PAK FA poll

PAK FA - do you like what you've seen?


  • Total voters
    160
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,247
Reaction score
1,660
let's see...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,447
Reaction score
3,299
Too vague. I think it looks cool BUT it doesn't strike me as something that will have the USAF or gov clamoring to keep the F-22 line open. Unfortunately.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
471
What a silly question. We're all fan boys when it comes to aviation, and, as such, I think it would be hard not to like the T-50. It really is a nice looking plane. It also has that, as I refer to it, "Anime" quality coolness to it. I think the F-22, F-35, and T-50 are all nice looking airplanes, but I think the T-50 wins the contest for not being as "boring" looking as the other two. The F-22 and F-35 are nice looking, but their configurations are incredibly conservative. Which is why many of us liked the YF-23 so much. So, the T-50, in the same sense as the YF-23, looks "advanced." Or maybe the word I'm looking for is "Futuristic." But you guys get the point.

I can't wait too see them throw some paint on it. Then we should be able to get some real nice looking wall paper for our desk tops. ;)
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,225
Reaction score
804
I cannot speak from a technical viewpoint because 1°) I'm not a specialist and 2°) few specs are available but from a strict aesthetic viewpoint I think the T-50 is by far the most handsome of the three (with F-22 far behind and the F-35 waaaayyy behind). Can't wait to see it don a proper paint job and markings!
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
19
At least it's not a direct Flanker derivative. I think such a large number of aircraft are derivatives nowadays since the developments are in systems and not in aerodynamics or power plant max speed. Hence it's cool for the enthusiast that something totally new comes along.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
199
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
I wanted to make a pool - which one is the most sexy (from the aesthetics point of view only) YF-23 or T-50 and would like to know the answers from flateric, lantinian and such ;)
 
I

Ian33

Guest
Matej said:
I wanted to make a pool - which one is the most sexy (from the aesthetics point of view only) YF-23 or T-50 and would like to know the answers from flateric, lantinian and such ;)

The two airframes that will always share joint winners cronw for the 'most sexiest aircraft ever' are the SR-71 and YF-23. Nothing but absolutely nothing in the modern jet age has ever come close to the elegance and timeless appeal of both airframes.

In my humble opinion of course. :)
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
471
Matej said:
I wanted to make a pool - which one is the most sexy (from the aesthetics point of view only) YF-23 or T-50 and would like to know the answers from flateric, lantinian and such ;)

Well, In T-50 vs YF-23, the YF-23 still has the edge for me. But the T-50 is close behind. ;)
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
996
Reaction score
80
The t-50 looks very beautiful from all angles accept from above or below. The wings and horizontal tails configuration bear the ugliness of the dreaded yf-22, and the round engines and nozzles are draw back as well (hopefully, the production version will improve this). If not for that, the t-50 would beat the f-22 aesthetically in my book. And as Matej said, nothing comes close to the yf-23. The T-50, though the forward section bears some resemblance of the yf-23, it does not have the blending technique between the 2 inlets and the main body.
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
19
Ian33 said:
Matej said:
I wanted to make a pool - which one is the most sexy (from the aesthetics point of view only) YF-23 or T-50 and would like to know the answers from flateric, lantinian and such ;)

The two airframes that will always share joint winners cronw for the 'most sexiest aircraft ever' are the SR-71 and YF-23. Nothing but absolutely nothing in the modern jet age has ever come close to the elegance and timeless appeal of both airframes.

In my humble opinion of course. :)

Well, XB-70 had something going on too... though it's a large bomber.
 

Meteorit

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
427
Reaction score
39
Well, I was perhaps slightly positively surprised looks wise, as I think the T-50 looks better than I had expected based on the various rumours and speculations. It really has a certain YF-23 "style" to it, but is clearly of its own kind and not a "copy" of anything. And yes, maybe I'm the odd one, but I think it looks the best from top or bottom.
But still, to my eyes the MiG MFI, especially in its 1.42 production guise, looked better...
 

Attachments

  • MiG 1.42 -3.jpg
    MiG 1.42 -3.jpg
    143.7 KB · Views: 109

Kryptid

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
9
Website
www.facebook.com
To be honest, I'm glad that the design as posted by Overscan in the PlanesPictures forum wasn't what the real thing looked like. That design was much too influenced by the F-22.

The real T-50 is quite pleasing to my eyes. It's not a direct rip-off. It combines features seen in several different aircraft to great visual effect. Now I want to see what a painted one would look like!
 

LeoXiao

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I like the PAK FA, but the SU-27 and its derivatives are still the most beautiful.
 

lancer21

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
300
Reaction score
34
What a question! :D

Definetly my number one favourite bird right now...as other people said , its just a matter of taste and preferences...me i find the F-22 looking like a pot-belly pig( have you looked at it when its on the ground whit those really short legs and how the nose contours bends into the belly ?)

F-23? well , it is quite nice looking , but Su-50 is way, way better ... ;D

And yes ,surprisingly( even for me !) , i actually quite like the F-35...not a big fan , but its a nice bird...
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
167
I like it, a lot. Wasn't big fan of those little stabs at start, but they have grown on me, and it looks great in sideview. As others, i see YF-23 thing going on the nose. But still, it looks original and fresh to me.
 

Pit

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
145
Reaction score
11
Any idea when would we see a painted T-50?
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,074
Reaction score
231
Is the question about the airplane or the deteriorating professionalism of the "analysis" over it?

*edit* things got more professional again some time after this post. I think I'm getting grumpy in my old age.
 

T-50

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
24
good words flanker! at last someone that says its a original design! This aircraft will proceed a proud Russian history in aircraft developmend. It was starting with the Yak-1 and MIG15,19,21,29 and Su-27,35BM to the newest family member T-50.
Its a true modern 21century looking aircraft,I like the enormous HUD and the inlets the most,one thing I found disappointing. its the canopy roof why is it not entirely from plexi Glass? why the metal beam in the centre? its not good for the visibility of the pilot! I hope the definitive version incoperates a single piece canopy roof.
That's the only thing I dislike about this new warbird!
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
167
T-50 said:
its the canopy roof why is it not entirely from plexi Glass? why the metal beam in the centre? its not good for the visibility of the pilot! I hope the definitive version incoperates a single piece canopy roof.
That's the only thing I dislike about this new warbird!

It is not definitive version. Think of it as a placeholder. Like 99 % of other stuff inside the frame...As said by a worker from factory, this prototype is basically shell. There is a lot of equipment inside it to measure stuff, and there is simply no place to put the "real" stuff inside. Apparently, the second prototype ((or first, depends you look at it), the one that didn't take of, but did the taxi tests) have more stuff that will end up on production plane. The second one will be a flying example later.

I suspect that the final canopy will be in two parts. The windshield and the canopy itself. This is due to design, the canopy is pushed back when opened. Kinda hard to do one piece canopy when it is pushed back...Unless they really change the way canopy opens. We will see.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,247
Reaction score
1,660
Production version canopy will be frameless and opened backward.
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
167
flateric said:
Production version canopy will be frameless and opened backward.

It is obvious it will open backwards, but how? Sliding backward, or opening as on Su-27?
 

T-50

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
24
Hello Flateric were did you have the info that the canopy will become frameless?
Because if it really going to Chance,it will be good news
 

Vietcong

Avation Enthusiast from VN
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Website
aviationprojects.blogspot.com
Yes I like this aircraft,looks like not just the American can built the 5th generation jet fighter in this case.I hope VPAF will soon ordered some of these aircrafts in 2013 (but I think they will not). ;D
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
760
Reaction score
119
I like it for a foreign aircraft.

Though I can't get it out of my head that you guys aren't the Red Hordes anymore.
 

Foxglove

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
1
T-50 looks OK, though I don't like its top view, but being old-fashioned, I'd vote for the old Su-35 bort 703 in the blue-gray splinter camo as the all-time beauty, immediately followed by the single-seat F-15, and MiG-29 coming third. YF-23 and Blackbird are sexy beasts too. F-22 would be no doubt booed off stage in a beauty pageant.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
433
Foxglove said:
T-50 looks OK, though I don't like its top view, but being old-fashioned, I'd vote for the old Su-35 bort 703 in the blue-gray splinter camo as the all-time beauty, immediately followed by the single-seat F-15, and MiG-29 coming third. YF-23 and Blackbird are sexy beasts too. F-22 would be no doubt booed off stage in a beauty pageant.

Although I'm partial to the F-14 (natch), and certainly the Blackbirds and the YF-23 are right up there, to me the gol' darned sexiest plane ever built is one I'm surprised no one has mentioned:

A highly polished, natural metal, no tip tanks, F-104
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
922
Reaction score
787
I really like the PAKFA :D

especially its movable LEX... it's really beyond my imagination.
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
14
Vietcong said:
Yes I like this aircraft,looks like not just the American can built the 5th generation jet fighter in this case.I hope VPAF will soon ordered some of these aircrafts in 2013 (but I think they will not). ;D

Ah, they just purchased a bunch of Flankers, so I doubt there will be new toys in the future.
Still, the Belgian Falcons are up for replacement, would be nice to see T 50s in my Belgian skies... Sorry, bit of a fantasy there. Not only is such a thing doubtfull from a political point of view, but there is also the fact that the Belgian military is being dismantled. Oh well...
 

lantinian

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
503
Reaction score
37
I wanted to make a pool - which one is the most sexy (from the aesthetics point of view only) YF-23 or T-50
No you wouldn't.

While I agree that T-50 could potentially look cooler than a F-22 once pained, it is only because it reminds of the YF-23 more than any other aircraft.

But against YF-23? Only few aircraft in the world can stand next to it and not look bad. These are the XB-70, B-2 and SR-71. Maybe a few others but T-50 is not one of them.

Re the poll. I also think the question was asked incorrectly.
It should have beed:

Did T-50 match the hype and expectations set by everyone in PAK FA? I think, the results would have been more interesting.

I also remember I ran a Poll a few years ago myself in this forum
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3270.0/highlight,configuration+poll.html
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-02-15 at 8.56.51 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-02-15 at 8.56.51 PM.png
    50.8 KB · Views: 70

Dreamfighter

'Senior Something'
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
215
Reaction score
65
The T-50 looks (too) damn good!

PS
I find the YF-23 also nice looking, but not as beautiful as most peoble regard it to be :eek:
I also think the YF-22 was not ugly and that the F-22A is a beautiful plane. :eek: :eek: (no I'm not in need of glasses or an eye-operation ;D )
Hopefully the US government will reconsider about the F-22 and buy some more, I think the US, NATO and other allies (Japan/Israel?) will need them now we've seen the T-50.
YF-12/SR-71 and XB-70 are a class apart, those are really gooood looking.
 

RSF

Cocidius
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
As a huge fan of the YF-23, it is gratifying to see design elements of that design live on in the PAK-FA. Overall I think that Sukhoi has made another evolutionary jump with the T-50 over the already very good Flanker variants. I look forward to seeing how this fighter develops in the future.

On the topic of beautiful military aircraft some of my favorite are; the YF-23, the F-22, the Saab Draken, the SR-71, the XB-70, and the Convair B-58 Hustler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
 

GLAR

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
IMO, the Russian's shouldn't be undertaking new military projects while they still exist in the mafia nationalist undertow aftermath of the communist period. I guess this is what happens when the West steps in and revitalizes the national petrogas industry, only to see it 'nationalized' a few years later.

That said, the Pak FA is not perfect but it is interesting. The YF-23 was guaranteed to fail with the butterfly tails, simply not enough separation of directional and pitch/roll authority necessary for a fighter. The production/EMD F-23 would have looked a lot like what you see here. Which is itself a shame because it indicates that Russia continues to play the catchup game rather than attempting to chart a new mission with a new design that is truly an indigenously unique undertaking. That said, they remain too short IMO and will be subject to blanking because of it. There may also be issues with the root-vent scoops and vortices off the squared off inlet tops.

That said, I see a lot of features that don't make much sense to me at the moment. The conventional IRST bulb, the fastener dotted fuselage panels, the large gaps in the underside fuselage/wing fairings etc. etc. All point to a minimalist approach to VLO rather than an 'as we now know it to be' (EOTS facetted fairing etc.) condtion.

The rear fuselage looks likely to have boat tail issues to me. The implied thickness of the weapons bay area running too far aft and being entirely too squared off.

I also question the utility of this jet as it seems likely that it is compromised as a multirole platform by the narrowness of the inlet:inlet distance across the weapons bays. The YF-23 tried to get away with this by promising a fuselage extension and nested AAMs on a bay that 'looked like a Lancaster'. But I don't think that this will prove practical for even a generation of Russian GBU-38/39 clones and certainly not for JDAM class munitions. As the politics of mixed fleets still prevails (with a lone exception in Malaysia) an A2A dedicated platform may be deemed too restrictive for much the same (albeit mistaken) reasons the F-22 was.

The inlets are broad (which could lead to mixed compression 'shock burp' issues) but shallow and I see a lot of potential for boundary layer choking around the upper rim. The canopy has the look of an F-35 as much as an F-23 and without DAS like surround vision I doubt if all round visibility is going to be good. Which is not to say it won't likely be an improvment on previous Soviet types!:) Ironic, with that much downslope on the nose, it looks like it's got some carrier suitability drivers until you see how long that stinger is and how nose-low the stance is going to slam to.

Wings look small, likely as a result of the immense spanwise distribution of the fuselage area but are further compromised by being shoved back so far and swept so much. The first will impact stab authorities. The second will likely result in a higher cruise Mach but only with additive compromises in center of lift shift and overall higher wingloading.

Nice big, high flotation, gear. Not always a good thing when it's so widely spread apart as you can get a tippy toe effect if the wing doesn't dump lift in the ground effect and of course there is also a large structural reinforcement penalty on carry through from both sides of the fuselage:wings mating joints. Haven't seen the actual nose gear retraction sequence but even if it folds forward, that large extension strut pushes back the NLG intrustion on the weapons bay quite a bit.

In combination with the tail-up stance and the relatively short longitudinal wheelbase, we could be seeing some significant issues with the weapons bay loading CGs. You're certainly going to have to be careful in the way you bring the jet in.

OVERALL:
Bound to be an expensive jet. Easily in the 100 million dollar range. They would have been better off sticking with the original concept art which showed a lot of preference for single engine (or SE adaptable) configurations. Where price becomes a dominant factor is in basing coverage of the still broad Russian territories vs. sortie generation by airforces which, even if they swallow the stealth bullet whole, have to wonder at the efficacy of a 20 jet airforce with no strike capability to speak of vs. what a couple hundred S-400 or a couple thousand drones could buy them.

If the combined 'expeditionary' force model continues to consist of 200-400 jets, 20 jets will simply be run over in the turn and run out of missiles by standoff munitions and cruise which keeps them from effectively seeing equivalent LO shooters lobbing X8 SDBs from 60+nm.

OTOH, if you want an INNOVATIVE look at the future of 'fighter design' here are your two best bets-

ABL-1 testfire against Minuteman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7ieXNoyVw&feature=related

Mirach target drone launch
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_03_07.jpg

The ABL, before technical details were obscured, was stated in AvLeak as having a range so great that _airliner and satellites behind the target_ had to be deconflicted before firing. That's not a 250km weapon system folks. That's not even a 400km weapon. That's a line of sight weapon on something moving as slow as a jet aircraft rather than as fast as a rotating, mirror bright, ICBM with quick burn motors designed to put it out of range in seconds.

Anyone who has graduated lead in fighter training knows how utterly outclassed they are as a knight of the sky by a simple unmanned jet whose construction is possible for any nation with basic aviation maintenance repair skills from business jet level on up. They are 4-5 times more maneuverable than any fighter. They are at least an order of magnitude more difficult to acquire (which is why so many miss-iles 'miss' in tests when the angle off exceeds what the signature augmentation can cover) and they are are DIRT CHEAP to build. As we have also known since about the 1930s when we first started using them. They also have two other advantages: As shown, they can be fired by catapult or rocket from the back of a simple trailer and are equally recoverable by parachute anywhere you care to put a beacon at the end of a simple (astro inertial if you're afraid of GPS loss) autopilot run. They are also vastly more capable than even the best of the telephone pole class weapons like the S-300/400/ERINT/ASTER. Why? Because the big SAMs cannot lock onto stealth targets at anything approaching their maximum range while, true to form for a 'miss-ile' they expend all their propellant impulse in a single great rush to make up the fleeting TIME difference before the target again vanishes at perhaps WEZ = .5 of total kinematic performance. OTOH, a 6ft long MALI could fly a legitimate 230nm in the course of a 20 minute flight profile _already at altitude and airspeed_, then sit there for 10 minutes waiting for the threat to come buy, fresh off the pre-target tanker and heavy with gas and bombs. Miss once come around again for another taran pass.

And such an hybrid missile/air vehicle could be bought in the hundreds if not _thousands_ of shots per raid. As the ultimate Zaum Sau/Wilde Sau combined free hunt sweep and point defense controlled intercept force, they would be unbeatable by stealth alone because a pack of them could sweep HUNDREDS of cubic miles per minute using linked EO seeker that emitted nothing.

All at a fraction of what yesterday's _mission solution_ PAK-FA will cost.

And every fighter pilot knows it because they have faced them in exercises and been humiliated by drone operators whose sole view of the world is a front facing camera. For 50 years.

As does every aviation manufacturer that has been building target and/or recce drones for the same period-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmysvZ2VfAA

(ATARS) BQM-154 or Reis D with gear anyone?

_NEVER_ copy **the way** the enemy does something. You will always be playing second best catchup on something they have already mastered.


GLAR
 

Vpanoptes

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
GLAR said:
IMO, the Russian's shouldn't be undertaking new military projects while they still exist in the mafia nationalist undertow aftermath of the communist period. I guess this is what happens when the West steps in and revitalizes the national petrogas industry, only to see it 'nationalized' a few years later.

That said, the Pak FA is not perfect but it is interesting. The YF-23 was guaranteed to fail with the butterfly tails, simply not enough separation of directional and pitch/roll authority necessary for a fighter. The production/EMD F-23 would have looked a lot like what you see here. Which is itself a shame because it indicates that Russia continues to play the catchup game rather than attempting to chart a new mission with a new design that is truly an indigenously unique undertaking. That said, they remain too short IMO and will be subject to blanking because of it. There may also be issues with the root-vent scoops and vortices off the squared off inlet tops.

That said, I see a lot of features that don't make much sense to me at the moment. The conventional IRST bulb, the fastener dotted fuselage panels, the large gaps in the underside fuselage/wing fairings etc. etc. All point to a minimalist approach to VLO rather than an 'as we now know it to be' (EOTS facetted fairing etc.) condtion.

The rear fuselage looks likely to have boat tail issues to me. The implied thickness of the weapons bay area running too far aft and being entirely too squared off.

I also question the utility of this jet as it seems likely that it is compromised as a multirole platform by the narrowness of the inlet:inlet distance across the weapons bays. The YF-23 tried to get away with this by promising a fuselage extension and nested AAMs on a bay that 'looked like a Lancaster'. But I don't think that this will prove practical for even a generation of Russian GBU-38/39 clones and certainly not for JDAM class munitions. As the politics of mixed fleets still prevails (with a lone exception in Malaysia) an A2A dedicated platform may be deemed too restrictive for much the same (albeit mistaken) reasons the F-22 was.

The inlets are broad (which could lead to mixed compression 'shock burp' issues) but shallow and I see a lot of potential for boundary layer choking around the upper rim. The canopy has the look of an F-35 as much as an F-23 and without DAS like surround vision I doubt if all round visibility is going to be good. Which is not to say it won't likely be an improvment on previous Soviet types!:) Ironic, with that much downslope on the nose, it looks like it's got some carrier suitability drivers until you see how long that stinger is and how nose-low the stance is going to slam to.

Wings look small, likely as a result of the immense spanwise distribution of the fuselage area but are further compromised by being shoved back so far and swept so much. The first will impact stab authorities. The second will likely result in a higher cruise Mach but only with additive compromises in center of lift shift and overall higher wingloading.

Nice big, high flotation, gear. Not always a good thing when it's so widely spread apart as you can get a tippy toe effect if the wing doesn't dump lift in the ground effect and of course there is also a large structural reinforcement penalty on carry through from both sides of the fuselage:wings mating joints. Haven't seen the actual nose gear retraction sequence but even if it folds forward, that large extension strut pushes back the NLG intrustion on the weapons bay quite a bit.

In combination with the tail-up stance and the relatively short longitudinal wheelbase, we could be seeing some significant issues with the weapons bay loading CGs. You're certainly going to have to be careful in the way you bring the jet in.

OVERALL:
Bound to be an expensive jet. Easily in the 100 million dollar range. They would have been better off sticking with the original concept art which showed a lot of preference for single engine (or SE adaptable) configurations. Where price becomes a dominant factor is in basing coverage of the still broad Russian territories vs. sortie generation by airforces which, even if they swallow the stealth bullet whole, have to wonder at the efficacy of a 20 jet airforce with no strike capability to speak of vs. what a couple hundred S-400 or a couple thousand drones could buy them.

If the combined 'expeditionary' force model continues to consist of 200-400 jets, 20 jets will simply be run over in the turn and run out of missiles by standoff munitions and cruise which keeps them from effectively seeing equivalent LO shooters lobbing X8 SDBs from 60+nm.

OTOH, if you want an INNOVATIVE look at the future of 'fighter design' here are your two best bets-

ABL-1 testfire against Minuteman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7ieXNoyVw&feature=related

Mirach target drone launch
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_03_07.jpg

The ABL, before technical details were obscured, was stated in AvLeak as having a range so great that _airliner and satellites behind the target_ had to be deconflicted before firing. That's not a 250km weapon system folks. That's not even a 400km weapon. That's a line of sight weapon on something moving as slow as a jet aircraft rather than as fast as a rotating, mirror bright, ICBM with quick burn motors designed to put it out of range in seconds.

Anyone who has graduated lead in fighter training knows how utterly outclassed they are as a knight of the sky by a simple unmanned jet whose construction is possible for any nation with basic aviation maintenance repair skills from business jet level on up. They are 4-5 times more maneuverable than any fighter. They are at least an order of magnitude more difficult to acquire (which is why so many miss-iles 'miss' in tests when the angle off exceeds what the signature augmentation can cover) and they are are DIRT CHEAP to build. As we have also known since about the 1930s when we first started using them. They also have two other advantages: As shown, they can be fired by catapult or rocket from the back of a simple trailer and are equally recoverable by parachute anywhere you care to put a beacon at the end of a simple (astro inertial if you're afraid of GPS loss) autopilot run. They are also vastly more capable than even the best of the telephone pole class weapons like the S-300/400/ERINT/ASTER. Why? Because the big SAMs cannot lock onto stealth targets at anything approaching their maximum range while, true to form for a 'miss-ile' they expend all their propellant impulse in a single great rush to make up the fleeting TIME difference before the target again vanishes at perhaps WEZ = .5 of total kinematic performance. OTOH, a 6ft long MALI could fly a legitimate 230nm in the course of a 20 minute flight profile _already at altitude and airspeed_, then sit there for 10 minutes waiting for the threat to come buy, fresh off the pre-target tanker and heavy with gas and bombs. Miss once come around again for another taran pass.

And such an hybrid missile/air vehicle could be bought in the hundreds if not _thousands_ of shots per raid. As the ultimate Zaum Sau/Wilde Sau combined free hunt sweep and point defense controlled intercept force, they would be unbeatable by stealth alone because a pack of them could sweep HUNDREDS of cubic miles per minute using linked EO seeker that emitted nothing.

All at a fraction of what yesterday's _mission solution_ PAK-FA will cost.

And every fighter pilot knows it because they have faced them in exercises and been humiliated by drone operators whose sole view of the world is a front facing camera. For 50 years.

As does every aviation manufacturer that has been building target and/or recce drones for the same period-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmysvZ2VfAA

(ATARS) BQM-154 or Reis D with gear anyone?

_NEVER_ copy **the way** the enemy does something. You will always be playing second best catchup on something they have already mastered.


GLAR

Wow. Simply aaaaamazing ::)
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
306
Vpanoptes said:
Wow. Simply aaaaamazing ::)

Is it Sparksy? If so we should all be honoured to be visited by the most (in)famous defence blogger on the net.

http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top