Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trident, you are right, but you must also multiply this on russian way of making things.

To add, surely AF and Sukhoi now discussing possibility of revealing T-50 drawings at MAKS airshow in August, but I expect disclosure will be postponed again. Remember that no one get close look at Su-47 yet - 10 years of maden flight soon. Moreover, if you even will be given T-50 images, you will not get aircraft exact characteristics for a long time.
 
A high degree of LO (that is, better than the Super Hornet or Rafale) on an agile multirole fighter is always a compromise. Particularly if you make the jump into internal weapon bays; more so if you make them reasonably sized. That's why JSF has an F-16-like flight performance in an F-4-sized package, and is heavier than the much faster and more agile Typhoon.
The question is whether PAK-FA is real and urgent, or whether it's the magician's assistant in the tight dress that keeps our eyes off the bunny rabbit... which in this case is an Su-35 with as much bolt-on LO as can be managed, which will eat most of the competition for breakfast.
 
I did get that the PAK-FA was not a "really thought from sratch and sound developped" aircraft Flateric, what is wanted to know was the specifications in what thoses "developpement Oddities" translated.

The weight problem has also been on the Raptor, while classified, some pilots said the empty one was in the 40 000 lb class while originaly the plane was to be 72 000lb. Yet the plane performs well (very well we could say) at least in what is observable by us.


As far as the SU-47 did go, in my opinion we didn't get to know anything about it cause there were nothing to know! that plane did not performed well except for some high AOA characteristics.
All that i learned on that plane was bad things (wing reinforcement that caused increase by 1 ton yet not preventing divergence, 5g limitation, Engines shortages for rapid cycles etc..).

Sukhoi is far more open on the Flanker familly.


One people suggested at AFM forums that the pak-FA started as the platform you suggested, a plane built without true competition, without clear goals, a plane to be built step by step based on 4th generation components until it gets real 5th generation one.
According to this guy Sukhoi or AF did finally discover this is was not the good method ans then redraw the plane many times to meet the goals.
 
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2007/04/20/119694.html

Published PAK-FA drawing untrue
AviaPort.Ru 20.04.2007, 15:09

Published in particular on the Internet schemes of PAK FA, or Russian fifth-generation fighter, created by OKB Sukhoi, are not true, said an informed source in the defense complex to AviaPort.Ru correspondent.

According to the source, PAK FA configuration would be published only after the aircraft will become operational, or, at best, after the maiden flight of fighter aircraft, which is scheduled for 2009. "The most likely charts of the aircraft, close to the original, first will appear in the foreign media, a fighter at the airport in the first test will be recorded by American spy sats," source said.

Replying to a question on admission of India's senior leaders to the PAK FA info during the previous talks on the possibility of India's involvement in joint work with Russia, source said it was more likely that the Indian side was introduced to the basic information on the programme. "Incidentally, one of the Indian journal also published a PAK FA chart , and this is not the actual image of the future Russian fighter plane." he says. - (this was this one attached - Flateric)

According to the source, the Indian side conveyed information to the PAK FA during the talks only on the basis of legal documents on the requirements from the Indian side of full and strict confidentiality. The Indian side has fully implemented its obligations to confidentiality.

Earlier this year, it was stated that will be signed intergovernmental agreement on Russia and India joint PAK FA program work, which so far is still under formulation and harmonization," source said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we have several variants as always:
1). Source tells the truth, trying to show his own importance and access to confidental information
2). Source lies trying to cover up last leaks
3). Damn source doesn't know truth, but says something - again, to show his own importance and access to confidental information

I always like USAF spokesmans' phrase "We Will Neither Confirm, Nor Deny". If pictures are bullshit, what for state that they are bullshit if the stuff is so confidental?
 

Attachments

  • 200.jpg
    200.jpg
    61.1 KB · Views: 413
This article is well known and i don't trust more in it than in other saying india is one day in, one day out, that the pak fa design is frozen, not frozen, or anything else like that..

If i'd trusted thoses articles coming from newspapers then RuAF have SU-35 in his inventory, YAK-130 is fully operationnal, PAK-FA is a F-22 for 30% the price, and AL-31F-3 are 5th generation engines.and S-37 would enter production...


I'd bet we will have drawing far before the thing become operationnal, what i'd like to know is why or more, what is not good in this plane, was makes that this plane, instead of the SU-27 will not be a top airframe (at least).

It bugges me sukhoi miss an aerodynamic solution.
 
Ogami musashi said:
It bugges me sukhoi miss an aerodynamic solution.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the phrase insiders say.
 
i know that. You told me before. I'm so curious about that statement, i'd like to know what sucks in this configuration.
i can't believe russia will have an average fighter...this is so uncommon thoses days!
 
Because in words of old-school Sukhoi insider, having direct involvment in Su-27 design, 'At the last decades, we have totally lost design school. <...> All Sukhoi does now - numberless mods of aircraft those first scetches were drawn in 1969.<...> PAK-FA is a criminal realisation of criminal RFP'

I advice you to translate with BabelFish this thread and read through.
Man with nickname T-10C is a person who I'm talking about.
 
A damn question that went into my head - where the hell can you put internal weapon's bay on this CGI bird???
 
Depends on how deep the fuselage between the engines is, I suppose. If it's like a Flanker (which is *extremely* flat, from what I've seen), no way! Perhaps the YF-23 would provide some clues? The configuration has some basic similarities.

Something else that caught my eye is how little/much those intake ducts might curve. To achieve decent stealth characteristics the engine compressor should be hidden from direct view, something that was thoroughly well implemented on Sukhoi's own Berkut demonstrator... Again, the YF-23 analogy seems appropriate, but the side view doesn't really suggest that the ducts curve upwards as dramatically on this design.
 
Trident said:
Depends on how deep the fuselage between the engines is, I suppose. If it's like a Flanker (which is *extremely* flat, from what I've seen), no way! Perhaps the YF-23 would provide some clues? The configuration has some basic similarities.

Something else that caught my eye is how little/much those intake ducts might curve. To achieve decent stealth characteristics the engine compressor should be hidden from direct view, something that was thoroughly well implemented on Sukhoi's own Berkut demonstrator... Again, the YF-23 analogy seems appropriate, but the side view doesn't really suggest that the ducts curve upwards as dramatically on this design.
Click to expand...

You could always hide the engine faces with radar blockers like the on the Super Hornet and the X-32 (had it gone into service that is).
 
Thank you Flateric for the links and yes i asked myself how they could go internal, but well as other said YF-23 did it.

I'm surprised by the widely spaced engines but i've seen some other stealth configurations like that.
*

P.S: i can't translate the first link you gave to me.
 
Okay i translated.

Well of course not everything was understandble but what i see is that most of T10C words came from 2004 (on the subject of pak-fa).
He's pointing many interesting facts but also i did not managed to read some clear facts (except the mysterious "[at the OKB sukhoi] they have not all understood the difference between Flight dynamics and Aerodynamics" that seems to say the pak-fa configuration he talks about as large and draggy control surfaces.

But all in one i have the feeling he always talk on the basis that the pak-fa was designed by a "criminal" RFP wich is not that precise.
Well this is so sad this person doesn't speak english (and me not speaking russian) cause i would have many questions to ask!

He does not seem to be very enthusiastic about the capability of Mig to produce a LFI too..
 
First, there's no way that an Su-27 descendant's weapon load can be carried internally by anything much smaller than a B-2.
Unless the Russian AF wants to back off to F-22 level (eight small AAMs, four AAMs and two small bombs) the PAK-FA will be designed either with no internal weapons or an option of limited LO carriage.
At this point we have to remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
During the ATF development process, there were lots of studies of things that were highly conformal (Have Dash) or other solutions (semiconformal missiles with a blow-off cover). Also, it might heretically be argued that trying to do F-22 with missiles that were never designed for internal carriage was dumber than dirt, and that a truly compact missile takes up a hell of lot less room than an AIM-120C, let alone a bloody AIM-9L.
Moreover, there's always the reality of "treated weapons" as used on the Super Hornet and RCS-reduced Su-27s.
If this is indeed a real T-50 (and the person issuing the denial is blowing smoke up our augmentors as usual) my bet would be on a stealth level between a Super Hornet and a JSF, and the ability to carry a few highly conformal weapons under the body, but also on a range of treated external stores, plus decoys and jammers.
 
Seems that on this old 'T-50' rendering we see both conformal missiles and huge conformal container between engine pods. Meantime, we have heard both statements - new fighter will have internal weapons bay and special new missiles, 'square in diameter' az Izvestia journalist expressed, are under design for it.
 

Attachments

  • t507.jpg
    t507.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 442
LowObservable said:
First, there's no way that an Su-27 descendant's weapon load can be carried internally by anything much smaller than a B-2.
Unless the Russian AF wants to back off to F-22 level (eight small AAMs, four AAMs and two small bombs) the PAK-FA will be designed either with no internal weapons or an option of limited LO carriage.
At this point we have to remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
During the ATF development process, there were lots of studies of things that were highly conformal (Have Dash) or other solutions (semiconformal missiles with a blow-off cover). Also, it might heretically be argued that trying to do F-22 with missiles that were never designed for internal carriage was dumber than dirt, and that a truly compact missile takes up a hell of lot less room than an AIM-120C, let alone a bloody AIM-9L.
Click to expand...

I continue to wonder why they don't integrate a version of ESSM with the F-22. Whether they gave it an AIM-120 guidance section or did something else with it you'd have a significantly bigger punch for about the same size box area. I imagine it's simply $$$$ that kept them from developing something like a modern AIM-95 for short range.
 
That should deal with the external stores issue. Very interesting indeed.
 
sferrin said:
You could always hide the engine faces with radar blockers like the on the Super Hornet and the X-32 (had it gone into service that is).
Click to expand...

... and the B-1B. Not exactly a selection of aircraft known for excellent supercruise capabilities ;) It does seem that this solution affects performance, so I'm not sure if it's such a great alternative for Sukhoi.
 
Isn't F/A-18E have maximum speed 'in excess of Mach 1.8' with all these radar blockers, while PAK-FA maximum speed was downgraded to Mach 2.0 on Sukhoi's preys? And - isn't Phantom Works have Block 3 Mod in their pocket to increase Super Hornet LO characteristics? What I've see reminds me in some way mix of F-22 and F/A-18E, having longer engine tract to play with LO stuff...and of course we shouldn't forget about these...hmm...magic plazma stuff:))
 
i think the max speed achieved by a super hornet is mach 1.52.
 
Trident said:
sferrin said:
You could always hide the engine faces with radar blockers like the on the Super Hornet and the X-32 (had it gone into service that is).
Click to expand...

... and the B-1B. Not exactly a selection of aircraft known for excellent supercruise capabilities ;) It does seem that this solution affects performance, so I'm not sure if it's such a great alternative for Sukhoi.
Click to expand...


From an airflow standpoint I'd think the B-1's solution is better albeit probably heavier.
 
Just for reference, the F-22's F-119 engines have blockers in them to hide the turbine section from behind.

As for the F-22's weapons carriage, my understanding is that, using the SDB, it can carry four small fin AMRAAM's, two SDB's and the standard sidewinders, one on each side. So that would be six AAM and two bombs. It can also hand off targets to other aircraft, so thinking of it just as one fighter as any other fighter degrades it, since it is also a force multiplier due to the systems on board. Of course, one of it's handicaps is in how it distributes that information to other warfighters. They're working on rectifying that situation.
 
flateric said:
Isn't F/A-18E have maximum speed 'in excess of Mach 1.8' with all these radar blockers, while PAK-FA maximum speed was downgraded to Mach 2.0 on Sukhoi's preys? And - isn't Phantom Works have Block 3 Mod in their pocket to increase Super Hornet LO characteristics? What I've see reminds me in some way mix of F-22 and F/A-18E, having longer engine tract to play with LO stuff...and of course we shouldn't forget about these...hmm...magic plazma stuff:))
Click to expand...
Super Hornet is not fast, but I don't think that the blocker has much to do with it. Every airplane in that family, back to the YF-17, has been slower than the competition. Also... from M=2 to 2.4, top speed is usually a matter of temperature, which equals a matter of money (for higher-spec materials) and engine life.
"Block 3" was discussed in public once (in Australia). Super Hornet community is very sensitive about not saying things that could be seen as damaging by the JSF community.
Magic plasma to conceal radar antenna, yes. My understanding is that plasma is non-factor at tactical fighter altitudes.
 
I don't know if you guys saw this PAK-FA Article at Janes?

They state the configuration hasn't been finalized yet. The part I found most interesting was this statement about it's size;
The PAK-FA is a middle-weight twin-engine fighter that will be a larger aircraft than the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG-29 and smaller than the Sukhoi Su-27, but will replace both types.

It will be close to the weight class and overall wing area of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter but, unlike its fully multirole US counterpart, its primary mission will be as an air-superiority fighter and interceptor.
Click to expand...

I find the last statement, emphasized by me, interesting because many question how maneuverable the F-35 will be. I think the fact that the Russian aircraft will apparently have the same wing loading and be an air superiority aircraft says a lot in and of itself regarding the maneuverability of the F-35.

However, based on how the configuration has been described as a twin engine aircraft, it almost sounds like it will be a Russian Super Hornet.
 
Hmmm ... just some old or new info ?? ???


Creation of Fifth Generation Engine Suspended

Experimental design work on the program for the creation of the fifth generation engine for the future tactical aviation aircraft complex ((PAK-FA)) has been suspended at the present time, the technical director and general designer of OAO NPO Saturn, Mikhail Kuz’menko, reported to journalists on Wednesday in Moscow. ...
Click to expand...

from: http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_may3.html#16may

An Engine of Contention

They are repeating the tender for development of the fifth generation engine

There will be two holding companies remaining in Russia for the manufacture of aircraft engines, the first vice premier, Sergey Ivanov, promised last week. According to him, both holding companies will participate in the Unified Aircraft Building Corporation and compete for orders. The competition for the development of the fifth generation engine may become the first test for the motor builders. As has become known to RBK Daily, the competition held earlier was declared by a defense ministry commission as ineffective and will be held again in August. ...
Click to expand...

from: http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_jul1.html#03jul


Deino ???
 
Hi Paralay
That's a nice looking plane (in you last post). Is it a serious contender? Where does it come from and do you have any more details? How does the tailless, canardless cranked delta affect manoeverability? Does it use thrust vectoring?
Cheers, Woody
 
This picture - the assumption.
Such airplane will be the main{basic} fighter of the Air Forces of Russia. Moreover, on an aircraft carrier 40000 - 50000 tons small airplane much more interestingly, than Su-33 or T-50.
Absence of a horizontal tail is with interest compensated by presence of controlled thrust vector.
 
paralay said:
This picture - the assumption.
Such airplane will be the main{basic} fighter of the Air Forces of Russia. Moreover, on an aircraft carrier 40000 - 50000 tons small airplane much more interestingly, than Su-33 or T-50.
Absence of a horizontal tail is with interest compensated by presence of controlled thrust vector.
Click to expand...

Paralay,

Is this possibly the rumored 5th-Gen MiG project that has been presented to India? Do you think Russia will go for the hi-lo mix of the T-50 to replace the Su-27/35 and the new MiG (the 1.27 for now) to replace the MiG-29/35? With the Yak-130 filling the training and light attack space?

-----JT-----
 
I think, that Т-50 will be broken in the first or second flight, he repeats destiny F-14.
Possibly on arms of the Russian Air Forces will receive LMFI (takeoff weight of 19000 kg, engines 2 * 9 tons). For military-air forces version with horizontal take-off and landing, for the Navies with short take-off and vertical landing.
Construction of a subsonic impact airplane for replacement Су-25 is possible. With two engines 2 * 5 tons. Though for this purpose it is required make pilotless airplanes.

The forecast in Russian
http://paralay.com/stat/prognoz.doc
 
Hey esp. this MiG-1.27 & F/A-18E-design reminds of something very similar on my workbench ... since a few years !

Deino ;D
 

Attachments

  • Hornet 2000 top.JPG
    Hornet 2000 top.JPG
    21.8 KB · Views: 390
  • Hornet 2000 bottom.jpg
    Hornet 2000 bottom.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 283
huh, I could be wrong here, but despite all the cool artists impressions of the PAK-FA I've seen, wasn't the PAK-FA really just supposed to be somethin like an SU-47 without the forward swept wings (and maybe some minor changes in it's shape to improve stealth features)? Just wondering cause I noticed how many impressions of it seem to say otherwise...

Or are they pretty muchly ditching the SU-47's frame entirely here and goin with an F-22 clone design here?

Course, on the other hand we're probably not gonna know what the thing truely looks like till Russia finally officially reveals it, so who knows? :p
 
superpak.jpg
 
Looks nice but it looks like just a Photoshoped Su-27 to me.
 
Eh... what else would you expect at this stage? ;D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom