BronzeBuddha

Well, I searched up and found the Mikhailov quote, and I stand corrected. The reason for dropping max speed was to avoid the need to strengthen the tail. My bad.

As I currently understand it, materials limit the T-50 to Mach 2.35, as stated by flateric over at Secret Projects. The current speed requirement is Mach 2.0, but this may have been with the current 117 engines. Who's to say that the T-50 can't achieve the original Mach 2.35 with second stage engines? That said, this may be frankly a moot point since a dash speed of Mach 2.35 vs. Mach 2 is likely not important.

Even without a speed advantage, I would expect that the PAK FA will have the kinematic and maneuvering advantage over most of the envelope. Which would be all fine and dandy except that it seems like the aircraft seemed to sacrificed a bit much in VLO to achieve that. As much as I like the looks and aerodynamics of the T-50, I just don't think it will be enough to overcome a stealthier F-22. Against an F-35, the two may be pretty evenly matched, but the F-35 might also have massive sensor and software advantage.

Given that Zelin was the head of the VVS, I don't think he would make such claims out of the blue. Even though the official max speed for RFP is Mach 2.0 (2135 km/h) at altitude, I wouldn't be surprised if the PAK FA with stage two Izdeliye 30 engines can achieve its original Mach 2.35 (2500 km/h) which would be faster than the F-22's Mach 2.25. But what I'm more concerned about is the ability of the Russians to create avionics, software, and VLO in the class of the F-22 and F-35. As esb77 noted, the Russians aren't playing up these aspects like they are for kinematics. More troubling, flateric from Secret Projects says there is very little changes in the exterior shape of the production T-50 from what we're seeing now. The panel edges may become serrated and the metallic nacelles won't be exposed, but the shape of rear fuselage is unfortunately making me believe that the PAK FA really can't match the F-22 or F-35 in all-aspect VLO. Especially against the Raptor, I really don't think the T-50's kinematic advantage can fully compensate for its disadvantage in stealth. As much as I like the T-50 (I think it's a beautiful bird), I am really worried about how well it might fare in a fight against the F-35 and especially the F-22.

True, but saying the PAK FA will be faster implies a speed of greater than Mach 2.25, or 1500 mph, unless the max speed requirement has somehow increased since 2004, when it was specified as Mach 2, or about 2135 km/h. Wasn't the original requirement Mach 2.35?

Thank you. I wasn't trying to start a flame war or start claiming "Aircraft A is so much better than Aircraft B." From aerodynamic perspective, I'm inclined to believe that the Su-35 has the edge in the transsonic region while the Typhoon will have the advantage in the supersonic, as it was designed to.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/2/14/787/ What do knowledgeable people make of this statement? Or is Zelin talking out of his anus?

Both aircraft are considered to be 4.5 generation fighter. So how do these two aircraft stack up in terms of aerodynamic performance, avionics, weapons, etc.?

How many Kh-38Ms and Kh-58UShK will be carried internally? 2 per main bay? They seem like roughly the same size as Izd. 810.

Is the T-50 redoing static tests due to structural changes? Wonder how much heavier the definitive airframe (when strengthening plates are gone) will be compared to original goal. NOLA, are you berkut on Keypubs and flanker on Secret Projects?

Were the Su-27 strengthening plates eventually removed? T-50-3 was seen carrying external payload, so if it were testing weapon carriage and separation, I'd imagine it would need the same reinforcements.

Is something going to be done about the aft fuselage and nozzles? Even if the nacelles get covered with RAM, there are quite a few 90 degree joints back there, which is supposed to be a big no no when it comes to stealth. Also, even with RAM those nozzles are quite exposed, so I presume they would be changed in production aircraft?

Did T-50-3 ever get the reinforcement plates?

This thread deserves to be locked and deleted due to sheer stupidity. In fact, it should never have been made in the first place due to the ridiculous premise. And =JNA=Sova and a few others, I have no idea whether you guys are being serious or not.

I believe it was a magazine (AirForces Monthy, IIRC) that reported that Typhoons won 4 of 8 BFM engagements. But still, not a whole lot from American sources. Reportedly the Luftwaffe Typhoons will be returning to a Red Flag this year, so we'll see what happens.

I think it was Distant Frontier in Red Flag Alaska 2012. Reportedly there were 8 WVR engagements, and the Typhoon won 4? How many did the Raptor win?

Ufimtsev was one of many people who lead to operational stealth. There's no single "father of stealth."

The specifications according to wikipedia seems ridiculous as times, especially the thrust to weight ratio. General characteristics - Crew: 1 - Length: 19.8 m (65.9 ft) - Wingspan: 14 m (46.6 ft) - Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft) - Wing area: 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2) - Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb) - Loaded weight: 25,000 kg (55,115 lb) - Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,160 lb) - Powerplant: 2 × Izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, Izdeliye 30 for later production thrust vectoring turbofan - Dry thrust: 93.2 kN (21,000 lbf) each - Thrust with afterburner: 147.1 kN (33,067 lbf) each - Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,711 lb) Performance - Maximum speed: Mach 2.0-2.3 (2,135-2,440 km/h, 1,327-1,520 mph) - Cruise speed: Mach 1.3-1.6 (1,380-1,700 km/h, 860-1,060 mph) - Range: 3,500 km subsonic (2,175 mi) - Ferry range: 5,500 km with one in-flight refueling (3,417 mi) - Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft) - Wing loading: 330-470 kg/m2 (67-96 lb/ft2) - Thrust/weight: 1.19 with 117 engines, 1.41 with Izdeliye 30 engines - Maximum g-load: 9 g Armament - Guns: Provision for a cannon (most likely GSh-301). - Air to air loadout: - 6× Izdeliye 180 / K-77M or 4× Izdeliye 810 - 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2 - Air to ground loadout: - 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58USHK - 8× KAB-250 or 4× KAB-500 - 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2 - Air to sea loadout: - 4× Kh-35 - 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2 - Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.[123] Avionics Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) N036 Byelka radar built by Tikhomirov NIIP - Main X-band N036-1-01 AESA radar with 1526 T/R modules - 2 Side facing X-band N036B-1-01 AESA radars with 358 T/R modules each, to increase angular coverage - 2 L-band N036L-1-01 arrays on the Leading-edge extension for IFF functionality L402 Himalayas ECM suite built by KNIRTI institute 101KS Atoll electro-optical suite - 101KS-O: Laser-based countermeasures against infrared missiles - 101KS-V: IRST for airborne targets - 101KS-U: Ultraviolet warning sensors - 101KS-N: Targeting pod

I'm back in college, so I don't have the game on me anymore. In any case, looking forward to the F-15C AFM when I get back.

Well, I didn't mean that they started shooting at 7 nm, only that I no longer used afterburners well before they launched their missiles.

Interesting. When engaging with heaters I would turn off the burners once they close within 7 nautical miles, but even then, and even with flares, and with my flight path perpendicular to the missile's, I still get whacked by the R-60. Maybe my evasion technique is incorrect?

No, I'm doing fine against the R-73 when doing DACT against two Su-27s. The R-60s though are giving me a hard time.

I'm new to DCS, and when doing DACT against 2 MiG-29s with heaters, I can't seem to successfully avoid the R-60 missiles. It seems like flares effectiveness against them is random. What am I doing wrong? Also, is the AIM-9P worse than the AIM-9M?

Well, it seems like playing with a keyboard is not ergonomic to say the least. I'm considering a joystick, but I'm on a tight budget. Will a basic Logitech 3D Pro be a good upgrade? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00009OY9U

Got it, thank you.