[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
PAK FA/T-50 Appreciation Thread
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 301
Thread images: 70
File: pak fa.jpg (186 KB, 1024x560) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pak fa.jpg
186 KB, 1024x560
We always have threads about F-22 and F-35 and jack off about how great they are. So let's change it up a bit and have one for the underdog.

>b-but muh slavshit
Wonderful. You really should make a F-22/F-35 wank thread for that.

>lawl not even it's real engines
No, that's true. Look what it does with the current engines though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h08AxiE2HwU (ignore the "WORLDS MOST ADVANCED STEALTH" it's more autistic than people suggesting turboprops to replace the F-35)

>FUCK OFF RIDF YOU'LL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS AMERICA USA USA USA USA
>>>/pol/
>>
File: tcv.gif (2 MB, 399x300) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tcv.gif
2 MB, 399x300
>>22800857
Su-35S can come too?
>>
>>22800939
Su-35 is great. T-50
>>
Needs more radars.
>>
>>22800857
I just don't really like the look of it
>>
Arguments in favor of the PAK FA:
*People who prefer F-22/F-35 are unpleasant in my opinion
*?
>>
File: muh rads.jpg (23 KB, 538x640) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
muh rads.jpg
23 KB, 538x640
>>22800957
>pic related

>>22800972
>implying this thread is anything but people liking the PAK FA instead of just saying "muh slavshit"
>>
File: 1526400_-_main.jpg (79 KB, 752x423) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1526400_-_main.jpg
79 KB, 752x423
>>22800857
PAK FA-chan!
http://www.janes.com/article/38971/russian-t-50-pak-fa-fighter-prototype-catches-fire
>>
>>22800990
055-chan is being repaired,
SHE WILL BE BACK
>>
>>22800857
Can't wait for DSC PAK FA.
I'd fly the shit out of it.
>>
>>22801057
...why the fuck is that plane so tiny compared to the rest?
>>
>>22801075
RC plane
>>
>>22801075
Mock up, for fire fighter trainning
>>
>>22800986
It's forgetting the two side X bands, which are used for everything from EWAR to high bandwidth secure coms.

But I do like the L-band, it can detect other stealth fighters beyond their range.
>>
>>22801075
For small Russians.
>>
>>22801117
for large italians.
>>
>>22801091
I think this was an early draft or something. Either way, I found it on Facebook so take with a mountain of salt.
>>
File: pakfa....jpg (105 KB, 1000x631) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa....jpg
105 KB, 1000x631
>>22801132
Probably it was just meant to show position of L band compared to nose.
>>
File: 0062fk3r.jpg (1 MB, 2200x1375) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
0062fk3r.jpg
1 MB, 2200x1375
Yesh, an Su-T50 thread.
>>
File: PAKFA 3D TVC.gif (10 KB, 282x288) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
PAKFA 3D TVC.gif
10 KB, 282x288
>>
File: pakfa frontal.jpg (25 KB, 1024x381) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa frontal.jpg
25 KB, 1024x381
>>22801187
that was supposed to move... wtf
>>
>>22801132

>Facebook.

Fucking normalfag.

Anyways, one of the cheek array's. It has around 350 TR modules.
>>
>>22800986
American planes have the engines too close to each other.
Would definitely not fuck.
>>
>>22801196
Gods, it looks like it's wider than anything in those shots.
>>
File: pakfahirestop.jpg (392 KB, 1024x623) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfahirestop.jpg
392 KB, 1024x623
>>22801257

Yeah, its a pretty wide plane.
>>
File: pakfa_wcopy.jpg (70 KB, 800x380) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa_wcopy.jpg
70 KB, 800x380
>>22801237
Rough position of the engines. As you can see the intake is angled inward towards the body, while the exhaust is very widely spaced and lifted slightly.

This is for four reasons:
1. It hides the fan blades.
2. It improves single engine performance
3. It allows a space in the "tail" for a tiny sixth radar system, in the RWR role.
4. It allows a space in the tail for a drag parachute, needed because of Russian climate.

>>22801257
The fuselage provides substantial lift, that's why the takeoff run is so short, about 900 feet.
With it's TVC engines in, that will drop by another 200 feet and it will be able to operate in CESTOL role.
>>
>>22801305
Oh, also:
5. It opens up a central bay for storage.
>>
It's a stupid plane for stupid reasons, I'd rather talk about F-35, which is better for a lot of reasons.

pic related... wtf... HARDPOINTS.... Fuck lel, why would you put hardpoints inna stealth fighter? Tough Kheik!

>inb4 slavaboos defend shit
Crimea River
>>
>>22801319
Somebody will seriously reply.
>>
File: T-50 tail.webm (507 KB, 640x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
T-50 tail.webm
507 KB, 640x480
>>
File: 060349.jpg (378 KB, 853x1292) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
060349.jpg
378 KB, 853x1292
>>22801305

Its current engines allready have TVC as the 117A engine is derived from the 117S (which is mounted on the Su-35S).

>>http://youtu.be/8GS7YpcE2VQ?t=1m44s
http://youtu.be/8GS7YpcE2VQ?t=1m44s
>>
File: 1_IR_Stealth.jpg (3 KB, 184x138) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1_IR_Stealth.jpg
3 KB, 184x138
>>22801319
>stealth fighter
already outdaded
>>
File: 2127065_original.jpg (162 KB, 640x426) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2127065_original.jpg
162 KB, 640x426
>>22801156
LEVCON L-Bands?
>>
>>
File: 1330108253758.jpg (355 KB, 2400x3600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1330108253758.jpg
355 KB, 2400x3600
>>22801319

>pic related... wtf... HARDPOINTS.... Fuck lel, why would you put hardpoints inna stealth fighter? Tough Kheik!

Yeah, why would you? :^)

>>22801331

It doesnt hurt to taste the bait, see if it is any good.
>>
File: 5445.jpg (73 KB, 660x660) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
5445.jpg
73 KB, 660x660
>>22801313
>It opens up a central bay for storage.

Central Bay is too small, too. Only about 3 Kh-58UE missiles each. What are you gonna shoot down? A single AWACS? LOLOLOLOL

Fucking Russians can't design for shit. LOLd
>>
File: L-Band_AESA.jpg (2 MB, 2583x2978) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
L-Band_AESA.jpg
2 MB, 2583x2978
>>22801353

Yeah. The L-bands are at best, crude stealth detectors (telling where ROUGHLY an enemy/friendly stealth fighters is). More realistcaly, they are meant as BVR IFF systems.
>>
>>22801380
Sorry, I mean 2 Kh-58UE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Shit plane to be exported to India.
>>
File: F-35hardpoints.jpg (34 KB, 490x392) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
F-35hardpoints.jpg
34 KB, 490x392
>>22801319
:^)
>>
>>22801363
Beautiful plane. Looks like a 21st Century Masterpiece
>>
>>22801380
>A single AWACS
That's enough. AWACS planes are top priority target, even more than nuclear weapon carriers.
>>
File: T-50 gun test.webm (475 KB, 640x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
T-50 gun test.webm
475 KB, 640x480
>>
>>22801363
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8
>>
>>22801075

That's the Mig, for interception not multirole interdiction/escort fighter role like the Su's in the back.
>>
File: 117363.jpg (679 KB, 1400x943) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
117363.jpg
679 KB, 1400x943
>>22801418

Yes, and?
>>
>>22801338
It's like the space planes I make in Kerbal!
>>
>>22801418
>>22801404
>>22801398
>>22801380
>>22801319
>all this samefagging
How does one get so assblasted about a place appreciation?
>>
File: Z0P2SQG.jpg (144 KB, 1500x1009) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Z0P2SQG.jpg
144 KB, 1500x1009
>>22801455

Its called trolling/baiting.
>>
>>22801471
Well yeah,but I like the idea that he's so pained simply because people actually like a plane he hates.
>>
File: derp.png (5 KB, 443x173) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
derp.png
5 KB, 443x173
>>22801455
>Samefagging

Since when were you under the impression that I was samefagging?
>>
File: why.png (1024 B, 261x41) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
why.png
1024 B, 261x41
Also

>Not calling it I-21
>>
>>22801341
It needs the higher thrust engines to be a real CESTOL aircraft.

>>22801388
>More realistcaly, they are meant as BVR IFF systems.
Why would they need it to be AESA for that? Why would it be pointing forward? Why would they need two of them for that? Why would they even need L-band specifically?

"BVR IFF" makes no sense.
>>
>>22801342
Show me the IR tech that can easily detect planes hundreds of kilometers away then.

Because you might as well have posted a normal visible wavelength picture and claim that stealth is outdated.
>>
>>22801521
PAKFA IRST can target aircraft tail on at 90km, and head on at 50km. Western systems are even better.

WVR is below 35km.
>>
File: 1409686221382.webm (722 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1409686221382.webm
722 KB, 1280x720
woop woop
>>
>>22801520
>Why would they need it to be AESA for that?
Probably LPI
Why would they need two of them for that?
Dakka

Why would they even need L-band specifically?
To know if something's there. Like putting noise traps on your property, if there's noise there might be something there.
>>
>>22801543
That's against targets that don't have IR reducing measures, which modern stealth fighters have.
As for how much that changes things, nobody knows.
>>
>>22801520
BVR IFF actually makes a ton of sense, given that one of the biggest problems with BVR is being sure that what you are shooting at is an enemy.
>>
>>22801573
>To know if something's there. Like putting noise traps on your property, if there's noise there might be something there.
But in all likelihood they won't be for finding targets.
>>
>>22801543
Do you not realize that BWR radar detection ranges are several hundreds of kilometers.

And i guess you'll just ground the fleet if there are clouds or it rains.
>>
>>22801591
It's more about catching enemy radar signals outside of the own range, so the x-band radar can send a narrow beam to the radar source.
>>
>>22801660
I stand by my statement.
>>
>>22801574
F-22 may have IR reducing measures which bring the tail on detection to something lower than 90km, but F-35 doesn't.

Also either way just moving through air generates enough heat for them to be seen at 50km, so the point is moot.
This is not the same as "posting a normal visible wavelength picture to claim that stealth is outdated."

>>22801620
BVR not BWR
And it's hundreds of kilometers for bomber sized targets. Look up F-15 detection ranges for onboard radar.

The only way you get "hundreds of kilometers" against fighter sized targets is with AWACS. The E-3, which is one of the most powerful AWACS in the world, can detect a basic Flanker model at 267km, a modernized Flanker using composites and RCS reduction measures is well below that.
>>
>>22801582
Having such an ability make sense, but using thw two L band for it doesn't.

That's what the cheek X bands will be for probably.
>>
>>22801561
My dick
>>
>>22801561
Supermaneuverable is super sexy.
>>
>>22801660
1 - All modern planes has datalinks, so one radar provide picture to several silent planes.
2 - If you see T-50 radar signature you anyway need to be inside his kill zone to make a shot.
>>
>>22801721
You quoted the wrong post?
>>
File: t-50-055_04_hires.jpg (3 MB, 4064x2704) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
t-50-055_04_hires.jpg
3 MB, 4064x2704
>>22801591

For actualy finding and targetting enemies, that is what the main X-band AESA array and the OLS station is for.

>>22801520

>Why would they need it to be AESA for that?

AESA arrays have a low probability of intercept by design as each TR module sends out its own signal on a subfrequency of L/X/ku/S-bands. The enemy RWR doesnt know that there is a L-band radar active and if you configure an IFF message with a set of pre-determined signals on various subfrequencies, a friendly fighter with L-band array's can tune in and receive the message and knows that a friendly fighter is out there BVR.

>Why would it be pointing forward?

That is where the fighter is headed and has its missiles and main sensors pointed at that direction (OLS, main X-band AESA array etc.).

>Why would they need two of them for that?

So that they can cover a broader part of the sky. Just look at how the wings are swept back in relation of the fuselage and the typical range ESA's can cover (in degree's left of right).

>Why would they even need L-band specifically?

Its a longwave. Good for low power, long range messages.
>>
>>22801660
A little bit like the AN/ALR-94 of the F-22.
>>
>>22801741
>That is where the fighter is headed and has its missiles and main sensors pointed at that direction (OLS, main X-band AESA array etc.).
Yes but it would only work if the other guy was facing you....
>>
>>22801756
That's the problem of all fighter radars.
>>
>>22801683
You're still not making sense with your argument.
You can see IR up to 50km. Therefore stealth is useless and you might as well be visible to 150km in radar.
>>
>>22801751
>AN/ALR-94
that's a RWR dude
>>
>>22801789
anon, please.
>>
>>22801520
>Why would they even need L-band specifically?
>All current stealth aircraft were designed to counter X-Band radars, but those shapes are getting ineffective if a radar operates in S-band and even more ineffective when the radar operates in L-band. The reason for the stealth aircraft to be detected is the wavelength of the radar, a radar operating in L-band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from invisible, to visible.
>>
>>22801781
That's because virtually all "BVR" fights take place at around 50km or less...

There is no reliable way to identify an aircraft at beyond that range.
>>
>>22801768
What?

Do you need a god damn diagram?
>>
>>22801804
read the comment, he's talking about friend or foe identification
>>
>>22801817
What?
>>
>>22801683
The F-35 does have IR reducing measures.
>>
>>22801889
I think he's talking about the engine baffles, or maybe the stealth coating (I think that only absorbs radar waves though)
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (63 KB, 1081x679) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Untitled.jpg
63 KB, 1081x679
>>22801844
This is at the lowest grade level we have available: "bix nood".
>>
>>22801927
Thanks, anon. Your picture is a masterpiece of informative art.
>>
>>22801889
Name an F-35 rear aspect IR reduction measure that would bring down detection range from something like OLS-35.

>The OLS-35 is an advanced infrared search and track (IRST) fire control system designed for the 4+ generation Su-35 fighter aircraft replacing the OEPS-27 sight system.
>The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target's front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere.
>>
File: Large-009.jpg (370 KB, 1800x1013) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Large-009.jpg
370 KB, 1800x1013
>>
>>22801993
The fact that some of the heat can be siphoned away from the exhaust.

And it would be better to talk about frontally, seeing as that is what actually matters. That brings the OLS-35 down to 50km against unstealthed targets. Let's say its only brought down by 10km. That's a 40km range, fairly respectable, right?

Well, that's where you're wrong, because the OLS-35 can not look everywhere at once. I've heard normal IRST as like "looking through a straw". The OLS has a FOV of 10 x 7.5 degrees.
>>
>>22802100
How much time does it take to scan the sky then?
>>
>>22802118
The IRST of the Eurofighter scans faster than the radar system can refresh.

It's a non factor.
>>
File: ols35.jpg (151 KB, 567x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ols35.jpg
151 KB, 567x800
Why is Russia so fucking behind in avionics compared to the rest of the world?
>>
>>22802100
>The fact that some of the heat can be siphoned away from the exhaust.
Da fuck are you talking about? Is this your retarded way of saying "higher bypass" or something? Non issue, the value is for non afterburning turbofans.

> Let's say its only brought down by 10km.
Frontal aspect detection can't be brought down since it's based on the friction an aircraft makes as it's passing through air. It's 50km for F-22, F-35, and everything in that size range.

> I've heard normal IRST as like "looking through a straw". The OLS has a FOV of 10 x 7.5 degrees.
I gave you the value for that retard, do bother to read a comment before responding to it.
>+/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation
>>
>>22802047
Stealth tech is very much a secret tech.

No, im not talking just about RCS reduction measures, or RAM's.
>>
>>22801521
Pirate nigguh

not exactly hundreds, but it's already over 100km
>>
>>22802252
What are you talking about then?

Active cancellation, shaping, materials... these things are all pretty much public domain.

If you want to go low tech you could just make a wooden biplane and say fuck to search radar.
>>
Would it possible to make a drone with an artifical high RCS to fuck radar systems?
>>
>>22801398
Thats cos india has better tastes.
Much better than the overexpensive overhyped failure of a turkey that america produced
>>
>>22802333
yes it's called a "decoy"
>>
>>22802163
They are trying to do it "on their own" and are still using stuff learned from the soviet years.

They're doing it almost from scratch.

Now the west has alot of tech that has just been sitting there on the commercial/civilian market that they could use, russia didn't have that luxury because "you didn't need that".

A big example of this is France, Sagem made alot of cellphones and consumer tech, but also has a big chunk of the defense industry there.

Or in the US, Boeing makes both commercial airliners and fighters, McDonald Douglas as well, hell Lockheed did this for a while too.
>>
>>22802333
They've got decoys that actually send back signals that can mimic a number of aircraft
>>
>>22802333
they're already doing that shit
>>
>>22800857
PAK Fucking Awful
>>
>>22802380
kek
>>
File: p1.jpg (19 KB, 65x65) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
p1.jpg
19 KB, 65x65
>>22802047
I wonder if spooks go to airshows in other countries (let's say CIA goes to MAKS) to get better look at the enemy jets.
>>
>>22802446
they always have, why do you think the F-15 exists?

They saw MiG-25s at an airshow and didn't know what the fuck to expect so they went all out and made the F-15
>>
Hahahaha

This threat got the quality of a fucking teleshopping show.
Sell shit product to gullible idiots who know nothing.
>Muh PAK
>so great

lol
>>
>Supercruise capable and max speed higher than the F22.

>Greater combat radius than the F22.

>Lower wing loading, greater overall lift.

>Innovative antenna design.

>Longer range weapons.

>Greater payload capacity.
>>
File: 1406196902708.jpg (2 MB, 2100x1339) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1406196902708.jpg
2 MB, 2100x1339
>>22802838

>Supposedly better than a plane designed in 1985

Wow russia, Congrats.
>>
>>22802857
Keep moving those goalposts, /k/. Doesn't the F22 outperform the F35 too? And in turn, wouldn't that mean the PAK FA may outperform the F35?
>>
>>22802887
Not in a dogfight.
>>
>>22802973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dggtma54dZc
vs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRtPtcAaULk
The only other video I found of any performances by the F35 showed it doing aileron rolls. There aren't any other videos (though the aircraft is still testing, so I guess maybe that's why?)
>>
>>22803112
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
>>
>>22803112
>2014
>maneuvering to get a lock
>>
>>22803207
sssssh, don't get into it anon. please?

Let him forget how AESA radar and EODAS works
>>
>>22803162
Oooh, never saw that one. Thanks.

>>22803207
>>22803220
I immediately regretted what I said as soon as I thought about it for a minute.
>>
>>22803236
It's not like they don't have the means to make it insanely maneuverable, it's just not needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1E3xpePbmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZADlzIoOCc

It wrote the book for western thrust vectoring and advanced fly by wire systems
>>
File: Obama_Laughing.jpg (27 KB, 512x422) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Obama_Laughing.jpg
27 KB, 512x422
>>22803207
>>22803220

>Muh AESA.
>Muh AMRAAM.

<50% kill probability against non manoeuvring targets without missile warning systems. Let alone a decent fighter with ECM. Kek.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/submissions/sub11.pdf
>>
>>22803325
>Russia doesn't depend on those same systems for air to air combat
>Russia Stronk
>>
File: rand study.jpg (193 KB, 1146x770) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
rand study.jpg
193 KB, 1146x770
>>22803325
>>
>>22803325
And the Typhoon or Rafale is going to magically do better mr Yuro?
>>
>>22803482
Given the article he cited its not unlikely he is an Aussie.
>>
>>22801313
They both carry 8 missiles, don't see why that matters.
>>
>>22801781
>Probably has no experience working with classified radar, IR and stealth technologies
>Stealth is useless guys, trust me! xD
Every fucking time
>>
>>22802163
>FOV 10 x 7.5

>>22802211
Dude, it's right there. Instantaneous FOV. The real question is how fast can it scan.
>>
>>22802305
>materials... these things are all pretty much public domain.

Things retards belive
>>
>>22802380
>>22802417
gb2 3rd grade
>>
>>22803587
Even if you could use long wave radar to detect stealth, the resolution would be shit. You wouldn't know if there was one fighter or a dozen up there.
>>
>>22802857
>F-22
>designed in 1985
There have been a billion evolutions and fixes since then.

Compare it to F-35 if you want.
>>
>>22803207
>>maneuvering to get a lock
He's actually maneuvering both to get a lock AND MORE IMPORTANTLY to put his missile in the superior firing position.
>>
>>22803207
>2014
>maneuvering to get a lock
So why don't you put your missiles on a B-24 an---- how about fuck off mongoloid.
>>
>>22804467
>>22804501

>slavboos
>still using 4.5 gen

lel

Next you will tell us about your amazing look down shoot down radar and off boresight capability!!!
>>
>>22800857
Cripes, that thing is huge compared to its western counterparts.
>>
>>22803391
Did you open the PDF? It's explained there.

Basically once the study was done JSF goons went ballistic, Rand backpedaled and scapegoated the guys in charge of it, Lockheed shat on their subsequent careers.

Doesn't really make the simulation nonexistant.
>>
>>22803647
>The real question is how fast can it scan.
Faster than radar screen can refresh.
>>
>>22804524
>yfw the mainstay combat aircraft (fixed wing) of every country that is a main player in today's world uses 4.5 gen
>F/A-18E/F
>F-16
>F-15
>Typhoon
>Rafale
>J-10
>>
>>22804433
>Even if you could use long wave radar to detect stealth
That's not a question, it's a guarantee.

>the resolution would be shit.
Not with 2 arrays per plane, not with AESA.
>>
>>22801408
But any plane with upgrades from the last 20 years can talk to each other so if if an AWACS becomes kill they can have a really intense LAN party
>>
>>22804597
>J-10
>Gen 4,5

Is that what deluted chinks honestly believe?
>>
>>22800857
Fuck off slavshit, even the Indians said its absolute trash, Russia is a joke
>>
>>22804626
If the F-14 counts, the J-10 counts.
>>
>>22803551
Air to air?

The Russian bays can fit larger air to ground ordinance.
>>
>>22804001
It's called composites retard.
>>
>>22804524
>being this butthurt
>>
>>22804606
Their onboard radar isn't even a fraction as powerful.
>>
>>22804722

>implying i called it materials, and was not quoting

You retard.
>>
>>22804638
F-14 does not count at all.
>>
>>22804734
>implying butthurt when 5th gen in service for almost a decade
>>
>>22804790
>5th gen in service
>At least 1 large air bombing campaigh
>0 battle flights.
top kek
>>
>>22804585

Just saying it doesn't make it true bro... I can't find any stats on any IRST system scan rate
>>
>>22804501
You could do that. But you'd need pretty long range missiles because you are slow and will be visible far away.
>>
>>22804900
PIRATE is about 1ms while scanning 200 targets simultaneously, the CAPTOR (AESA radar on Typhoon) can only scan 20 targets at once.

Scanning speed and number of targets simply isn't an issue for IRST. It's like asking how many vacuum tubes APG-82 needs, obviously you won't find data on it.
>>
The PAK FA is a massive disappointment IMO.

>Radar

The cheek arrays are kinda cool, as is the L Band, but N036-1-01 seems mediocre. It can detect the Su-30MKI at 310km. Based on the estimate that the Su-35S has about a 1m^2 RCS, and the fact that t's supposed to be about 1/11th the RCS of the 30MKI, we can guess N036-1-01 can target a 11m^2 target at 310km. This means it should get around 170km against a 1m^2 target. This is substantially inferior to American claims about APG-77 and APG-81 of "greater than 250km". Using the 0.0001m^2 number for the F-22's RCS, it detects the F-22 at 17km, and the F-35 at 30km. Still gets a massive 224km-254km against loaded Super Hornets, Typhoons and Rafales, but those aren't as important as the American 5th gens. Even if these are the TORs instead of max ranges, this just isn't too impressive.

While the N036B-1-01 cheek arrays are kinda cool, they almost certainly have a very short range since they have only 23% the aperture size of the main array (39km against a 1m^2 target, so around 7km against the F-35, 4 km for the F-22, and 21km for the 4.5's), so they'll likely need to be used at very close ranges, maybe for off-boresight shots, but it's not a game changer.

N036L-1-01 can't be used for targeting, but it does reliably provide warning and detection in front of the aircraft, which is nice. If all things but band are the same as the main array, it'll have 3 times the detection range of an x-band radar with equal size. That's pretty cool, but it still can't be used to target
>>
>>22805253
>RWR and ECM
As for the L402 Himalayas ECM suite, it seems like it's a Russian AN/ALR-56+AN/ALQ-184 equivalent, or like the RF portion of the SPECTRA suite. It only has 3 arrays including N036, so it's almost certainly not going to give targeting data like AN/ALR-94 (9 arrays) or AN/ASQ-239 (11). We know it doesn't have RF decoys available, and we don't know about the jammer, but all and all it seems like a 4th generation western EW suite.

>IRST
We don't really know too much about OLS-50M, but it seems likely to be comparable to the OLS-35 that reached IOC in 2009. The OLS-35 has a range of 50km from the front, 90km from the back. The 50 km number is comparable to old claims about the F-14's AN/AAS-42 IRST, which is likely inferior to modern western systems like PIRATE and EOTS. This is of course before we discuss the fact that tracking range is probably around only 40% of detection range (~20km).

>MAWS
While 101KS-U doesn't have anything inherently wrong with it, it does use UV light which attenuates more quickly than the IR light used by AN/AAQ-37 and AAR-56. Also no IRST functionality.

>Stealth
Patents for the PAK FA claim the RCS has "average figure of 0.1-1 m^2" That's 100 times greater than the F-35, 1000 times greater than the F-22, and the same as the Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter clean. Obviously the PAK FA has an advantage against the Eurocanards because it actually goes into combat clean, but it's still disappointing.

>101KS-O
I gotta be honest, I don't know a damn thing about this thing. But even if it made the PAK FA totally immune to IR missiles, it doesn't seem like it would be sufficient

>Engines
Where the fuck is Izdeliye 30? It seems more and more every day this thing's gonna be stuck with AL-41F1, which only give is a t/w on the order of the F-15/16.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
>>
>>22805253
>This is substantially inferior to American claims about APG-77 and APG-81 of "greater than 250km"
Psst they weren't talking about fighter sized targets either. APG-81 has a detection range ov 160km for 1m2 sized target.

Also your calculation seems a bit fucked, PAKFA has a detection range of 350 km against a 2.5m2 rcs target, where did you get the Su-30MKI value?
PAKFA forward radar has 1536 modules, F-35 forward radar has 1200. So PAKFA should be able to see 1m2 targets farther out than 160km, not even counting what L-band brings to the table.

Fix your values, then come back.
>>
File: Capture.png (148 KB, 1317x571) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Capture.png
148 KB, 1317x571
Also stop copypasting.
>>
>>22805490
F-35 uses ancient Jewish algorithms.
>>
>>22805511
oh my bad

1000000000000km detection rate then
>>
File: das juden.jpg (11 KB, 183x275) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
das juden.jpg
11 KB, 183x275
>>22805509
>mfw it used the same pic as the OP
>>
>>22805490
>Psst they weren't talking about fighter sized targets either. APG-81 has a detection range ov 160km for 1m2 sized target.
Source that, it's going to be awful hard considering that you're wrong.
>Inb4 your post range for look down/look up max azimuth and claim that it's the same as on-boresight maximum range

>Also your calculation seems a bit fucked, PAKFA has a detection range of 350 km against a 2.5m2 rcs target, where did you get the Su-30MKI value?
I got my value from an old RT article. Where did you get yours?

>PAKFA forward radar has 1536 modules, F-35 forward radar has 1200. So PAKFA should be able to see 1m2 targets farther out than 160km, not even counting what L-band brings to the table.

Let's address how dumb this sentence is. First of all, you're factually wrong. AN/APG-81 has 1,368 T/R modules. I've counted. second of all, your focus on aperture size completely neglects all other factors, which is hilarious considering we're talking about actively scanned phased array radars.

Here's a basic explanation of phased array radar
http://www.ofcm.gov/mpar-symposium/2009/presentations/workshop/W1_Herd%20Basics.pdf
Tell me if you're still confused as to why aperture size isn't the be-all end-all of detection range

>>22805509
I posted that originally, I'm not going to write up a new post every time I have the same thing to say.
>>
>>22805561
That's not that shocking. I don't know about the OP, but I got mine by just image searching "PAK FA"
>>
File: Sukhoi-Su-47.jpg (459 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Sukhoi-Su-47.jpg
459 KB, 1024x768
Russians should've put this in mass production. It would maybe be outdated but it's still the coolest plane ever.
>>
>>22805619
it's wings are the wrong way
>>
File: ANAPG-81 TR Count.jpg (77 KB, 600x437) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ANAPG-81 TR Count.jpg
77 KB, 600x437
>>22805595
I'll put the F-35 T/R count here
>>
File: bait.jpg (3 KB, 250x250) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bait.jpg
3 KB, 250x250
>PAK FA/T-50
>not knowing that it sucks
>not knowing that you could fly a fucking P-80 and shoot them down with great ease
>>
>>22805595
>old RT article
NIIP

Get the fuck out.
>>
>>22805688
I don't have my original source because the original post was made 4 months ago. Can you link yours?
>>
File: i canr.gif (307 KB, 200x100) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
i canr.gif
307 KB, 200x100
>>22805684
>complains about "bait"
>posts actual bait
>>
>>22805718
>was making it obvious so i wouldn't have to refresh to about 12 or 15 anus angry replies
>>
>>22805619
Forward swept wings add a lot of drag. It's very maneuverable but also very slow.
>>
File: 1369243836614.jpg (121 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1369243836614.jpg
121 KB, 400x400
>>22805740
>>22805718

I thought it was obvious what you did. You can't fix stupid though anon.
>>
>>22805595
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk
Heres a simulation (not the real radar) detecting targets at 150km

>I've counted.
Still kind of proves my point at being less, autismo.

APG-77 peaks at 12kW, if APG-81 uses similar T/R modules it would peak at 8kW.
N036 frontal peaks at 15kW (less the L-band at 4.8kW) assuming 10W rated modules similar to Zhuk AE.

So in terms of power, number of T/R modules, and size it is superior to F-35. How exactly is F-35 getting better range? Something is wrong with your calculations period, or you are taking Lockheed at their word which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
>>
>F-22
>yfw it's just as stealthy as Po-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2
>UN forces named the Po-2's nighttime appearance Bedcheck Charlie and had great difficulty in shooting it down — even though night fighters had radar as standard equipment in the 1950s, the wood-and-fabric-construction of the Po-2 gave only a minimal radar echo, making it hard for an opposing fighter pilot to acquire his target. As Korean war U.S. veteran Leo Fournier remarks about "Bedcheck Charlie" in his memoirs later on: "... no one could get at him. He just flew too low and too slow." On 16 June 1953, a USMC AD-4 from VMC-1 piloted by Major George H. Linnemeier and CWO Vernon S. Kramer shot down a Soviet-built Polikarpov Po-2 biplane, the only documented Skyraider air victory of the war. One Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing to 110 mph during an intercept of a Po-2 biplane.
>>
>>22805965
>yfw this hasn't been a problem for decades because of look-down shoot-down radar arrangements
>>
>>22805871

/k/ isn't stupid, it's just stupid how they continously fight over the F-35 and T-50 (Which both equally fucking suck honestly) and call you a faggot if you add even one tacticool thing to an old rifle or SMG.

Except for the gay ass faggot who mlp-ified his Kar98k, that was horrible.
>>
I know fuckall about the technical comparisons between all these planes and shit, all I do know is the Russians build fucking sexy looking jets.
>>
File: 247.jpg (727 KB, 1400x847) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
247.jpg
727 KB, 1400x847
>>22806094
Fuck yeah they do.
>>
>>22805872
>Heres a simulation (not the real radar) detecting targets at 150km
Because that clearly was a test of range and not of search pattern, right? That's why they used a simulated radar.

>APG-77 peaks at 12kW, if APG-81 uses similar T/R modules it would peak at 8kW.
Are you trying to linearly scale power by number of T/R modules?
You do know power comes from the exciter and that LPI radars aren't going to rail their T/R modules, right? EMCON is a thing

>So in terms of power, number of T/R modules, and size it is superior to F-35.

Number of T/R modules and aperture size are the same thing here. The factors we haven't gone over are

>Gain (Physical)
>Geometry (Physical but software limited)
>Noise reduction (Physical)
>Drain power (Physical)
>Amplitude control (software)
>Phase control (software)

Amplitude control and phase control are by far the most important factors here, they're the entire reason we use phased arrays over dish antennae. That's why software has had such a huge emphasis for the past 20 years.
>>
>>22806138
>You do know power comes from
That value is the max power the TR modules are rated for.

You're... fucking retarded. I'm sorry you just don't know what you're talking about.

Using RT as a source? Fuck.
>>
>>22806321
>That value is the max power the TR modules are rated for.
Yes, no one's going to fucking rail their T/R modules for an LPI radar. How are you not grasping this concept.

The other cute thing you're doing here is totally ignoring the fact that you're treating phased-arrays like dish-antennas.

>But now I called you retarded so we don't have to address the fact that nothing I've been saying makes sense, and I still haven't produced any of my NIIP sources
The English language version of NIIP's site mentions no stats for the N036 radar; the Russian version is down right now. Once again, you're full of shit.
>>
>>22805595
>I'm not going to write up a new post every time I have the same thing to say.
Do you have any idea how dismissive that is to anyone who would talk to you? You're basically saying from the outset that their opinion is worthless, because it won't change yours at all.

If you don't even want a discussion, why are you posting?
>>
>>22806434
I was starting a new discussion because the old one was boring. You'll note that my new posts are not copypastas. When the same memetic threads are posted day after day, there's no reason for initial responses to vary.
>>
>>22806445
You are a dick.
>>
>>22806520
:^)
>>
File: pakfa camo render.jpg (44 KB, 1280x882) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa camo render.jpg
44 KB, 1280x882
>>
>>22802838

Yeah, as always Russian junk is super amazing on paper.

Can't wait until India starts begging for F-35 after the inevitable disappointment with PAK.
>>
File: pakfa2.jpg (313 KB, 1200x813) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa2.jpg
313 KB, 1200x813
>>
File: pakfa..jpg (161 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pakfa..jpg
161 KB, 1280x720
>>
>>22804560
>Doesn't really make the simulation nonexistant.

Or the "simulations" could be complete bullshit, especially considering what year it was and being able to make an accurate simulation of the F-35's capabilities.
>>
>>22807259
The only complaint Lockheed has was future systems, like direct energy weapons.

Did you read the pdf?
>>
>>22804626
The J-10A might not be a 4.5 gen, but the J-10B is.
>>
>>22807175
MUH DICK

>>22807275
>Chinese pilots
>Chinese Engines
>Chinese avionics

LEL
>>
>>22807275
4.5 gen are designs coming out post 2001.

J-10B might be considered, but only barely.
>>
>>
>>22807298
>chinese pilots

mad that they are stylin on you?
>>
>>22807273
>Did you read the pdf?

How else would I have known it involved claims by Aussies about a RAND study that RAND themselves say is bullshit.
>>
>>22807644
nice roll. lol xd chicom pirruts is best pirruts
>>
File: 1330076279_75984.jpg (288 KB, 1920x1198) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1330076279_75984.jpg
288 KB, 1920x1198
>>22807558
J-10B is from 2008.

And 4.5 generation designation is given not by the year it is produced, but by its avionics and capabilities.

J-10B has a multirole AESA radar, EOS, integrated EW systems, full glass cockpit, holographic HUD and is currently powered by the uprated AL-31FN-M1 engine giving it good T/W ratio.

With this hardware, it fits the 4.5 gen specs.
>>
>>22807652
By reading that dumbass image posted earlier.

Read the pdf.
>>
I thought this was a PAKFA thread?

Post more sex.
>>
>>22807942
I am the one who posted that image, you are simply anally devastated because your report to an Aussie parliament committee is full of shit.
>>
File: HAL-Tejas-2[1].jpg (93 KB, 1280x850) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HAL-Tejas-2[1].jpg
93 KB, 1280x850
>>22807298
>>22808669
Hey, atleast it isn't the Indian shit
>>
>>22803537
Fuck me that's even worse.
>Hornets better than Raptors
>>
>>22805275
>That's 100 times greater than the F-35

What's the 'average figure' of the F-35? What is the 'frontal figure' of the F-35?
>>
>>22807175
First thing to come in my mind is Chinese
>>
>>22804626
>The further advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 1990s permitted rapid upgrades to the avionics over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as active electronically scanned array (AESA), digital avionics buses and Infra-red search and track (IRST). Due to the dramatic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, the US government has taken to using the designation 4.5th generation to refer to these later designs.

Yes, the J-10 is a 4.5th gen aircraft.
>>
>>22807734
Sure, China passed Russia in all the avionics stuff.

I guess that's kind of the result if the country lacks a significant electronics industry.
>>
>>22805872
APG-81 promo video says "in this actual flight test" and they show the same footage.

http://youtu.be/hzDke56vMiU?t=1m1s
>>
>>22800857
Call me when they change its design goals so it has a smaller frontal RCS than a superbug.
>>
Why the fuck does everyone still think BVR is relevant?

When you have well over 30 seconds warning of an incoming missile, it's never going to hit you. This goes for Americans and Russians. Especially with stealth planes with fuck all RCS.

I honestly think the F-35 is in for a shock when it inevitably ends up dogfighting the T-50, and finds it can't maneuver as well, can't aim its missiles as well - if it even has any short range ones at the time - and can't dance around thrust vectoring for gun kills.

I really hope the F-35 only ends up needing to bomb defenseless sandniggers.
>>
File: HD 1080p.jpg (390 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HD 1080p.jpg
390 KB, 1920x1080
>>22814634
>Implying a multirole would ever by sent to fight air superiority
We have a plane for that you fucking idort, it's called the F-22
>>
>>22814634
>What is no-escape zone
>>
>>22814634
>having to aim your missles

Laughing 5th gen face
>>
>>22814634
>EODAS
>AIM-9x
>Needing to turn to aim missiles

lol
>>
Pak Fa is fucking AWESOME
>>
>>22814759
>using EODAS for air-to-air engagements

>AIM-9x
>90° angle
>>
>F-35
>service ceiling
>50,000ft

>T-50
>service ceiling
>65,000 ft
>also supercruise and mach 2+

It would be the Eastern Front all over again but this time are the T-50s the Bf109s and the F-35s are the poor IL-2 aircraft.
>>
>>22814692
>implying multirole never means air to air combat
>>
>>22814807
see
>We have a plane for that you fucking idort, it's called the F-22
>>
>>22814777
>what is AIM-9X Block II
>>
A new research shows that T-50 will use Titanium alloy which is very expensive
>>
>>22814777
>Not using eodas for A2A

What are you, some kind of faggot who plays IRL on hardmode for no damn reason at all?
>>
>>22814845
Great arguments.
>>
>>22814777
>not using IRST for A2A

Are you some kinda faggot that doesn't like using the tech put into something?
>>
>>22814845
>>22814861
dat samefagging
>>
>>22814868
Lel, u wish slavboo
>>
File: 1410692774481.png (103 KB, 480x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1410692774481.png
103 KB, 480x800
>>22814876
dat photoshop fail
>>
>>22814868
kek no.

The F-35 shouldn't use EODAS but I'm sure the PAK FA should use it's shitty IRST shouldn't it?

If you think IRST has never been used for A2A, it's been used since Gen 2 fag.

Don't you have a Putin poster to worship? It's Sunday
>>
File: kek no.jpg (60 KB, 1201x647) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
kek no.jpg
60 KB, 1201x647
>>
>>22814896
>The F-35 shouldn't use EODAS but I'm sure the PAK FA should use it's shitty IRST shouldn't it?

Are you retarded?
>>
>>22814889
>photoshop
>on a phone
>while im at work

They dont make smart slavs anymore, huh?

Also

>starting at the end of one line, and ending a pixel in, making it one pixel to the left

As I said, they dont make smart slavs, do they?
>>
>>22814889
>compareing the lengths of 777 to 861

You are a dumb motherfucker
>>
>butthurt samefagging Americans

delicious!
>>
>>22814919
>samefaging
>Americans
>americanS

Freudian slip there slavboo?
>>
>>22814907
What the fuck are you on about? I'm calling him out on his shit >>22814777
>>
File: 1410692774481.png (21 KB, 666x318) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1410692774481.png
21 KB, 666x318
>>22814909
works without problems here.
>>
>>22814928
He didn't say anything wrong, though.
>>
I've talked to guys that mattered in the air force industry and they agree that the plane is a useless endeavor by the Russians, they should just make it a technological demonstrator and just use the research for drones.

They should up their missile units instead and if they really need a bird in the air, it should be an interceptor like the upcoming MiG-41.
>>
>>22814935
>EODAS can't be used for A2A
>AIM-9x block II only can engage targets at 90 degree angles

no he's fucking wrong
>>
>>22814931
You left marks where you tried to remove the (YOU), you damn imbecile.
>>
>>22814939
>>EODAS can't be used for A2A

Was never said. It's just an inferior system, small leses, low resolution etc, compared to dedicated IRST systems like the future 101KS-V of the T-50 or PIRATE of the Eurofighter.

>>AIM-9x block II only can engage targets at 90 degree angles

90 degrees off boresight - it's fact.
>>
>>22814954
>It's just an inferior system, small leses, low resolution etc,

>imblying

They tracked tankfire from the air, and icbms from a 1000 kilometers away
>>
>>22814965
>imblying
>>
>>22814966
>imblying anything is wrong

:DDDD
>>
>>22814954
>It's just an inferior system, small leses, low resolution etc,

You know jack shit.

Each sensor is comparable to the one used in the SNIPER pods which uses a 640x512 FLIR sensor.

Since they're stationary more lenses can be used, giving it better magnification.

>now you're saying EODAS isn't a dedicated IRST system

wow you have no idea what you're talking about

>90 degrees off boresight

lol no, you can send it to a known location and the sensor will pick up the rest.

How else would it work in an enclosed missile bay? It gets it's information after launch.
>>
>>22814965
>US engineering can breaks the laws of physics

EODAS was designed as advanced MAW system with additional situational awareness capacities.
While dedicated IRST systems scan a small area like sniper optics.

It's like comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>22814981
>dat nonsense
>>
>>22814954

>its fact
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aim-9x-block-ii-the-new-sidewinder-missile-011572/

#wrekt
>>
>>22814981
>FLIR

confirmed for not knowing shit.
>>
>>22814985
>now counterargument

sure

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/sniper-pod/mfc-sniper-pc.pdf

http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/anaaq37f35/pages/default.aspx

>I like how they confirm it's IRST and not just situational awareness

>>22815003
>I wonder who makes all those sensors for those military aircraft
>surely that company's name isn't FLIR
>>
>>22814981
The Sniper pod doesn't even provide any IRST capacities.
>>
>>22815014
You're moving the goalposts.
>>
>people don't know the difference between IR and IRST
>>
>>22815022
IR = InfraRed
IRST = InfraRedSanitaryTowel
>>
>>22815016
>The Sniper pod doesn't even provide any IRST capacities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTFcmlbn1GQ

>>22815018
>You're moving the goalposts.

How so anon?
>>
>>22815014
I like how they call it "Situational awareness IRST".
>>
>>22815025
Yeah, you don't know what IRST means.
>>
>>22815033
What infrared search and track?

What's it doing when you're TRACKING targets or SEARCHING for them in the air or on the ground.

>>22815027
>still can't be used to search and track targets in the air for decent BVR distances.

Not saying it's on par with Pirate, we don't know that much. But it can more than do the job
>>
>>22815045
>Not saying it's on par with Pirate, we don't know that much. But it can more than do the job

No one ever claimed it can't be used to provide tracking.
But it was designed for a different sets of tasks.
>>
>>22815062
and all I'm saying is that it can fill the roles as any other IRST sensor
>>
Well, the T-50 doesn't even need EODAS to provide 360° awareness.

It uses a bunch of radar systems

>>22800986
>>22801156

And a dedicated 101KS-V IRST system for BVR.
>>
>>22815095
>and all I'm saying is that it can fill the roles as any other IRST sensor

to provide comparable range as dedicated IRST systems?
Nope.
>>
>>22815130
>to provide comparable range as dedicated IRST systems?

The question is, who's?

Russian systems, sure, they don't amount to much as is.

Pirate or OSF no.

But there's EOTS for that which is dedicated for that purpose
>>
>>22815154
>EOTS
>based on the SNIPER XR pod

>FLIR
>CCD-TV
>laser designator

That's even less an IRST system than EODAS.
>>
File: stalin camera.gif (3 MB, 291x300) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
stalin camera.gif
3 MB, 291x300
>>22800857
I like the PAK FA, but seriously dude, you can't discount criticism about the platform / plane by reducing it to "go back to pol lololol". That's just as cancerous as all the people that label anything they don't agree with as "edgy".
>>
File: sure.jpg (174 KB, 1195x808) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sure.jpg
174 KB, 1195x808
>>22815196
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/f-35-lightning-ii-electro-optical-targeting-system-etos/mfc-f35-eots-pc.pdf
>>
EODAS lacks an optical zoom, what makes it to an WVR system only.
Otherwise you would also lose the 360° awareness.
>>
>>22815235
OTH we have guys here claiming that the scan time is so fast as to be irrelevant. So which one is it.
>>
>>22815247
That's a different question.

Both systems do have a refresh rate faster than the on-board radars systems.

Just imagine an IRST system as binoculars. You have a reduced field of vision but you can see into the distance.
>>
>>22815235
>1000+ km tracking confirmed
>ITZ WVR ONLY GUYZ
>>
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20130307.aspx

claims 30km for EODAS - though no details or a source. It's also strategypage, not the best website for military related stuff.
>>
>>22815324
Dumb/10
See
>>22815317
>>
>>22815324
30km would make sense.
>>
>>22815270
I meant physically slewing swiveling or whatever the fuck to cover the search area. I know that the sensor refreshes quite fast. I guess i chose poor words.
>>
>>22815336
Ignoring reality wont make it go away.
>>
>>22800960
What?
For fucks sake comrade, HOW?
>>
>>22815347
What are you trying to say?
>>
>>22815364
That your opinion is not based in reality.
>>
>>22815379
I don't write for strategypage.com.
>>
>>22815384
You agree with its findings. ("Makes sense")
>>
>>22815393
Yes, the 30km range makes sense unlike your rant.
>>
>>22815395
Im sure it would to somebody so ignorant of the reality of EODAS's capabilities.
>>
>>22815408
>random nonsense
>>
File: 1394037443683.jpg (13 KB, 259x194) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1394037443683.jpg
13 KB, 259x194
>>22801117
>>
>>22815422
There is absolutely nothing random about it.

Eodas has, in reality, tracked military targets at more than 1000km away.

Ignoring that fact wont make it go away.
>>
>>22815439
Think about what you just wrote.
>>
If you have a heat signature the size of a ballisitic missile that high in the sky, it's bound to stick out in the sky on the IR spectrum

I bet EODAS can also track the sun.

EODAS confirmed for having a range of 92,955,807 miles.
>>
>>22815561
US engineering strikes once again!
>>
>>22801561

Is this used to dodge rockets?
>>
>>22815547

I did. Its 100% correct.

>>22815561
Thats a super cool story, yet it confirms that EODAS does not have a range of a mere 30 km.

But ok, ballistic missles are too easy.

How about sub orbital rockets?

It tracks them too.

How about tank fire?

Tracks that as well.
>>
>>22807175

SUPER HOT
>>
>>22815581

Slowing down like that will get you a fuselage full of rods
>>
>>22815581
It is used to bleed energy and heat the sky.
>>
>>22815199
Actually, I have no problems with people criticizing the plane. What I have a problem with is people immeditately coming to the conclusion of "It's shit because slavs built it" or "but it uses last gen engines, it must be shit!". The worst of all is people claiming I'm RIDF etc simply because I like this machine. Not one point in the OP was to discourage criticism, it was to discourage shitposting, a la
>>22801319
>>22801380
>>22801398
>>22801404
>>
>>22800986
lacking embedded radar in wings etc of f22. forgetting entire aircraft is one big emitter.
>>
What never gets mentioned in these pissing contest threads is the amount of sheer money involved

PAK-FA according to the 3 sources wiki cites costing between 8-10 billion , compared to 67 billion or so for the -22.

And if you figure at least 1/3 of the Russian program's funds were wasted in corruption/bribes....

the fact we are even comparing these planes is a victory for the Russkies
>>
>>22818313
>In 2007, Russia and India agreed to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft Programme (FGFA) for India.[23][24][25] In September 2010, it was reported that India and Russia had agreed on a preliminary design contract where each country invests $6 billion; development of the FGFA fighter was expected to take 8–10 years.[26] The agreement on the preliminary design was to be signed in December 2010.[27]

talking about the wrong plane shitposter
>>
The real question is:
Why hasn't anyone posted r34 of anthropomorphic versions of these planes being fucked by dragons?
>>
>>22818222
joke post
>>
File: 1409541608657.jpg (78 KB, 800x790) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1409541608657.jpg
78 KB, 800x790
>>22801889
I'm not sure how you would hide an F-35 engine, it's quite a beast.

Sure front facing you could make semi-invisible to IR with the right materials, but you are not hiding this rear end from the Russians IRST.
>>
The F-35 should have the worst IR signature of all incoming 5gen aircraft.
>>
>>22818313
Is there much new blood in the design bureaus like Sukhoi? Or are the old farts running the show?
>>
>>22819062
The Russian government is subsidizing the design bureaus to attract new minds.

How well that is working is yet to be seen.
At least lately we have seen some departure from their old Soviet tech designs and new stuff is appearing.
Thread replies: 301
Thread images: 70
Thread DB ID: 13406



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at wtabusse@gmail.com with the post's information.