Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA takes flight

[Marc]

I wonder - are HARM missiles suitable to air to air use? though I guess a something like the Growler would be a bit to nimble and avoid by shut down it's jammers but then again if they turn off the jammers, even if they are still flying their primary mission is defeated.

AIM-120 AMRAAM's are programmed to home in on jamming sources during the terminal phase.

^ Good thing the B-52's tail gunner is no longer in the tail.

I'm wonder who ended up morning the shit - the gunner or the pilot.

Not sure if the incident says much about the B-52's construction or the destructive power of the HARMs. Would of expected a hit to to have pretty much taken the tail off.

AGM-88A HARM's don't have a large warhead. Just a burster charge that propels large pieces of shrapnel (which are designed to destroy fairly sensitive radar antennae) like a giant shot gun shell. Basically, the missile is blown apart a half-second before impact and the target is showered with the warhead shrapnel and whatever is left of the booster. Such a warhead is not the most effective weapon against a high-subsonic aircraft flying away from the point of detonation.

Okay for some reason I thought they've pack slight more of punch so that they didn't just take out the actual radar but the personal and equipment around it.

 

[MANT!]

It also speaks volumes about the B-52s rugged structure..

http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryB52NoTail.html

from what I could gather, the aircraft involved in the friendly fire incident was B-52G
and the entire tail turret was blown off...all the Gs and Hs had an extended tail cone structure for extra ECM equipment..it was the extension that was removed by the HARM...

 

[Marc]

It also speaks volumes about the B-52s rugged structure..

http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryB52NoTail.html

from what I could gather, the aircraft involved in the friendly fire incident was B-52G
and the entire tail turret was blown off...all the Gs and Hs had an extended tail cone structure for extra ECM equipment..it was the extension that was removed by the HARM...

Very interesting read.

I could imagine even without enemy fire that barrelling a long at 500 in a BUFF would of been quite an experience.

As for the one who made with it out a tail - that was an incredible piece of flying given that other instances had results in loss of aircraft and crew.

I was slightly surprised at the number of crew fatalities. I know that for a crew in the lower compartment it was a very dicey call because of the downward firing seats, but a couple of the accidents happened at altitude and the pilots managed to eject. so thought at least the rest of crew would of been able to get out.

 

[MANT!]

The seats in the BUFF are OLD...not those ACES-II ejection seats developed in the 1970s..
but much older..it took time to eject, and one had to be in the proper envelope for a successful ejection...

Here's a little too much information on that system...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLzXlCPx49U

Also the famous Buff crash at Fairchild AFB..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

you can SEE the Co-pilots hatch near the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

It took 3 to 6 seconds for the sequence to complete leading to the actual ejection..
Slipstream air was an important part of the sequence..the hatches HAD to be away from the aircraft in order for the seat to fire.. no canopy breakers here..those hatches were heavy...(had the B-52 kept it's original cockpit shape...it could have been retrofitted with better seats for at least the pilot and co-pilot..)

 

[Colonel Midnight]

<Snip>
Also the famous Buff crash at Fairchild AFB..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FairchildB52Crash.jpg
<Snip>

Holy Crap! If that's not an image to make you need to change armor, I don't know what is...

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Marc]

The seats in the BUFF are OLD...not those ACES-II ejection seats developed in the 1970s..
but much older..it took time to eject, and one had to be in the proper envelope for a successful ejection...

Here's a little too much information on that system...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLzXlCPx49U

Also the famous Buff crash at Fairchild AFB..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FairchildB52Crash.jpg

you can SEE the Co-pilots hatch near the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

It took 3 to 6 seconds for the sequence to complete leading to the actual ejection..
Slipstream air was an important part of the sequence..the hatches HAD to be away from the aircraft in order for the seat to fire.. no canopy breakers here..those hatches were heavy...(had the B-52 kept it's original cockpit shape...it could have been retrofitted with better seats for at least the pilot and co-pilot..)

So if was that bad for the crewing ejecting upwards I guess it was worse for those going down

And the aftermath of the Fairchild crash stinks of coverup.

 

[MANT!]

Not so much the aftermath...but before, the pilot had been verbally reprimanded at least 2 times..but no paperwork had ever been filed..it was simply a "Good Old Boy" system at work...after SAC had been shut down, the ACC's "Friend of mine" system took over..Some of the officers in the direct chain of command had no time in bombers and couldn't see what the fuss was about... Had SAC command been in existence, that pilot would've been OIC in charge of the base swimming pool in nothing flat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command

Systemic failure of ACC command to understand the strategic nuclear bombing mission, led to the incorporation of Global Strike Command (Neo-SAC) late last year...

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/index.asp

 

[Marc]

Not so much the aftermath...but before, the pilot had been verbally reprimanded at least 2 times..but no paperwork had ever been filed..it was simply a "Good Old Boy" system at work...after SAC had been shut down, the ACC's "Friend of mine" system took over..Some of the officers in the direct chain of command had no time in bombers and couldn't see what the fuss was about... Had SAC command been in existence, that pilot would've been OIC in charge of the base swimming pool in nothing flat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command

Systemic failure of ACC command to understand the strategic nuclear bombing mission, led to the incorporation of Global Strike Command (Neo-SAC) late last year...

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/index.asp

Well that's explains something I couldn't quite fathom - how a pilot with Hollands reputation a) made it as far up the promotion ladder as he did, b) why he was still flying and c) why he was chosen fly the demonstration.

It's just a pity that 4 other experienced officers (going by ther age and rank) paid for it with their lives.

 

[Rii]

Now with paint and a handful of other minor modifications:

Now to get rid of that framed cockpit...

Apparently the large slat-equipped LERXs are intended to house L-band radar arrays to supplement the forward/lateral X-band arrays.

 

[MANT!]

It's not that stealthy from below...seems like a limited aspect stealth aircraft to me.. not all aspect like the B-2 the F-22 or the F-35A

It appears that the F-35A's development is going along fine..it's the B model causing much of the trouble..

But it's a rather attractive fighter neverthelesss...

 

[STR]

I don't see anything that would preclude LO from bottom aspects. Having a flat bottom is not the only way to do it. The F-22 uses it as it's easier to design the wide weapons bays that way. The YF-23, which was regarded as stealthier than the YF-22, had a similar bottom (though more blended towards the aft) to the T-50.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas-YF-23/0611188/L/

There's another lesson in the YF-23 to be learned, the YF-22 was modified considerably so that the production F-22A could be as stealthy as the YF-23.

Just for fun, while looking for the above photo, I found the patent for the type of missile launcher Northrop proposed for the YF-23. Very interesting, if you ask me, but the part where the belt hands off to the launch arm seems more prone to failure (since it has more moving parts) than Lockheed's simpler swing arms.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=bBA8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Rii]

The Russians clearly aren't willing to compromise kinematic performance for stealth, which is no doubt part and parcel of their unwillingness to spend bajillions of dollars building and maintaining each aircraft, but also reflects longstanding Russian design principles. They're aiming to surpass the F-22s WVR prowess and defeat it in that arena. Its stealth regimen appears similar to that of the F-35, but that's about where the similarities end.

 

[STR]

I doubt the T-50 is in the same area as the F-35 in terms of stealth. While both designs emphasize performance and cost, the US is decades ahead of Russia in the application of the technology. As such, even though the F-35 places stealth at a lower priority than the B-2 or F-117, it has a radar cross section (the metric used to measure detectability of objects by radar) roughly half that of the B-2 and 1/4 that of the F-117.

The F-22, with its no expense spared design philosophy, has an RCS roughly 1/4 that of the F-35.

SRC
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

 

[Rii]

I doubt the T-50 is in the same area as the F-35 in terms of stealth.

I meant in that they're focusing on frontal aspect RCS with less attention paid to other aspects. And in both cases, no thought given to masking the IR signature from the engine(s). Of course this philosophy makes rather more sense for an air superiority platform like the PAK FA than it does for a multirole battlefield interdiction platform like the F-35.

While both designs emphasize performance and cost

On what planet does the F-35 emphasise performance? It's a bomb truck. Thing can't even supercruise.

the US is decades ahead of Russia in the application of the technology

Which doesn't translate to 'decades' worth of advantages. Sure, they probably won't quite hit the mark the first time around - in part because they evidently aren't trying to hit the same mark - but they're not going to be fielding US 1970s-equivalent LO tech either.

 

[STR]

I doubt the T-50 is in the same area as the F-35 in terms of stealth.

I meant in that they're focusing on frontal aspect RCS with less attention paid to other aspects. And in both cases, no thought given to masking the IR signature from the engine(s). Of course this philosophy makes rather more sense for an air superiority platform like the PAK FA than it does for a multirole battlefield interdiction platform like the F-35.

If frontal aspect RCS is the only concern, an internal weapons bay would not be needed, since missiles by their shape have minuscule frontal RCS and sizable lateral RCS. Furthermore, I question how you come to the conclusion that the T-50 ignores IR signature, as engine design is as (if not more) important than the airframe exterior. Given that all we know is the T-50 has a new engine not based on previous Flanker powerplants, and precisely zero specifics on said engine, one cannot make any conclusion one way or the other.

While both designs emphasize performance and cost

On what planet does the F-35 emphasise performance? It's a bomb truck. Thing can't even supercruise.

You assume performance means one thing, speed. In reality, it's term for several abilities that are useful. Like maneuverability, payload and range, and can be further broken down into what level of investment will purchase each of those abilities.

The F-22 scores well in range, speed, stealth and maneuverability because cost was ignored and payload was minimized.The F-35 scores well in stealth (moreso in the durability of the stealth coatings as opposed to pure ability), payload, range and versatility.

the US is decades ahead of Russia in the application of the technology

Which doesn't translate to 'decades' worth of advantages. Sure, they probably won't quite hit the mark the first time around - in part because they evidently aren't trying to hit the same mark - but they're not going to be fielding the LO equivalent of an F-117 either.

The F-117's design was limited by the power of computers used to calculate the radar returns. Sukhoi, being that it's in the 21st century, doesn't have that kind of problem. Materials science, particularly in the area of composites, has advanced almost as much. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that they can include a RCS similar to the F-117 if they are willing to expend the effort. The only real limit to effort, is the cost that will have to priced into the airframes.

 

[Rii]

If frontal aspect RCS is the only concern, an internal weapons bay would not be needed, since missiles by their shape have minuscule frontal RCS and sizable lateral RCS.

I didn't say other aspects weren't a concern, only that they were less of a concern than the frontal aspect.

You assume performance means one thing, speed.

No, that's just a particularly obvious deficiency of the platform which I found convenient to mention. We can be a little more specific: in all kinematic regimes, i.e. those relevant to WVR A2A combat, the F-35 is uncompetitive.

Incidentally, I saw an ad for the F135 engine a while back, 'the most powerful engine ever fitted to a fighter aircraft' or something. My first thought was 'yeah, I'm not sure anyone's actually tried to build a 30,000lb fighter with one engine before'.

The F-35 scores well in stealth (moreso in the durability of the stealth coatings as opposed to pure ability), payload, range and versatility.

Payload? Not in the A2A regime. As for range, the F-35's on internal fuel is indeed one of its assets. However, unlike existing aircraft, it can't make use of external tanks. On those occasions where stealth isn't a factor, the F-35's range advantage over EFT-equipped F-16s/18s disappears.

The F-117's design was limited by the power of computers used to calculate the radar returns. Sukhoi, being that it's in the 21st century, doesn't have that kind of problem. Materials science, particularly in the area of composites, has advanced almost as much. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that they can include a RCS similar to the F-117 if they are willing to expend the effort. The only real limit to effort, is the cost that will have to priced into the airframes.

I edited my post to better reflect what I meant. In any case, you've basically made my point for me: that the United States' wealth of experience with stealth technologies relative to Russia doesn't translate to generational performance differences between platforms fielded by the two in 2015.

 

[MANT!]

Payload? Not in the A2A regime. As for range, the F-35's on internal fuel is indeed one of its assets. However, unlike existing aircraft, it can't make use of external tanks. On those occasions where stealth isn't a factor, the F-35's range advantage over EFT-equipped F-16s/18s disappears.

you do know that the 2 innermost stations on the F-35 ARE plumbed for external fuel tanks..the tanks simply have not been developed at this early stage of production..the F-18 tanks originally slated for use had separation issues during testing..Therefore rather than develop an all new tank NOW...the DOD elected to
forgo external tankage for now..but the plumbing is still there..

 

[STR]

If frontal aspect RCS is the only concern, an internal weapons bay would not be needed, since missiles by their shape have minuscule frontal RCS and sizable lateral RCS.

I didn't say other aspects weren't a concern, only that they were less of a concern than the frontal aspect.

You assume performance means one thing, speed.

No, that's just a particularly obvious deficiency of the platform which I found convenient to mention. We can be a little more specific: in all kinematic regimes, i.e. those relevant to WVR A2A combat, the F-35 is uncompetitive.

Incidentally, I saw an ad for the F135 engine a while back, 'the most powerful engine ever fitted to a fighter aircraft' or something. My first thought was 'yeah, I'm not sure anyone's actually tried to build a 30,000lb fighter with one engine before'.

The F-35 scores well in stealth (moreso in the durability of the stealth coatings as opposed to pure ability), payload, range and versatility.

Payload? Not in the A2A regime.

I'll take 2 AAM's along with any 2000lb class weapon and smaller in the inventory over 4 AAM's and couple of JDAM's. Mostly because only a dozen of those missiles will ever be fired in combat in the entire lifetime of the aircraft, versus all those bombs that have targets today.

The Cold War is over. The United States has no near peer in air power anywhere in the world, and the only potential threat (China) is our 2nd largest trading partner. That's why Gates killed the F-22A for good. We don't need any more, or rather we're better off spending that money to carry more A2G than A2A.

But don't worry too much, Lockheed said they can do 6 AAM on A2A missions if a customer requires it. They just haven't done the engineering for it beyond whether or not a system would fit in the bays. That's not even going into the work that's looking at using external stealthy pods that carry munitions within them.

I edited my post to better reflect what I meant. In any case, you've basically made my point for me: that the United States' wealth of experience with stealth technologies relative to Russia doesn't translate to generational performance differences between platforms fielded by the two in 2015.

No I didn't. I said they could equal the F-117. Not the B-2, F-22 and especially not the F-35, which is both very stealthy and requires little/no extra maintenance for that ability. You see, the Russians can quickly catch up with the science of stealth, but not on the engineering. There are things you just won't know, no matter how much you study something, unless you go out and try to build it a couple of times.

Effectively, the Russians should be able to design an airframe better than the F-117, and use better materials, but since stealth is such a detail oriented technology, and they've never figured out those details, or even have an idea they exist, they can't do much better than an F-117.