Page 6 of 480 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141656106 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 7196

Thread: Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA

  1. #76
    Senior Member -Julik- 4.GdKp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Austria/Vienna
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihai View Post
    not just for that - figure why comercial jets look the same - Boeing - Airbus
    the f-22 and f-35 and even f-23 look the same because of the computer generated design - when u have a input data of a radio wave that u want to avoid - the answer will be the same - a shape like f-22,23,35
    F-22 and YF-23 really dont have much in common.

  2. #77
    Federov Avtomat, FTW!
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,981

    Default

    not just for that - figure why comercial jets look the same - Boeing - Airbus
    the f-22 and f-35 and even f-23 look the same because of the computer generated design - when u have a input data of a radio wave that u want to avoid - the answer will be the same - a shape like f-22,23,35
    Shape is largely restricted by the limitations of manufacturing and the laws of physics, but there is also a fashion aspect as well. I mean very few modern aircraft look like the Wright Flier with its canard foreplanes and rear mounted straight wing and engines belt driving pusher propellers. Once a stable layout was found it was stuck to until something required a major change. The layout of a spitfire is not actually that much different from a Foker Triplane of WWI. The difference is in the emphasis on lift vs speed and a large increase in engine performance. With the introduction of the jet engine the common design gradually moved the engine from the front to the rear and swept the main wing but everything else pretty much stayed where it was for most aircraft.

    BTW we should get a few things straight however the R-73 and R-73M2 look nothing at all like an IRIS-T. The picture shown of the New Russian SRAAM is of an R-74 which is currently still being developed... as is the Medium range R-77M and the long range missile... either the R-37M or the KS-172.
    If it makes you feel better the IRIS-T looks a lot like a slim STANDARD II American naval surface to air missile with regard to its control surfaces.

  3. #78
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihai View Post
    not just for that - figure why comercial jets look the same - Boeing - Airbus
    the f-22 and f-35 and even f-23 look the same because of the computer generated design - when u have a input data of a radio wave that u want to avoid - the answer will be the same - a shape like f-22,23,35
    Quote Originally Posted by -Julik- 4.GdKp View Post
    F-22 and YF-23 really dont have much in common.
    Your right, but here are some pictures of the F-22, YF-23, F-35.

    Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22A Raptor


    Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II


    Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Black Widow II

  4. #79
    Senior Member -Julik- 4.GdKp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Austria/Vienna
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowstorm View Post
    Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Black Widow II
    What a beaty!The YF-23 was ahead of its time (and very expensive)i think .

  5. #80
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Julik- 4.GdKp View Post
    What a beaty!The YF-23 was ahead of its time (and very expensive)i think .
    That and political issues because of concerns that Northrop and McDonnell would make the F-23 on time because Northrop at that time was involved in the B-2 which was being scrutinized for being too expensive and some said there was no need of another bomber since the Cold War was over. McDonnell Douglas along with General Dynamics (who was involved in the YF-22 project) had problems with the A-12 Avenger II for the US Navy to replace the A-6 Intruder, but cost overruns and delays which doomed the A-12 and later it was canceled and the A-12 never left the mockup stage.

  6. #81
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,959

    Default

    Why was YF-23 better than the F-22?

  7. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    101

    Default RE: Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA

    Quote Originally Posted by Adux View Post
    Why was YF-23 better than the F-22?
    Well, the F-22 was better in low speed and over-all maneuvering. The YF-23 had a higher top / supercruise speed and it was a bit stealthier. Where the YF-23 was better than the YF-22, both had exceeded the specs!
    The YF-22 had demonstrated more test points that had to be passed, than the YF-23. This included the YF-22 firing missiles. This gave the USAF a higher sense of the program having greater maturity, a greater confidence in Lockeed's ability to meet further test points and maintain cost. The USAF had its doubts with Northrop ability to control cost & specs due to the B-2 program and the significant problems that had.

    The greatest problem with the cost of the F-22 program was that in 1990 the Cold War was over, the Pentagon informed Lockeed and all its sub-contractors to plan to stretch out the development program at least seven years and that the maximum production run would be less than half of what had previously been specified! That meant a maximum of 350 fighters instead of the original 700.

    A USAF officer testified before Congress about two months ago that the cost of the latest block of F-22A's cost 35% less than the first block! That brings the unit cost down to around $100M.

    Adrian

  8. #83
    Senior Member Kadrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    the Holy Imperial States of Earth, Universe is ours!
    Posts
    2,376

    Default

    I thought the weapon capacity was critical when choosing F-22 instead F-23.

  9. #84
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avon View Post
    Well, the F-22 was better in low speed and over-all maneuvering. The YF-23 had a higher top / supercruise speed and it was a bit stealthier. Where the YF-23 was better than the YF-22, both had exceeded the specs!
    The YF-22 had demonstrated more test points that had to be passed, than the YF-23. This included the YF-22 firing missiles. This gave the USAF a higher sense of the program having greater maturity, a greater confidence in Lockeed's ability to meet further test points and maintain cost. The USAF had its doubts with Northrop ability to control cost & specs due to the B-2 program and the significant problems that had.

    The greatest problem with the cost of the F-22 program was that in 1990 the Cold War was over, the Pentagon informed Lockeed and all its sub-contractors to plan to stretch out the development program at least seven years and that the maximum production run would be less than half of what had previously been specified! That meant a maximum of 350 fighters instead of the original 700.

    A USAF officer testified before Congress about two months ago that the cost of the latest block of F-22A's cost 35% less than the first block! That brings the unit cost down to around $100M.

    Adrian
    True, the YF-23 had a lot advantages over its competitor the YF-22 with exception of thrust vectoring, even though I wouldn't doubt Northrop/McDonnell Douglas would upgrade the F-23 with thrust vectoring in the future had it been selected definitely at the time McDonnell Douglas was testing the F-15 ACTIVE program with thrust vectoring technology. However, it was political and favoritism along with issues if Northrop and McDonnell Douglas could make and bring the F-23 in service in time because with other programs like the B-2 and A-12 which were having issues of their selves like I said in other post above. The F-22 program hasn't been perfect ether like you said; with reductions of numbers because of cost and there was few times that the program was almost cancel with latest attempts was in back in early 2005 because of the crash of the F-22 in December 20, 2004.

  10. #85
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HangPC2 View Post
    [*******black][SIZE=4]Engine Diagram - Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F turbofan (NPO Saturn AL-41F)[/SIZE][/COLOR]




    [*******black][/COLOR]

    [*******black][/COLOR]

    [*******black][/COLOR]






    I heard they were going to use Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F turbofan for the PAK-FA which was used by the MiG-1-42/44 program before it was canceled. However, Sukhoi is already looking to acquiring next-generations for later upgrades for the PAK-FA like NPO Saturn or the FGUP MMPP Salyut.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadrun View Post
    I thought the weapon capacity was critical when choosing F-22 instead F-23.
    The weapon capacity was almost close to the same between the YF-22 and the YF-23.

  11. #86
    Senior Member eATS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ft. Worth
    Age
    43
    Posts
    2,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Julik- 4.GdKp View Post
    What a beaty!The YF-23 was ahead of its time (and very expensive)i think .
    not a waste though, possibly the testbed for future bomber SHARC Subsonic High Alpha Research Concept.




  12. #87
    Member Constantin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Russia, MO, Podolsk
    Age
    29
    Posts
    265

    Default

    photoshop?

    photoshop?

  13. #88
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Constantin View Post
    photoshop?

    photoshop?
    It's real and its dates back in 1994. Here's some information about the SHARC project.

    http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black...s/aircraft.htm

  14. #89
    Senior Member Shadowstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omaha, NE USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,152

    Default

    In 2004 Northrop Grumman proposed a multirole strike variant of the YF-23 for the USAF Interim Bomber Requirement program which had to compete along with the Boeing B-1R and the Lockheed Martin FB-22, but in 2006 the program was canceled and decided to start with a new program as the New Generation Bomber with Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin which will competing against each other for a new bomber. Here are some concept pictures of the FB-23.



  15. #90
    Senior Member santana's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Some where in the Land of Sacré Coeur
    Posts
    10,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowstorm View Post
    In 2004 Northrop Grumman proposed a multirole strike variant of the YF-23 for the USAF Interim Bomber Requirement program which had to compete along with the Boeing B-1R and the Lockheed Martin FB-22, but in 2006 the program was canceled and decided to start with a new program as the New Generation Bomber with Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin which will competing against each other for a new bomber. Here are some concept pictures of the FB-23.


    First time a sew a twin cockpit JF-23? well sadly it is a art impresion

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •