So the Russians decide to build a stealth fighter...

[froobyone]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14568093

 

I nearly spat my coffee when I saw the clip.

 

So Sukoi sat down and said, "We going to make a stealth fighter." and someone else said, "What should it look like?"

"Ooo, I don't know." said the first guy and another guy sniggered and said "Why don't we copy that?" and got out his Top Trumps Planes F22 card.

 

Admitedly there are differences, the engines are much wider and although that version looks like it lacks any thrust vectoring, the actual engines, once developed probaby will have. It also looks bigger.

 

I got to talking to one of my friends about this today and we couldn't decide if there was any sort of copywrite protection for military hardware.

 

Knowing as I do, the Russians propensity of reverse engineering western technology. I site the B29/Tu-4 and the Rolls Royce Nene Jet engines we generously licensed to them, that they then RE'd into the the engine that powered the Mig15, which, if my knowledge of hisory prevails, was used against us in Korea. o.O

 

Even Stalin is quoted as saying, "What fool will sell us his secrets?" Us, apparently..

 

You could argue that the Russians are just as technologicaly advanced as the rest of us, but I have trouble with that. If only because their SST the Tu144 looked rather like another "Speebird", their "Buran" Space Shuttle is, at a glance, a dead ringer and more reverse engineering with the Sidewinder/AA2 Atoll air to air missile. These are only a few cases, I admit, but two of them are arguably two of the greatest achievments of mankind.

 

I'm not Russian bashing, I just think it's a really strange way of doing things.

 

I'm sure we have reverse engineered things of our own and I'm probably just not aware of it.

 

Apart from the Jerry Can of course...

[Legend]

Our stealth fighters are better. From 2016 we are going to have an aircraft carrier on which there appear to be no aircraft at all. Talk about Stealth! Damned cunning plan ....what?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

It is easy to accuse the Russians of 'stealing' ideas from the west but Sukhoi have produced some really good designs of their own.

 

The biggest surprise was the Russians use of a HUD to launch missiles on a 'look at it and squeeze the button' for auto lock. That technology was swiftly adopted by the Americans and was by all reports vastly superior to anything the west had at the time.

 

I think what you see is the undeniable fact that if you need to design a machine that does a specific task using known technology and similar engineering techniques, you will end up with something that looks much the same whoever designed it.

 

To be candid and in general terms, all steam engines look pretty much the same as well

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA project has been going on for a while and was actually first started BEFORE the F-22, so it is just coincidence that they look the same. They already have 2 prototypes in flight testing.

 

The T-50 airframe is bigger than the F-22 because you need space between the engines for the 360^o thrust vectoring, which the prototype aircraft does have and so will the production aircraft. This type of vectoring is much more agile than the pitch vectoring that the F-22 has, meaning overall the T-50 will be more agile than the F-22. The Stealth capabilities are going to be approxmately the same, but the T-50 will be more agile, which is what you want in a dogfight

 

We may think that the Russians are inferior in engineering terms to the rest of us, but they are on par, the Su-35 is a perfect example, it was the first production jet to us 360^o thrust vectoring. The engines of Russian Jets are so well built that they are the only engines in the world capable of tail sliding, which is basically reversing vertically in the air, western jets don't tolerate air passing through them backwards.

 

The European military air industry is in fact behind, because we haven't developed a 5th Generation Fighter, the US has 2 (the F-22 and F-35, which is going to a couple of years before the Royal Navy and Air Force get theres), the Russians 1 (The T-50 PAK FA) and the Chinese 1 (The J-20). The closest europe has to a 5th generation fighter, is the Eurofighter (which is a 4th ++ generation aircraft) in use with the Luftwaffe, Royal Airforce, Spanish Air Force, Swiss Air Force, Saudi Aribian Air Force and maybe the Idian Airforce or the Lockheed Martin F-16 'Block 50' (another 4th ++ Generation aircraft) in use with the Italian Air Force.

 

But I would say that the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is the best aircraft out of those, but not by much.

 

Simon

[trisonic]

The Russian airforce brass have bigger hats too.

 

 

Best, Pete.

[froobyone]

The engines of Russian Jets are so well built that they are the only engines in the world capable of tail sliding, which is basically reversing vertically in the air, western jets don't tolerate air passing through them backwards.

 

Just to correct you there on an otherwise very informative post. The F22 can in fact tailslide also.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=judo212eSA4

 

Also, the design fo the T-50 didn't start until 2002, it was the Mig 1.44 and the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut that were the prototypes that preceeded it. Neither looked much like the F22, though the Berkut had a similar forward swept wing, as seen on the X-29.

[woodenhead]

The question is why this is being developed at a time when the Americans (and British) are entering into 6th generation pilotless prototypes.

 

It seems to me the only reason Russia is developing this is because India is pushing/paying for it and there will be an export market to those who the Americans cannot sell stealth aircraft to.

 

Stealth aircraft are attack aircraft, you need them to penetrate high threat environments protected by missile sites, the ability to dogfight is nice I suppose but that is so WW2. If your enemy is able to get so close that you are in a dogfight then the Stealth cannot be that effective.

 

India only perceives a threat from one country, it's neighbour Pakistan, why do they want 200 aircraft capable of penetrating highly protected airspace, do they sense a collapse in the political regime, do they feel a need to be able to take out certain assets and is there perhaps a secret paymaster somewhere circumventing it's own laws to ensure certain technologies stay out of the wrong hands.

[froobyone]

That's an interesting point Woodenhead. The Americans have said the F22/F35 will be the last manned combat aircraft, what comes after will be unmanned combat drones.

 

Indeed stealth cabability is geared mainly towards incursion into to enemy territory. I hadn't thought about the implications of why India would need that. I don't know if the PAK will have an air to ground mode, I know the F22 was originaly envisioned to be a mud mover, but it was then redesigned from the YF22 to the current air superiority fighter spec. It could probably end up being an air to ground platform, as they turned the F14's into Bombcats for the Gulf War.

 

I imagine Pakistan aren't very happy about it.

[St. Simon]

The question is why this is being developed at a time when the Americans (and British) are entering into 6th generation pilotless prototypes.

 

Hi,

 

Actually, 6th generation fighter aircraft have not been even designed, the current UAV's (unmanned Aerial Vehicle) are only for intelligence purposes. The British, in fact the whole of europe, is yet to develop a 5th generation aircraft.

 

 

Just to correct you there on an otherwise very informative post. The F22 can in fact tailslide also.

 

Also, the design fo the T-50 didn't start until 2002, it was the Mig 1.44 and the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut that were the prototypes that preceeded it. Neither looked much like the F22, though the Berkut had a similar forward swept wing, as seen on the X-29.

 

Sorry, I didn't belive that the F-22 could, but obviously I'm wrong!

 

Fair enough, I must have my facts mixed up, but the charateristics for stealth are the same so it isn't surprising that the PAK FA looks the the same as the F-22

 

Simon

[melmerby]

Our stealth fighters are better. From 2016 we are going to have an aircraft carrier on which there appear to be no aircraft at all. Talk about Stealth! Damned cunning plan ....what?

 

I thought we are going for a stealth aircraft carrier as well, not only will the enemy not see any aircraft, we won't even know where the carrier is!

 

Keith

[Adrian Wintle]

The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA project has been going on for a while and was actually first started BEFORE the F-22, so it is just coincidence that they look the same. They already have 2 prototypes in flight testing.

 

Considering that the competition between the YF-22 and YF-23 was in 1991, the first flight of the F-22 was in 1997, and the detailed design of the T-50 seems to have kicked off in 2002 (selection of Sukhoi as the design lead), I really doubt that there wasn't a bit of "oh, that looks interesting, let's try it..." involved in the design. As well as the F-22, the T-50 does seem to have some similarities to the YF-23. That being said, with the current materials and technology, solutions to similar requirements tend to look similar. You just have to look at airliners, low wings with 2 engines under them is the preferred solution once engine reliability reached a certain level - I did the math on this as part of an aircraft design course at university in the mid-'80s.

 

foobyone - As far as I remember, the F-22 was always intended to be an F-15 replacement in the air superiority role, with stealth and supercruise. That was certainly the focus of the competition between the YF-22 and the YF-23. The ability to add air-ground capability was designed in much later.

 

I did have a little interaction with both the F-22 and the F-35 projects in my previous role as an avionics software designer and tester.

 

Adrian

[froobyone]

Adrian- I'm probably getting mixed up, but I thought I'd remembered the main stores bay being big enough for bomb racks and JDAMS on the YF22, but I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong.

 

Probably didn't help that all the F22 simulators out in the 90's had you flying Air-to-ground missions too. These were Lightning IIs 9based on the YF22) and not Raptors. It may have been artistic licence from the game developers. I don't know, but I know that playing F22 Total Air War consumed more of my 20s then I care to admit publicly. I remember doing a mission in real time that required me to meet up with a tanker twice, once on the out leg and on the return. Searching for a KC135 at night, after 10 minutes of Betty calling out "Bingo fuel, bingo fuel," was enough to get the old ticker racing, nevermind actually merging with it and waiting to hear "fuel flows".

 

I can see the argument for "best design practice" and as you say, things with similar roles have similar shapes, unless Burt Rutan is involved, in which case it will look nothing like you could even imagine. Sometimes, not even like a plane at all. I love the way he sees things.

 

I think we may come to look at these Generation 5 aircraft with misty eyes one day, when our skies are filled with drones. Airshows are going to be weird.

[Horsetan]

Whatever reverse engineering has been employed by the Russians is probably going to be overtaken by the Chinese.....

[Adrian Wintle]

Adrian- I'm probably getting mixed up, but I thought I'd remembered the main stores bay being big enough for bomb racks and JDAMS on the YF22, but I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong.

 

That may have been the case, but I also recall that there was an extra development effort somewhere down the line to certify a launch mechanism for guided and self-propelled air-ground munitions (doors had to stay open longer, munitions had to be ejected, munitions had to not tumble and hit the aircraft, etc...)

 

I was quite aware of the project since I was involved in 1995 (prep work) and in 1999-2000 (software validation). I spent the time in between working on telecom stuff, though.

 

Adrian

[froobyone]

Adrian- That must have been such interesting work to do, I envy you. Are you still in aerospace?

 

In my mind, I was cutting the Russians a little slack and thinking maybe they do come to the same designs independantly. But then, while I was researching Gen 6 and Gen 6 aircraft I came across this.

 

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

 

Look like anything familiar? Only a concept pic, obviously, I believe the actual proposal has forward canards, but still...

[Adrian Wintle]

Adrian- That must have been such interesting work to do, I envy you. Are you still in aerospace?

 

Unfortunately, no. The company I work for no longer provides support in that area, so I have been dealing with healtcare software since the beginning of 2007. Between 1988 and 2006 (with about 4 years of hiatus in telecom), I was involved in avionics software for the aforementioned fighters, a couple of military transports, and a bunch of airliners. One of my team leads did work on a system that flew operationally on the SR-71 - I was jealous.

 

Adrian

[woodenhead]

Actually, 6th generation fighter aircraft have not been even designed, the current UAV's (unmanned Aerial Vehicle) are only for intelligence purposes. The British, in fact the whole of europe, is yet to develop a 5th generation aircraft.

 

Current UAVs are nothing special, we don't/won't know what else has been developed in America for some time as they will be black projects, but here is a taster of what the British are looking at:

http://www.baesystems.com/Taranis/

 

Some American words on the topic:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20071026.aspx

http://www.slashgear.com/the-air-force-is-aiming-for-pilot-less-next-generation-fighter-planes-08112911/

 

The pilotless drones are developing fast, I can see why Europe wouldn't want the expense of developing a proper 5th generation fighter because by the time it took to the skies it would be out of date.

 

As an example of why we wouldn't know about technologies being developed - the F117 Stealth Fighter was conceived in 1975, first flew in 1981, went operational in 1983 but only became public knowledge in 1988 - 13 years after the project was conceived, there could be weapons being tested in Afghanistan that we won't see for years.

[298]

Just to prove NATO does have a sense of humour, they nicknamed the MiG MFI "Flatpack"...

 

As for reverse engineering, I'd have liked to have seen what the US made of the Ekranoplan after finally working out what the wrongly put together oversized Airfix kits actually were.

[BoD]

I don't know what all the excitement is about. We've had a stealth plane for years.

 

[froobyone]

Ironically, the silhouette of an F22 if I'm not mistaken.

[St. Simon]

 

The swiss haven't bought any, though they have been evaluated.

 

Hi,

 

Sorry, I meant the Austrian Air Force

 

Very good photo there BoD!

 

Simon

[Baby Deltic]

Our stealth fighters are better. From 2016 we are going to have an aircraft carrier on which there appear to be no aircraft at all. Talk about Stealth! Damned cunning plan ....what?

 

Well, it is after all an aircraft carrier. Maybe the aircraft are indeed made of thin air.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

the current UAV's (unmanned Aerial Vehicle) are only for intelligence purposes.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I believe that the US now has a UAV that can launch a missile. They can certainly laser designate a target for a high flying bomber. It is this that the opposition hate the most although UAV's are relatively easy to shoot down once you see them or until the yanks cottoned on and silenced them, hear them.

 

i was fascinated to learn that these drones can be controlled by a satellite link to a NORAD control room in the US.

[St. Simon]

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I believe that the US now has a UAV that can launch a missile. They can certainly laser designate a target for a high flying bomber. It is this that the opposition hate the most although UAV's are relatively easy to shoot down once you see them or until the yanks cottoned on and silenced them, hear them.

 

i was fascinated to learn that these drones can be controlled by a satellite link to a NORAD control room in the US.

 

Hi,

 

Sorry, some UAV's are being used as strike aircraft, but the majority are being used for intelligence purposes.

 

The Air Combat side of things is still the domain of the manned fighter aircraft, and I think will stay like that for some time to come

 

Simon

[woodenhead]

Sorry, some UAV's are being used as strike aircraft, but the majority are being used for intelligence purposes.

 

The Air Combat side of things is still the domain of the manned fighter aircraft, and I think will stay like that for some time to come

 

Manned aircraft still make up the majority but armed drones have been around since the Balkans and are becoming ever more useful, look up the MQ9 Reaper - it drops all sorts and is also armed with air to air missiles. The US and British Airforces operate armed Reapers as do the CIA - hours of loiter to wait for that elusive terrorist and no worry about captured pilots should an airframe fail or get shot down.