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

[funtz]

Agree, one was clearly designed for a VLO mission concept, the other clearly does not - it's a class b runway capable platform with some LO features.

This is very confusing to our (civilian and layman) eyes, from certain aspects it seems to be a plane with a lot of signature management, at least a lot more than what we see in current generation of planes (euro deltas, J-10s, Su-3X,F-16 block-XX, F-15, F-18 e/f etc.)
Is it a absolute design issue, as in one has to cater to all aspects of the design to be a VLO platform?

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is very confusing to our (civilian and layman) eyes, from certain aspects it seems to be a plane with a lot of signature management, at least a lot more than what we see in current generation of planes (euro deltas, J-10s, Su-3X,F-16 block-XX, F-15, F-18 e/f etc.)

I disagree to the extent that exterior design is but a subset of 5th generation design concepts. the bulk of 5th gen capability refers to issues such as sensor fusion, inherent sensor fusion, force sympathy issues, I'd argue that anyone just doing an assessment based on architectural similarities is missing the point

external design features such as wing shape, wing loading, wing design, etc really dumb the argument down

Is it a absolute design issue, as in one has to cater to all aspects of the design to be a VLO platform?

all platforms are a compromise.

but a non asymmetrical (offset) fixed IRST, FOD ejectors etc are not design traits that are VLO sympathetic features.

is it LO capable? I have no doubt that its a magnitude of difference compared to previous designs. is it VLO? No. against the bulk of what russia might see as in their threat matrix - I have no doubt that it's effective. Is it leading edge 5th gen? No. In a system of systems construct where is the rest of the force structure that a 5th gen asset would be working with?

you can't divorce the other force effectiveness issues and platform effectiveness issues in these debates - but you can certainly see the design intent issues. when they are so glaringly visible and apparent.

at the end of the day platforms are designed around what's referred to as CONOPs - Concept of Operations. Thats what platforms are designed around, what they are ultimately assessed on. They either fit the national doctrine, or they don't.

The PAK-FA may well be perfectly adequate for Russian future force reqs, but that has no bearing on whether it was designed to be a 5th gen solution against extant (comparative) standards

 

[StevoJH]

The PAK-FA may well be perfectly adequate for Russian future force reqs, but that has no bearing on whether it was designed to be a 5th gen solution against extant (comparative) standards

Would I be right in assuming that the Russian requirements would be aimed at the Chinese and former USSR Member states rather then Western European and US new generation systems?

Which would mean that the PAK-FA would be designed around beating the equipment it is replacing rather then beating the F-22 or F-35?

 

[Scorpion82]

The Russians are simply following a different approach. They don't have the cash and experience in stealth designs and subsequently try to make the best out of their situation. The requirements are certainly different and there are trade offs. The Russians trade some stealth for performance and rough field operations as well as costs. I wouldn't discount the PAK FA as another 4th gen fighter, just because it's not as stealthy as an F-22 or F-35. It's the Russian approach to the 5th generation, whether you like it or not doesn't matter.

 

[Feanor]

Allow me to elaborate somewhat. The PAK-FA is a multi-role high-end fighter that will be the replacement for the Su-27/35, and potentially the MiG-31. It's goal is to provide an order of magnitude superiority over 4th generation fighters from surrounding countries, as well as to offer an inexpensive next-gen solution to the international market (basically a follow on the Su-30MK). The bulk of the VVS will still be made up of older platforms, modernized Su-25s, MiG-35s, and Su-34.

 

[Haavarla]

gf0012-aust;198594]"Thats a new one.." ?? Are you serious? Have you not looked at the design profile and intent of the Mig-29/3nn class/family? Guess what - it's been a soviet/russian design philosophy to operate out of less prepared and unprepared strips for years. That's what large undercarriages, large wheels and FOD ejectors are designed for....

So, I gather you're going to take my earlier commentary badly without actually understanding why it was said in the first place.

so before you decide to get all frothy and try to polarise the debate into some idiotic east vs west debate lests narrow it down quickly.

the russian undercarriage and FOD indicates a design imperative to operate out of less prepared strips - atypically these are referred to as Class B airstrips and runways because their final finish is rough.

Its a well known issue so I'm unsure as to why you are compelled to take the above barely controlled response.

So, to paraphrase your previous, "Let me guess" - you knew that the F-22 and YF-23 are obviously not designed for Class B runways?

IOW, the design as usual is based on russian design philosophy to operate out of less/well prepared locations - its a doctrine/CONOPS issue

and if you'd read and understood my comments prev then you would have seen that it was the underlying foundation for my response. CREF all above

so apart from the throw away commentary by all and sundry on the internet that the engines and cockpit could be revised (all non trivial tasks and all requiring major testing as if effects handling, sensor issues etc....) you're accepting that the platform will be visually unchanged? I'd suggest not - unless they've decided that this is an interim class (Chinese development philosophy). Sonehow I don't think this is an interim,

and what has that got to do with a deliberate design intent of large wheels, robust undercarriage and FOD ejectors? You think they will design them out and effectively have to redesign the plane again? Its not a trivial task. Feel free to point out any russian/soviet design that went from one class of carriage to another as part of design development.

Easy gf0012-aust.
I know all about the Soviet/Russian FOD and beefed up landing gear design approach.
Infact much better than a Certain USAF officer which managed to make an ass of him self.

What i never heard before is your classification(Class A/B) of this.
Is this a Russian classification or a western(LM) one?

If one considers the reality of the design "quite a bird" means what? Lets turn off the fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc and try to keep it realistic debate

.

Heey, you are way out of line here mr!

So by me calling it 'quite a bird'.
It just so turns out as 'fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc'

I'm not interested in aspirational woulda coulda shoulda debates. I'm interested in the actual design features and their development potential.

Fine.
I know you are a senior poster/member on this forum. But When i'm posting something i'm not particullary concerned in what you are interesting in.
If you disagree with another poster, pls do not call them ''fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc'!

ditto. I suggest that you pause before jumping and defending the platform and read what people are actually saying, not reacting badly because you have a soft spot for russian gear and have a need to defend it.

logic trumps emotion everytime.

If you are unsure about my question/remark, just ask me to clarify.
I'm not the one getting emotional here..


Thanks

 

[Haavarla]

This is the Estimated 16th test flight of this T-50-01.
Makes me wonder if its true.
Is it just me.. i think its a bit premature to do demonstation/airobatic stunts like seen here with a prototype that only done 16th test flight so far..?

And gf0012-aust.
Judging by the visual performance of this prototype it looks like it would
fall into the catagory of:
'quite a bird'.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7aJJixsUg&feature=related[/nomedia]

 

[Haavarla]

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the quote I posted. I don't know what the similarities are, but clealry some people who know about aircraft see them (or the quote wouldn't have been made):

Yes i know moahunter.
To me, people who are claiming all the similarities between the
YF-23 and T-50 are just plain wrong.

There are many different features here, like seen from a top view. The Wing and the blended body, and the airframe body itself are different.
The Canted stabs are different. The underside with the airduct and jet nozzles are different.
The variable LERX was not seen on the YF-23.

What are the similarities
"Oh, it's a total ripoff. They stole the idea of having 2 engines, the idea of having 2 canted tail fins, the idea of having a pilot sitting near the front, the idea of tricycle landing gear, the idea of grey paint, etc etc"



Thanks

 

[moahunter]

^well if nothing else, maybe people can agree that its a beautiful aircraft? I just watched that Youtube video with the low altitude aerobatics. I have no idea how this plane will ultimately compare. I do think I see your point that it is still an evolution of Russian aircraft rather than a Western copy as there is still a bit of SU-27 in the look.

The big unknown to me is whether or not the Russians are going to be able to start catching up in the electronics. I don't think its impossible that will happen eventually, given how many bright mathematical minds there are in Russia (not to mention places like India), and that everyone has access to computer power now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Easy gf0012-aust.
I know all about the Soviet/Russian FOD and beefed up landing gear design approach.
Infact much better than a Certain USAF officer which managed to make an ass of him self.

I'm glad, because the design philosophy is a direct link to the russian CONOPS

What i never heard before is your classification(Class A/B) of this.
Is this a Russian classification or a western(LM) one?

rating of runways and airfields is actually an international standard. they atypically use it in determining the capability for aircraft transports landing in unprepared sites - or sites that have less than full furniture for traffic control

.
Heey, you are way out of line here mr!

So by me calling it 'quite a bird'.
It just so turns out as 'fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc'

I'm not referring to you as a fanboi - I am deliberately referring to the inane chatter that you usually see accompanying youtube posts. You're getting offended when there was no intention of having a shot at you

I know you are a senior poster/member on this forum. But When i'm posting something i'm not particullary concerned in what you are interesting in.
If you disagree with another poster, pls do not call them ''fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc'!

CREF above.

If you are unsure about my question/remark, just ask me to clarify.
I'm not the one getting emotional here..

CREF above - I would however say that if there is a loss in translation then your initial comment about a new classification (runways) and your shots at western aircraft have not helped the perception that you reacted emotionally.

If you have an issue with me then you can always continue to PM me. The fact that you feel that I have slighted you seems to me to be a pretty solid sign that there is a comms break when I thought my comments were patently clear

I repeat, I have not and do not regard you as a fanboi etc... but I think there is merit in looking at your first response to me re my comment on class B strips.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And gf0012-aust.
Judging by the visual performance of this prototype it looks like it would
fall into the catagory of:
'quite a bird'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7aJJixsUg&feature=related

visual performance is not an indication of capability.

need I remind you of how the Cobra/Kobra manouvre was touted as an indication of platform capability?

manouvre means squat when the AAM enters your NEZ and can still turn at 35G whilst the best the pilot can do before he blacks out is 11G (assuming that he's wearing a modern SAAB/American/UK type G suit)

Most platforms have frame stress alerts squawking at 7G and prev gen G suits start to lose effectiveness at 9G.

tech analysis is about science and engineering limits - not emotion and what "looks good"

 

[Haavarla]

gf0012-aust;198668]visual performance is not an indication of capability.

need I remind you of how the Cobra/Kobra manouvre was touted as an indication of platform capability?

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.

manouvre means squat when the AAM enters your NEZ and can still turn at 35G whilst the best the pilot can do before he blacks out is 11G (assuming that he's wearing a modern SAAB/American/UK type G suit)

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

tech analysis is about science and engineering limits - not emotion and what "looks good"

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

 

[Haavarla]

Would I be right in assuming that the Russian requirements would be aimed at the Chinese and former USSR Member states rather then Western European and US new generation systems?

Which would mean that the PAK-FA would be designed around beating the equipment it is replacing rather then beating the F-22 or F-35?

I don't think the RuAF next generation fighter requirements springs out from what the Chinese and former USSR Member states are fielding to day or in the future.

The RuAF requirements evolve around the fact that they need a new fighter with new capabilities.
I don't think the RuAF 5 gen requirements aim at beating the F-22 in all aspect.
Don't pay attention to politician spoksmen like Putin and Co.
They don't have any clue, just using the media for what its worth.

If you pay more attention to what Mr. Pogo says, he does not mention the F-22 as a direct adversery.
But interesting enough he state it is a 5th gen fighter

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzdnrk92eU&feature=related[/nomedia].

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL56LFklax8&feature=related[/nomedia]

If the Russian and US 5th gen requirements are different so be it.
US might claim it doesn't forfill all the requirements for a 5th gen fighter.
Whose right i'm not sure..
Doesn't really matter, its all part of manufactors advertizing their product..

But i believe the T-50 comes with more bang for the bucks than anything we seen before.



Thanks

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

are you serious?

was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...

you cannot even remotely start to make claims about any platforms performance without knowing what the load out config was and what the intended profile was. simple things like AoA have a whole new meaning when the aircraft is on combat load and fully fueled up etc....

I'm sure that you've been on other forums where kids think that performance is defined by max mach, that supersonic cruise missiles are better than subsonic cruise missiles etc etc.... in isolation it's meaningless. or the classic is the number of kids who stated that the inlet movable FOD blockers were actually RAM coated signal deflectors. (not the FOD ejectors, the FOD blockers). All those "experts" re the RAM coated inlets obviously don't know much about the history and development of FOD management

OTOH, you can start to identify design intent when you see fixed IRST, linear intakes, FOD ejectors etc....

 

[Haavarla]

gf0012-aust;198803]are you serious?

was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...

You know as well as i do, when fighter aircraft doing Demonstrations for airshow or VIP persons(potensial customer).
At 90% cases, they use very little fuel, no external/internal weapons(legasy aircraft or not).
One time the F-22A did, but in any case it was flashing its weapons bay for the crowd to see.
Weapons and Dummies can be recongnized from afar(external)..
They usuall get up in a hurry, easy to spot.. just count the runways markers

Just by looking on vids, you can easly see/hear if the AB are used or not.
Actually beeing on an airshow.. well you get the picture.

By this you can actually compair aircraft performance like avrage sustained AoA(360), take-off lenght etc etc cause different fighter aircraft pretty much abide by the same parameters.
Namly Low fuel, no weapons etc etc.

And yes i'm dead serious.
When i'm not i'll let you know in advance.

you cannot even remotely start to make claims about any platforms performance without knowing what the load out config was and what the intended profile was. simple things like AoA have a whole new meaning when the aircraft is on combat load and fully fueled up etc....

Yes i can, its not that hard.
There will allways be some hidden profiles, obvious i can't know the excact amount of fuel.
But Fuel weight hampers performance, so no point in taking off with a normal take-off weight is it?

I'm sure that you've been on other forums where kids think that performance is defined by max mach, that supersonic cruise missiles are better than subsonic cruise missiles etc etc.... in isolation it's meaningless. or the classic is the number of kids who stated that the inlet movable FOD blockers were actually RAM coated signal deflectors. (not the FOD ejectors, the FOD blockers). All those "experts" re the RAM coated inlets obviously don't know much about the history and development of FOD management

I'm not sure what to respond here..
I don't care what 'Kids on youtube or elsewhere claims .
I'm not drawing my knowledge from 'kids'.. so why the remark

OTOH, you can start to identify design intent when you see fixed IRST, linear intakes, FOD ejectors etc....

I'm not sure if this T-50 has any FOD screens that resembles the Flanker series or if it has some sort of adjusteble spoiler to improve the engines high-speed performance.

The movable LERX has nothing to do with aiding the airflow of the engines, only as control surface.
One can clearly see how the Movable LERX supplementing the other control surfaces when doing high-alpha turns seen on the pics bellow.

There seems to be some sort of device inside to air-intake, which can be lowered..
I'll see if i can find the pic again.

Let me just serve you folks a little something from Pilot strizhi.info:
Did i say it look like a beauty
I must say it looks hotter and more different to other fighter aircraft as more pics keep coming in.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You know as well as i do, when fighter aircraft doing Demonstrations for airshow or VIP persons(potensial customer).
At 90% cases, they use very little fuel, no external/internal weapons(legasy aircraft or not).
One time the F-22A did, but in any case it was flashing its weapons bay for the crowd to see.
Weapons and Dummies can be recongnized from afar(external)..
They usuall get up in a hurry, easy to spot.. just count the runways markers

be serious. this is not amateur hour - you obviously get the point, you just don't like hearing it. you do realise that my comments included rhetorical points?

its good to know that we have no idea that it had a dummy load (internal) becasue we can't see it (naturally)

Just by looking on vids, you can easly see/hear if the AB are used or not.
Actually beeing on an airshow.. well you get the picture.

CREF above/ of course you can tell if AB are on - but you're not getting the intent of the message

By this you can actually compair aircraft performance like avrage sustained AoA(360), take-off lenght etc etc cause different fighter aircraft pretty much abide by the same condidions.
Namly Low fuel, no weapons etc etc.

And yes i'm dead serious.
When i'm not i'll let you know in advance.

no, I'm not sure you are serious, you're jousting because you want the plane to be held in respect when nothing has been shown to earn it yet,. nice plane, but zero info yet. don't make it something it isn't. and yes, I know you like russian kit, but you can still try to be professional in your assessments even though you're taking it personally.

you can be as sarcastic as you like, and you can even complain about me again, but it still doesn't alter the fact that its debate content and technical issues being discussed here - and in a proper robust technical manner. when you get serious then I'll change my approach. respect is earnt - not given, engage in considered debate and it will commence - up until then I'll continue to point out the obvious even though you make claims to understanding the very issues that I raise.

Yes i can, its not that hard.
There will allways be some hidden profiles, obvious i can't know the excact amount of fuel.
But Fuel weight hampers performance, so no point in taking off with a normal take-off weight is it?

it's not that hard - and yet you don't seem to gte the intent behind my comments...
eg the onboard fuel effected this performance how? do you know what others don't yet?
what weight differences etc were involved againts known parameters... you just can't compare its take off against other aircraft and videos. thats abject nonsense.

I'm not sure what to respond here..
I don't care what 'Kids on youtube or elsewhere claims .
I'm not drawing my knowledge from 'kids'.. so why the remark

you appear to be taking it personally again when its an academic discussion.

I'm not sure if this T-50 has any FOD screens that resembles the Flanker series or if it has some sort of adjusteble spoiler to improve the engines high-speed performance.

what do you think the screens on the bottom are? what do you think the inlet baffles are? they're not s bend ram coated baffles -as some of the youtube experts have tried to promote (I use youtube because the technical debate on those videos is less than stellar and far from professional input - ie a polarising perspective to add discussion measurement)

The movable LERX has nothing to do with aiding the airflow of the engines, only as control surface.
One can clearly see how the Movable LERX supplementing the other control surfaces when doing high-alpha turns seen on the pics bellow.

when did a FOD rack and an S bend FOD baffle become a LERX? I'm not sure what engineering manual would even remotely think that a LERX is even remotely close to the baffles and racks

you don't need photos to understand this. its engineering 101 - even a non engineer with a basic comprehension of design history of modern jets would know this.

There seems to be some sort of device inside to air-intake, which can be lowered..
I'll see if i can find the pic again.

I know what S bend baffles look like, I know what FOD baffles look like. feel free to find them for your own edification, but I don't actually need additional photos to get qualification on my comments.

Let me just serve you folks a little something from Pilot strizhi.info:
Did i say it look like a beauty
I must say it looks hotter and more different to other fighter aircraft as more pics keep coming in.

yes its a lovely looking jet performing for the audience. its the rubber and road issues that I'm interested in - not how it churns and burns for a crowd.

again, if you don't like my technical debate and feel a need to engage in technical merits issues, I'm more than happy yo have you PM me. It seems to me that you're more interested in having a public defence of the plane that you like rather than listen to technical issues - esp if you perceive them as slights against the air show antics that are supposed to represent tactical capability

 

[Haavarla]

gf0012-aust;198820]

be serious. this is not amateur hour - you obviously get the point, you just don't like hearing it. you do realise that my comments included rhetorical points?

I don't see why you continuing with rhetorical points, yet you it seems to expect an answer..
When i answer you, this is what i get.
pls try to be more specific about what i don't like hearing
And stop generalize eveything i'v said.
pls Show your fellow posters some respect, or you will get non in return

CREF above/ of course you can tell if AB are on - but you're not getting the intent of the message

was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?

etc etc...

Now you lost me..
What is your message here?

no, I'm not sure you are serious, you're jousting because you want the plane to be held in respect when nothing has been shown to earn it yet,. nice plane, but zero info yet. don't make it something it isn't. and yes, I know you like russian kit, but you can still try to be professional in your assessments even though you're taking it personally.

No i'm not making this prototype into something its not..
Pls show me where i did just that?
Zero info is not excactly true is it?
Sukhoi has shared some info on engines(current engine).
If the first batch will feature the IRBIS radar.
Then we have atleast some idea of what to expect from this radar.
It is not certain the first operational Pak-Fa will get any AESA radars.
We have to wait and see how the Russian AESA radar development progress.

I'm not sure what other info you expect anytime soon regarding this prototype.
LM didn't put out much info on the YF-22/F-22 when they still where on the development stage.
And still its much we still don't know.
So if you expect other posters on this forum to only post reveled info on the T-50, this thread will not see much news..

If its against this forum rules to post some pics or vids from aircraft without sharing specs that is impossible to come by, just say so.

you can be as sarcastic as you like, and you can even complain about me again, but it still doesn't alter the fact that its debate content and technical issues being discussed here - and in a proper robust technical manner. when you get serious then I'll change my approach. respect is earnt - not given, engage in considered debate and it will commence - up until then I'll continue to point out the obvious even though you make claims to understanding the very issues that I raise.

With all due respect mr, your first reply was nothing but sarcastic.
It contain several uncalled remarks, and i stand by my complain.
Isn't a fellow member on this forum allowed to complain if he feel a reason for it.?

Why cant you PM me instead regarding my complain about you, and not discuss it here on the open, it doesn't seem fair since you beeing a Moderator on this forum..

it's not that hard - and yet you don't seem to gte the intent behind my comments...
eg the onboard fuel effected this performance how?
do you know what others don't yet?
what weight differences etc were involved againts known parameters... you just can't compare its take off against other aircraft and videos. thats abject nonsense.

I was talking about aircraft on air shows in particular.
They use wery little internal fuel, do you dispute that?
Infact so little fuel they can't fly off to other airports, only to cover the planned flight time.

you appear to be taking it personally again when its an academic discussion.

That is your point of view, not mine..

what do you think the screens on the bottom are? what do you think the inlet baffles are? they're not s bend ram coated baffles -as some of the youtube experts have tried to promote (I use youtube because the technical debate on those videos is less than stellar and far from professional input - ie a polarising perspective to add discussion measurement)

The screens at the bottom are for optimizing the airflow to the engines.
If you use youtube as a perspective measurments thats your choice, but i don't see the revelence to this debate.

when did a FOD rack and an S bend FOD baffle become a LERX? I'm not sure what engineering manual would even remotely think that a LERX is even remotely close to the baffles and racks.

I was only pointing out that some folks have speculated that those movable LERX could be used to shield the farward compressor fan.
My point is that its not.

again, if you don't like my technical debate and feel a need to engage in technical merits issues, I'm more than happy yo have you PM me. It seems to me that you're more interested in having a public defence of the plane that you like rather than listen to technical issues - esp if you perceive them as slights against the air show antics that are supposed to represent tactical capability.

How can i defend something that we know so little about?
Have i compaired it vs any other aircraft? No.
To show some entusiasm is not the same as beeing nationalistic or biased.

And pls keep in mind there are other posters on this forum.
Perhaps they enjoy some of my post, that beeing vids or pics.
In the future i might post some more clip or pics.

If i have a question, i will ask about it.
If i want to debate tactical capability, i'll do so out of my own leisure.
Again, airshow and tactic is not the same thing. I have not claimed so eighter.
I was only stating that it is possible to measure different performance between different aircraft.
I'm talking about kenetick performance.
Not BVR capability etc etc.



Thanks

 

[Bonza]

Give it a rest please, Haarvala. This whole thing started because GF made a comment about "class B runways" which you misunderstood, and considering your own posts I don't know why you're acting the innocent victim here. I don't ask that you agree with me or like what I have to say, but I do ask that you please stop, because this is going nowhere.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

hello haavarla here are some pictures for you

 

[Sarkozy]

Give it a rest please, Haarvala. This whole thing started because GF made a comment about "class B runways" which you misunderstood, and considering your own posts I don't know why you're acting the innocent victim here. I don't ask that you agree with me or like what I have to say, but I do ask that you please stop, because this is going nowhere.

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...

both the F-22 and Pak-Fa will mainly use class b runways