coating transparent or otherwise.