Russian Raptor First Flight
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8487026.st...
Longer footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxWZiSdWvns&NR=...
Longer footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxWZiSdWvns&NR=...
Edited by pacman1 on Monday 1st February 03:53
Given that paint plays a significant part in such aircraft being 'stealthy', what's with all that yellow paint on the nose, tailplanes and intakes? Does colour only matter for visual camoflague? Were they making it look pretty for the cameras? In contrast, I've only seen the Raptor as grey on grey in grey, with added extra grey..
pacman1 said:
Given that paint plays a significant part in such aircraft being 'stealthy', what's with all that yellow paint on the nose, tailplanes and intakes? Does colour only matter for visual camoflague? Were they making it look pretty for the cameras? In contrast, I've only seen the Raptor as grey on grey in grey, with added extra grey..
Given that it's a prototype on its first test flight, it won't be fully painted and many parts will be in primer or unpainted. Here's the latest Hawk variant caught in the nude:http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/BAE-System...
and the Typhoon:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germany---Air/Eurof...
Interesting mix of F-22, SU-27 and MiG-29 in that new Russian aircraft - is it too early to have a NATO reporting name?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0yd6no7B4
It will probably be slightly stealthy but those huge round jet exhausts and it's IR "bubble" aren't going to help with that.
Still - good effort by the Russians. Expected deployment 2015. By then NATO should have issued a suitable name.
It will probably be slightly stealthy but those huge round jet exhausts and it's IR "bubble" aren't going to help with that.
Still - good effort by the Russians. Expected deployment 2015. By then NATO should have issued a suitable name.
Makes you wonder what approach the Russians have taken with developing it - From what I've read the ground crews for western stealth aircraft are pretty skilled and quite specialised, and historically Russian stuff is more of if you have a hammer you can fix it. It'd be interesting to know if they've managed to transfer that robustness into stealth technology.
shouldbworking said:
Makes you wonder what approach the Russians have taken with developing it - From what I've read the ground crews for western stealth aircraft are pretty skilled and quite specialised, and historically Russian stuff is more of if you have a hammer you can fix it. It'd be interesting to know if they've managed to transfer that robustness into stealth technology.
prbably stole the western blueprints and bodged one together which they will sell to middle east and africa cheap and make a fotune. ah well.ErnestM said:
What will be more interesting is to see if they can adapt their tactics more to stealth technology. The Russians were known for massive ground control of all of their aircraft and stealth is more of a "hands off" way to fight.
Just MHO
The fighters controlled by NORAD and the like defending north american aerospace were just as tied into the ground controllers. Everything the russians did during the cold war was belittled and under represented and you never did read about how capable some of the hardware really was. Most of the kit that was evaluated was the cheap versions made for export.Just MHO
The Americans pretty much laughed at the Mig-23 yet when the Isreallis started to fly some captured ones they got very worried about letting early F-16s anywhere near them.
Anyway the Russians have some brilliant aeronautical engineers and some very very clever electrical engineers so Im sure this will work well, not as good as the F-22 perhaps as nowhere near the same amount of money will have been thrown at this.
Looks to be similar sized to the Su-27 so probably massive range, uses the same undercarriage by the looks of it too, the rear boom is larger in diameter than the flanker so possibly has a rear facing radar inbuilt? Was offered as an option on some flankers so not impossible. Prototype was supposed to use the Saturn 117s from the latest flankers which is able to put out 20,000lbs of thrust but the engines built specially for it should be capable of close to 25,000lbs dry. The engines used in the Typhoon put out 20,000lbs of thrust in reheat.
Russia is to get 200 and 50 twin seat ones. India is to get 200 twin seat and 50 single seat ground attack versions.
Should be interesting.
Mr Dave said:
Everything the russians did during the cold war was belittled and under represented and you never did read about how capable some of the hardware really was. Most of the kit that was evaluated was the cheap versions made for export.
The AA-11 Archer (R73) missile came as a bit of a shock to the west when Germany reunited and inherited some former GDR Mig-29s. It far outclassed anything in western service at the time, and lead to the development of the current agile dogfighting missiles.Mr Dave said:
not as good as the F-22 perhaps as nowhere near the same amount of money will have been thrown at this.
As good old Uncle Joe Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own"I wonder what kind of kill ratio a F22 would have against one of these Russki versions
Edited by Lost soul on Saturday 30th January 19:35
Lost soul said:
Mr Dave said:
not as good as the F-22 perhaps as nowhere near the same amount of money will have been thrown at this.
As good old Uncle Joe Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own"I wonder what kind of kill ratio a F22 would have against one of these Russki versions
Edited by Lost soul on Saturday 30th January 19:35
I am intrigued by this aircraft, been thinking about it all night in work.
It has what looks like very good stealth properties from the front even although it is a protoype, the production version will probably have a stealtier cockpit,IR tracker etc.
It has a much lower side profile than the F-22 which means from the side it should be very stealthy as well. This is allowed in part by the 3-D vectored engines.
From the rear, stealth has gone slightly out of the window, widely spaced large and very powerful engines which arent exactly stealthy. Stealth seems to have been made second priority after agility.
I reckon the thought behind it is that if you are that close for stealth from the rear to be important, the IR signature is going to give you away anyway so if another fighter is behind you then getting out of harms way is more important than stealth. The large rear boom could be fitted with all sorts of ECM (russian ECM is pretty good aswell) or even the rearward facing radar fitted to the Su-37 demonstrator, to help in this sort of situation.
I think it will be very capable in a "dogfight" with the 3-D thrust vectoring, part moving LERXs, helmet mounted targeting and all the other bits and pieces the more modern russian fighters have.
I so hope they call it a "firefox".
It has what looks like very good stealth properties from the front even although it is a protoype, the production version will probably have a stealtier cockpit,IR tracker etc.
It has a much lower side profile than the F-22 which means from the side it should be very stealthy as well. This is allowed in part by the 3-D vectored engines.
From the rear, stealth has gone slightly out of the window, widely spaced large and very powerful engines which arent exactly stealthy. Stealth seems to have been made second priority after agility.
I reckon the thought behind it is that if you are that close for stealth from the rear to be important, the IR signature is going to give you away anyway so if another fighter is behind you then getting out of harms way is more important than stealth. The large rear boom could be fitted with all sorts of ECM (russian ECM is pretty good aswell) or even the rearward facing radar fitted to the Su-37 demonstrator, to help in this sort of situation.
I think it will be very capable in a "dogfight" with the 3-D thrust vectoring, part moving LERXs, helmet mounted targeting and all the other bits and pieces the more modern russian fighters have.
I so hope they call it a "firefox".
simonrockman said:
I'm disappointed that they boast about how cost effective it is, not higher, faster, longer range, better weapons. The whole world is being run by accountants.
Although the cheaper it is, the more you can have of them - like Shermans vs Panzers - and sometimes sheer numbers beat technology.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff