PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st Aug 2016, 05:09   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,276
New video of PAK-FA

Comrades,
thought you might be interested in this
Putin?s vaunted new fighter jet
New shots, among other types, of the F-22-ski.
tartare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2017, 21:28   #2 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,632
Nice new camouflage..

ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 06:34   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: key biscayne
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Looks like WW1 dazzle camoflage influenced that paint scheme.
IcePaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 07:27   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,699
Don't know how it flies but who cares! What a brilliant looking aircraft!

Interesting to note internal cannon are back in fashion!
ShotOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 15:32   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotOne View Post
Interesting to note internal cannon are back in fashion!
When did they go out of fashion?

-RP
Rhino power is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 20:22   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,445
Here's an interesting tidbit from that article:
It’s primary asset is an X-band multimode AESA radar, supplemented by L-band radars said to be capable of bouncing signals off opposing stealth aircraft.
Such a radar would give a general indication of where the ‘enemy’ is. The T-50s pilot would then fall back on infra-red and optical sensors to pick it out of the sky.

Problem is, a passive ESM system is going to detect the active system's emissions way before the active system will pick up any returns. That will give the stealthy aircraft (presumably F-35) a big advantage assuming it has a long range internal carriage missile. Is AMRAAM long range enough? Or will F-35 have to wait till the Meteor is fielded? Even if F-35 will be dependent on Meteor, it seems highly likely that Meteor will get fielded well before T-50 gets fielded. Which would seem to indicate AMRAAM will be long range enough for some time.
KenV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 20:48   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 870
Rudders look a tad small to me, maybe it's just the perspective.
DirtyProp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 21:07   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyProp View Post
Rudders look a tad small to me, maybe it's just the perspective.
The vertical fins are all moving, so maybe they don't need to be as big. Further, with two-axis thrust vectoring smaller fins would seem to be able to do the job of yaw control. The F-22's thrust vectoring is in pitch plane only. F-35 has no thrust vectoring at all except for B model for VTOL operation only.
KenV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 00:23   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Looks like WW1 dazzle camoflage influenced that paint scheme.
Or a surplus of 'Post-it' notes...
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 11:45   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Devon
Posts: 5
It looks so good that I think we should send Clint Eastwood to steal it.
MarisPiper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 12:45   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 103
It will be interesting to see how quickly US aggressor jets get painted in that.
TheWestCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 13:04   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 501
Not long.



(I'm cheating quite a a bit there - that scheme isn't an aggressor scheme reflecting the Russian colours at all, but is a commemorative scheme for 100 years of US Naval Aviation and was chosen to acknowledge the digital pattern on modern uniforms.)
hoodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 13:50   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 1,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWestCoast View Post
It will be interesting to see how quickly US aggressor jets get painted in that.
At least one US Navy F-5E was painted in an earlier PAK-FA scheme.



TEEEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 23:00   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,099
That last one looks a nicer colour scheme!

The name 'PAK-FA' does seem to infer the beastie hasn't much payload though. It reminds me of a few years back, when the Russians came up with the 'Multi-role Fighter Interceptor', or MFI for short. Roger Bacon, who penned the Straight and Level column in Flight, suggested NATO should call it 'Flat Pack'.
Mechta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 06:29   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 59
Posts: 336
Strange that this meaningless abbreviation - PAK FA - is used so often. Without going into Russian wording, it is just an abbreviated name of the whole project, like e.g. JSF.
Better call it Т-50, as for now.
When the test period is over, it will be given a "traditional " index, Su-xx (TBD).
A_Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 06:38   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 470
AVan, any chance you could enlighten us to the Russian name for it?
hunterboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 07:47   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 59
Posts: 336
Hunterboy,


There is no such a tradition/habit in Russia to give nick names like e.g. "Flanker", "Fulcrum" etc. Even if somebody "invents" a name like e.g. "White Swan" for Tu-160 or "Alligator" for Ка-52 (helicopter) they are not used in everyday life. Rather trivial derivatives from the numerical indicies are in use commonly. No pathos, at all.
Conversely, sometimes ironic names are given, like e.g. "comb" for Su-25 (if one takes a front look to a fully armed Su-25, it indeed looks like a comb).
A_Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 07:56   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,634
In Russian it's Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации, That's Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii thus PAK-FA
ETOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 10:19   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 5,488
Wasn't the Tu-22 "Awl"??? based on its shape I guess

The normal code names "Blinder" "Fulcrum" are NATO codes - because in the old days little or no serious info was given out by the USSR
Heathrow Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 14:37   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,445
Blackjack, Blinder, Bear, Flanker, Fulcrum, Fencer, Frogfoot, Comb, Condor, Cub, Hind, Halo, Hip, Hokum, etc etc are all NATO code/reporting names.

Alligator is Kamov's name for it's attack helo. It probably was given a name largely because it was intended at the outset to be an export product, and the export market is accustomed to have names assigned to products.

Tu-22 NATO code was Blinder. Soviet crews called it "shilo" which translates to "awl" because of its shape.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of names is the somewhat unique design/development process used by the old Soviet system. A "design bureau" designs the basic product and (usually) an entirely different entity (sometimes more than one entity) builds and sustains it. The production entity has its own internal "design bureau" with the authority to make changes to the basic design to improve manufacturability or assembly, or to facilitate the incorporation of new material and/or processes as they became available and/or to improve the product itself. The production center has different motivations (and funding) than the design bureau and with the authority to make significant design changes, is why there are so many significantly different variants of Soviet/Russian aircraft.

For example, the Mi-8/17 helo is built in both Kazan and Ulan-Ude. Each production center competes with the other and is why each has its own quite different version(s) of the Mi-8/17.
KenV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1