PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just to make it clear, in NATO/US terms class a or b runways are used to identify, how heavy aircraft a runway can take. For example will only small light jets be able to land on a class a runway. This has to do with the basic structur, lenght etc, and the navigation aides available...
It's also about the condition of that runway - not only what can use it. ie its not just about platform preparedness.

the issue of what navigation and ATC facilities determines the status of the base - not the runway...

eg barebones can deal with a flight of aircraft for emergency or short notice ops, they then require "nn" days to come up to speed as the extra gear is freighted in.

they are basic turn key - the status of the runway has nothing tio do with the status of the base. eg Shergold is a bare bones base that is Class A.
 

MiG-23MLD

Banned Member
No you don't have to,
I know the Cobra and other manuvers done in airshows don't pass as an operative fighter capability.
Certainly not in BVR.
But with the help of a clock, one can visual measure to some extent the Take-off length, climb rate and continuing sustained AoA turn(360) and how it compair in T/W ratio.
These figure does have an impact on a aircraft performance.



Yes agreed.
But again loiter time on station, speed and weapons load is also part of fighter performance.




Nothing wrong with at bit entusiasm here, as long one can see the different.
So why can't it be both.
The back-swept wing design, sleek beauty chined lines, small canted stabz, movable LERX and blended wing/body design of the T-50 have everything to do with high lift, reducing drag, reducing RCS and maintaining superb overall aircraft performance...

Its both a beauty and a exceptional aircraft design with exceptional kenetic performance.
And its something we can observe when looking at demonstration vids.

Tech specs like RCS, internal weapons stores, weapon specs, radar, network, sensor-fusion and engines specs are of course more important, but we dont have much to go about yet, so i don't bother discussing it now.



Thanks
The cobra is a good indicator of post stall handling, an aircraft doing it shows it can do other post stall maneouvres, in fact it is the first requirement to have post stall maneouvrability.,in BVR combat is meaningless but at WVR combat the cobra has some significance, in terms of operational use it has a niche in close combat, that is reason the F-22 can do it.
Post stall agility only has merits when it is used properly. beyond that it can become a disadvantage. but it is not useless in operational service.
 

arrrow

Banned Member
Re: Russian 5th Generation Fighter !

USA sell JSF(flying tin) nearly 200 million dolar and dont share to source code for other partners....And everytıme Pentagon may follow thıs airplane from planet and remote control...
I dont want Turkei get thıs airplane...PAKFA more great airplane than JSF and ım sure russia share source code and technology for Turkei

You have reported a post by "Aussie Digger" 3 times, with the same crap"reason" you posted here. Do not abuse the Report Post" feature again or be face a 2 week ban.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
.And everytıme Pentagon may follow thıs airplane from planet and remote control...

Got any proof for that claim? You have until 07 July to back up that post or you'll be banned for 2 weeks.
 

Sarkozy

New Member

Got any proof for that claim? You have until 07 July to back up that post or you'll be banned for 2 weeks.
U.S. to withhold F-35 fighter software code
Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:29pm EST

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will keep to itself sensitive software code that controls Lockheed Martin Corp's new radar-evading F-35 fighter jet despite requests from partner countries, a senior Pentagon program official said.

Access to the technology had been publicly sought by Britain, which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it were unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without U.S. involvement.

No other country is getting the so-called source code, the key to the plane's electronic brains, Jon Schreiber, who heads the program's international affairs, told Reuters in an interview Monday.

"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not overly popular among the eight that have co-financed F-35 development -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AO01F20091125

now I don't really know about the source-code. last thing is certainly not said in the case of the F-35.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AO01F20091125

now I don't really know about the source-code. last thing is certainly not said in the case of the F-35.
The source code is old news, I am interested in his claim of the Pentagon of being able to remote control any other nations F-35, that is what I am requiring proof of.
 

arrrow

Banned Member
The source code is old news, I am interested in his claim of the Pentagon of being able to remote control any other nations F-35, that is what I am requiring proof of.
United States Generals says:

WE SET AİRCRAFTS and WE CAN REMOTE CONTROL AND DOWN ANY AİRCRAFT.........................Alvin Toffler(War and Anti-War)

US Generals and senators proof everythıng
 
Last edited:

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
United States Generals says:

WE SET AİRCRAFTS and WE CAN REMOTE CONTROL AND DOWN ANY AİRCRAFT.........................Alvin Toffler(War and Anti-War)

US Generals and senators proof everythıng
The Alvin Toffler that I am aware of, author of War and Anti-War (1995), is an American writer. He is not a current/ex-military officer much less a General. He is also not a current or former US politician, again much less a Senator.

Between those facts, and that the apparent source of the information is from 1995, before the selection had even been made as to which aircraft was going to become the JSF (F-32 or F-35) then the required proof has still not been provided. And the clock is still ticking.
-Preceptor
 

Sarkozy

New Member
The source code is old news, I am interested in his claim of the Pentagon of being able to remote control any other nations F-35, that is what I am requiring proof of.
Ok, lol , I haven't heard that claim yet. On a another note, I understand that this might not be the right thread, but what do you think of the source-code secrecy?? It shows the buyers a rather arrogant attitude, considering most of the countries interested in the jet are the americas closest allies.? I could understand if certain part of the source-code would be kept secret, but this can be regarded as a overkill, especially if the US are supposed to dictate what weapons and upgrades that are compatible in the future.
 
Ok, lol , I haven't heard that claim yet. On a another note, I understand that this might not be the right thread, but what do you think of the source-code secrecy?? It shows the buyers a rather arrogant attitude, considering most of the countries interested in the jet are the americas closest allies.? I could understand if certain part of the source-code would be kept secret, but this can be regarded as a overkill, especially if the US are supposed to dictate what weapons and upgrades that are compatible in the future.
can you name another major product (cisco IOS, junOS, windows OS platforms, etc) ... where source code is provided along with the product itself?

i understand the differences in comparison of the products i listed, but why should it be automatically assumed that firmware level/source-code be provided?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just a heads up, this isn't an F-35 thread. Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss the F-35, source code availability, and customer concerns, please do so in the appropriate thread.
 

Sarkozy

New Member
can you name another major product (cisco IOS, junOS, windows OS platforms, etc) ... where source code is provided along with the product itself?

i understand the differences in comparison of the products i listed, but why should it be automatically assumed that firmware level/source-code be provided?
defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/general-f-35-discussion-part-deux-10440
 

arrrow

Banned Member

Got any proof for that claim? You have until 07 July to back up that post or you'll be banned for 2 weeks.


ı proof it
WE SET AİRCRAFTS and WE CAN REMOTE CONTROL AND DOWN ANY AİRCRAFT.

United States Generals said thıs word not me..And Alvin Toffler write what U.S Generals said

PRECEPTOR I WANT YOU PROOF THERE İSNT ANY CODE FOR REMOTE CONTROL İN JSF MİSSİON COMPUTER AND JSF %100 RELİABLE... İF YOU DONT PROOF İT İN 24 HOUR I WONT VİSİT THIS FORUM.

Mod edit: As indicated previously, citing a source which is actually older than the current JSF aircraft is not proof. The F-35 had not been selected at the time the book cited was written, nevermind design and selection of mission systems. Additionally, back chat to the Mod Team is not something considered acceptable. As for visiting the forum, posting privileges are hereby suspended for 2 weeks. Assuming the Ban is not made permanent, upon the end of the Ban, clear proof of your remote control claim will need to be made within 24 hours of the end of the Ban, otherwise the Ban will be made permanent.
-Preceptor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top