Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50, I-21) Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gavin said:
To begin with, we have different angles that show different parts of the design, like the canopy for example. Look at the size of the pilot and his seat compared to the size of the canopy -- the PM renderings suggest a surprisingly spacious cockpit.

But mostly, I would say the PM renderings have much more realistic proportions -- the size of the wing and vertical tails, etc. -- and that should give us a better estimate of the T-50's size. And I would think the PM would also depict a more realistic planform alignment. The PM model and the NPO drawing are obviously depicting the same design, but the PM version looks much more accurate and professional, and I would hope we could learn something from it.
there isn't. You are mistaken between looking "realistic" with looking "professional." The PM looks realistic because they were done by a company that makes CGI models for games. And you know how good and realistic games look these days in term of visual even though we know that it doesn't reflect anything professional in term of military aircraft design point of view. I'm guessing their references come from NPO saturn "leaked" image.

I don't exactly remember the name of the company that does these CGI models, some where along the line of "precisemodeling" or something. Somebody might fill me in on that.
 
donnage99 said:
I don't exactly remember the name of the company that does these CGI models, some where along the line of "precisemodeling" or something. Somebody might fill me in on that.

Precise 3D Modeling, you were close. ;)

Ahhh yes, the Flaptor configuration. At least that's what I call it, since it looks like a cross between a Flanker and a Raptor. ;D

At least of all the CGI models I have seen, it has a "realistic" configuration, not like most of the Chinese and Russian fanboy art that is influenced more by Anime' than by physics.
 
donnage99 said:
I'm guessing their references come from NPO saturn "leaked" image.

Thank you for addressing my question.

According to Paralay, the PM rendering is based on a desk model seen in the office of Sukhoi's general director. I have no way of knowing if that claim is true, but if so, we can assume that Precise 3D is giving us a fairly accurate depiction of that desk model.

There are people on this forum who seem to have enough knowledge and expertise in aerospace design to offer an educated guess on whether this configuration is at least plausible. The images certainly look realistic in terms of CGI, but are they realistic in terms of real-life engineering? That's all I was trying to ask, really.
 
It *is* plausible from the engineering point of view (in general), but that information itself says nothing. You need to know, if that thing is the thing that satisfies the requirements and needs of the russian air force and politicans. And without the knowledge of the exact requirements, its still very inaccurate guessing. Lets wait until December/January.
 
reaction to PM renderings from people 'who saw' was something like 'phantasies'

there are many PAK FA desktop models that were made during program R&D cycle, showing various design stages
rumors are that fake models also were made (not unlike these provisional F-19 model that was exibited at AF Convention) - to 'occasionally' show in, say, walk-through room to some 'selected' visitors, including foreign delegations and mass-media

per se, models are classified, and you won't find Pogosyan come to work with T-50 model staying on his working table
those models are kept in secured room, and taken from there for demonstration to, say, AF or Gov. VIPs while they visit Sukhoi

sometimes Pogosyan goes to this room even himself to take model to his cabinet during talks with such a visitors

models are kept in plywood boxes to prevent revealing shapes while moving on DB building to staff that not secured to T-50 project (and there are a lot of such people there)
Pogosyan is smart enough to choose what to show and to whom, and control who can shoot and videotape what - you can't cross Sukhoi checkpoint with your mobile phone (not talking of photo or videoequipment) without permission

well, not so long time left to wait to see real shapes
 
None of the ground test models have been caught on satellite? I wonder how much our intelligence agencies know about the project. The Russians haven't lost that talent of making their new projects confusing to follow.
 
even if they had it, no one want to go through steps of Sam Morison
 
Hi Flateric,

have you seen Fomin's latest article on the Su-35 in National Defense?

The part about the 117S, that is . he says capability growth may be in the 2 to 2.7 times range. what do you think?
 
Just Like US(AF)? Russia's fifth generation fighter

by Reuben F. Johnson, Kiev, The Weekly Standard
01/09/2009 12:00:00 AM

For more than a decade the world has been waiting for Russia's aerospace industry to produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft -- a replacement for the more than 25-year-old designs of the Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27/Su-30 models and an analogue to the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Organised as a cooperative program involving almost the entirety of the Russian military aircraft industry, the project is known as the PAK-FA (Perspektivnnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks - Frontovoi Aviatsyi, or Future Air System for Tactical Air Forces).

The design bureau designation for the prototype is T-50, with this airplane in the beginning stages of assembly at the Komsommolsk-na-Amure Aviation Production Association (KNAAPO) plant in the Russian Far East region of Kharabovsk. "Metal is being cut at the KNAAPO plant" and the plan is now for the aircraft to fly in 2009 -- or 2010 at the latest -- said a source knowledgeable of the program.

The emergence of a Russian fifth-generation fighter airplane should be music to the ears of the U.S. Air Force (USAF), which has long sought to use the specter of such a program to justify increased procurement of the F-22A and funding for the F-35. But, no one on the Air Staff in the Pentagon should be putting champagne on ice just yet. Ironically, the PAK-FA seems to be taking the same labourious route from first flight to actual deployment that started with the selection of the YF-22 prototype in the early 1990s.

"During the flight evaluations of the YF-22 and the [Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas] YF-23 the Lockheed design was picked as the 'winner,' but this was despite the fact that the prototype airplane did not demonstrate stealth, did not have a working radar or avionics suite for testing, and did not supercruise. So, all that was really evaluated and 'won' the fly-off was an aerodynamic paint job," said US aviation and stealth technology analyst Jim Stevenson. Stevenson has authored numerous articles on the F-22A and has written extensive histories of both the F-18 and ill-fated A-12 program.

"The USAF essentially picked a winner and then said 'now that you have officially won go and develop the airplane,' which took another 14 and half years between this fly-off of virtually empty prototypes and the official acceptance of the F-22A into service at the end of 2005," said Stevenson.

The PAK-FA seems destined to meet a similar fate. The prototype will fly sometime within the next 12 to 18 months, but -- like the F-22A -- it seems that these demonstration flights will meet almost none of the Russian Air Force's (VVS) operational requirements.

Russian industry representatives close to the program tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the radar to be flown in the aircraft from NIIP design bureau will be a variant of the same Irbis-E passive electronically scanning array (PESA) radar technology that is in the Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker and not the next-generation active array (AESA) that program requirements call for. The engine will be the Saturn/Lyulka 117S modernised derivative of the Su-27's AL-31F-Series 3 engine and not the next-generation AL-41F1 design. There will also be few new-age on-board systems in the avionics suite."

As early as mid-2007, Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosian and other senior Russian industry officials were downplaying expectations when they hinted that these on-board systems might not be ready when the first prototype aircraft flies and would only come on line later. When asked about the engine development at the Le Bourget air show outside of Paris in June 2007, Pogosian responded "that since the serial production covers a period of 30 years and 30 more years for operation, the engine and other systems will change considerably in the course of serial production. That is normal."

According to the division of labour that has been agreed to for the PAK-FA, the KNAAPO plant will be the lead final production assembly point. The Chkalov NAPO plant in Novosibirsk will supply the nose section and other carbon composite sections for the aircraft. But, officials in Novosibirsk have previously told THE WEEKLY STANDARD "there are no plans to place a large share of the [PAK-FA] production at NAPO, largely due to the nature of the local workforce here in Siberia. Because there are no so many commercial trading companies now here in Novosibirsk it is too difficult to retain enough skilled engineering talent with this kind of competition from the private sector."

But, labour problems are only one facet of the difficulties that Russian defense industry now faces. Among them is a government out of touch with industry's problems, lack of investment, and technological bottlenecks -- and literally demanding that they "make ropes from sand," as the old fable says.

An example came during a recent telemost broadcast on Russian state television in which Russian PM Vladimir Putin answered phone-in questions he was asked about the PAK-FA program and stated "we are developing such airplanes and the work is going according to plan. I am certain that they will appear in the Russian Armed Forces and I would like that they appear on time."

Demanding that the PAK-FA appears "on time" shows that Putin and Co. have not spent enough time reading their briefing book on "why the Soviet Union failed as a nation-state." Rule number one from that briefing is that simply decreeing a desired outcome does not make it so. Even though Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Board of Russia's Unified Aircraft-Building Corporation (OAK), Sergei Ivanov, stated in May 2007 that Pogosian had "confirmed that the first plane will make its maiden flight in late 2008," these technological obstacles have made it so that the first flight will now be at least a year late.

"The most likely near-term future for the PAK-FA is that there will be prototype demonstrators that make a number of flights -- just like the Mikoyan MFI 1.44 and Sukhoi S-37/Su-47 models -- and then the program may slow down or come to a halt altogether while industry tries to finish developing these on-board systems," said one analyst in Moscow familiar with the program.

The consensus of the industry representatives who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD is that overcoming these technology bottlenecks depends significantly on whether or not any foreign partners come on board to cooperate -- and bring some much-needed funding with them. Development of the avionics and radar components will require a significant investment in Russia's electronics industry sector, which has been neglected for years. Russia, now in the middle of the worst economic crisis to hit the nation since the hyperinflation of the 1990s, simply lacks the resources required to bring its largely dilapidated defense industrial base into the 21st century. The most optimistic estimate for the program is that production-series PAK-FA airplanes will not be flying in VVS service before 2016 and that export customers would receive their aircraft much later.

One of the nations that Russia had been hoping would become a program partner was Brazil. Concerned about the acquisition of so much advanced Russian weaponry by Compañero President Hugo Chavez in neighbouring Venezuela, Brazil -- South America's largest nation -- decided to embark on a major modernization of its long-outdated air force. Russia had hoped to convince Brazil to join the PAK-FA program, but last year's state visit by President Dmitri Medvedev did not convince the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to sign onto the project.

Russian officials had proposed that the Força Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Air Force or FAB) sign on to an initial procurement of the Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker and then follow on with a role in the PAK-FA, but the FAB Commander, Juniti Saito, stated that: "I do not want to blacken the image of Sukhoi, but the project did not fit into our necessities." Translation: Brazil is not in the position to finance the development of a Russian fighter that is not in production yet nor will it be soon -- it needs something it can buy off the shelf now.

The FAB, which earlier dropped the Su-35 from its FX-2 competition, stated that it had excluded Sukhoi fighters from the program because of compromises that would have to be made on terms of technology transfer. This is almost a complete turnaround from several years ago, when the Su-35 made it into the last round of the FX-2 competition before the program was put into abeyance. In these intervening years, Russia has started to lose the technological edge that made it so attractive to its export customers, and in today's environment they are not likely to have the financial means to address that deficiency.

A representative from one of the PAK-FA's major partners told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the situation is very simple. Right now the only real fifth-generation fighter airplane in service in the world is the F-22A. This state of affairs is not likely to change anytime soon."

Reuben F. Johnson is a regular contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
 
Having the Irbis as test radar is a good sign for me

That means the radome will have enough space for such radar in multi axis mount, and not just a fixed, or just a gimbaled array, and it will use subsystems related with the new generation, remember the Su-35 is as well related with this new russian electronics generation.

The Irbis is under development as well, is not like they are mounting a Bars.

The venezuela/putin/brasil/soviet union references on that article are completely out of context, and are basically garbage, but overall is a good article, thanks.

Time will tell, the reduction of weight with more realistic capabilities (to use the al31 variant) was as well a good sign for me, this with the Irbis testing are both good sings for me.

Also, IMO the Irbis will be more useful than any AESA radar with fixed array, and i would not be surprised if the russian airforce is actually more happy with the Irbis than with any fixed AESA
 
The consensus of the industry representatives who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD is that overcoming these technology bottlenecks depends significantly on whether or not any foreign partners come on board to cooperate -- and bring some much-needed funding with them. Development of the avionics and radar components will require a significant investment in Russia's electronics industry sector, which has been neglected for years


It already does. Its called India.
 
Spring said:
Also, IMO the Irbis will be more useful than any AESA radar with fixed array, and i would not be surprised if the russian airforce is actually more happy with the Irbis than with any fixed AESA
Complete garbage!

As for my take on the article, it seems really one sided. For example, considering foreign partnering, it mentioned fail negotiation with Brazil, but completely ignored India's participation. And the author injects the statement that Russian has started to lose its technological edge that made it so attractive to export customers without any supporting evidence. As for Jim Stevenson's quotation, I find rather odd. The yf-22 prototypes did supercruise. The stealth was tested by identical RCS model. Avionics were tested on a civilian bird. The point of of a prototype being "prototype" is to demonstrate the feasibility of key technology.

However, I have to admit that the prediction that flight tests will slow down or come to a hault to wait for challenges with other technology such as avionics to be overcomed. Past fifth generation fighter development shows that avionics are the hardest part of the puzzle, so this comment is not just hot air.
 
Complete garbage!

Try to learn how both PESA and AESA works

Between both there is not a lot of difference, just a lot of marketing and advertising

Unless you believe on that multiple frequency phased doppler pulse........of course.....

As for Jim Stevenson's quotation,

Feel free to start another thread for your point, the guy is right on that, the yf22 just reached M1.2 supercruiser, i think the yf23 did better, but then , supercruiser is not just the velocity peak...is the range and the average speed reached in the runs and both at that time were basically "aerodynamic paintjobs"
 
The YF-22 with P&W engines supercruised at M=1.4 and with GE engines, I believe it was around M=1.6. However, it required A/B to pass through the transonic regime with the P&W engines.

The YF-23 supercruised at M=1.8 with the P&W engines and M=2.2 with the GE engines and was able to pass through the transonic regime w/o AB with both engine types.

As for the RADAR's, if the one in the nose of the PAK-FA is the only RADAR it will have it will be at a great disadvantage to the one in the F-22, as the F-22 uses a distributed antenna array, so any thought that it's antenna being fixed is a disadvantage is irrelevant.
 
You are wrong, but i wont derail the thread on an ATF thread...open a new thread for that

About the antennas, i don't understand you, are you saying the receptors are placed over all the airframe?, are not you confusing RWR with the actual radar's antenna?

disadvantage is irrelevant.

Is an advantage, because energy focusing, capability to manage the beams, to help maneuvering, tactics and target tracking without changing course, e-scanning has it limits, the reception aspect is very important, and with such device you can change the placement of all your receptive system, is at the end an energy management issue

And actually, a movable antenna can be more "LPI"ish than a fixed one..
 
Spring said:
Complete garbage!
Try to learn how both PESA and AESA works
Between both there is not a lot of difference, just a lot of marketing and advertising
So anything that you don't want to believe is false because they are just PR of the advertisers, but then the stuff that you want to believe are factual. ::) Alright, buddy, believe what you want to believe. No more argument here, as it's not appropriate for the topic and I think I know your motive.
 
it'll prolly have multiple antennas. otherwise it won't be sensor fusion-ish with just the nose radar :(
 
About the antennas, i don't understand you, are you saying the receptors are placed over all the airframe?, are not you confusing RWR with the actual radar's antenna?

The F-22s RADAR antenna are in the nose and on the sides of the forward fuselage, I am not referring to RWR.
 
Sundog said:
About the antennas, i don't understand you, are you saying the receptors are placed over all the airframe?, are not you confusing RWR with the actual radar's antenna?

The F-22s RADAR antenna are in the nose and on the sides of the forward fuselage, I am not referring to RWR.

The side arrays were never installed due to cost. They could be in the future if they found the money.
 
During the flight evaluations of the YF-22 and the [Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas] YF-23 the Lockheed design was picked as the 'winner,' but this was despite the fact that the prototype airplane did not demonstrate stealth, did not have a working radar or avionics suite for testing, and did not supercruise. So, all that was really evaluated and 'won' the fly-off was an aerodynamic paint job," said US aviation and stealth technology analyst Jim Stevenson.

That guy must be one hell of a analyst :eek: Can't even get one fact right.
The YF-22 program did achieve supercruse, did fly an airraple with stealthy shape and coating and did fly a prototype radar and avionics suit in a special aircraft as well as prototype cockpit in the YF-22 itself.
The YF-22 with P&W engines supercruised at M=1.4 and with GE engines, I believe it was around M=1.6. However, it required A/B to pass through the transonic regime with the P&W engines.

The YF-23 supercruised at M=1.8 with the P&W engines and M=2.2 with the GE engines and was able to pass through the transonic regime w/o AB with both engine types.
100% correct.
Don't get us started on supercruise.

The side arrays were never installed due to cost. They could be in the future if they found the money.
I agree here. But don't forget that the F-22 RWR can be used to guide the AMRAAMs in some cases.

Everybody seams to forget how much information can one collect just by collecting information. Look at how much we know about the stars, yet we have never pointed at them anything more than signal receivers of different kind.

The PAK-FA and any new generation of fighter should rely heavily on raw computing power to extract information from all gathered electro-magnetic signals. You can actually do a lot more with a good computer forward radar and distributed receiver system than a 360 deg radar and a 70's computer.

it'll prolly have multiple antennas. otherwise it won't be sensor fusion-ish with just the nose radar
The F-22 does sensor fusion between 4 main souses. The AESA, the RWR, and any outside information whether that is AWACS or another F-22 via the In flight Data link. You can probably include the missile detectors. All in all, I think the F-22 had in excess of 30 antennae apertures of various kinds distributed throughout the airframe.
 
Sorry guys ... but could it be that You are once again completely off-topic !?? ???


Deino
 
Deino said:
Sorry guys ... but could it be that You are once again completely off-topic !?? ???
Deino

Has it flown or been shown? Just staying O.T. ;)

O.T.P.S. - I Hadn't realized they left the side antennas out of the F-22 as part of their cost cutting efforts. Well, I think we know one of the items on the upgrade list now. :)
 
lantinian said:
The PAK-FA and any new generation of fighter should rely heavily on raw computing power to extract information from all gathered electro-magnetic signals. You can actually do a lot more with a good computer forward radar and distributed receiver system than a 360 deg radar and a 70's computer.
Depend on which 360 deg radar you talking about. Even if its a AESA mounted on a gimbal to provide additional mechanically scanning angles , it has a severe disadvantage: stealth. During the conceptual study of A/F-X, Lockheed did consider the option of mounting an AESA on a mechanically scanning device, but discarded it for stealth reason.
 
this is a reprint of reprint article from one Moscow tabloid, written by woman
after words 'heavy interceptor' you can continue no more

when ODK chief says that first flight will be in December, it's one story
when woman takes info from internet forums and makes an article, it's totally different
 
Ah sorry then. I've got a google alert set up for "pak fa" and this is the first new article to crop up in ages.
 
It's reprint No.1
 
the one that the author mentioned about fitting in triumf-esque missile got me really intrigued with its size :eek:

anyway, if people missed the "documents" here it is :)
 

Attachments

  • 403793-2.pdf
    374.9 KB · Views: 26
Hmmm .... will we ever see that thing ????

Article from RIA Novosti

Russia to start 5th generation fighter tests in 2010 - deputy PM

Russia will start tests of its fifth-generation fighter in 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday.
"The trials will begin in 2010," Ivanov said. Earlier reports said test would start before the end of this year.
Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin has said the fighter, which has been under development since the 1990s, will enter service with the Air Force in 2015.

Russia's one known fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor (the world's only fifth-generation fighter aircraft) and F-35 Lightning II, but has yet to take to the skies.
The T-50's maiden flight has been repeatedly postponed since early 2007 for unspecified reasons.

However, in August 2009, Russian Air Force Chief Alexander Zelin said that there were problems with the engines and research was ongoing.
The PAK FA is believed to possess advanced avionics, stealth capability, a ferry range of 4,000 to 5,500 km, and endurance of 3.3 hrs; it is armed with next-generation air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and has two 30-mm cannons.

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, December 8 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091208/157157685.html

Deino :(
 
Sergey Borisovich was always consistent in his statements, unlike Zelin and others - previous December he was saying the same :)
 
Hmm, two 30 mm cannons. Can't remember reading that information before.
 
i don't think i've read that one from the "official" documents :D

though if it worked. . .
 
overscan said:
flanker said:
Hmm, two 30 mm cannons. Can't remember reading that information before.

Agreed. If true, its totally insane.

What I want to know is, which 30mm cannon are we talking, here? If it's the Gryazev/Shipunov GSh-301, then fitting two of them to the same aircraft does seem a tad bit OTT :-\

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom