Talk:Post-PFI Soviet/Russian aircraft projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

AboveTopSecret.com FORUM as a source. Are you fucking kidding me?! Removed. — NRen2k5 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

LFS nonsense[edit]

> Yakovlev's entry resembled the JSF entry from BAE, as it was a supersonic STOVL aircraft with a similar propulsion system to the JSF. <

To the contrary. It is well-known that Yakovlev bureau's original, genuine Yak-141 VTOL plane and engine design was purchased by the anglo-american alliance for 350 million USD during Yeltsin's reign. This is what became the F-35. This is one of the rare cases when the atlantide copied the russians, usually it was the other way around (B-29 --> Tu-4, Shuttle --> Buran, etc.) 91.83.4.102 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I can remember a wide range of statements beginning "it is well known that...", which then proceeded into unsourced and frequently hysterically funny technological propaganda. It may be assumed, of course, that this could not possibly be an example of such? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


- - - - - - - - - -

All this section is based on the old and unaccurate information, which is unfortunatelly parially based on my old diagram, that I made years ago. Somebody please rewrite this article. You can use my web (translation to English is available). A few points:

Overview: - M67 was not a project in the category of I-90 or Sh-90 or B-90. It was the myriade of various reconnaissance planes, developed exclusively by Myasischev design bureau and included stealthy and conventional desings. And was not only one. If mention M-67, than why not M-63 or M-62? But I prefer to delete it, because there was not any program for the reconnaissance plane with the same level of importance as I-90, etc.

MFI: MiG 1.42 was a proposed production version for the air force use. MiG 1.44 is only the demonstrator of 1.42 which has delta wing (compared to cranked delta used on 1.42), different air intakes and a few other minor differencies. 1.42 never had 2D thrust vectoring. All modern soviet/russian fighters (except experimental Su-27LL-PS and proposed Su-27KM) have 3D thrust vectoring nozzles, or their special modifications (such as Su-30MKI, that can move the nozzles on the V shape, which is quazi 2D, but in fact onboard flight computer can thanks to them do aerial manueuvers like they were 3D, while in the same time keeps their simplicity). Sukhoi never proposed any submission to MFI program. They instead started to work on the Su-27KM/S-32 heavyweight *navy* fighter with the forward swept wing, for which the Su-47 Berkut is only a technological demonstrator (as the MiG 1.44 is for the MiG 1.42 MFI).

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF02.htm


LFI: Sukhoi S-37/Su-37 canard/delta design WAS NOT a part of the LFI program. It was a strike plane, designed to replace Su-7, 17, 25 and MiG-21, 23 and 27. The design was approved by the comunist party in 1988 and in 1992 cancelled for the insuficient of the funds.

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF03.htm


LFS: Official part of the program, specifications for which were officialy formulated only in 1998, served only as the basis for the PAK FA program formulated one and half year later. But it is a general description for a lot of light, usually single engined fighter proposals from Russia during the 90s. Sukhoi S-52 was not a part of it. S-52 was a project of a FSW single engine fighter with only one purpose - to create the complete project with the documentation, that will end in the trash! The strange but workable meaning to keep the people educated and employed during the hard, post-soviet times. Sukhoi worked on the S-54/55/56 single engine light fighter family (with chaotical and variable designations), that are much based on the Su-33 (in the case of S-55) and on Su-47 (in the case of S-56) rather than on the S-54 trainer. Also there is nothing like MiG I-2000. It is the misinterpretation of Mukhamedov Integral trainer and I-2010 combat aircraft, that evolved into Vityaz 2000 design. It has nothing in common with the MiG at all!

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF03.htm


FGFA: Indian version of the PAK FA will not be a lightweight fighter. It will be nearly the same as the heavyveight russian PAK FA, however with the crew of two, slightly modified wing and different combination of the avionic equipment.

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF04.htm


LUS: The only source of the Sukhoi´s two cockpits proposal so far is the Piotr Butowski. I am not sure if we should believe it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.45.35 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

Remove the sections PAK FA and FGFA from the article. The PAK FA started flight tests on January 29, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be good to keep sections for other projects in the article in order to maintain perspective. After all, most aircraft are developed to specifications and this article is about program specifications. I'd actually recommend including pre-PFI projects as well in the article. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)