Another article from indian Business Standard
I just about sh1t the bed laughing when I got to that part. The F-22 is supersonic, highly manouverable and well armed.However, in the process of tests American designers encountered the problem of combinability in the aircraft of low observability, supersonic cruising speed and high maneuverability. This did not make it possible to accept aircraft for the armament.
This is just a joke if they are saying the F-22 failed and the PAK-FA will 'solve' these problems.
Next question is manoeuvering - if your cloaked up, cruising along, and a sensor caught you, sent a missile your way, would that actual plasma field stay attached to your airframe? or would it be destroyed by the very forces that keep you in the air? high, slow and gentle seems the answer.
To answer about the B-2. If it indeed does have this system, the internals would have to be shielded in some type of cage to prevent interference to its systems, and most important, if a plasma system is used on an airframe, it would as the plasma ions neutralise, they will give off light, and thus cold or hot plasma, you will create a detectable field for sensors.
plus it can be pulsated in disruptive patterns.
it also said the thickness was spread out to almost nothing. but this is 80's article .
i've got the question, maybe somebody will explain it for me:
as i see from russian forums PAK FA will be in some type of camo...
the question is: what's the reason of the camo using for stealth aircraft? all US types (F117, 35, 22 and B2 bombers) are black (natural colour of coating)...
They can avoid the biggest issues that F-22 has....weapon capacity!
PAK-FA is designed as a much bigger airplane so it might be able to carry much more internal weapons! That make it more useful and cost officiant!
They could add trust vectoring engines that can move their nozzles in all four side and that could ad to airplane maneuverability. F-22 can move their nozzles only up and down, if PAK-FA is able to add side movements it will allow it to preform some moves that are hard or impossible to do on the airplane without that type of vectoring.
Most importantly, they can learn from F-22 high maintenance cost and design airplane that is much cheaper to maintain! Nothing is perfect...there will always be room for improvement no matter what we are talking about.
Last edited by Dalmatian28; 01-08-2010 at 05:04 PM. Reason: mistake made by naming two dimentional vectoring something that is not
but if PAK'll get same camo like 35-37s it will be surprise for me...
...and you're right...i've checked...F-15 has same colours like f-22...
117s and Spirits - are black because they're mostly for the night operations...
thank you for the answers!
close combat cannon dogfighting stealth - that's awesome...generation 4+++fighters are 100% better in close combat with their maneuverability...
maneuverability of the F-22 and PAK - that's compromise between the aerodinamics and stealth properties
If anyone gets close enough to PAK-FA (or F-22, for that matter) to enjoy looking at its camouflage pattern, then PAK-FA/F-22 has undoubtedly failed its mission.
Isn't the whole point of 5th generation fighters to be able to outshoot anything it can spot from BVR.... and outrun everything that they cannot shoot down. Dogfighting isn't really necessary or desired here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that OLS/EOTS cares about camo patterns all that much.
Outrageous digital camo on the latest T-10 models is, IMHO, motivated by commercial concerns (i.e. making it pimpin' enough to sell really well to easily-impressed 3rd world countries). If you notice, by comparison, the Russian serial Su-27s sport a very conservative, toned-down, simple 3-color blue/gray pattern.
One of the T-10 prototypes from 1982
Current RuAF Su-27SM mainline version.
Crazy camos seem to be restricted mainly to export planes and special-purpose machines (like the Russian Knights aerobatic team).
Last edited by artjomh; 01-08-2010 at 08:10 PM.
Berkut was black, hope T-50 will be in the same colour...