Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]

[donnage99]

Note - CK already doesn't love F-22 per se, now he loves 'improved F-22', invented by himself

Which he called "f-22C." Regardless, APA has abandoned the idea of an f-22C, as they have found that such "improved" f-22 will still be no match for T-50. They have since proposed an "f-22E" version, a kinematically improved f-22 (like f-22C), but with dedicated electronic attack capabilities and defensive measures like the Growler and Super Hornet. :

 

[sferrin]

While I can understand that the F-22 end up caring less fuel because so it had to meet meet maneuver requirements, why does it weight so much? Did LM need to reinforce the structure so much as to maneuver at 9Gs? All throughout the 90' its empty weight was quoted as: 31,998lbs (14,514kg). What happened?

An explanation could come from the fact that the F-22 can carry 2,000 kg (4,500 lb) more stores given it carries that much less fuel with all other weights comparable. Its internal bays are overall smaller than T-50s, it wings would then have to be able to carry substantially more weight than its Russian counterpart, who's smaller payload is spread between its wings, body pylons and larger weapons bays.

The conclusion being that the F-22 wings are apparently very structure heavy and it T-50 will be no match for the Raptor in supersonic maneuvering.

Don't forget there's 20,000lbs hanging under the wings to make up that max weight.

 

[BDF]

While I can understand that the F-22 end up caring less fuel because so it had to meet meet maneuver requirements, why does it weight so much? Did LM need to reinforce the structure so much as to maneuver at 9Gs? All throughout the 90' its empty weight was quoted as: 31,998lbs (14,514kg). What happened?

The F-22’s weight gain was principally from heavier structure to meet the load limit and fatigue life requirements of a production vehicle over a prototype. The principal culprit for structural beefing up apparently was the problem of having three large holes in the airframe; i.e. weapon bays. As the axiom says: “holes are heavy”. Personally I have a hard time believing the production PAK-FA will be lighter then the smaller F-22. Not only is it physically bigger in all cardinal dimensions, its purported to have a larger fuel bunkerage and has not one but two ventral weapon bays (larger main bay volume).

Granted there is still very little concrete information out there on the PAK-FA specs (definitive production version), but I’m willing to bet a good chunk of change that that 18,500kg empty weight is for the T-50 which is basically an aero-shell with no combat systems at all. We also don’t how close the T-50 is to the YF-22 or the F-22A but the current trend has been a weight growth of almost 25% for both the ATF and JSF programs going from prototype to production vehicle. So I’d again wager that the PAK-FA will gain at least 10% going to production and as such the F-22 will probably retain Ps advantage throughout most of its envelope.

 

[Spring]

Sometimes , when something is designed and started with the right specifications ends better than something that started with high hopes...but finished modified to meet the reality...

The T-50 will be lighter...the final design will be around the 15 tons, it looks big, the su-27 looks huge, but is because the flying-melted wing configuration, boxy designs looks smaller.

Still waiting how they will solve the issue of having a bomb bay at the level of the wing, for such small aircraft.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Whatever one thinks of APA, one should deal with them on factual grounds.

Facts? LOL! Of course what APA call facts are in the best case assumptions. Most of the time they are assumptions based on assumptions based on other assumptions. That all these assumptions happen to generate a conclusion that aligns with the conflicted interest of the various APA contributors/principals should come as no surprise to the cynical. Especially since they tend to down play their conflicts as much as possible. But they do have great artwork and are publicly available papers about contemporary topics. Which for some is much better than waiting 10-20 years for the real facts to be declassified or doing the legwork to actually understand what is going on.

By the way, anyone who was around in the early days of ATF/F-22 can gain an interesting perspective on where PAK-FA is coming from, in terms of signatures and performance.

And that is why it’s a turkey:

I like Dan Raymer's summary of the change from "Living in the Future".

"the Air Force suddenly changed the requirement for stealth from "pretty good, especially from the front" to "incredible, from almost all directions".

If all you can get out of stealth is a 25-50% reduction in frontal detection range (US tech in the 1970s) then it’s good but it’s not going to change the nature of air combat. But if you start to stealth your ride in the ballpark of an order of magnitude reduction in detection range (80-90%) then tactical effects are really significant and everything changes. If Russians are still stuck in the 25-50% detection range reduction “pre-stealth” then that’s fine by me. Its bad news for China and anyone else still flying fourth generation aircraft in the 2020s but against my nation’s ally block they won’t be competitive.

 

[Trident]

All throughout the 90' its empty weight was quoted as: 31,998lbs (14,514kg). What happened?

Probably the same thing that seems to happen to every fighter programme, weight growth for various reasons. Some gain more, others less, with the F-22 obviously putting on quite a bit. I think someone wrote in another topic here that Northrop/MDD considered it impossible to meet the ATF requirements within the stated weight constraints, so maybe their scepticism is finally vindicated by LM's actual experience. The 32000 pound figure was probably a specified limit or a target weight, with the actual number classified (the exact value is not public even today, as far as I'm aware). That said, 19700kg does seem a bit excessive, the official line is "40000 pound class" which is almost 1700kg less - that would stretch the definition of "class" a bit, IMHO.

An explanation could come from the fact that the F-22 can carry 2,000 kg (4,500 lb) more stores given it carries that much less fuel with all other weights comparable. Its internal bays are overall smaller than T-50s, it wings would then have to be able to carry substantially more weight than its Russian counterpart, who's smaller payload is spread between its wings, body pylons and larger weapons bays.

That's plausible, since the motivation for a large external payload capability is very often a desire to carry a lot of external fuel (e.g. Rafale) which Sukhoi is not exactly a big fan of doing. Certainly, the F-22 has 4 wet pylons and in absence of heavy A/G weapons, tanks are probably the primary (if not the only) reason that it has hardpoints at all.

The conclusion being that the F-22 wings are apparently very structure heavy and it T-50 will be no match for the Raptor in supersonic maneuvering.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion, it's the G-rating that counts in this respect and I don't expect the T-50's to be lower than 9. Is the F-22 certified for more than that? Maybe it'll pull more than the T-50 if both are loaded with heavy external stores but in that case neither will be doing supersonic manoeuvering (nevermind that both will probably be unable to hit their limit at supersonic speeds).

If all you can get out of stealth is a 25-50% reduction in frontal detection range (US tech in the 1970s) then it’s good but it’s not going to change the nature of air combat. But if you start to stealth your ride in the ballpark of an order of magnitude reduction in detection range (80-90%) then tactical effects are really significant and everything changes. If Russians are still stuck in the 25-50% detection range reduction “pre-stealth” then that’s fine by me. Its bad news for China and anyone else still flying fourth generation aircraft in the 2020s but against my nation’s ally block they won’t be competitive.

I doubt you'd need internal bays and planform alignment to match the US state of the art in the 1970s though and even the T-50 prototype can offer that, not to mention possible changes (if any) between now and series production. Or are you referring to Have Blue? In which case, how much better - if indeed at all - is the F-35 (that's what the Russians would realistically be shooting for)?

As for APA, their signal to noise ratio is very often rather low, but most of the time there is a worthwhile signal buried amongst all the hyperbole.

 

[donnage99]

The T-50 will be lighter...the final design will be around the 15 tons, it looks big, the su-27 looks huge, but is because the flying-melted wing configuration, boxy designs looks smaller.

How the hell a production aircraft, with all extra structure strengthenings, avionic systems, be lighter than the prototype (which basically a flying empty shell)? You are free to defend yourself by sourcing a reason that led you to believe so. 15 tons? What information led u to believe this?

Making fanbois comment that has no relevancy in reality nor logic = TROLLING.

 

[Trident]

Granted there is still very little concrete information out there on the PAK-FA specs (definitive production version), but I’m willing to bet a good chunk of change that that 18,500kg empty weight is for the T-50 which is basically an aero-shell with no combat systems at all.

I'd say that number is one of 3 things:

1) Pure guesswork
2) The limit specified in the requirements
3) Sukhoi's target for the production variant (which will initially have been identical to #2)

I don't think I've ever seen reliable weights quoted specifically for a prototype - it's usually one of the categories outlined above.

 

[Spring]

The T-50 will be lighter...the final design will be around the 15 tons, it looks big, the su-27 looks huge, but is because the flying-melted wing configuration, boxy designs looks smaller.

How the hell a production aircraft, with all extra structure strengthenings, avionic systems, be lighter than the prototype (which basically a flying empty shell)? You are free to defend yourself by sourcing a reason that led you to believe so. 15 tons? What information led u to believe this?

Making fanbois comment that has no relevancy in reality nor logic = TROLLING.

Oh..you again..

Ok,first there is not any figure of the 50's weight, only..as you said 'fanboy' guessing

It was claimed the T50 will have a weight between the 27 and 29,so it goes into the 15tons weight, is funny how a official claim- statement was easily replaced by a wikipedia article..

And, really..the aircraft is smaller than people believe, for the same configuration the pakfa is a dwarf compared with the Flanker...not lighter? well unless something horribly wrong happens....let's wait

Depends a lot on what will happen with this program, if everything goes as planned ,it will be for sure lighter

if they find problems...wophs!...it weight will rise,just as happened with the F-22

The problem is that you think the weight increase on the Raptor was planned

It was not

 

[donnage99]

Oh..you again..

Ok,first there is not any figure of the 50's weight, only..as you said 'fanboy' guessing

It was claimed the T50 will have a weight between the 27 and 29,so it goes into the 15tons weight, is funny how a official claim- statement was easily replaced by a wikipedia article..

Oh, my mistake. Since you said lighter, but did not specify lighter than WHAT. I thought you mean the production version will be lighter than the prototype, especially given your statement right above it, which implies that they will somehow "improve" the weight as the program progress toward production model. Unless, that's actually what u had implied. I'm sorry I've always been using logic to analyse what people said.

 

[Spring]

1-Do you know the weight of the T-50?
2-Is there any reliable source for the 18500 kg figure? (let me answer for you, no)
3-The only figure we have is the Sukhoi chief claim (between the flanker and the fulcrum)

Btw, weight reductions from prototypes to production planes have happened before, see the Flanker , but is not what i talking about.

If the Sukhoi engineers did take time to think well before drawing the first line of the blueprints it will be lighter

lighter than WHAT

Is meant to be lighter...than the F22, and not by a mere ton

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I doubt you'd need internal bays and planform alignment to match the US state of the art in the 1970s though and even the T-50 prototype can offer that, not to mention possible changes (if any) between now and series production. Or are you referring to Have Blue? In which case, how much better - if indeed at all - is the F-35 (that's what the Russians would realistically be shooting for)?

I was referring to the various RCS reduction tech that is generally pre Have Blue. The result being in the former up to an order of magnitude reduction in RCS and in the later 4-6 orders of magnitude reductions. Which corresponds roughly to the reduction in detection range given in my post you are responding to.

As to “internal bays and planform alignment” high level stealth (4-6 log) is a lot more than just that. I’m not addressing specific technology I’m addressing the conceptualisation of a weapon system based on the expectation of RCS reduction. The T-50 looks very much like a weapon system conceived with the expectation of only an order of magnitude reduction in RCS providing only a ~50% reduction in detection range (compared to similar developments in history).

 

[sferrin]

According to Crickmore the D-21 had a RCS of 0.2^m with "conventional" methods just to put a reference point out there.

 

[Machdiamond]

Regarding prototypes empty weights, I really do not know or care about T-50 but I would like to point out that all the prototypes I have worked on had an empty weight that was significantly higher than the production version.

The reason is that getting the weight down represents a lot of time and money that you cannot/want reasonably spend upfront, while a first prototype is generally not the figment of the imagination of the weights guy but the figment of the imagination of the aero guy. That's probably why the weights guys do not get the respect they deserve.

Luc

 

[Sundog]

Regarding the ATF empty weights, I believe it was the McDD design that was the heaviest and they didn't know how the others got their weight down. Now, granted, we don't know much about the McDD design submission, but as many here already know, being "right" doesn't always win you the contract. Just check the A-12 program for reference; Regarding Northrop's thoughts of it. Edit: I should note that Northrop actually had the presence of mind to opt out when they knew what was being asked at the cost given simply wasn't doable.

Also, I agree with Mach Diamond, that prototypes usually are heavier. The problem with the ATF designs is that the YF-22 and YF-23 weren't prototypes, they were demonstrators. Both production designs were markedly different. Having said that, as Lantinian pointed out, given the size of the T-50, if it is representative of the PAK-FA's final configuration, there really isn't anyway it's going to be marginally less in weight than that of the F-22's, unless it's designed for a much lower G-Loading and q-limit, which I seriously doubt. In fact, I think the difference in weight will be "stealth" related, in terms of materials and coatings. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much differentiation technology wise at least in the structural sense.

 

[Trident]

I was referring to the various RCS reduction tech that is generally pre Have Blue. The result being in the former up to an order of magnitude reduction in RCS and in the later 4-6 orders of magnitude reductions. Which corresponds roughly to the reduction in detection range given in my post you are responding to.

Well, internal bays (for signature reduction rather than low drag) and particularly planform alignment are generally thought to be post Have Blue LO concepts.

As to “internal bays and planform alignment” high level stealth (4-6 log) is a lot more than just that.

Fair enough, but considering the above I think it serves as an indicator that Sukhoi has set its sights higher than the 1970s ~50% reduction in detection range. In any case, we've very likely not seen all the signature reduction methods intended for the production configuration yet (coatings, inlet blocker etc.).

Regarding prototypes empty weights, I really do not know or care about T-50 but I would like to point out that all the prototypes I have worked on had an empty weight that was significantly higher than the production version.

The reason is that getting the weight down represents a lot of time and money that you cannot/want reasonably spend upfront, while a first prototype is generally not the figment of the imagination of the weights guy but the figment of the imagination of the aero guy. That's probably why the weights guys do not get the respect they deserve.

A glance at early Typhoon or M-346 prototypes will also support that notion - parts made out of alloy that would later be composite (and that's just the outside, probably more short cuts taken internally) and then there's all the flight test instrumentation, of course. If I'm not mistaken Aermacchi actually quantified the weight reduction (or excess weight on the first airframe if you prefer ) they achieved at some 700kg? Nevertheless, as pointed out already I think it's safe to assume that the 18500kg weight does not refer to the T-50 prototype - if I had to guess, I'd go with #1 (i.e. it represents somebody's WAG)

 

[donnage99]

1-Do you know the weight of the T-50?
2-Is there any reliable source for the 18500 kg figure? (let me answer for you, no)
3-The only figure we have is the Sukhoi chief claim (between the flanker and the fulcrum)

If u were to refute the wikipedia figure, then I would not have any problem with. But that's not what u did. Your wording led me to believe that you meant production model weight will be improved from the prototype, which is an anti-logical statement.

 

[mz]

I doubt you'd need internal bays and planform alignment to match the US state of the art in the 1970s though and even the T-50 prototype can offer that, not to mention possible changes (if any) between now and series production. Or are you referring to Have Blue? In which case, how much better - if indeed at all - is the F-35 (that's what the Russians would realistically be shooting for)?

I was referring to the various RCS reduction tech that is generally pre Have Blue. The result being in the former up to an order of magnitude reduction in RCS and in the later 4-6 orders of magnitude reductions. Which corresponds roughly to the reduction in detection range given in my post you are responding to.

As to “internal bays and planform alignment” high level stealth (4-6 log) is a lot more than just that. I’m not addressing specific technology I’m addressing the conceptualisation of a weapon system based on the expectation of RCS reduction. The T-50 looks very much like a weapon system conceived with the expectation of only an order of magnitude reduction in RCS providing only a ~50% reduction in detection range (compared to similar developments in history).

Just to put numbers onto this, 0.1 fold radar return means 0.56 fold detection range. (0.56^4 = 0.1) So one could say dropping the equivalent area ten fold drops the detection range in half and not be terribly far off.
Significant tactically? I'd say. But no breakthrough. Can it be done with edge alignment, and some minor work? I have no idea.
0.01 return leads to 0.32 or one third the range.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, internal bays (for signature reduction rather than low drag) and particularly planform alignment are generally thought to be post Have Blue LO concepts.

Both are the most noticeable elements of shaping the exterior mould line of the aircraft to reflect RF away from the radar receiver as per Ufimtsev. But to shape the aircraft to achieve a very high (multiple log) reduction in RCS is a lot more than just internal bays and aligning planforms and edges. There is a very significant difference between the exterior mould line of the F-22/F-35 and a T-50 which is quite noticeable if you look beyond a bay door serration or two.

Fair enough, but considering the above I think it serves as an indicator that Sukhoi has set its sights higher than the 1970s ~50% reduction in detection range. In any case, we've very likely not seen all the signature reduction methods intended for the production configuration yet (coatings, inlet blocker etc.).

They can set their sights on whatever they want but if they wheel out something like the T-50 which is clearly a conventional aircraft that has been reshaped to achieve some LO as opposed to a LO body shaped to be a conventional aircraft then they won’t be achieving those high levels of LO associated with US stealth aircraft. This combined with that Russia has clearly lacked the investment in technology required to achieve US par LO technology and that the T-50 has a range of features typically made redundant by high level LO indicates that it does not have high level LO. This is all fine for the Russians and Indians as they can still have significant effects on their most likely threat (China) and build status in domestic circles without having to bankrupt their nations trying to catch up to the USA. But of course this does not correlate with the various conflicted interest analysts out there like APA and their friends aiming to bring down the Western Aerospace-Defence complex by misleading various uninformed opinions with their doomsday nonsense.

 

[lantinian]

the T-50 which is clearly a conventional aircraft that has been reshaped to achieve some LO as opposed to a LO body shaped to be a conventional aircraft

I think that a great way to put it.

I would make one more attempt at better explain my argument why I believe the F-22 is designed for higher G at certain conditions and why it probably ends up being so heavy as a result.

Some may recall a picture back from 1995 I think of the F-22 fuel system rig complete with 4 external fuel tanks being tested a 60 AoA with. WTF you might say. Well the Air Force had a funny requirement, namely: To be able to go around its flight envelope with full internal fuel load and weapons. I believe that placed enormous demands on the structure and the result being a very heavy aircraft. Some fuel tanks present on the YF-22 had to be deleted bringing the total internal fuel from 11,340 kg to reportedly 8,200. There is however a very good reason for this. The F-22 was designed to cruise supersonically which meant that pilots could not only burn gas faster than traditional planes but would return from their combat mission in half the time. F-22 missions last generally less than an hour and are more gentle on the pilots given the cruising nature of the flight and reduced work load. To take a full advantage of the aircraft in the air, it made a lot of operational sense to be able to refuel the fighter and get it back into the fight several times per mission. Consequently it needed to be able to engage enemy fighters shortly after it had left the tanker with full fuel on the max.

The T-50 Pak-Fa on the other hand was very likely designed around the same operational requirement of the SU-27. A long range fighter that only had high maneuver requirements when is at the combat zone and fuel is around 50%. Many people are surprised when learning that the Flanker can only make its famous maneuvers only at 25% fuel load and minimal weapons, a necessary compromise in order to achieve such spectacular range and flight performance. The down side being a structure that could maneuver at full 9G only when the fighter had spent most of its fuel and weapons already. Ever wandered why even the basic F-15C could in theory Carry much larger combat loads than even the latest Flankers when its obviously a smaller airplane. The F-15E carries even more. Well, now you know.

I believe T-50 was designed with a similar compromise in mind. Like its predecessor, the fighter likely has fuel tanks that are not stressed to carry fuel at 9G or high AoA maneuver. Same with the weapons stations. According to Wikipedia, T-50 has a useful load of 7,500 kg spread around 2 large weapons bay, 2 small weapons bays and 6 external hard points. The F-22 4 wing hard points alone can carry 9,500 kg. That's 30% more and does not even count the what the internal bays are cable of. Yet nobody expects to see the Raptor armed like Vietnam era F-4. Quite the opposite in fact. We expect it not to. So why be able to carry such weight anyway? That is simply a consequence of the requirement to have a 9G, 60 AoA capable airframe at combat take off.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Since nobody did post it (i think), this article seems to tell us definitive pak-fa engine will have flat nozzle like the F-22

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2010/04/27/194329.html

 

[flateric]

yes, according to Lyulka Scientific&Technical Center (part of NPO Saturn) chief designer Eugeny Marchukov, they 'are at the stage of issuing technical documentation for flat nozzle and reverse system', that intended for Stage 2 of PAK FA engine.

Meantime question remains if Saturn will be a winner of Stage 2 contest...

Anyway, PAK FA with F-22-style nozzles will look much different from current bird.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Ah so the translation was also good about the reverse.

This engine was (is?) to be operationnal in 2015 with the first production pak-fa or is it planned to have production pak fa with current nozzle?

Considering flat nozzle will indeed make a big redesign..

 

[flateric]

Salyut and saturn executives - all say that from 8 to 10 years needed to develop new engine

 

[Ogami musashi]

Okay thanks.

 

[sferrin]

One can't help but wonder why they'd bother with reversers. The ATF was going to have them (the F-15 SMTD actually tested TVC/thrust reversers) and then they got rid of them. I guess they'd be able to say "we've got something the other guy doesn't have" but that's not always a good thing. ???

 

[Avimimus]

They can set their sights on whatever they want but if they wheel out something like the T-50 which is clearly a conventional aircraft that has been reshaped to achieve some LO as opposed to a LO body shaped to be a conventional aircraft then they won’t be achieving those high levels of LO associated with US stealth aircraft.

Typically Sukhoi - designing the wing first and building the craft around it, just like Supermarine....

I've been wondering if the Russian requirements anticipate a future where cheap sensor drones and improvements in technology may decrease the overall effectiveness of stealth. Such a situation would make a strong incentive to prepare for a world where other advantages than LO are required - especially if you can't afford to develop a new fighter more than once every +50 years.

If requirements, especially in stealth or sensor technology can increase every 20 years (~~ time from ATF to PAK-FA ), then building in design potential may really matter.
Imagine the costs if the decision is made that the F-22 airframe is obsolete but requires replacement in the next 15 years...

 

[donnage99]

A pair of flat nozzle engines would possibly mean that the whole aft part of the aircraft will look significantly different. I wonder if they will modify an off-the-shelf nozzle into flat nozzles for flight testing, as the final engines are long to be due?

 

[Jetguru]

Sounds like another "look, me too" response / comment. I guess this means all the "super manuverability" claims being made due to the 3d nozzles goes out the window? It also appears to me in some images that the current t-50 engine layout has them pointing slightly outboad, this will have to change too. I chalk these comments up as "I'll believe it when I see it."

I wonder how long before the apa spin machine translates this "flat nozzle" speculation into the pak-fa can now time travel?

 

[Sundog]

Just for ref, the latest AvWeek talks about Pogosyan saying the new engine probably won't show up for ten years, as noted above. Also, it notes that analysts think the thrust of the -117 engines are 30K lbs.

 

[Stargazer]

Typically Sukhoi - designing the wing first and building the craft around it, just like Supermarine....

And Northrop... and probably quite a few others too!

 

[donnage99]

I've been wondering if the Russian requirements anticipate a future where cheap sensor drones and improvements in technology may decrease the overall effectiveness of stealth. Such a situation would make a strong incentive to prepare for a world where other advantages than LO are required - especially if you can't afford to develop a new fighter more than once every +50 years.

If advance in sensors decreases the effectiveness of stealth for aircraft such as f-22, then how much it decceases the effectiveness of aircraft with less stealth features than the f-22? And how much would it decreases the effectiveness of a non stealthy aircraft? For example, If f-22 can be detected at longer range by more powerful sensors, then how far out can these sensors detect an aircraft with RCS a 100 times or 1000 times larger than f-22?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For example, If f-22 can be detected at longer range by more powerful sensors, then how far out can these sensors detect an aircraft with RCS a 100 times or 1000 times larger than f-22?

Well I posted the formula on the previous T-50 thread in response to one of those fanboy’s posturing:

I simply pointed out that you appear not to understand R2/R1 = (sigma2/sigma1)1/4 in which case you don't know what you're talking about (R: maximum radar range, Sigma: RCS).

But 2-3 significant figures are not that significant in the stealth game.

But the theory expressed by Avimimus is total pointless fantasy. They might as well be planning the T-50 for conversion to gravity repulsion drive. I guess if your only intellectual stake in this whole thing is what you like and what you don’t like based on a romantic assessment then making such ridiculous excuses is more than feasible.

Man I wish this forum had a block user function. Would save making the mistake of reading so much nonsense.

 

[flateric]

First T-50 flight at LII expected nearest hours.

update
take-off at 12.46 MSK (+3.00 GMT), still in the air

 

[lancer21]

According to take-off ru , first flight lasted 39 minutes , and "51" was accompanied by a Su-24M. I'm almost as excited for the new pics as for the first flight ones...

http://take-off.ru/

 

[flateric]

photos by Eugeny Volkov aka Airwolf, http://photo.strizhi.info

 

[lantinian]

Nice!
The oversized main landing gear is in such stark contrast to the small tales. Exactly the opposite when compared to the YF-22.

2D nozzles will look good on this fighter.

Colors remind me of aggressor F-18 camos

 

[Deino]

NICE ... and here larger ones!

photos by Eugeny Volkov aka Airwolf, http://photo.strizhi.info

 

[flateric]

MOAR!
http://take-off.ru/index.php/news/93-april-2010/467-t-50-lii-29-04-2010

 

[flanker]

MOAR!
http://take-off.ru/index.php/news/93-april-2010/467-t-50-lii-29-04-2010

Haha, funny how some think alike, i wrote it in same way when posting that link on a different forum.