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

Status
Not open for further replies.
great Su-35 (T-10-10) '710' testbed (with 'Article 117' engines) shot by Alexander Melihov - now in higher resolution
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/melihov/t-10/t-10_1200.htm
 
Sundog said:
I know, I know, we don't know anything for sure.

The most important inforamtion posted so far! I new there was a part of this puzzle missing... ;D

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

edit: added a better version ;)

Looking at this image a very interesting idea occured to me: What if the design uses two ducts per engine for a total of four?
 
If anybody has more insight into:

1. Why are the nacelles rounded and not more angled on all sides more like the f-22/35?

2. Any reason to have such a narrow flat area between engine? (like flanker/F-14).

I know there are aerodynamic reasons but why not blend the area to hold more weapons and fuel for those thirsty engines like other 5th gen fighters?
 
1. Probably due to less stringent LO requirements, placing more emphasis on front-quarter than all-aspect.

2. It's a lifting body. The fuselage there is deep enough to hold a considerable amount of weapons and fuel, with the large wings carrying more fuel. Increasing the depth of the fuselage would've given you a much heavier airframe.
 
kcran567 said:
why not blend the area to hold more weapons and fuel for those thirsty engines like other 5th gen fighters?
because you then receive huge fuselage cross-section like F-22 that you will need to push through the air struggling with wave drag. placing weapon bays in central fuselage one behind other gives you sleek long 'skinny' airframe, kosher for supercruise - idea, used for F-23 and ressurected in T-50
 
1. emphasis on front aspect: yes, since cos 90 degrees is negligible and there are no direct reflecting surfaces other than the edges which are a mix of X and L band optimized stealth. side is L band optimized while rear is meh with an RCS of 17 m^2; although the rear aspect can be considered good since it has a very narrow lobe of +/- 7.5 degrees which is ideal emplacement for ECM in conjunction with evasive maneuvering.

in detail: the inlet/LERX actuation alignment is L band optimized at front aspect sin 12.5 degrees, wings are at 45 degree side lobe blind spot in the front aspect(30-60-90:+/-7.5 lobes). so overall, front sigma max is 0.006m^2 at lambda 0.3m(L-band) and 0.6m^2 at lambda 0.03m(X-band). at side aspect: the intake housing and vertical stab are canted at 15 degrees hence L band optimized. the round engine housing on the other hand may be reflective at some angles but not at level elevation since the tangent area is "blocked" by the wing structure ala F-35 though I'd expect better wing-body integration in the future.

2. lifting body: indeed. I believe there's a saying that empty structure is dead weight B)

note: may sound speculative but I would expect the RCS to be lower by at least a factor of 10 if given RAM treatment
 
flateric said:
because you then receive huge fuselage cross-section like F-22 that you will need to push through the air struggling with wave drag. placing weapon bays in central fuselage one behind other gives you sleek long 'skinny' airframe, kosher for supercruise - idea, used for F-23 and ressurected in T-50

The Raptor can make up for that to a degree by using ridiculously powerful engines. Looked at another way, the Raptor uses huge engines to enable a more RCS-optimized airframe. Or conversely, perhaps the Russians chose this route to compensate for less-mature advanced engine technology. Who knows. It is interesting to consider that the PAK-FA was designed for "now", while the Raptor was really the product of a Cold War requirement.
 
Avimimus said:
Looking at this image a very interesting idea occured to me: What if the design uses two ducts per engine for a total of four?

Then they would also share a common round nozzle; I guess theoretically possible but hardly likely. Propulsion people frown upon such things. You end up with any anomaly in airflow in one engine (say compressor stall) affecting the other.
All in all, if such solution were for whatever reason adopted, you would probably see it reflected somehow in outer mold lines. Because turbomachinery has invariably a circular cross-section regardless of size (as tall as it is wide), you would end up with a flattened duct if two engines were stacked vertically or side-by side.
In this case I think the simplest solution is the answer.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
took a while to do this.

not very accurate though :-[

Nice job. What radar bands is it showing?

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
lambda=0.3m so L-band, for X band lambda=0.03; since lambda is squared in RCS for flat surfaces(edges in the case of a stealth aircraft), just multiply values by 100 :D
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
lambda=0.3m so L-band, for X band lambda=0.03; since lambda is squared in RCS for flat surfaces(edges in the case of a stealth aircraft), just multiply values by 100 :D

Thank's. And the outer ring?

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
z-component ;), inner ring is edge component

Wouldn't you know, just spotted your elaboration a few posts ago. Thank's again.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
SOC said:
flateric said:
because you then receive huge fuselage cross-section like F-22 that you will need to push through the air struggling with wave drag. placing weapon bays in central fuselage one behind other gives you sleek long 'skinny' airframe, kosher for supercruise - idea, used for F-23 and ressurected in T-50

The Raptor can make up for that to a degree by using ridiculously powerful engines. Looked at another way, the Raptor uses huge engines to enable a more RCS-optimized airframe. Or conversely, perhaps the Russians chose this route to compensate for less-mature advanced engine technology. Who knows. It is interesting to consider that the PAK-FA was designed for "now", while the Raptor was really the product of a Cold War requirement.

Does the Raptor actually have a "fatter" body? It's more compact and places everything together in a one package, instead of spread out all over the airframe. Once we have accurate dimensions, it would be interesting to calculate the front plate area of the two and compare. I would be willing to bet that they're actually quite close. Also, by having the nacelles spread out as the T-50 does, there is more surface area/parasite drag.

Also, the wing and tail design of the T-50 are very much along the same lines of the F-22, not the YF-23. As a result, I would expect the wave drag to be quite similar between the T-50 and F-22.
 
I think what he meant was fatter in that it has a bigger vertical profile(z-component) and gives you a bigger RCS at the side aspect than what a slimmer profile would give you.
 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread539281/pg5
A week past when the PAK·FA flew, it is the time to summarize some information we collected before till the some of huge pix showing PAK·FA released nowadays.

While the PAK·FA unveiled, it still surprised most of aircraft fans, although seemed they saw it somewhere or somewhen. Why, because the PAK·FA does have some advantages hidden behind the attractions from its appearance.

The first impressive character is its CARET inlet.
CARET inlet was not innovatively used by PAK·FA but S.H.E/F, nevertheless, the basic principle of CARET inlet is wave-ride, Russian used it better than American on PAK·FA, that's why we saw they transversely set the rectangular section of CARET inlet. Review: the longer the horizontal wedged edge, the more lift will be.

Second, movable LERX upon the CARET inlet.
This is the first time we saw a movable LERX was used on a true jetfighter, we remember Indian HAL LCA Tejas was planned it but that was merely a plan.
Is this only a movable LERX? I think it also is a vortex aileron, not a flap, it is capable to up-deflect, so it contains canard function too. We say it is a movable LERX because the angle of swept is really large enough to be a LERX. A large angle of swept edge cause vortex roll from down site to the up surface, however, when being slight AoA, this swept angle is too large to keep the pressure under the LERX so give a movable leading edge down deflect for works.
Then if you watch carefully, the LERX was up deflecting when PAK·FA tends to take-off, so the effect of this period factually is a canard alike.
Moreover, the movable LERX is a easy way to regulate the swept angle of shock wave produced by edge of CARET inlet whereas F-22 made it bypass door which was a hard method.

Thirdly, all-moving dorsal fins.
The earliest all-moving vertical tail we can remember was A-5 Vigilant used. The most strongest memory the A-5 gave me was wide-side setting engine nacelle, which also brought a commodious weapon bay to the A-5 Vigilant. Following the A-5 was F-14,the favorable jetfighter to the most military fans. The Tomcat set duel-fin. Now it is PAK·FA turn, that duel-fin is not enough to control such wide airframe, plus, too many tough maneuver are waiting for it to do, then we saw a couple of all-moving vertical tail with considerably small area for reducing weight.
Compare to the ATF from YF-22 to F-22's junk-like tail fin, this all-moving vertical-wing gives PAK·FA amount of advantages: reducing weigh; reducing RCS, more stability in High-maneuver, more controllability for yaw and spin.

Fourthly, omnidirectionanl vectoring thrust.
The nozzle F-22 like is worked for doable TVC at that time because airtight of movable workpiece in high temp pressure was hard to be circular shape, not like somebody dreamed for IR stealth。The rectangle nozzle was farfetched as stealth nozzle because of the exhaust gap appeared on F-117。 Yes, if L/W ratio approach the exhaust gap like F-117, you do gained IR reduced, but we say the nozzle on F-22 is a rectangle nozzle rather than a gap on F-117。But now, F-22 lost its capability of horizontal vectoring thrust.
Obviously, the OVT bring an ability of omni-maneuverability to do "helicopter" maneuver without loop previously.

Fifthly, YF-23 like back
The acr-shaped slope at up-surface will be a lift coming according the principle of Bernoulli. YF-23's design used it well but overrun. PAK·FA inherited it with slight humpback not only got drag reduced also obtained an additioanl lift from fuselage.

Last but not least
A relatively big angle for swept wing.
We know area ratio used for capability of transonic and supersonic good, but nobody noticed waspish design works for transonic good whereas there is another way design airframe like arrow same as Eurofighter Typhoon did, also is an excellent way for supersonic fly. The principle here is, the more time or position of shockwave occur you delay, the more drag could be decreased. For the PAK·FA, a high-swept wing will works for a real supercruise not like F-22 doing supersonic although without afterburner but still with range reduced compare to none-supersonic fly.
 
Sundog said:
Once we have accurate dimensions, it would be interesting to calculate the front plate area of the two and compare.
second on that
 
Interesting feature written by Piotr Butowski in FRENCH ... does anyone knw why in FRENCH ?? ???

http://www.vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1951132.htm

Deino
 
The cover of Aviation Week. Sorry, no better image available.
 

Attachments

  • mag_aw_st.jpg
    mag_aw_st.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 730
Deino said:
Interesting feature written by Piotr Butowski in FRENCH ... does anyone knw why in FRENCH ?? ???

http://www.vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1951132.htm

Deino

Interestingly, Mr. Butowski describes the inlet ducts as having a vertical S-curve.
 
well it is a mixture of vertical and horizontal since it's impractical to have a straight duct with the landing gear in the way and you can see the construction lines from the top angle view that the internal structure moves inward from the engines

found this nice drawing btw ;D

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1531106&postcount=635
 
Ah ,a new pic , slick looking bird from this angle! Very nice.

Thanks to both aswell :)

Edit : oh its not new , but still very nice thanks ;D
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Kosmos929 said:
What is the NATO reporting name for the T-50?

I don't think any has yet been officially disclosed... but if you're interested, we have a topic on the What If forum that lists possible candidates for NATO reporting names... some of them goofy, some very believable. Here's the link:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26370.0

My favorite was "FUBAR". Unfortunately, it's too close to "Firebar" and too easily applied to the F-35!

In the past, designations of prototypes were leaked beforehand, such as "Ram-K" for the original T-10. As far as I know this has not happened with the T-50. Either the American intelligence community is asleep at the switch or the T-50's very existence is politically embarrassing to an administration that decided to cut off F-22 production so it is left unmentioned as much as possible.
 
Kosmos929 said:
In the past, designations of prototypes were leaked beforehand, such as "Ram-K" for the original T-10. As far as I know this has not happened with the T-50. Either the American intelligence community is asleep at the switch or the T-50's very existence is politically embarrassing to an administration that decided to cut off F-22 production so it is left unmentioned as much as possible.

Actually, there isn't anything to be embarrassed about. The F-22 is in operation and it will most likely be ten years before the operational version of the T-50 is operating in any meaningful numbers. Even then, the Russians are only buying 250 to protect a much bigger land mass, which is hardly a threat. Considering the Russians consider the T-50's major Nemesis the F-35, not the F-22, it's largely a moot point. The U.S. will be working on it's sixth generation fighter by then and the Raptors will have been upgraded as well.

At any rate, there simply isn't any reason to give it a code name atm and I doubt it will have one until, at the very least, it receives it's Su designation. FYI, the "RAM" designations were not NATO codenames, they were references for the intelligence community for the prototypes seen in satellite images, since they didn't know the manufacturers, etc. I'm quite sure the intelligence community knows quite a lot about the T-50, including the manufacturer ;) . As such, there just isn't any reason to give it a code name at this time.
 
Hello, first entry here. First thing: somebody here claimed the Su-47 has no stealthy features, what then do the s-ducts, outward-canted and reduced tails, flattened fuselage, rocket bays and the ridged nose make up for?
A few posts have also claimed that the T-50 has only reduced radar signature, rather than being true stealth, at least by American standards. This might be true as far as the general airframe layout is concerned, although is it really? ( outward canted and reduced fins, s-ducts, bomb/rocket bays, trapezoidal nose and wing contour) So far, however, nobody has mentioned plasma stealth, a Russian speciality, already developed for the MiG 1.44-and that was over ten years ago. Critics have pointed at the problems with radio communication plasma might cause, but chances are that by now the Russians have overcome this problem, effectively reducing radar signature down to US standards. Of course, this is a hypothesis, but well-founded. Do not underestimate different methods of obtaining stealthiness.
 
Thanks, my effort is now much easier. However - does anybody have a shot also from the right side of the plane? I would like to know, which panels are the same and which not.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I don't think any has yet been officially disclosed... but if you're interested, we have a topic on the What If forum that lists possible candidates for NATO reporting names... some of them goofy, some very believable. Here's the link:

NATO reporting names are actually allocated by the Air Standardization Coordinating Committee with members from only the armed forces of the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Code names are allocated for Russian and Chinese aircraft. The policy is that fighters start with "F" and are two syllable if jets and single syllable if propeller driven. Some of the latest code names are FIRKIN for the Su-47 and FLATPACK for the Mig 1.44.

Since the T-50 is supposed to be a low observable aircraft (plasma stealth! LOL!) I would imagine a code name that represents this would be an objective. So perhaps FURTIVE? Though considering the various end of the world attributions being given to this modest aircraft I would suggest FOUNDLESS...
 
ASCC allocates reporting names to aircraft that are believed to be in service.

Neither the MiG 1.44 nor the Su-47 ever received reporting names.

And as far as I have been able to tell, the 'Fulcrum-D', 'Fulcrum-E', 'Flanker-D', 'Fullback' and other supposed post ColdWar reporting names are speculative nonsense.

'Flatpack' and 'Firkin' certainly are.
 
Since the T-50 is supposed to be a low observable aircraft (plasma stealth! LOL!)
[/quote] Before you ridicule an idea, why don't you read about it, eg. at www.hitechweb.com
 
First off, it is actually ASIC nowadays (http://www.dtic.mil/asic/index.htm).

Jackonicko said:
ASCC allocates reporting names to aircraft that are believed to be in service.

So they really believed for example MADCAP and FREESTYLE to be in service too?

'Flatpack' and 'Firkin' certainly are.

What makes you so sure, if I may ask? You have access to actual ASIC documents?
 
I confirm what has been said about the "RAM-*" names not being actual NATO reporting names but only temporary designations until the type has been properly identified:

  • RAM-H was the Tupolev Tu-144 "Charger"
  • RAM-K was the Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker"
  • RAM-J was the Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot"
  • RAM-L was the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 "Fulcrum"
  • RAM-M was the Myasishchev M-17 "Mystik"
  • RAM-P was the Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack"
  • RAM-T was the Yakovlev Yak-141 "Freestyle"

There may be others, but this is as far as I know. The "TAG-*" designations followed the same logic:

  • TAG-D was the Beriev Be-40 "Mermaid"

I seem to remember reading somewhere that TAG or RAM were allocated depending on where the aircraft had been spotted, but I may be wrong on that.

As for the reporting names being given to aircraft believed to be in service, this is contradicted by aircraft such as:

  • the Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-2/A "Faceplate"
  • the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1.44 "Flatpack"
  • the Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-152A / Ye-166 "Flipper"
  • the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-AT "Miser"
  • the Sukhoi Su-47 "Firkin"
  • the Yakovlev Yak-36 "Freehand"
  • the Yakovlev Yak-141 "Freestyle" (which was almost named "Fulmar")
  • the Yakovlev Yak-130 "Mitten"

Jackonicko, what makes you think "Flatpack" and "Firkin" are not kosher?
 
Foxglove said:
...why don't you read about it, eg. at www.hitechweb.com

Because such a web apparently does not exist? We have the topic about the subject here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,459.0/

And a much general note - as sferrin once said before the T-50 first flight: "Can hardly wait for the hoards of fanboys screaming "PAK-FA kicks Raptor's sux ass" no matter WHAT gets shown." Well, we can say the same about the subject from the opposite side: There still be a lot of fanboys screaming that the PAK FA is a piece of scrap no matter of what WAS shown. I am glad that most of the SPF members dont prefer this childish way of thinking and prefer facts and/or rational analysis and estimations.
 
Isn't it nice?

Foxglove said:
So far, however, nobody has mentioned plasma stealth, a Russian speciality, already developed for the MiG 1.44-and that was over ten years ago. Critics have pointed at the problems with radio communication plasma might cause, but chances are that by now the Russians have overcome this problem, effectively reducing radar signature down to US standards. Of course, this is a hypothesis, but well-founded. Do not underestimate different methods of obtaining stealthiness.

I remember being told that such plasma generators could only work on a slow airplane at high altitude (presumably because it would stay in the plasma cloud longer and the plasma would remain charged in the low pressure). The only military application where I've heard of it being used was to mask the radar array of a Su-35 prototype (with the plasma being shut down when the radar was transmitting). This got me to wondering if one could have chambers under the fuselage which would contain and manage the charged plasma. However, even if it could work, I'm pretty sure that the T-50's design doesn't have room for such subcutaneous magic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom