The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[combatace]

Damn! thats programmed to make the streamlined flow over the wings.

[Namenlos Ein]

T-50-5

 

 

http://interfax.az/view/590281

Edited October 28, 2013 by Namenlos Ein

[Flаnker]

Edited October 28, 2013 by Flаnker

[Namenlos Ein]

T-50-5.

 

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50/t-50-5.wbp

[Namenlos Ein]

 

http://lusika33.livejournal.com/42990.html

[Namenlos Ein]

T-50-5 in livery.

 

 

Today at Zhukovsky.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2013 by Namenlos Ein

[FoxHoundELite]

Wow...just speechless

[Namenlos Ein]

 

 

[sobek]

That is a strange livery. The white seam at the edge makes it stand out quite a bit.

[Kaktus29]

@sobek, well its not like they are using this as approved livery for the series.. just playing with colors ..

 

to me it looks awesome, very slick, nice, smooth color ..

 

but in fight, 5gen fight i think the color of this fighters will matter the least .. unless one paints it in bright fluorescent orange i think they are fine..

[Namenlos Ein]

 

 

Edited November 20, 2013 by Namenlos Ein

[NRG-Vampire]

That is a strange livery. The white seam at the edge makes it stand out quite a bit.

 

nothing strange, looks they are testing mixed false shape visualization and winter camouflage

[NRG-Vampire]

false shape paint: seems similar to Tu-144 silhouette or to KAI KF-X (without canards)

 

 

 

[Pilotasso]

They painted the J-20 on the PAK FA heh, how ironic. :D

[NRG-Vampire]

no, they painted the early concept shape of PAK-FA :)

 

[Namenlos Ein]

[Namenlos Ein]

T-50-5.

http://vonsolovey.livejournal.com/22917.html

 

http://michaeldec.livejournal.com/22140.html

 

T-50-3, December 2013.

[Joe Kurr]

PAK FA stealth features patent published

 

Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

 

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

 

Entire article at Jane's

[Invader ZIM]

Interesting read, so the radar cross section is significantly reduced vs. legacy aircraft, yet no where near what Western powers consider full Stealth.

 

Essentially, going by the report the RCS can be as high as 1 meter squared, with is actually on par with the estimation of a U.S. B-1 bomber RCS.

 

http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/radar_stealth/Bluefire.htm

 

 

 

 

http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/stealth-basics/

 

Edited January 18, 2014 by Invader ZIM

[NOLA]

That is some pretty bad graphics. How the F is MiG-29 supposedly 3 square meters while Tu-160 is 15?

 

And Russians measure RCS differently from US/EU method.

[Invader ZIM]

LOL, yea, I was just trying to get a few examples that show the B-1 was around the 1 meter squared discussed. As you can see, theres quite a bit of speculation on various RCS's aircraft. The article mentions the estimate of 10 to 15 square meters for the standard Su-27, which falls within that chart above for the Blackjack.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure how you can measure the RCS differently, it's a mathematical equation that's dependent on aspect to the target, in the examples above, it seems the 1 meter squared for the B-1 is for a top-down return, while the other graphic appears to be a nose-on estimation.

 

The article mentions the goal of the T-50 team was to get an average RCS reduction within that zone, and if they achieved their goal, then it seems to fall within the B-1B's estimation for RCS.

 

If you have info on how RCS is calculated differently in Russia, I'd like to read more about that criteria.

 

Another chart which measures the RCS in X-band, so it's also dependent on the frequency used.

 

Edited January 18, 2014 by Invader ZIM

[Agiel7]

Apparently, the B-2 is actually supposed to have a fraction of the F-117s RCS despite being three times as large due to advances in aircraft design technology and materials science.

 

Also, the designer of Sim Simulator has gone on record saying that the cited values for the F-117 are actually quite optimistic...

 

...according to Serbian war-time experience. Their SAM operators reported the RCS was at least an order of magnitude smaller than that.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Agiel7

[NOLA]

To be honest, I'm not sure how you can measure the RCS differently, it's a mathematical equation that's dependent on aspect to the target, in the examples above, it seems the 1 meter squared for the B-1 is for a top-down return, while the other graphic appears to be a nose-on estimation.

 

Yes, mathematics stay the same indeed, but American's and Europeans like to cite the lowest figure; which is of course head on at an optimal frequency. I believe Russians tend to use an average number for the plane instead of frontal.

 

And yup, RCS wary wildly depending on frequency. It did with F-117 for example, and it was designed with a particular radar in mind. Northrop's design had overall lower average* RCS.

 

 

*average as in vs frequencies, not vs frame position against radar waves.

[Invader ZIM]

Ahh, so that helps explain it.

 

Thanks for the info NOLA. :)

[Namenlos Ein]

 

T-50-3

 

T-50-1, 01/2014