Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]

[sferrin]

took a while to do this.

not very accurate though :-[

What information is this based on?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

plane shape in relation to the RCS theory :-\

 

[Woody]

Hopefully still relevant for comparative perposes:-

Paul Metz (if you don't know who he is let me know) said the top speed of the F-22 is classified but that it'll do 1600 mph.

Where did Paul Metz say this? Paul Tackabury, Northrop's flight test manager said, on YF-23 Black Widow II declassified, that the YF-23 was "much faster than the YF-22" (41.13) and Paul Metz declared the YF-23 "fastest ATF in the world guys" (43.10). Did the F-22 improve its top speed dramatically over it's prototype or are we to believe that the YF-23 could do mach 3? For the record the YF-23's declassified top speed was mach 1.8. As no top speed has been proved it's hard to tell fact from propaganda.

Actually it (XP-67) was slow because of all the wet area.

I'll give you that one but it did have crap engines an no investment. Still faster than the Spitfire.

Though it has a much larger relative wing area, the T-50 is not dissimilar in profile from the SR-71 and seems much 'finer' than the F-22 ;D.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Woody]

Philosophical pondering:

Whilst dismissing Russian technical achievement, we are forgetting that despite a decade of development none of us, with are our combined resources, knew for sure what this plane looked like until 6 days ago. That in itself is astonishing and a profound endorsement of Russian will and capability. How soon we forget.

Russia has had 20 years to consider it's responce to the ATF and JSF and could have opted for a MiG 1.44 or Su-37 derivative but didn't. In that time the USA has been trumpeting the capability, geometry and strategy of it's products and the Russians have had nothing better to do than take note (they are rather good at chess you know).

Though times have changed we should not forget the significance of machines like the T-34, Il-2, La-7, AK-47, MiG-15, 21 and 25, which whether through performance, ruggedness or cost, dominated their compeditors. This is the kind of thing Russia is good at.

(if it lives up to that tradition) The effect this aircraft will have on the world fighter market will be immense. It will effectively make all pre-fifth generation fighters obsolete. And since the Americans have so publically discontinued theirs (and forced a complicated but dynamically pedestrian version on it's allies), for the first time in half a century nonaligned countries now have the real possibility of being able to defend their own airspace. They should jump at the chance.

Too much? we'll see.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Avimimus]

Can the PAK FA hope to match US third generation stealth? I don't know but my guess is no. Is it meant to again probably not. Can we say Gen 4.75?

Is stealth the primary feature defining 5th generation status? If you look at other feature in the design philosophy (optical sensors, maneuvrability &C) a case could be made for Gen 5.25...

If stealth is a determining feature: Is the F-35 really a 5th generation fighter? Or is the title reserved for the F/A-22? If RCS is the primary determinant of 5th generation status then the F-117 is the first 5th Gen aircraft and the F/A-22 may be the first fighter (but much less stealthy and therefore less 5th generation)?

The next question is should 5th generation status be defined by the American standard? Or by that achieved by others (in which case the F/A-22 could be Gen 5+)? Where should the threshold be?

The only workable perspective is that the PAK-FA has a new generation of weapons, sensors, aerodynamics, engines and coatings. As a result it is defacto a 5th generation aircraft and a leap beyond the original 4th generation Su-27 and Mig-29. Perhaps the Mig-35 and Su-35BM have some similarities (eg. OLS, engines) - but that is because they are a generation half way between the 4th and the 5th.

F/A-22 is a remarkable achievement - especially given that it is a 15 year older aircraft and probably still has an edge in a number of respects. But quibbling over generation number is silly. This is especially true because Russia has tended to engineer engine and airframes along with sensors and weapon systems in distinct generations. As a result, it is actually possible to detect a progression of demarketed generations in Soviet aircraft and it would thus make sense to base definitions of each generation on these aircraft, rather than the hodge-podge and less centrally organised development seen in the West.

 

[Scorpion82]

What people have to get over with is that you can't define a generation closely about the specific technologies and capabilities of a single aircraft. People appear to have been carried away by LM's marketing claims and ignore that the F-35 for example doesn't even fit the initial 5th gen definition of LM due its lack of supercruise. We have never seen such no brain discussions before, but they are widely spreading nowadays. A pity.

 

[sublight]

Let's not forget that when Lockheed talks about F-22 stealth they say it is a generation beyond the B-2 which is a generation beyond the F-117. To my amateur ear that means pretty stealthy. Can the PAK FA hope to match US third generation stealth? I don't know but my guess is no. Is it meant to again probably not. Can we say Gen 4.75?

The PAK FA doesn't have to meet it in all RCS aspects, it just has to beat it in price. Its likely to have a price much less than an F-35.

But then again, a lot of stuff is cheaper than an F-35.

 

[Trident]

There's also the F-117 wreckage from 1999, it was reportedly inspected by Russian specialists and remains of other aircraft shot down over that country are known to have ended up in Russia. By then, the F-117 was no longer cutting edge by American standards, but it would certainly have provided another welcome source of information.

 

[SOC]

Regarding the RAM issue, Russia has used RAM operationally for years now. The intakes of the Tu-160 are RAM-coated, along with the engine faces. This is mostly why operational BLACKJACKs displayed at airshows like MAKS have their intakes covered.

Yes, but there is RAM and there is RAM. There are multiple generations of technology involved. There are many different radar absorbing materials with differing absorbing and structural properties. If you covered an F-35 in SR-71 era RAM I'm sure it would rather degrade performance compared to the modern coatings it will use.

Not to forget maintenance...

True, but this does prove that they have been working on RAM for a while. They aren't starting from scratch.

 

[tunguska]

I tried to curve intake enough and I guess its resonably achievable

 

[Sundog]

I tried to curve intake enough and I guess its resonably achievable

Don't forget, they could be using fan blockers like the Super Hornet does, or like the X-32 was supposed to use. When I say that, I mean on the production version. Because, if so, there isn't any need for the T-50 to make it's first flights with them.

 

[Ian33]

Nice drawing. Would make alot of sense if the PAk FA has some type of curve. I remember some time back an article about stealth and in it they said that blockers in the inlet are prone to ice and this ice can be ingested into the fan and damage it. Any truth in this at all? after all, wings ice up so why not the inlet blockers?

 

[Sundog]

Nice drawing. Would make alot of sense if the PAk FA has some type of curve. I remember some time back an article about stealth and in it they said that blockers in the inlet are prone to ice and this ice can be ingested into the fan and damage it. Any truth in this at all? after all, wings ice up so why not the inlet blockers?

I would think there some truth to it, so they would obviously have to be heated to prevent ice formation, but that's a very good point.

 

[kcran567]

The T-50 is not as stealthy as an f-22, but whether or not the T-50 is as stealthy as an f-22/f-35 will not be relevant much longer. Defense secretary Bill Gates is threatening to cut off lockheed's f-35 funding for cost overruns. What happened to the idea of an affordable JSF?

The T-50 is going to be a winner economically and is going to be more affordable than anything America can offer near a 5th generation fighter and Russian is actually going to offer it on the market.

The nations buying it can tailor their technology to the plane. Will US allies buy it? Maybe the US Air Force will buy a few hundred.

Back to hardware does the T-50 have a radar cancellation unit onboard?

 

[flanker]

The T-50 is not as stealthy as an f-22...

Have you data on T-50's RCS?

Back to hardware does the T-50 have a radar cancellation unit onboard?

A worker from the factory said it the flying one is full of test equipment, and that the taxi test one had more finished stuff installed. So my guess is that the flying one doesnt have the radar installed, maybe only taxi airframe.

It is a bit weird that one week later it still haven't flown again. Also, exactly what engines does it have? I have always heard before the flight it had 117S (Su-35 engines), but media said it was some new engine? Have they as usual just misunderstood?

 

[kcran567]

Some have speculated Fiber Radio Optical Active Radar Cancellation System for the T-50 where radar energy that makes it through the ram is absorbed by fiber optic fibers in the skin and dissapates the energy out the back of the airplane.

 

[flanker]

Some have speculated Fiber Radio Optical Active Radar Cancellation System for the T-50 where radar energy that makes it through the ram is absorbed by fiber optic fibers in the skin and dissapates the energy out the back of the airplane.

That was a bit hard to read with zero commas....

 

[kcran567]

[/quote]
Also, exactly what engines does it have? I have always heard before the flight it had 117S (Su-35 engines), but media said it was some new engine? Have they as usual just misunderstood?
[/quote]
Saturn said that an ALL NEW undesignated engine is being used that is NOT the 117s(AL-41f1a) engine they previously stated would be used. The new engine generates higher thrust and uses an automatic digital control system, to facilitate flight modes such as maneuverability. Exact specifications havent been released yet.

The company is being quiet about the new engines for now.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

kcran567 please stop with wild speculations more suited to Above Top Secret forum.

 

[zen]

The critical questions are ones you cannot see the answers to in mere photo's and in fact without measuring the airframe with very accurate instruments.

Nor can they be answered much by what we migth be shown of the cockpit.

Because behind all that we see exists a 'world of software'.
Starting with the software design processes the Russians have developed, and the management systems in place to produce this.

From there we go to the modelling processes, built out of the software developed, and from those models we get to the evelution of a set of requirements this particular aircraft has been designed to, chosen most likely from a number of solutions.

All that before a single physical piece of this machine was ever built, or the software to run it was writen.

 

[Avimimus]

It is a bit weird that one week later it still haven't flown again. Also, exactly what engines does it have? I have always heard before the flight it had 117S (Su-35 engines), but media said it was some new engine? Have they as usual just misunderstood?

Who says it hasn't flown again? Perhaps we just weren't allowed to see it. The political/symbolic point has been made by making a public first flight - but there is no need to make public the rest of the test regime.

The T-50 is not as stealthy as an f-22, but whether or not the T-50 is as stealthy as an f-22/f-35 will not be relevant much longer. Defense secretary Bill Gates is threatening to cut off lockheed's f-35 funding for cost overruns. What happened to the idea of an affordable JSF?

A very good reason to think that the PAK-FA will not be so cheap either.

(if it lives up to that tradition) The effect this aircraft will have on the world fighter market will be immense. It will effectively make all pre-fifth generation fighters obsolete. And since the Americans have so publically discontinued theirs (and forced a complicated but dynamically pedestrian version on it's allies), for the first time in half a century nonaligned countries now have the real possibility of being able to defend their own airspace. They should jump at the chance.

Interesting post. I was wondering if this really impacts the strategic balance at all. With the exception of major powers like Russia, India and perhaps Brazil, few nations could afford enough examples to defend their airspace against the United States. Even if the full F/A-22 force couldn't be deployed a sufficient number of F-35s could overwhelm defences - albeit at considerable cost. It would seem the real questions are how much attrition is acceptable to the USAF, whether land bases within range are available and the effectiveness of surface-to-air systems. Given the way the USAF has tended to religiously avoid S-75 (Sa-2) batteries, right up in to the 1990s one has to wonder if the S-400 system will act as sufficient deterrent. I wouldn't be surprised if the United States maintains air-superiority against all nations (other than India, China and Russia) with current procurement levels.

 

[Matej]

Question about the engine is a good question. I was also under the impression, that the prototype will have izdelije 117S (AL-31 class) and the production version will have definitive izdelije 117 (follow on AL-41F). But on the paralay´s forum and on the russian version of the Wikipedia there are speculations, that the izdelije 117 is used and that it is provisional solution as well, because the production version will have izdelije 129 engines with 191 kN thrust. It took me a lot of time to find the difference between 117S and 117 and now there is speculation about another powerplant. : Well, we should wait a bit for the official info.

 

[sferrin]

Given the way the USAF has tended to religiously avoid S-75 (Sa-2) batteries, right up in to the 1990s one has to wonder if the S-400 system will act as sufficient deterrent.

Not sure where you got this idea. The USN was bringing down even SA-5 sites with HARMS in Libya, doubt the SA-2 would be any problem.

 

[Woody]

With the exception of major powers like Russia, India and perhaps Brazil, few nations could afford enough examples to defend their airspace...

http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/01/venezuela-may-yield-twice-as-much-oil-as-was-thought/

Hugo could afford it.

Cheers, Woody

 

[flateric]

Who says it hasn't flown again? Perhaps we just weren't allowed to see it.

It wasn't.

 

[AeroFranz]

I tried to curve intake enough and I guess its resonably achievable

To avoid fan distortion at the fan, you really want to keep straight the equivalent of one engine diameter ahead of the fan face (basically you don't want air coming in at an angle). Also, there may be some lateral offset as well (as in the YF-23). Sorry, I don't mean to criticize, I think it's great that you drew the inboard

 

[SOC]

It would seem the real questions are how much attrition is acceptable to the USAF, whether land bases within range are available and the effectiveness of surface-to-air systems. Given the way the USAF has tended to religiously avoid S-75 (Sa-2) batteries, right up in to the 1990s one has to wonder if the S-400 system will act as sufficient deterrent. I wouldn't be surprised if the United States maintains air-superiority against all nations (other than India, China and Russia) with current procurement levels.

What? Starting in 1991, we did not avoid SAM sites, we obliterated them. Ask Saddam or Slobo how well their SAM nets performed. They were avoided to a large degree in Vietnam because SEAD tactics and equipment were developing. But by 1991, the S-75 and S-125 were not serious threats. Yeah, we tended to kill them with with LO assets or dedicated SEAD platforms with a lot of EW support, but that's just being sensible/overly cautious. Yes, a modded S-125 did get an F-117A, and yes, occasionally there are SAM kills, but for the most part we trained to destroy them during the outset of a campaign. The only USAF platforms that tend to religiously avoid A/A defenses are transports, tankers, and most ISR platforms. That's because they are cooperative targets with little or no defensive systems.

The S-400 is a different story altogether, being considerably more advanced and capable than the 50's/60's era systems like the S-75.

 

[shockonlip]

Some have speculated Fiber Radio Optical Active Radar Cancellation System for the T-50 where radar energy that makes it through the ram is absorbed by fiber optic fibers in the skin and dissapates the energy out the back of the airplane.

Kind of like an E-M Fart then ?

 

[shockonlip]

courtesy Sukhoi via Sergei Kuznetcov (Pilot)

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-2.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-3.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-4.jpg

Thanks Flateric - good looking airplane!

I get a kick out of the (I assume) post test flight picture. The
guys in the back ground are so excited to hear the results. They're
obviously really proud and excited.

The flight test manager looks more formal, and the
test pilot is so serious.

 

[Dragon029]

I'm pretty sure this image was from Paralay and hasn't been discussed here yet, but it does show a nice glimpse into the intakes:

 

[SOC]

That's an Su-30.

 

[flanker]

Yeah, come on Dragon, that is so obvious Su-30 it isn't even funny. I presume that is Su-30MKA?

Flateric, do you have any info regarding engines and reason as to why it haven't flown in a week?

 

[Dragon029]

Holy crap I feel like a fool (I didn't really take much of a look though, there had been talk of the inlets, then that was posted. The composites at a glance made me think it was the T-50.)

I should have used commonsense though, they wouldn't be revealing that much so soon.

 

[flateric]

The flight test manager looks more formal

Yes, because, generally speaking, this is Mikhail Aslanovich Pogosyan in person

 

[flateric]

T-50 has performed flawless second flight on Feb.6
no official information or photos released so far
http://kyrazh.ru/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=1076&page=28#msg37165
the same source says that T-50 will be transferred to Zhukovsky's LII after one more flight, second, no less reliable so far, - that after six or so
spotters are waiting, in short)))

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

based from the pictures(top view and landing shot), the position of the landing gear and the slight vertical-horizontal intake-compressor face offset:

not really accurate but should give us an idea :-[

 

[flateric]

for comparison - S-ducts on F-22 (made with authentic information)

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

i just noticed that the intake is too tall :-[

edit: added a better version

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Photoshop impression of a production T-50 by ace_h.

 

[Sundog]

That's a nice looking shot, but didn't flateric or someone say the IRST in front of the canopy will disappear and become more like the F-35's under nose design? I know, I know, we don't know anything for sure.

It looks good with the "braceless" canopy. It's also shows how much more "clean" it looks painted. Maybe that's why it hasn't flown it's second flight, they're painting it?