What went wrong?
- Home
- Board: /k/ - Weapons
- Reading: What went wrong?
What went wrong?
>>29911316
It was mainly for research and to keep the company alive.
Russia doesn't need a "5th gen" and should just focus on fixing the problems in the VVS as well as increasing the amount of wings/pilots they have.
>What went wrong?
You posted over decade old picture of an early test plane
It was built by Russians. They thought they had stolen enough technology to make it work but they were wrong.
>>29911409
>over a decade
but the first flight was in 2010 and it's one of the 6 prototypes.
>>29911316
N-nothing?
Too goddamn perfect.
>>29911355
>Russia doesn't need a "5th gen"
>Putting it in quotes as if its some mythical beast
Nah, more Su-27+++++s, Dimitri))))
>>29911316
The russians should've stuck with Berkut
> why aren't these russians spending gorillions on making a bunch of tubs that fail every weapons test possible and are useless in general
Development is going fine, fatniks.
>>29911477
PAK-FA is hardly a 5th gen, if anything it's a 4++
chill pham
>>29911515
>Development is going fine, fatniks.
>In production, without production engines
>lack of RCS reduction features means its got a 4th-gen tier RCS
>India getting less and less interested in the product
>Russia ordering more Su-35s instead
"fine"
>>29911739
>India
Poo in the loo, please. No one is going to give you more than 10% of technology you were promised no matter how hard you will whine, so shut the fuck up.
>>29911739
>In production without software
>>29911815
Software is a little easier to update than engines.
>>29911779
So why did they offer it to India in the first place?
Vatnik pls
>>29911779
Russia won't give share the """"""technology"""""" because if they did india would know that the PAK-FA was a Su-27 with a body kit all along :^)
>>29911515
how does this make you feel?
>>29911815
>truth provides thrust and makes it go forward
but that's a good thing
>>29911884
> f35 fanboys confirmed for middle school
>>29911834
Yeah, we all can see how "easy" it is so far.
>So why did they offer it to India in the first place?
Because they were major geopolitical partners for quite the damn while by now.
>>29911910
>Yeah, we all can see how "easy" it is so far.
You quoted "easy" but I actually said "easier".
I mean, the software is progressing as software does. Yet to see production engines or S-ducts on the PAK-FA, and that it shit you can't just upload.
>>29911899
How does this make you feel?
We reached the top with the Rafale Marine.
It's like playing Civ 5 and going to the Future era while other countries are still in Medieval, lmao.
5th gen won't happen any time soon, and if it happens none of us will live old enough to see it.
>>29912166
Are you le serious?
>>29912166
Duhhh, me just poop pants! Me never knew how plane with hole on rudder fly!
>>29911316
Nothing really wrong. It will be a much better aircraft than what they are currently using.
>>29912263
>>29912269
How does it make you feel?
>>29912205
>5th gen won't happen any time soon, and if it happens none of us will live old enough to see it.
How old are you, 105?
>>29912312
Rather indifferent, why?
>>29912360
How does it feel knowing that ancient commercial aircraft can have it.
But PAK-FA can't?
>>29912405
The fact that even ancient Tu-154 has it kinda refutes the whole "can't" part.
>>29912466
>kinda refutes the whole "can't" part.
>>29911316
When the Soviet Union collapsed many of their best engineers left for better opportunities in the West.
>>29912466
>they can redesign the entire airframe to put it in just wait and see!
>>29912998
>I-it's not like it ever happened before, right?
>>29913068
>R-right?..
>>29913080
>G-guys?..
>>29911884
"Truth" is drag. "Reality" is weight. "Money" is lift and "even more money" is thrust.
>>29911316
Kasich ate all of Ivan's flying pancakes.
>>29913068
>>29913080
>>29913091
>thinking that the T-10 is anywhere close to the radical redesign of the entire fuselage as it would be for the PAK-SHIT to get a real s-duct
>>29911409
>Over a decade
Hahaha holy fucking shit Russians can't actually believe this.
>>29912328
Keep believin'.
>>29913247
Theres been a 5th gen in service for over a decade.
>>29911316
No cash is what happened.
And yeah, calling it 5th gen is a big stretch. But doctrinally, the point of PAK-FA is it's L-band radars, to give their fighters at least a little warning before being anihilated by the F-22 F-35 wombo combo.
Not that there will be enough to matter.
>>29913201
>All lies! Never happened!
>>29913305
>not even attempting to argue anymore and instead calling the T-10 to Su-27 change anything close to radical as an entire redesign of the fueselage that'd be needed for the PAK-FAG to get even a simple s-duct
Will we ever get out of Stage 1?
The other stages are so much more fun
>>29913337
How can I argue if you didn't even attempt to refute my point and began to immensely shitpost instead? Are you like upset or something?
>>29913360
Not that anon, but the T-10 was a basic prototype that went through a lot of design revisions and versions. The final T-10 became the Su-27, and the last few versions weren't radically different.
The PAK-FA is literally going into production. The T-10 never did, because it was a design prototype. The PAK-FA has already had its prototype revisions. Its not the same thing on any level.
>>29913360
What was your point that didn't address the pak-trash in any way and instead went 'see? this did a change before! it can happen!' and then proceeded to show nothing that would even come close to the complete redesign of weapon bays, engine placement or inlets that would have to take place for the pak-shit to get s-ducts?
It will never get s-ducts and none of them have even gotten radar blockers.
Never ever ever, just accept it.
>>29913381
T-10 was radically different from T-10S, the one that later became Su-27. PAK FA is going into LRIP and the second stage prototypes didn't even fly yet. The thing is Russians did introduce radical alternations to the original prototype airframes on a number of occasions before, so claiming they will not do it again "because reasons" is simply silly. They might do it or they might not, but the point is they can and did.
>>29913482
>second prototypes never even flew
>implying they aren't building off of the first prototype then because that's what they have all their data on
>>29913482
There are pretty significant differences, but nowhere near on the level of changing the entire internal layout and adding S-ducts.
>>29913832
But they basically refurbished the entire airframe of T-10 to make T-10S.
>>29911779
>sign contract for technology and development sharing
>dont fulfill contract
>get butthurt that India doesnt want to buy it
Vatnik logic everyone.
>>29914051
I'm seeing what I said; significant differences, but nothing on the level of S-duct addition.
Engines are placed exactly the same.
>>29914095
>Sign contract for technology and development sharing
>Poo in the loos want more technology than the contract determines
>Poo in the loos get butthurt
Poo in the loo, please.
>>29911815
Didn't you hear? 3I just got cleared for release, so Air Force IOC is a go.
>>29914115
It's very much over the level of simply adding different ducts. The entire airframe was changed, including the engine placement as the consequence of changing the engines themselves.
>>29911355
>Shit Russia can't afford to do: The Post
>>29911460
I think I've got the NATO code name: Skate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiformes
>>29912205
>5th gen won't happen any time soon, and if it happens none of us will live old enough to see it.
>US already has its second 5th gen past first service IOC
>>29913482
>Still at prototyping stage
>PAK FA is going into LRIP
>>29916239
>Skate
>S
Didn't know it was a surface-to-surface missile.
>>29911316
russians
>>29911316
Russia trying to be cute and thinking it can design anything by itself these days, just swallow your pride russia, and buy F-35s like the rest of your european siblings.
>>29911739
>4th-gen tier RCS
4.5. It's comparable to a Super Hornet.
>>29918587
Shit.
Wait, Flounder.
>>29918850
>Flounder
I've been calling it that since day one, it'd be a fucking shame if that wasnt its real NATO codename, it's so goddamn perfect
>>29912166
>Muh 737 is more LO than PAK FA
Yeah... we get it... you were in the last thread, saw the photo, and now you think you're intelligent by posting it
>>29911355
Quantity over quality doesn't work with aircraft.
>>29911899
>said after posting >>29911815
>>29918848
The difference between 4th gen and 5th gen is literally several orders of magnitude.
Difference between 4/4.5 pales in comparison, its really not that different.
why amerifats so buttblasted in every russian thread?
>>29920787
We cold war 2 now. Propaganda machine at full throttle.
>>29911316
The moment they decided an RCS of .4 was their goal the program was DOA.
>>29919433
>wtf is radar blocker?
>>29919433
How does it feel knowing even passenger aircraft can have sducts and pakfag can't?
>>29921382
An ineffective (relatively speaking) and second-class solution to the problem of inlet RCS returns
>>29920787
>vatniks spend more than two years shitposting everyone and hyping up the pakfa and armata
>suddenly can't handle the bantz
Russians always play the 'im a poor victim' card just like a certain shekel loving people.
I feel sorry for Russia, they cannot even make S-Ducts.
China has S-Ducts since 1980's. Pic related of Chinese jet with partial S-Duct. Inb4 that is American jet, lol no, look at it, it's black.
Not only that, but this China jet has serrated bomb doors. Making it possible to release ordnance while flying supersonic. Which the F-35 is not made to do.
Why can't Russia make a real S-duct for military aircraft? RIP in bits russian aviation
>>29921571
The S-37 does not have a full s-duct though.
>>29921510
Impressive
Truly China knows how to build state of the art planes. A black plane that can't be seen in the dark will have advantages against tv guided missiles that can't see it in the dark. The red star shows it is truly a Chinese plane.
>>29921446
>An ineffective (relatively speaking)
How relatively are we speaking here?
>second-class solution to the problem of inlet RCS returns
This solution is only one if you want to have a ramp. Russian want to have ramps, therefore radar blocker.
>>29914115
They changed whole air ducts and engine housings hell they remodelled entire airframe, what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>29922716
Assume you're talking about intake ramps?
Yeah, there isn't much reason to "want" those, if you can implement DSI / S-ducts.
>>29911520
>implying fighter generations mean jack shit
>>29922900
>Implying they don't
>>29922900
Put up a MiG-15 against a Su-27 and tell me which comes out on top
>>29922934
>>29922900
>Implying you opinion mean jack shit
>>29922978
Well, its the opinion of most of the aeronautics industry and pilots, so not just my hot opinion.
>>29922954
If flanker is piloted by an Arab and 15 by veteran vietnamese, I'm betting on latter
>>29923024
>If an Abrams was crewed by chimps was fighting a T-55 crewed by hardened veterns, I would bet on the T-55!
Its cute. Almost like you think you have a point or something.
>>29923044
I do, dumbass.
>>29923044
>>If an Abrams was crewed by chimps was fighting a T-55 crewed by hardened veterns, I would bet on the T-55!
You're dumb enough to compare planes and tanks. I his case, the MiG is not limited by it's abbility to pierce armor, contrary to the T-55. Skilled crew or not, I doubt the old D-10T has a shell which able to harm a M1
>>29923059
No, you idiot, you don't.
If you're bringing crew/pilot skill in, then you're making it a multi-factoral comparison (other than the aircraft itself) in order to justify the retarded position that aircraft generations "don't exist" or "don't matter".
>>29913135
Kek.
>>29921510
Nigga, this is a russian S-47 tech demonstrator. Does have partial s-duct though. With better wing consturction, removal of canards, and more stealth features it could have came around same time as F-22. But russia loves ot's Su-27++++++++`s
>>29923446
S-47 has pretty much nothing in common with Flanker, it's an entirely different airframe.
