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

[Sundog]

Isn't it nice?

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.

My understanding is that the USAF has tested Plasma stealth on aircraft, at least according to Aviation Week, but there is a problem with arcing between the ground and the aircraft. It's hard to be stealthy if "lightning" between the ground and the aircraft is constantly giving your location away.

Also, apparently plasma fields are generated in front of the RADAR arrays to keep them from being reflectors when not transmitting. At least that's what I was lead to believe in an article in AvWeek on LPI RADAR. I've also found a U.S. patent from 1974 that looked at using plasma shielding in the inlet to shield the fan face. Basically, all the information indicates to me that for small fiedls within the aircraft, plasma stealth has a purpose, but for the whole aircraft, it has serious drawbacks.

Also, regarding an earlier post, with regard to the T-50 not being as stealthy as the Raptor, that isn't fan boy talk, that's what the Russian engineers themselves have stated.

1) The chances of the T-50 ever encountering the F-22 in combat are somewhere between slim and none. The chances of the T-50 encountering an F-35 in combat are much higher, due to all of the nations being sold F-35s. Therefore, that's the true opponent they have to design to compete with.

2) The Russians have stated they aren't trying to achieve the level of stealthiness the F-22 has, because it requires a lot of maintenance and results in driving up operating costs quite a lot. Therefore, they only want as much as stealth as they can have that doesn't compromise the readiness of the aircraft or greatly increase the operating costs. At least that's been their stated goals with regard to LO for the T-50.

 

[SOC]

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.

Not sure about FULCRUM-E, don't recall hearing that one before, but the rest of them are legitimate codenames. FLANKER-D is the Su-27K/Su-33, FULCRUM-D was the MiG-29K, FULLBACK is the Su-34. ASIC/ASCC will at times give a suffix to any major subvariant, operational or no, hence FLANKER-E for the original Su-35. Outside of that, again, those are all legitimate codenames. I was quite familiar with all of them during my time as an intelligence analyst.

 

[nn903]

I would say that the way T-50 is built actually confirms that there is no miraculous plasma stealth technology. Well, some plasma generators etc. probably exist but they are not as effective as some people believe. The T-50 is a "classic" stealth design. Why would they bother with all these stealthy shapes and weapon bays if there was a 100kg device doing the same job?

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.

You are right - RAM is for Ramenskoye. I don't know what is the other name for.

 

[Stargazer]

Isn't there a test facility named TAGanrog, or something to that effect?

 

[robunos]

Taganrog, it's where the Beriev OKB/company was/is based. it's now in Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taganrog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Aircraft_Company


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Matej]

Where is the canopy separation line? Blue or red?

 

[flanker]

Blue. Canopy is slided backwards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

These are preliminary reporting names used by the DIA and usually allocated after the first recognition via satellite imagery. The role of these names is to fill in a gap. If the actually Russian or Chinese name is known and confirmed then it will be used. The ‘NATO reporting names’ are allocated even when the real name is known as they are part of the brevity code system and are easier to use than referring to a maker and model number in a language with very different sounds to English. The system basically was an evolution from the WW2 system used to name Japanese aircraft.

Casp - Caspian Sea
Kaz - Kazan
Novo - Novosibirsk
Ram - Ramenskoye (Moscow)
Syb - Syberski or Saki
Tag - Taganrog
Harb - Harbin (China)
Nan - Nanchang
Xian - Xi'an

Followed by a letter in chronological order.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Before you ridicule an idea, why don't you read about it, eg. at www.hitechweb.com

Foxglove you're not at teen.airspace.alt anymore...

Plasma stealth is real but not in the way that 99% of enthusiasts imagine it to be. It is applied inside the outer mould line of an aircraft as a method to absorb radar in parts of the aircraft that would normally reflect it back to a receiver. It is part of the many layered approach to achieving low observability along with planform alignment, radar absorbing coatings and materials and so on.

This idea that the aircraft can generate a bubble of plasma around it that absorbs all incoming radar and therefore not need to be designed as a LO aircraft is science fiction, and pulp sci fi at that. Even if you could generate such a bubble that’s a lot of plasma which is in itself giving off a huge signature. Plasma in its many manifestations isn’t exactly known for its low signature.

“Our radar can’t pick any thing up but what’s this giant sun like, X-Ray emitter approaching at 45,000 feet?”

 

[bagera3005]

Plasma stealth gives off ir that sidewinders aim 9x just love so what would it matter if they got you with ir missile

 

[zen]

Zap that plasma with the right energy and it starts radiating radio frequencies. So its potentialy a double edged sword to use the stuff.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

• • 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"

  
  You’ve got to hand it to the committee, some of these names are really very, very smart.
  
  MIG-AT as MISER when it was designed to be a low cost trainer. Su-47 as FIRKIN which means a quarter and the forward swept wings and nose look like lines quartering a semi circle. FLATPACK for a very ‘flat’ looking aircraft.
  
  Maybe we should ask Russia and China to come up with names for western aircraft?

 

[bagera3005]

there are Russian names for are birds but some you would not like

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

MIG-AT as MISER when it was designed to be a low cost trainer. Su-47 as FIRKIN which means a quarter and the forward swept wings and nose look like lines quartering a semi circle. FLATPACK for a very ‘flat’ looking aircraft.

FLATPACK makes even more sense when you know MFI was a store selling flatpacked furniture in the UK

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The T-50 could be named the FLYHALF in keeping with the Su-27 family of Rugby position names: FLANKER and FULLBACK.

 

[flateric]

more T-10-10 side No.'710' 'Article 117' testbed from BravoSierraAlpha, Nik Belyaev and Navigator
seems that new engine is at port side

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Flight International 9th Feb issue has a one page article, not very interesting at all and with a single photo and a poor attempt at a 3 view (jointly credited to Sukhoi, oddly.)

 

[Avimimus]

there are Russian names for are birds but some you would not like

I'd like to hear these. However, another thread might be the best place?

 

[robunos]

FLATPACK makes even more sense when you know MFI was a store selling flatpacked furniture in the UK

LOL! I missed that one....


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Foxglove]

Before you ridicule an idea, why don't you read about it, eg. at www.hitechweb.com

Foxglove you're not at teen.airspace.alt anymore...

Pardon me, Abraham, I got this impression by reading your posts. Once again, you're in error discrediting plasma as a means to reducing RCS. If, indeed, the latest reports question the viability of engulfing the entire airframe in ionised gas, then the idea of screening the most prominent deflectors, as you write yourself, the onboard radar dish in the first place(Su-35), is still being developed, including US labs. I never said that plasma can replace RAM, RAS, noise and IR-reducing solutions( nor did the Russians who, though downplay RAS, have still used it in the T-50), but it can definitely enhance stealth.
For the X-rays, you would need a powerful X-ray detector, indeed.
Elsewhere, somebody mentions heat-seeking sidewinders as a potential threat to an aircraft equipped with a plasma generator. I suggest then you read on cold plasma, developed, for a change, by the Americans. There's an interesting thread, much more competent than here, on plasma stealth on the 'abovetopsecret' forum.

 

[Gavin]

Did a little research on the YF-22 flight test program.

The prototype first flew September 29, 1990. Roughly 90 days later, the plane had logged 31 sorties for a total of 38 hours and 48 minutes in the air. That's averaging better than one flight every three days.

So we still haven't seen a second flight for the PAK FA? Is this normal for a Russian flight test program?

[Before somebody accuses me of straying off topic, I realize that the PAK FA and the YF-22 are not the same design. I'm simply posting it as a comparison ]

Source: www.f22fighter.com/timeline.htm

 

[Stargazer]

If any comparison is worth doing, it's between the F-22 and F-35 programs. The former was properly handled while the latter seems to be a bit of a mess...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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.

Just to be clear, I quoted your original post.

Su-47 has some reduced RCS features. It was claimed to be reduced by about a factor of 10. That isn't stealthy, unless you consider the Su-35 "stealthy".

Plasma stealth developed for MiG 1.44? Evidence for this claim? I never saw any link made except by journalists after the fact. Perhaps you should talk with someone who worked on the Mikoyan MFI program about how that program went generally, you might find it interesting. Suffice to say, the Chief Designer was an ex-test pilot with little design ability who surrounded himself in mediocrity so as not to show himself up. His previous design CV consisted of being MiG-23/27 chief designer from 1970 onwards. The good guys were tied up on other programs, so MFI got the "B team".

You describe plasma stealth as a Russian speciality, but aside from failed experiments on the Meteorit missile, a press release in 1999 and some minor discussions on using plasma to shield an antenna, we've seen nothing concrete at all. I could describe anti-gravity as a "British speciality" based on the GreenGlow studies, but that would be silly.

There's an interesting thread, much more competent than here, on plasma stealth on the 'abovetopsecret' forum.

I'd like to see the link you refer to on ATS, as its full of fruitcakes normally so I avoid it where possible.

 

[flateric]

So we still haven't seen a second flight for the PAK FA? Is this normal for a Russian flight test program?

actually, second flight was on February, 6
third one is scheduled for tomorrow, February 12

 

[sferrin]

If any comparison is worth doing, it's between the F-22 and F-35 programs. The former was properly handled while the latter seems to be a bit of a mess...

Here we go again. : Perhaps you could direct me to the STOVL and carrier-capable versions of the F-22? Not at ALL comparable. Well, they're both gray so I suppose that counts in some eyes.

 

[Stargazer]

If any comparison is worth doing, it's between the F-22 and F-35 programs. The former was properly handled while the latter seems to be a bit of a mess...

Here we go again. : Perhaps you could direct me to the STOVL and carrier-capable versions of the F-22? Not at ALL comparable. Well, they're both gray so I suppose that counts in some eyes.

Sorry for the digression. I was not judging the product, just the fact that one program seems to have been much better handled and flight-efficient thatn the other, which from the outside seems more poorly managed... But then, yeah, we don't know the whole picture. All I can say is that by wanting to make aircraft than can perform varied missions, the government complicates the technical challenges to overcome. Although there is financial soundness in having multi-service, multi-purpose platforms, I still regret the days when each service had its own specific types and a distinct aircraft or two for each mission. Back to the PAK FA, let's hope it doesn't take over a decade to see it in operational service...

 

[Gavin]

So we still haven't seen a second flight for the PAK FA? Is this normal for a Russian flight test program?

actually, second flight was on February, 6
third one is scheduled for tomorrow, February 12

Good to know! So can we expect more pictures soon?

 

[Deino]

actually, second flight was on February, 6
third one is scheduled for tomorrow, February 12

Hmmm ... just found without any additional source !

PAK FA has successfully completed the second flight - 29.01.2010 29/01/2010

Fifth-generation fighter T-50, also known as a promising frontline aviation aircraft complex (PAK FA), performed the second test flight, reports "Interfax" referring to the representatives of the military-industrial complex.

Flight tests of the fighter he told, were held on Friday, February 12, at the aerodrome of Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO). 57 . The air fighter spent 57 minutes.

Before the second flight of the T-50 was painted in the colors of the Air Force Russia - gray and white camouflage broken.

At the airport KnAAPO planned to perform a few more flights PAK FA, then the fighter moves to Zhukovsky near Moscow, where will the bulk of its flight tests.Fighting quality fighter, told the agency's interlocutor, the State will be tested in flight test center of the Defense Ministry in Akhtubinsk.

First flight PAK FA as developed by the OKB Sukhoi "deals with the 1990's, made 29 January 2010 and from the airport KnAAPO. Then the fighter held in the air 47 minutes.

Specifications fifth-generation fighter T-50 still kept secret.Reported only that he can take off and landing on runways length of 300-400 meters, will be able to perform combat missions in any weather and time of day, and will differ maneuverability.

It is planned that the Defense Ministry will PAK FA, already in 2015, but did not specify on how many fighters in question.

www.lenta.ru

 

[flateric]

PAK FA has successfully completed the second flight - 29.01.2010 29/01/2010

well, the same media told us that the first flight was postponed 'due to weather conditions'...

 

[Stargazer]

Russian sites that mention the second flight only provide pictures from the first (unpainted) flight... Some even use pictures of the F-22A Raptor in flight! See, it's not just the Western media that fall in the trap of comparing the two!

 

[sferrin]

If any comparison is worth doing, it's between the F-22 and F-35 programs. The former was properly handled while the latter seems to be a bit of a mess...

Here we go again. : Perhaps you could direct me to the STOVL and carrier-capable versions of the F-22? Not at ALL comparable. Well, they're both gray so I suppose that counts in some eyes.

Sorry for the digression. I was not judging the product, just the fact that one program seems to have been much better handled and flight-efficient thatn the other, which from the outside seems more poorly managed... But then, yeah, we don't know the whole picture. All I can say is that by wanting to make aircraft than can perform varied missions, the government complicates the technical challenges to overcome. Although there is financial soundness in having multi-service, multi-purpose platforms, I still regret the days when each service had its own specific types and a distinct aircraft or two for each mission. Back to the PAK FA, let's hope it doesn't take over a decade to see it in operational service...

Sorry for grousin' at ya. I just get tired of listening to those who think the F-35 program could ever be as simple or smooth as say, the Super Hornet's. It's not like comparing apples to oranges, but apples to coconuts. Even still, it is still cheaper than developing THREE completely different aircraft. Imagine instead of developing the F-35 they decided to develop a modern Convair 200 (even without the stealth), a mini F-22, AND a modern, stealthy F-18. All THREE of those programs would likely have slid to the right and grown in expense, which totaled would likely make the F-35 seem a bargain, which is why the F-35 program is being persued in the first place. Bill Sweetman & Co. get a lot of mileage out of pointing out difficulties in the F-35 program but never once appear to acknowledge the fact that it's NOT like other programs. Nor is it like the F-111. For God's sake people, just because one aircraft failed because they tried to make a 100,000lb plane into a carrier aircraft, doesn't mean all multi-service aircraft are doomed to failure right out of the gate. F-4, A-7, Flanker, and others have all been good to excellent multi-service aircraft.

 

[energo]

Pardon me if this has already been discussed (I've vaded through about 20 of the 32 pages, but running low on time).
A couple of things in this Russian news cast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3uaS7pRGqE

The annotations notes three X-band radars in the nose section, and two L-bands in the wings. In the screenshots below, whether simply a coincidence, it looks like the animation places the L-bands right on the proposed (still unconfirmed?) IR-missile bays.

Furthermore, the close ups of what looks like aerodynamic antenna fairings, presumeably the L-bands, looks nothing like the missile bay fairings. Nor do they look anything like the wing's leading edge flaps. Could they be fitted inside? Possibly, but the combined depth of the device seems a bit large, although estimating exact dimensions is difficult. And it would be strange to have a (presumeably) aerodynamic structure inside another.

They do, however, appear similar to the moving LEX leading edge; size and root thickness (roughly), shape and rivets, but not color: http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-4.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg

Suppose answer might be closer than I think.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[LowObservable]

I'd say that was a good hypothesis. The moving LEX panel has enough volume to accommodate the electronics, and the sweep angle is about right to give an optimum field of regard, given the arrays can probably scan +- 60 degrees. And I tend to share the view that the idea is to exploit the wideband susceptibility of stealth or managed-LO adversaries: the latter is quite important since almost everyone has a reduced head-on X-band signature these days.

 

[sferrin]

I suspect a target that emits in every direction would be just what the doctor ordered for the ALR-94. ???

 

[nn903]

There's some information saying that the second, not third flight was made today. Anyway it flew again. The flight lasted 57 minutes and the aircraft was piloted by Sergei Bogdan. Also they say it's painted but I haven't come across any photos yet.

 

[lancer21]

I suspect a target that emits in every direction would be just what the doctor ordered for the ALR-94. ???

Isnt attack is the best form of defense Sferrin ?

Besides, IMO i'm sure the Su-50 will have something akin to the ALR-94 aswell... hard to believe the guys from Sukhoi would omit such a detail !

BTW i'm anctiously waiting for pics from this second flight , and especially the painted bird!

 

[sferrin]

I suspect a target that emits in every direction would be just what the doctor ordered for the ALR-94. ???

Isnt attack is the best form of defense Sferrin ?

Yes, but you have to SEE something to attack it. Not only that you've still got to deal with the fact that a radar can be detected further away than it can detect an aircraft even with a NON-stealth aircraft. So the ALR-94 detects the Russian thing before it's detected (even if it were an F-15), it motors around to the most advantageous position, and fires off an AIM-120 or two, all without ever turning on the radar. :-\

 

[nn903]

Not only that you've still got to deal with the fact that a radar can be detected further away than it can detect an aircraft even with a NON-stealth aircraft. So the ALR-94 detects the Russian thing before it's detected (even if it were an F-15), it motors around to the most advantageous position, and fires off an AIM-120 or two, all without ever turning on the radar. :-\

I think it's quite likely that in stealth (and not only) enemy environment PAK FA's radar would be secondary to the OLS hence no detectable radart emissions at all.

 

[lancer21]

So then hypothetically speaking -lets hope it will never happen btw- but you have these 2 guys in a Su-50 and F-22 respectively ...are they gonna think " gee , i aint gonna put my radar on , coz the other guy is gonna see me and shoot at me"? how are they gonna find eachother then? yes i know AWACS and intel and satelites and so on ...but lets forget about that ftm...if they are alone , are they gonna fly in circles terrified to put their radars on not to be seen ?

Well , Su-50 have IRST... ;D


But anyway , thats an interesting question, how are two roughly equal machines in the class of Su-50/F-22, both with high performace AESA, both with ALR-94-like systems going to fight ?...(i know that different people are in different sides ,either russian avionics are crap, or the contrary , they can do as good or better and their airframes are better etc etc -lets forget that for now...altho i cant help not to mention the Su-50s IRST again lol)

 

[nn903]

I know that there are many critical opinions on Air Power Australia website but I personally like this piece:

"Fights between the F-22A and the PAK-FA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A may get ‘first look’ with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the PAK-FA may get ‘first look’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time."

Full article here:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

And yes, I am a Sukhoi fanboy should somebody ask