+70

Kimppis

Rmf

szo

Kyo

type055

kvs

tempestii

2SPOOKY4U

EKS

Mike E

navyfield

bantugbro

mutantsushi

gaurav

mig7

RTN

Morpheus Eberhardt

Indian Flanker

Zinuru

Djoka

George1

Airbornewolf

lulldapull

Hannibal Barca

Alex555

Hachimoto

Giulio

havok

eridan

etaepsilonk

magnumcromagnon

Cyberspec

ali.a.r

Werewolf

CaptainPakistan

GJ Flanker

macedonian

Arrow

zg18

BlackArrow

Vann7

flamming_python

KomissarBojanchev

a89

JPJ

Rpg type 7v

Department Of Defense

collegeboy16

quetzacol

dionis

AlfaT8

sepheronx

NickM

TheArmenian

coolieno99

nemrod

Zivo

Firebird

mack8

Mindstorm

Sujoy

Deep Throat

Stealthflanker

SOC

TR1

Flanky

medo

Viktor

Austin

GarryB

74 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 17 ... 30, 31, 32 ... 35 ... 40

PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°751

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

TR1 Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:33 pm

They might just go for UCAVs instead of a light fighter program. Personally I am against LMFS.

Regarding MiG-35, it is not clear just how many they intend to buy. It is not even light by any reasonable standard.

George1

George1: Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece

Post n°752

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

George1 Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:07 pm

TR1 wrote:
Regarding MiG-35, it is not clear just how many they intend to buy. It is not even light by any reasonable standard.

Υes its a medium fighter like F/A-18EF Super Hornet

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°753

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:22 pm

TR1 wrote:

Mike E wrote:I assume the LMFS will use a similar, maybe smaller variant? - About electronics.

LMFS does not exist yet. And it is very debatable if it will ever exist at all.

Never said it does... If it doesn't arrive something else will. As you later said, it could be an UCAV.

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°754

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

medo Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:25 pm

RuAF decided, that they will not have single engine fighters, so they actually don't have light fighters. They could get light fighter in South Korea way with their T-50 trainer. Russia could equip Yak-130 engines with afterburners and place radar in nose and create light multirole light fighter to compete in international market with JF-17, Tejas and TA-50.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°755

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:34 pm

True, but that "Yak on Crack" still couldn't compete with something like the LMFS or similar. They are in two completely different weight classes, and simply spitting more fuel into a turbojet (afterburner) isn't going to be very effective...

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°756

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:05 pm

I respect your opinion TR-1, but to be honest I really don't see UCAVs evolving and developing to a point where you could arm them and send them into combat and they could operate on their own and perform the role of interceptor fighter effectively.... and even if they could I really don't see them actually being cheaper than manned aircraft.

A new light fighter would be a valuable addition to the Russian AF and in the future a good export aircraft as well.

As long as they keep it light and not try to pack the same performance into the PAK LFMS that they are packing into the PAK FA.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°757

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Werewolf Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:19 pm

I aggree, right now like in even 20 years UCAVs are just tools that can only be used against poor countries without IADS, as soon an UAV comes even close to any one with even export niveau 1990s technology like in case of RQ-170 Sentinel, it will have trouble to operate in an ECM environment and the Iranians have managed to hack it and land it on their own Air Force base. Keeping in mind that Iran is a country under military Embargoo except of some equipment, not to mention what a real country could do which has a rather flourish MIC and military equipment.

And a real pilot will maybe not able to get a lock on, or have difficulties under ECM environment to perform his mission but he will not be hacked and controlled to land on an hostile airfield, so UAVs/UCAVs are quite a fancy toy to deal with incapable bananarepublics while the same job can be performed much quicker from a real pilot.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°758

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:21 pm

GarryB wrote:I respect your opinion TR-1, but to be honest I really don't see UCAVs evolving and developing to a point where you could arm them and send them into combat and they could operate on their own and perform the role of interceptor fighter effectively.... and even if they could I really don't see them actually being cheaper than manned aircraft.

A new light fighter would be a valuable addition to the Russian AF and in the future a good export aircraft as well.

As long as they keep it light and not try to pack the same performance into the PAK LFMS that they are packing into the PAK FA.

I'm surprised someone, even more so yourself, has the same opinion on UCAVs. I've always doubted their air-to-air capabilities, and typically that brings out the pro-UCAV trolls... Another thing to keep in mind is that they are *almost* worthless unless they have some kind of "artificial intelligence" system. The US has been trying to "pre-load" UCAVs with their mission so they aren't as effected by ECMs, but that only works for ground targets that aren't moving, or "barely" moving.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°759

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Vann7 Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:40 am

Unmanned drones even though do not replace real human pilots they complement nicely.. They are very useful to guide your artillery and for recon missions.. They can also be used as a shield ,you send a hundred of them to enemy zone first..to cover real manned pilots airforce invasion behind. Directional antennas can help resist a bit
any hacks.. and for artificial intelligence.. it will be required , that before the war happens , human spies infiltration in enemy cities.. and mark with sensors the places to bomb. but that will not be real..still depends of signals from the outside.. so can be jammed.. Dont think real AI will be possible in the near future.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°760

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:42 am

True, but he was implying that they will replace the manned MiGs, not complement them...

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°761

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:06 am

UAVs and UCAVs are excellent for very specific jobs... a single target attack... a cruise missile could be used in that situation with less cost.

In the role of observation and recon then a high flying low speed UAV can orbit an area for hours or even days looking for specific targets and to kill two birds with one stone fitting it with some ability to hit ground targets accurately means any target you do find on the ground can be hit straight away before it can escape rather than have to call in a manned aircraft to do the job.

The real problem is where people think that a UAV or UCAV can replace a light fighter aircraft... I think we have all seen the footage of a MiG-29 shooting down a Georgian drone... to keep them small and light and cheap they lack flares and chaff and jammers and other bits and bobs that help keep pilots alive in combat.

A UCAV needs a continuous datalink to the controller van... block that signal and the UCAV will likely abort the mission and automatically return to base... it is unable to react to threats and targets on its own...

I don't think that will change in the next ten to twenty years.

I do think a UCAV armed with AAMs could be an effective interceptor and engage enemy air targets from long range using powerful radar and long range missiles and loiter for very long periods at high altitude, but in a dogfight I think it would have problems...

Sujoy

Sujoy: Posts : 2419
Points : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत

Post n°762

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Sujoy Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:14 pm

GarryB wrote:I do think a UCAV armed with AAMs could be an effective interceptor and engage enemy air targets from long range using powerful radar and long range missiles and loiter for very long periods at high altitude, but in a dogfight I think it would have problems...

One of the ideas doing the round in RuAF, according to some Russian media reports is to use the Su-27 as an UCAV.

http://bispro.deviantart.com/art/Sukhoi-Su-27RV-Flanker-UCAV-169778133

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°763

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Werewolf Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:29 pm

To use a Su-27 or any real fighter as an UCAV would make much more sense since all UCAV/UAV drones right now are just structural weak, have not the sufficient or even slightly any kind of wing area strength and surface to perform any maneuvers and it completley lacks any automated controls for avation which one is always the reason for the other. I also thought a real fighter jet, maybe not the most expensive or capable would be the best UCAV, the big problem for it would be the "ping", between operator and the reaction to any air to air engagement.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°764

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

GarryB Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:14 am

The Soviets and Russians already use old stock aircraft as target drones... the M-23 for example can fly faster and higher and pull higher rate turns than the MiG-23 it is based on because it will likely be shot down so there is no point in extending its airframe operational life to allow it to stay in service for years.

Having said that why bother making a manned aircraft able to pull 20 or 30 gs when the pilot cannot withstand such forces?

They don't... which means any UCAV based on manned aircraft will always have limited performance.

Something like the MiG Skate UCAV on the other hand could be designed to pull 30gs, so against a third world country no aircraft could out turn them and likely wont have the technology to jam their control signal so they would be very effective.

Against NATO or China however... or even Iran such platforms would be vulnerable.

I have read comments about making unmanned versions of aircraft like the Yak-130, the PAK FA, and the PAK LFMS for use as unmanned drones to compliment the existing aircraft... which makes sense as their development could be used to test aerodynamic changes with a cockpit fitted and then remove the cockpit to create the UCAV.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°765

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:21 am

Even the newest aircraft themselves have trouble in high-g scenarios... Look at the F-16, a respectable maneuvering plane, whose wings were cracking from high-g's... Pilots aren't the only reason jets don't turn at 30 g's!

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°766

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Werewolf Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:28 pm

Yes you can not perform high G's over 12-15g without losing wings. So a design with short wings for high G'S would need some little thrusters like TOR missiles, but such a design is rather unpractical.

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°767

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

medo Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:05 pm

Werewolf wrote:Yes you can not perform high G's over 12-15g without losing wings. So a design with short wings for high G'S would need some little thrusters like TOR missiles, but such a design is rather unpractical.

Human g limit is around +9, maybe +10 g. If planes are designed for +12 or +15 g, than planes structure will easily make high g maneuvers as there is still a lot of reserve in g limitation and this mean a long service life of a plane.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°768

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:05 pm

Werewolf wrote:Yes you can not perform high G's over 12-15g without losing wings. So a design with short wings for high G'S would need some little thrusters like TOR missiles, but such a design is rather unpractical.

There we go! Someone else with knowledge on the subject of wings... Funny how how UCAV supports blindly think "they can pull 30 g".

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°769

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:07 pm

medo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Yes you can not perform high G's over 12-15g without losing wings. So a design with short wings for high G'S would need some little thrusters like TOR missiles, but such a design is rather unpractical.

Human g limit is around +9, maybe +10 g. If planes are designed for +12 or +15 g, than planes structure will easily make high g maneuvers as there is still a lot of reserve in g limitation and this mean a long service life of a plane.

True, but either way designing the plane for those kind of maneuvers will compromise the rest of the plane...

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°770

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

medo Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:46 pm

Mike E wrote:

medo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Yes you can not perform high G's over 12-15g without losing wings. So a design with short wings for high G'S would need some little thrusters like TOR missiles, but such a design is rather unpractical.

Human g limit is around +9, maybe +10 g. If planes are designed for +12 or +15 g, than planes structure will easily make high g maneuvers as there is still a lot of reserve in g limitation and this mean a long service life of a plane.

True, but either way designing the plane for those kind of maneuvers will compromise the rest of the plane...

OK, plane will be more expensive for using more titanium in structure to increase g limitation without increasing weight.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°771

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:02 pm

Yes, but that wasn't what I was talking about.... In order to maneuver at high-g's (12-15g), the aircraft has to be extremely aerodynamic, which limits payload capacity (the size of the bay) etc.

EKS

EKS: Posts : 33
Points : 32
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : The Netherlands

Post n°772

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

EKS Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:58 pm

I was wondering. Is there any information or are there some pictures of the Pak Fa static prototypes. I mean the planned T 50 6 and T 50 7. I´m very curious (for months now) about the air frame lay out in comparison to the T 50 5.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°773

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:30 pm

They should be very similar... My main question will be if they will have the production canopy or not.

EKS

EKS: Posts : 33
Points : 32
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : The Netherlands

Post n°774

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

EKS Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:00 pm

Well it could be. But otherwise, I can imagine some changes. Maby not externaly, but internaly. Also i think the indian imput en wishes for the export version, could lead to some change in the pak fa program. But I would realy want to see the static T 50 6-7.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°775

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Mike E Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:09 pm

Yeah, they could, we will have to wait...

Russia Defence Forum

PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Similar topics

Similar topics