Posted on 01/14/2014 12:29:46 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
This profile view of the PAK FA illustrates the extensive shaping that has been done in an effort to reduce the usual radar-returning traps around the air intakes. Source: Sukhoi
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 ".
In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved throught the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.
In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.
The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and
(Excerpt) Read more at janes.com ...
The PAK FA's designers have paid close attention to stealthy features, which include the use of radar-absorbent coatings on the reverse of the nose-mounted IRST, the widespread use of baffles and the use of absorbent coatings in the air intakes and at the junctions between moving surfaces. (Sukhoi)
Nice looking plane.
The whole plane is just baffling :)
doh!
I think so too
I am not trying to jab at their efforts, but this thing is the illegitimate stepchild of the YF-23. IMHO and all these things mentioned may or may not have been part of the YF-23 but we will not know because these items are probably still classified.
And the weird twist is these folks get the patent for what might have been done already? Jeesh....
Interesting leading edge, not really a canard but more
of a low speed flaplet? Would really change the lift
at the right attitude.
Nice looking bird.
Think of the center section as a huge flying wing with a long chord and high reynolds numbers. IMHO the ability to change the angle of this "LEX" and given its sharp leading edge makes it all about how they can excite and control ( when they want to ) "Vortex Lift" on or about that center section and what may or may not spill spanwise, if that is also a goal.....
They also seem to shield the intakes too.
They sure seem to be making a lot of progress
very fast.
Yep, it is clearly outclasses F-35. And they’ll build more aircraft than there are F-22s in USAF inventory.
I think there are firm order for 300 or so Su-50s (twin-seat version to be assembled in India)from Indian AF alone.
Any information on the average RCS for the F-22 and F-35 and/or the frontal RCS of the Pak-Fa? The Russians seem to be giving average RCS values (the signature average from difference angles around the plane), while Lockheed/Boeing et al give frontal RCS (which is almost always the lowest number).
Might you have a source that compares apples to apples? I saw a Russian document that gave the average RCS of the Raptor as 0.3m2 (as compared to a frontal RCS of 0.0001m2), and I was wondering if you may have some other source. Same thing when it comes to the frontal RCS of the PakFa as all that has been made available is average values rather than frontal values.
That would, again, be helpful in comparing apples with apples.
It may also shed light on why Boeing thinks that the Silent Eagle is 'comparable' to the F-35, which may be the case when comparing average RCS but impossible when looking at frontal RCS.
Not many details, but its from an official Russian source-
Very Sukhoi, very Russian, to my eye.
I've been reading lot of combat stories by those who fought and those who flew the MiG-15s, MiG-17s and MiG-19s in Korea and in Vietnam. Eye opening.
It's stupid arrogance to underestimate their engineering, just as it is to under or over-estimate ours.
Political stupidity, however, cannot be underestimated and there's no shortage here, unfortunately. We're all stocked up. Let's hope we don't feel the need to use it.
Hmmm...I think I got the overs and unders upside down regarding political stupidity and "should not" works better than "cannot".
Based on the above display, looks like my random acts of stupidity, like that of political stupidity in high places, cannot be over-stated or over-estimated, either.
Thanks. Appreciated.
BTTT
Is Northrop missing some pages from their F-23 prototypes?
The Indian order was changed to single-seaters, due to both time and cost pressures.
I cannot see a time when the F-35 will face-off against the T-50 in actual combat.
No, I don't think they are missing very many.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.