Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+80
Isos
LMFS
kvs
KomissarBojanchev
eridan
Pierre Sprey
d_taddei2
RTN
[ F l a n k e d ]
AlfaT8
zg18
JohninMK
Swede55
onwiththewar
Hole
marcellogo
havok
Mindstorm
magnumcromagnon
dino00
archangelski
Manov
tomazy
rambo54
JackRed
The-thing-next-door
Tsavo Lion
Peŕrier
YG_AJ
GRIM 44
BKP
SeigSoloyvov
Dr.Snufflebug
TheArmenian
Neutrality
medo
Azi
MC-21
wilhelm
KiloGolf
Stealthflanker
Luq man
Cyberspec
Tingsay
thegopnik
Nasr Hosein
flamming_python
AMCXXL
ZoA
iwanz
par far
T-47
GarryB
Cheetah
miketheterrible
OminousSpudd
Singular_Transform
chicken
ATLASCUB
berhoum
Vann7
Big_Gazza
hoom
Viktor
HM1199
Cyrus the great
tanino
coolieno99
franco
jaguar_br
Svyatoslavich
mack8
yavar
Benya
George1
Austin
higurashihougi
Rmf
Kimppis
Project Canada
84 posters

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  havok Mon May 07, 2018 3:43 pm

    LMFS wrote:Ok Havok, thanks for your time, sources of info and valid points, appreciate them. But I am not interested in discussing if you are so close minded, try to school me on trivial topics or reduce me to some kind of minion with motives and agendas made up by yourself. Obviously you are not going to move an inch. You are 200% certain of what you say so be it, I had my share of trying to discuss constructively with you but it seems beyond my capabilities. All the best to you.
    Before you start criticizing me, look at your own friend...Post 628...

    "making everything into a weapon to murder people has always been a strong skill of the US... whether it was taking the blankets from disease patients and letting the native americans capture them, or just going out with a gun and shooting them."

    Explain to me what does that have to do with the PAK?

    This forum is essentially anti-US. I get that. But do not be hypocritical about detraction from the topic when your own crew does it on a post by post basis.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5158
    Points : 5154
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS Mon May 07, 2018 7:15 pm

    havok wrote:
    Before you start criticizing me, look at your own friend...Post 628...

    "making everything into a weapon to murder people has always been a strong skill of the US... whether it was taking the blankets from disease patients and letting the native americans capture them, or just going out with a gun and shooting them."

    Explain to me what does that have to do with the PAK?

    This forum is essentially anti-US. I get that. But do not be hypocritical about detraction from the topic when your own crew does it on a post by post basis.

    A last comment from myself: that this forum is anti-US is your belief. It transpires in everything you say, and it makes impossible to have an open discussion with you, IMHO. It is rather like a trench war. You may have the same perception yourself it seems. Nevertheless, nothing that I can solve, since anything that I say is taken as a ploy, independent of how honest I am being. You know there is no way to crack a closed system of belief from the outside.

    Could agree that there is a fair amount of anti imperialism in many users, in any case incomparably more than in let's say F-16.net where your attitude would be the norm. That this is automatically anti-US is again your belief, not even a common opinion among other Americans I know. Again nothing I can solve. We will nevertheless be happy to welcome you back among the normal, happy to be non-exceptional countries when your temporary imperial sickness is over. Until then we will agree to disagree.

    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  havok Mon May 07, 2018 9:17 pm

    LMFS wrote:A last comment from myself: that this forum is anti-US is your belief. It transpires in everything you say, and it makes impossible to have an open discussion with you, IMHO. It is rather like a trench war. You may have the same perception yourself it seems. Nevertheless, nothing that I can solve, since anything that I say is taken as a ploy, independent of how honest I am being. You know there is no way to crack a closed system of belief from the outside.

    Could agree that there is a fair amount of anti imperialism in many users, in any case incomparably more than in let's say F-16.net where your attitude would be the norm. That this is automatically anti-US is again your belief, not even a common opinion among other Americans I know. Again nothing I can solve. We will nevertheless be happy to welcome you back among the normal, happy to be non-exceptional countries when your temporary imperial sickness is over. Until then we will agree to disagree.
    It is very simple, buddy. Just stay on topic.

    I do not provoke. I only respond. Look at my post count. Check to see how many threads I started: ZERO.

    I am not here often.

    There are plenty of non-PAK comments in your posts. Do not deny it. You are no different than anyone else here. YOU GUYS are the ones who deviate from the topic. Not I.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK


    Posts : 15590
    Points : 15731
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  JohninMK Mon May 07, 2018 11:18 pm

    havok wrote:
    LMFS wrote:A last comment from myself: that this forum is anti-US is your belief. It transpires in everything you say, and it makes impossible to have an open discussion with you, IMHO. It is rather like a trench war. You may have the same perception yourself it seems. Nevertheless, nothing that I can solve, since anything that I say is taken as a ploy, independent of how honest I am being. You know there is no way to crack a closed system of belief from the outside.

    Could agree that there is a fair amount of anti imperialism in many users, in any case incomparably more than in let's say F-16.net where your attitude would be the norm. That this is automatically anti-US is again your belief, not even a common opinion among other Americans I know. Again nothing I can solve. We will nevertheless be happy to welcome you back among the normal, happy to be non-exceptional countries when your temporary imperial sickness is over. Until then we will agree to disagree.
    It is very simple, buddy. Just stay on topic.

    I do not provoke. I only respond. Look at my post count. Check to see how many threads I started: ZERO.

    I am not here often.

    There are plenty of non-PAK comments in your posts. Do not deny it. You are no different than anyone else here. YOU GUYS are the ones who deviate from the topic. Not I.

    Good stuff there Havok. Thank you for your time.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB Tue May 08, 2018 3:37 am

    Before you start criticizing me, look at your own friend...Post 628...

    "making everything into a weapon to murder people has always been a strong skill of the US... whether it was taking the blankets from disease patients and letting the native americans capture them, or just going out with a gun and shooting them."

    Explain to me what does that have to do with the PAK?

    Pretty fucking obvious isn't it?

    The only reason the PAK FA exists is the belligerent nation on the other side of the world called the US and their F-22s and F-35s.

    Americas continued militarism and imperialism makes possession of PAK FA and PAK DA necessary expenditures for Russia.

    Not only does Americas military stir up hostility, but its main propaganda arm... the US media... will make up stories of Russian aggression to justify their anti Russian stance.

    And why?

    Because they are scare of rivals... their most devastating weapon has not been the B-52, or the M16, or even the nuclear bombs they dropped on Japan... it was the economic isolation... it was imposed poverty.

    You see communism in China does not stop wealth and growth... it stops it in Cuba and North Korea because of US bullying of the world to not speak or interact with them.

    That is why PAK FAs are needed... and they don't need to make Russia invincible, they don't need to offer a guaranteed defeat against NATO or the US... it just needs to be able to compete on even terms with anything the NATO forces or US can put up and that will be enough to ensure it is only sanctions that are used against Russia... and sanctions make Russia look away from the west for trade partners... it is better for Russia because it prevents real ties with the west... ties that could be used to control.

    PAK FA is freedom... Razz
    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  havok Tue May 08, 2018 11:51 am

    marcellogo wrote:This last of BKP  hit straight to the point about certain debates "a la F-16.net" i.e. reducing comparations between different planes   to a single point of perceived advantage in order to declare the other one not just inferior, that's would be a debatable habit in itself, but a PoS pure and simple.
    Actually, that kind of simplistic reduction occurs more often at non-US forums, according to my experience.

    Take a look at the F-22 debate, for example. EACH person takes one facet of the jet, see how that is supposedly 'inferior' to anything anyone flies, then harps on that singular comparison relentlessly. Since enough people have their own singular comparisons, it is equally simplistically summed up that the F-22 is 'clearly' inferior to everyone else's products. We even had Indians who asserted that the F-22 is inferior to the MIG-21.

    No different than in comparison to the later Russian jets. The F-22 has only 2D thrust vectoring while the Russian jets have 3D, ergo, the American jet is 'inferior'. Never mind items like combat doctrine or avionics or aerodynamics may have their influence that sways one design one way or the other. It is interesting to note the vast majority of these simplistic comparisons are made by those who have never even turned a wrench on a civilian aircraft, let alone served in uniform and assigned to military aviation.

    You sneers at the 'f-16.net' people, I am a member there, but any crew chief, specialized techs, or pilot, from any F-16 flying country, is more knowledgeable about military aviation than any of you in this forum. What I posted about just one item about maintenance, that revealed how little you guys know of the subject, is common knowledge at 'f-16.net'.

    I may not participate here much, but I read, and from what I see, as far as the details of technical issues goes, you guys got NOTHING worthy to reference. You got nothing because you worked on nothing. That is no insult but fact.

    And you cannot fake experience. It is not so much that you can claim to work on such and such fighter. Of course. you can make that claim. But even though we are comparing MIG and Lockheed, there are commonalities of experience that only those who actually worked on military aircrafts would know. Eventually, you WILL slip up and reveal your fraud. In every profession, there are things about that profession that cannot be found on the Internet. There are things about infantry that every soldier knows, no matter his nationality and time of service, that cannot be made up. You have to serve to understand.

    marcellogo wrote:So, Avok  you have still not replied to my own: what exactly made your team to consider MiG-25 a particolarly lousy fighter plane and such a consideration would apply to MiG-31 as well?
    To this day, the US version of the technical data of the MIG-25 is still secret. Am sure the Russian government still do not reveals everything about the -25 despite its age, no? The reason we still keep our version of the technical data is because it will reveal HOW we dissect the jet and came to such and such conclusion. Since then, we have had many other opportunities to examine later versions of the -25 from former Soviet allies and from when we dug Iraqi MIGs out of the sand. But still HOW we took those jets apart and examine them, we do not want such info public.

    http://www.nasic.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/611728/national-air-and-space-intelligence-center-heritage/

    Not just the USAF, but other branches have their own versions of 'Foreign Technology' exploitation sections. This is not about merely understanding how a foreign design jet performs, but in analyzing a circuit board tells US much about the technological foundation of that country, not just how that board is a component in a certain system.

    When we pulled those Iraqi MIGs out of their desert pits, we no longer have any interests in the MIG-25 regarding its aerodynamics, airframe, or engines. We know enough of it from those main aspects of the jet. But we want to know how far has the CONSTRUCTION of the avionics component has progressed. That tells US one more thing about Soviet technology at a certain point in time. We want to know the metallurgy of the hydraulic piston that motivate the flight controls surfaces. We want to know the canopy material to see how much have changed. We want to know cockpit ergonomics to see how Soviet/Russian designers views the pilot.

    We tell people "Yeah...We took apart the Russian jet."

    But we will not tell you how we took it apart and what we found.

    Do you understand what I am getting at?

    Now...Regarding the MIG-25...

    The Airframe specialist will be shocked at the crude welds but his reaction will be tempered by the fact that those crude welds do not affect aerodynamics or structural strength. So we checked that off as a Positive.

    The Avionics specialist will be shocked at the vac tubes and incidentally, no one buys the story about immunity to EMP as factor in using tubes. In our perspective, we found no credible justifications to use tubes. So we checked avionics as a Negative.

    The Propulsion specialist will be shocked at how powerful is the engine (singular). So we initially called that a Positive, but when we found out that at prolonged full throttle, the engine must be rebuilt, if not outright scrapped, we downgrade Propulsion to Negative. Every US jet, including the SR-71, must be able to run at full throttle with no drastic maintenance requirement like an overhaul. After every flight, the most useful indicator is the oil analysis and every crew chief take oil sample after every flight. The oil sample is analyzed for things like metal particulates or viscosity after heat, and if there are any red flags, only then is the squadron is notified to investigate that particular engine in that particular jet. But for a pilot at Debrief to say that he took the engine to full AB for X minutes, and the engine is immediately removed for overhaul? We call that unacceptable. So for a frontline jet like the MIG-25 to have that kind of maintenance requirement, in our opinion, that is a Negative.

    The Pilot will be shocked at the cockpit layout. He reported that for a certain operation, he had to move this way and that way, making distractions easily to come. So we checked that as a Negative.

    That is not to say that we do not have our own duds. The F-104 Starfighter was not a well thought out design.

    http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/730527/f-104-germanys-widow-maker/

    I can say that the F-104 is our own MIG-25. An American PoS. The F-111, my first assignment, came close to that PoS status. So I am being objective here.

    The bottom line, from 1976 to this day, is that the list of Negatives for the MIG-25 is longer than the list of Positives. The MIG-25 does have its uses, but those are limited.

    For any wing commander, any platform that has higher operational and logistical burdens than the other platforms under his unified command -- he will not like it. He will execute his mission, but that will strain his resources, from men to material to time. This is why the USN is using the F-18 for most missions even though we do have better platforms for each of those missions. The mobile and expeditionary nature of a carrier air wing compelled US towards the F-18.

    There are two main ways a jet can be that terrible burden...

    1- Specialization
    2- Poor design

    The SR-71 is Item One. Specialization is an understandable need and therefore a tolerable burden. RAF Mildenhall was an airlift base, but the wing king had to support airlift as well as strategic and tactical reconnaissance, radically different in operations and logistics.

    The MIG-25 is Item Two. It was not supposed to be specialized but its poor overall design FORCED it into specialized roles like interceptor or tactical recon. That is not what you want to have as a wing commander. It limits your flexibility like how Item One does limit.

    Every jet was designed to have a PRIMARY airframe mission statement. Deviations from that primary mission are allowed, but only after serious experimentation that sets boundaries for each deviation. The F-4 is an excellent example of this. So in terms of offering a commander flexibility, the F-4 is superior to the MIG-25 despite the fact that the F-4's design is older.

    Lastly, you asked my opinion about the MIG-25. Note that I stayed on topic. I made no characterizations about Russia or her government or her people. What I posted was strictly technical in scope.

    That is how technical discussions should be done. cheers
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11108
    Points : 11086
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Hole Tue May 08, 2018 11:54 am

    Maybe you shoot read a book about the MiG-25 before you comment on it.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am

    havok wrote:
    Actually, that kind of simplistic reduction occurs more often at non-US forums, according to my experience.
    Few fact.
    - This forum is not source for technically sophisticated discussion, if you here for that then you will face disappointment. But if you are here for quality news about Russian military techn then you will found that you are looking for.
    -The Russian Federation is NOT the soviet union. They different by many way it is hard to describe. Russia is more similar to the USA than to the CCCP. The MIG-25 was a soviet plane, the T-50 is a Russian one. It is quite important, because the CCCP was quite inefficient, it managed to show 50% of the overall efficiency of the US, however the russian MIC showing somewhere between 70-150% efficiency per capita compared to the US.
    -In the Desert Storm the US fought against an Arabs pseudo country, existing on tribal/sectarian patchwork. Iraq didn't failed BECAUSE of the soviet tech, but they failed DESPITE the soviet tech. Check how far the Saudis managed to go with the best US tech, and how badly they fail with it. Or check the difference between the performance of the well prepared Iraqis, and the underfunded/ underperforming serbs.

    havok wrote:
    The MIG-25 is Item Two. It was not supposed to be specialized but its poor overall design FORCED it into specialized roles like interceptor or tactical recon. That is not what you want to have as a wing commander. It limits your flexibility like how Item One does limit.

    Every jet was designed to have a PRIMARY airframe mission statement. Deviations from that primary mission are allowed, but only after serious experimentation that sets boundaries for each deviation. The F-4 is an excellent example of this. So in terms of offering a commander flexibility, the F-4 is superior to the MIG-25 despite the fact that the F-4's design is older.

    Lastly, you asked my opinion about the MIG-25. Note that I stayed on topic. I made no characterizations about Russia or her government or her people. What I posted was strictly technical in scope.

    That is how technical discussions should be done. cheers


    You evaluated the technical details of the MIG25 , NOT the differences between the CCCP and the USA military doctrines.

    The MIG-25 was a sophisticated plane, fully capable to perform the job that the military doctrine designated it for.

    You compared it to the requirements dictated by the US war doctrine , and you say that it will not fit into that. And it means you can't capture the difference between the two.

    I suggest to read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction to understand how the war economy build up, and the connection between resources and weapons.
    And generally I suggest to read old , soviet times books to understand how the citizens of the CCCP saw they country, and how the party members managed it.

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB Thu May 10, 2018 1:10 am

    It was not supposed to be specialized but its poor overall design FORCED it into specialized roles like interceptor or tactical recon.

    Of course... it was developed for the PVO as an interceptor because they wanted to use in in Frontal Aviation as a CAS aircraft... but after designing it to shoot down US bombers and recon aircraft they suddenly realised its enormous engines and thin low drag wings might not make it a multirole fighter bomber...

    You don't appear stupid... simply just following the propaganda...

    None of the Soviet aircraft in the period the MiG-25 were developed were multirole aircraft... why the fuck would you think the MiG-25 was anything other than an interceptor or high speed recon aircraft?

    The only exception was the RB model that dropped bombs.

    What is amusing is you are perhaps suggesting the F-15 is more than that?

    The F-15C is a fighter only, and the F-15E is a strike plane.

    So in terms of offering a commander flexibility, the F-4 is superior to the MIG-25 despite the fact that the F-4's design is older.

    Oh do fuck off, you are a moron.

    You are talking about high level logistics and management shit... if the job is to shoot down incoming threats the MiG-25 is much more use than any model F-4.

    If you are going to pull this shit then the MiG-21 is superior to the F-22... anyone can afford a few thousand MiG-21s... how many countries can afford that F-22 piece of crap?

    How often in US training did small manouverable fighters make the big expensive aircraft look stupid... how about all the time.

    In that case the enormous cost of the F-22, plus the high cost of operations all count against it...

    The MIG-25 was a sophisticated plane, fully capable to perform the job that the military doctrine designated it for.

    The MiG-25 pretty much did what the SR-71 did but without all the expensive Soviet Titanium. The engines were brute force, the skin was heavy, but cheap and easy to work with, the electronics were primitive but very powerful.

    At the end of the day if you wanted an interceptor it was much better than anything else available... even an Arrow.

    Funny you say the F-4 was superior, yet F-4s never intercepted MiG-25s... they had to get F-15s to do that...

    And Amusing that the SR-71 never violated Soviet airspace when MiG-25s and MiG-31s were around... if ever.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu May 10, 2018 9:37 am

    GarryB wrote:

    And Amusing that the SR-71 never violated Soviet airspace when MiG-25s and MiG-31s were around... if ever.

    Actually it is a quite interesting detail.

    The MIG-25 design reflecting the need to manufacture as fast as possible as many airplane to make it impossible to violate the CCCP airspace by the USA.

    So, if they spent five years more the aircraft can be more sophisticated, with solid state electronics, but the SR71 has five more years to violate the soviet air space.


    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 679
    Points : 685
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  marcellogo Thu May 10, 2018 11:20 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    And Amusing that the SR-71 never violated Soviet airspace when MiG-25s and MiG-31s were around... if ever.

    Actually it is a quite interesting detail.

    The MIG-25 design reflecting the need to manufacture as fast as possible as many airplane to make it impossible to violate the CCCP airspace by the USA.

    So, if they spent five years more the aircraft can be more sophisticated, with solid state electronics, but the SR71 has five more years to violate the soviet air space.


    And when they had such tech available they have made it in the form of MiG-31.

    According to what havok himself said what were the  shortcomings they found in the Foxbat were all duly addressed by it.


    Radar passed from Vaacum Tubes to a PESA , a word premiere for what fighters are concerned.
    Plane get a RIO so to share the excessive workshare.
    Engines passed from turboyets to medium bypass ratio turbofans, making the plane capable to operate also at low altitude in order to intercept cruise missile.
    It remained however a niche system, used to cover a specific need but same could be said of many US planes, beginning from A-10, F-106 or F-111.
    So that we can conclude that surely MiG-25 got issues and that the soviet themselves were fully aware of them but surely it and its successor being a single use plane was never considered to be a problem by Soviets then and now by russians.

    Let's wait for the PAK-SD prototypes to see if they would keep the same concept or if they would try something new.


    Last edited by marcellogo on Thu May 10, 2018 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11108
    Points : 11086
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Hole Thu May 10, 2018 11:21 am

    The SR-71 had nothing to do with the development of the MiG-25. It was triggered by the XB-70.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu May 10, 2018 12:05 pm

    Hole wrote:The SR-71 had nothing to do with the development of the MiG-25. It was triggered by the XB-70.

    Looks like by the wiki the SR-71,MIG-25 and XB-70 prototype flew in the same year back in 1964, so it was more likely a reaction to the start of development of those aircrafts.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11108
    Points : 11086
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Hole Thu May 10, 2018 5:14 pm

    Yup, plus the B-58 Hustler. Hard to say, which one it was in the end. Probably all combined.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 679
    Points : 685
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  marcellogo Fri May 11, 2018 1:52 am

    Hole wrote:Yup, plus the B-58 Hustler. Hard to say, which one  it was in the end. Probably all combined.

    Certainly the fact that Us was investing heavily on super-fast planes was the reason that spurred its development but also the utility of having a plane that could be bth fast than with a good range in order to cope with the vast spaces of Asiatic part of Russia.
    MiG-31 with its low fuel consumption turbofans further procedeed along this way.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB Fri May 11, 2018 5:06 am

    At the time everyone thought planes were just going to keep getting faster so a plane that could intercept mach 3 bombers was a necessity and with the T-4 the Soviets themselves were also looking at mach 3 bombers... but reality set in... turbojet engines are simply not up to faster flight speeds... in fact the F-16 got a fixed inlet for its engine limiting speed to mach 2, while the F-18 was limited to mach 1.8.

    It became clear that the higher speed had enormous costs in fuel and performance, but didn't make the platform safe... fast objects move in very straight lines and SAMs got much faster and longer ranged to the point where a SAM from the 1970s would make mach 3 flight unsafe... in fact mach 5 flight speed would not have been very safe.... the cost of the aircraft would be enormous to buy and to operate... the simple fact is that ICBMs and SLBMs already use high speed to penetrate defences... aircraft are not really up to the job to do the same with turbojet engines.

    The SR_71 was a step forward with ramjet engines, but new scramjet engines make higher speed rather more attainable and realistic... and actually would out perform rocket propulsion for high speed operations.

    Of course for an interceptor high speed is beneficial as it means earlier interception further from home base... it gives a better chance to intercept a bomber before it has released missiles... getting the bomber with its missiles on board requires one AAM, instead of over a dozen AAMs for each munition and bomber.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 679
    Points : 685
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  marcellogo Fri May 11, 2018 11:07 am

    GarryB wrote:At the time everyone thought planes were just going to keep getting faster so a plane that could intercept mach 3 bombers was a necessity and with the T-4 the Soviets themselves were also looking at mach 3 bombers... but reality set in... turbojet engines are simply not up to faster flight speeds... in fact the F-16 got a fixed inlet for its engine limiting speed to mach 2, while the F-18 was limited to mach 1.8.

    It became clear that the higher speed had enormous costs in fuel and performance, but didn't make the platform safe... fast objects move in very straight lines and SAMs got much faster and longer ranged to the point where a SAM from the 1970s would make mach 3 flight unsafe... in fact mach 5 flight speed would not have been very safe.... the cost of the aircraft would be enormous to buy and to operate... the simple fact is that ICBMs and SLBMs already use high speed to penetrate defences... aircraft are not really up to the job to do the same with turbojet engines.

    The SR_71 was a step forward with ramjet engines, but new scramjet engines make higher speed rather more attainable and realistic... and actually would out perform rocket propulsion for high speed operations.

    Of course for an interceptor high speed is beneficial as it means earlier interception further from home base... it gives a better chance to intercept a bomber before it has released missiles... getting the bomber with its missiles on board requires one AAM, instead of over a dozen AAMs for each munition and bomber.
    Yes, that's the point  interceptor is all about speed or as an alternative about the capacity of staying on air for a long period of time.
    When you privilege the first you have the F-104S (i.e. the one that worked, not the american ones) or the Lighting (the Uk one), when the second the Tornado F.2 or the Yak-28P , if you want or in case of SU need both (and up to the max) you have to go toward Foxbat as a stopgap and to the Foxhound as the real thing.
    onwiththewar
    onwiththewar


    Posts : 57
    Points : 57
    Join date : 2014-07-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  onwiththewar Sun May 13, 2018 5:21 pm

    The American guy sounded interesting initially, then I couldn't stop laughing when he started childish remarks such as "you guys have NOTHING" or "your xxx is NON-EXISTENT" with "nothing" in capitals and black font, It reminds me some 11 year old bragging about his X-Box.

    Then he called F-104 POS. This is just sad.

    The F-104 was designed to carry 1 single bomb (we know what bomb) in a lo-lo-lo mission against we-know-who. In this situation, it goes further than the F-4 and faster. Being bigger, the F-4 would also be detected earlier. F-104 was designed to have a tiny frontal area for a reason. It's not "bad design".

    F-4 was mass produced to carry as much bombs as possible at Vietnam while were still able to "put up a fight" against the close to nothing (borrowing his words here) air force of North Vietnam. During operation rolling thunder the F-4 sucked just as bad as everyone else. So many of them were downed by Mig-17 or Chinese J-6. Consider North Vietnamese only had 200 - 300 planes (Mig-21 were introduced later and in limited numbers), what the heck did Americans do there ?? Lost bloody 400 phantoms in that war and 2,200 planes in total (10,000 include helicopters, of all plane losses, 249 shot down by Vietnamese air force) ??

    Mig-25 is a weapon, it was designed to intercept, shoot and kill, it was not designed for fanboys. It's a point interceptor that requires GCI. What it has is enough to do this job. Over-engineering for tax payers money wasn't part of the plan.






    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1584
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Sun May 13, 2018 8:56 pm

    I have the feeling that the only reason americans call the F-104 a bad design is because it was an equivalent of the MiG-21 but of course if its Russian its always doo doo and if theres an aircraft similar to the Russian one it must be doo doo too lol1
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 11108
    Points : 11086
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Hole Sun May 13, 2018 9:42 pm

    Pakistan lost a few fights with their F-104´s against Indian MiG-21´s.

    Don´t forget the MiG-25BM with its 4 anti-radar missiles.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40487
    Points : 40987
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  GarryB Mon May 14, 2018 3:09 am

    I have the feeling that the only reason americans call the F-104 a bad design is because it was an equivalent of the MiG-21 but of course if its Russian its always doo doo and if theres an aircraft similar to the Russian one it must be doo doo too lol1

    F-104 was never really an equivalent to the MiG-21 except in being a relatively small plane that could fly at mach 2 over short distances... it was shiny and fast.

    It had a small straight wing and lots of engine power to do that and was tricky to fly.

    In some air forces it was successful and others it was not.

    And more precisely if there is a Russian plane with any similarities to a western plane the Russian plane must be a copy....
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 679
    Points : 685
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  marcellogo Mon May 14, 2018 3:59 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I have the feeling that the only reason americans call the F-104 a bad design is because it was an equivalent of the MiG-21 but of course if its Russian its always doo doo and if theres an aircraft similar to the Russian one it must be doo doo too lol1

    F-104 was never really an equivalent to the MiG-21 except in being a relatively small plane that could fly at mach 2 over short distances... it was shiny and fast.

    It had a small straight wing and lots of engine power to do that and was tricky to fly.

    In some air forces it was successful and others it was not.

    And more precisely if there is a Russian plane with any similarities to a western plane the Russian plane must be a copy....

    It was a plane designed for extreme velocity and climb rate at expense of turning capacity.
    Problem was that americans wanted to use it as a normal fighter i.e. to engage it in short range air manoeuver combat, armed with sidewinders and M61 vulcans: once russian introduced Mig-21, with similar performances but with a way better rounding up of the flight spectrum there was no game.
    It however get a second life with the G (german) version as a low quote, deep strike plane, concept worked well but it get an ominous reputation for its own fatal accident rate (only in Luftwaffe, other users got significantly inferior ones) and a third one with the S (Sparrow) version in italian service in which it was instead quite successful, given that it finally got the mission pattern it should have had from the beginning i.e. that of a full fledged point interceptor with medium range Sarh missiles and (almost initially) no guns.

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Guest Mon May 14, 2018 4:10 am

    marcellogo wrote:

    It was a plane designed for extreme velocity and climb rate at expense of turning capacity.
    Problem was that americans wanted to use it as a normal fighter i.e. to engage it in short range air manoeuver combat, armed with sidewinders and M61 vulcans: once russian introduced Mig-21, with similar performances but with a way better rounding up of the flight spectrum there was no game.
    It however get a second life with the G (german) version as a low quote, deep strike plane, concept worked well but it get an ominous reputation for its own fatal accident rate (only in Luftwaffe, other users got significantly inferior ones) and a third one with the S (Sparrow) version in italian service in which it was instead quite successful, given that it finally got the mission pattern it should have had from the beginning i.e. that of a full fledged point interceptor with medium range Sarh missiles and (almost initially) no guns.


    Huge problem in my eyes for it, being interceptor-fighter is that retarded ejection seat Stanley C-1 that was introduced initially, it was directly responsible for like 50 pilot deaths though its service lifespan. Tho they mostly removed that junk in later revisions.

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5158
    Points : 5154
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  LMFS Thu May 17, 2018 2:32 am

    Amazing picture of the flying lab with the Izd. 30 onboard:

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 22992110

    https://russianplanes.net/id229921
    avatar
    Swede55


    Posts : 23
    Points : 28
    Join date : 2014-08-28

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Pak-fa

    Post  Swede55 Thu May 17, 2018 2:44 am

    In defense of the F4, it was designed as a carrier based fleet air defense fighter.

    Sponsored content


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #4 - Page 27 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 14, 2024 4:59 pm