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

Avimimus said:
So, even if the PAK-FA doesn't have 'look first shoot first' it may have 'shoot first, scoot first' capability.

how does it shoot first if it doesn't see first? think you meen shoot second scoot first. bill sweetman said at paris that was the plan with russia planning to 'cede the first shot' . these just posted articles seem to say the russians will only incorporate rcs reduction until it affects maneuverability, then maneuverability wins out. happy to be fixed if my thought is broke down
 
I agree - cede the first shot is a possibility. We really don't know how the sensor tech stands in balance with passive stealth these days.

In any case, there is always the likelihood of ending up behind an opponent (in which case the higher RCS and IR signature can guarantee a first shot). The ZNE for an RVV-BD should be much larger than the typical sensor envelope - and even if retreating it can run you down.

Of course - that works both ways: As longer ranged missiles come out and passive/active countermeasures increase - engagement ranges move well within the ZNE for most missiles - which invalidates most range based considerations in existing BVR tactics. The ability of a PAK-FA (or F-22) to flee without having to defeat inbound BVR missiles is getting more and more dubious.

The ability to super-cruise and thus sweep through a larger forward area is still an advantage. Of course, if sensors allow detection without firing solutions, then there is the ability to use superior super-cruise to maneuver to pick or avoid an engagement. So your estimation of sensor abilities effects whether you favour that bit of extra sustained speed or not. But greater mobility isn't irrelevant yet in warfare.
 
Rlewis said:
bill sweetman said at paris that was the plan with russia planning to 'cede the first shot'


Sounds like a good strategy to die…I wonder what the Russian pilots think of it?
 
GTX said:
Rlewis said:
bill sweetman said at paris that was the plan with russia planning to 'cede the first shot'


Sounds like a good strategy to die…I wonder what the Russian pilots think of it?


What is the other option? A symmetric investment in stealth and sensors to create a true equivalent to F-22/F-35 would bankrupt Russia, even assuming they agree with that design philisophy. They can hardly pursue a "shoot first" long range engagement strategy against the F-22 or F-35 without inventing anti-stealth detection methods. Assuming T-50 is good enough to take on 4th generation fighters and eurocanards and give US fifth generation fighters reasonably stiff resistance, it will serve its purpose.
 
Whoever wrote this article need to read the patent again, these are the F-22's design weaknesses (in Sukhoi's opinion), not PAK-FAs:

Edit: This is silly, i can't paste the bloody text! I give up. I was refering to Triton's post containing that indian article on the previous page.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
GTX said:
Rlewis said:
bill sweetman said at paris that was the plan with russia planning to 'cede the first shot'


Sounds like a good strategy to die…I wonder what the Russian pilots think of it?


What is the other option? A symmetric investment in stealth and sensors to create a true equivalent to F-22/F-35 would bankrupt Russia, even assuming they agree with that design philisophy. They can hardly pursue a "shoot first" long range engagement strategy against the F-22 or F-35 without inventing anti-stealth detection methods. Assuming T-50 is good enough to take on 4th generation fighters and eurocanards and give US fifth generation fighters reasonably stiff resistance, it will serve its purpose.

this is a very good point. the russian r and d, funding, and even industrial base is just not there to compete on the same terms, so they compete on different terms and go with good enough, which is probably pretty darn good. i'm a fan of the super hornet and this will in my opinion be on about the same level of stealth, but better handling than my super hornet.
 
sferrin said:
Wasn't "avoiding" your question. Didn't seem worth responding to as you don't have any evidence that the F-22's numbers "area always given for absolute minimum RCS".

So i guess that automatically also disqualifies actually reading the patent. K.

And wanting evidence for anything RCS related for F-22... is funny.
 
sferrin said:
"Slow, ponderous and poorly armed stealth aircraft such as the F-35 are likely to be clubbed to death in a fight with the PAK-FA."

Wow, is this stupidity still being peddled? ::) PAK-FA doesn't have to out maneuver an F-35, it'd have to out maneuver an AIM-9X or ASRAAM. Good luck.


Always count on Indian News outlet to give the worst "news" possible. That was one of the crappiest so called analysis that I read in a while.
 
flanker said:
sferrin said:
Wasn't "avoiding" your question. Didn't seem worth responding to as you don't have any evidence that the F-22's numbers "area always given for absolute minimum RCS".

So i guess that automatically also disqualifies actually reading the patent. K.

And wanting evidence for anything RCS related for F-22... is funny.

What's amusing is that anybody would think either LM or Sukhoi would give real numbers.
 
I think 'ceding' the first shot is a bit inaccurate - it's not as though the T-50 is purpose-designed to bait the enemy into shooting first! What I can definitely concur with is that it seems to be designed to depend *less* on denying first look than other 5th generation designs (an extreme analogy would be the F-117 - if the enemy succeeded in outflanking its low observability for whatever reason there weren't many further strings to its bow - survivability would immediately be severely compromised*). Sukhoi's approach appears to be more 'layered' - attempt to prevent first look (moderate LO and highly diverse own-ship sensors), but if detected, remain capable of denying first shoot (very high speed) and if that also fails, retain decent odds of defeating even a shot (extreme maneuverability and comprehensive defensive aids suite).

*In fairness, operational experience largely vindicated that approach against the air defences it actually encountered in combat (which, though no longer cutting edge, were still capable enough to seriously inconvenience or frustrate operations with conventional aircraft).
 
Trident said:
*In fairness, operational experience largely vindicated that approach against the air defences it actually encountered in combat (which, though no longer cutting edge, were still capable enough to seriously inconvenience or frustrate operations with conventional aircraft).

Trident,

Having first look is to provide geometry advantage, which is fundamental in ANY air combat doctrine. Having a geometry advantage means that you can force your term of engagement on the enemy, forcing the them to bleed energy as they try to maneuver their ass out of the death hole while you retain energy and speed as you coming from an angle that is most vulnerable to them yet most advantageous to you.

I think it's not so much that the Russians intentionally chose this "layer" approach as you said. It's more so that they had no choice but to choose this approach. Engineering an aircraft with true stealth is extremely expensive. The Russians didn't have the money as the Americans nor can they afford the risk associated with engineering such an airframe. So they were forced to choose a "layer" approach which is clearly less capable. The priority is always to have stealth first, especially with the rapidly improved air to air missiles that are available on the market.
 
"Russian rubbish? India reportedly disappointed with stealth fighters from Moscow"
by Maxim Lott
Published January 26, 2014
FoxNews.com


Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/25/russian-rubbish-india-reportedly-disappointed-with-stealth-fighters-from-moscow/

Is the Russian arms industry getting soft?

Despite initial high expectations, the Indian Air Force appears to be souring on a joint development deal with Russia for a new fifth-generation fighter jet, according to the Business Standard, a major Indian business publication. The Russian prototype is "unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered,” said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar at a Jan. 15 meeting, according to minutes obtained by the Business Standard.

That contrasts sharply with high hopes voiced by the Indian government when the joint project, to which the Indian government has contributed $6 billion, began.

“[The new plane] will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities,” the Indian government said in a December 2010 press release. Those are all hallmarks of “fifth generation” aircraft.

The Indian Air Force did not respond to a request for comment.

But it is hardly surprising that the invisible-to-radar Russian fighter planes don't quite live up to the billing, according to defense experts reached by FoxNews.com.

“The Russians are certainly not up to speed in avionics,” Robbin Laird, who has served as a consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force and started the website Second Line of Defense, told FoxNews.com. “For them to pull off a stealth airframe, and for it to actually be stealthy, the engine technology has to be very good. Americans have done it with the F-22 and F-35. But it’s not easy to do. No one has done it but ourselves.”

India is the largest arms importer in world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and its military import large amounts from both Russia and western countries.

“The Indians for a long time have split their fighter industry between western work and Russian work,” Laird said.

“Clearly they want to go more Western because they recognize that the Russian stuff just isn't up to the western standards. You only have so much money to go around, and like everybody else they've got financial pressures,” he added.

Other security experts said that India has a history of incompetence when it comes to military procurement, and so it did not necessarily reflect badly on Russia.

“India has had so many problems absorbing modern equipment and supporting it that it’s difficult to know whether it says anything about the Russian systems at all,” Anthony Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.

Laird said that the Indians may be souring on the Russian deal in part to save funds so they can build more French-designed Dassault Rafale fighter jets, which can be built relatively quickly, unlike the still-to-be-designed “fifth-generation” planes under development with the Russians.

“The Rafale is a very nice aircraft, and they'll look at all the stuff the French are putting on that aircraft, and they'll look at the Russian stuff and say, why am I going down that path? Do I trust the Russians really are going to reach to the standards we set?”

Laird said that India would be best off purchasing the already-developed fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 – but that the United States government had not given permission for such a sale, even though Indian officials had asked several times to be able to consider the plane.

“If they get a chance to really look at the F35, they would want it," Laird said. "The Indians have requested 3 times to talk to people about the F-35B, which is the true revolutionary aircraft -- and the administration never answered the mail, they've blown them off, it's typical of the Obama administration. We love our allies except if you want anything.”

He added that India may in fact not be at the level where it should be trusted with F-35s, however, so the administration would be right to turn them down. But he argued that the F-35 is ahead of what Russia has.

“The Russians are good aircraft designers, and they know how to build an agile aircraft, and [the new plane they are working on] is a step forward the path of more agility and flexibility, but the problem is -- it's not all about the frame, it's about what your put in it. The F35 can see around itself, 360 degrees, can see a missile take off 820 miles away, it has a radar that's extraordinary, and the systems are integrated. The Russians I think are nowhere near that at this point.”

Laird admitted that there was a kind of “ho-hum” aspect to those types of features, but said that the information they provide to pilots and commanders would pay off in a combat situation.

Cordesman also said that he was unsurprised by the Indian complaints, given what he knew about Russian air capabilities.

“They’re very good at building airplanes,” Cordesman said. “The problem that Russia, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has been putting out the military equivalent of show cars. They look good, but it isn’t always clear how practical they are and how many of the specifications they can actually meet.”
 
Pravda article from 2010, the export forecast of the PAK FA may have changed:

"Russia to export 600 Sukhoi PAK FA fifth generation jets"
13.09.2010

Source:
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/13-09-2010/114900-sukhoi-0/

...the potential buyers of PAK FA are distributed between the following countries: Algeria (can purchase 24-36 fifth-generation fighters in the period of 2025-2030 years), Argentina (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), Brazil (24 - 36 units in the years 2030-2035), Venezuela (24-36 units in the years 2027-2032), Vietnam (12-24 units in the years 2030-2035), Egypt (12-24 units in the years 2040-2045).

Also, Indonesia (6-12 units in the years 2028-2032), Iran (36-48 units in the years 2035-2040), Kazakhstan (12-24 units in the years 2025-2035), China (up to 100 units in the years 2025-2035), Libya (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030), Malaysia (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), and Syria (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030).
 
As for the differences between PAK-FA and F-22, there are recent open-source descriptions based on the patents, and there have been discussions here, but the Russians were clearly looking for some different characteristics: the ability to carry larger weapons internally, the avoidance of large vertical and horizontal tails and 3-D thrust vectoring, to name just three of them.


I don't think anyone has ever said that the Russians (in either the T-50 or the Su-35) intend to cede the first shot. The idea is to cede the first look and deny the first shot, based to no small extent on the inherent characteristics of AMRAAM - or for that matter any conventional rocket-powered AAM of AMRAAM-like size.


And if anyone wants to start an argument about AMRAAM's limitations or otherwise, I suggest that they first look at the ops analysis and competition that led to Meteor.
 
donnage99 said:
Trident said:
*In fairness, operational experience largely vindicated that approach against the air defences it actually encountered in combat (which, though no longer cutting edge, were still capable enough to seriously inconvenience or frustrate operations with conventional aircraft).

Trident,

Having first look is to provide geometry advantage, which is fundamental in ANY air combat doctrine. Having a geometry advantage means that you can force your term of engagement on the enemy, forcing the them to bleed energy as they try to maneuver their ass out of the death hole while you retain energy and speed as you coming from an angle that is most vulnerable to them yet most advantageous to you.

I think it's not so much that the Russians intentionally chose this "layer" approach as you said. It's more so that they had no choice but to choose this approach. Engineering an aircraft with true stealth is extremely expensive. The Russians didn't have the money as the Americans nor can they afford the risk associated with engineering such an airframe. So they were forced to choose a "layer" approach which is clearly less capable. The priority is always to have stealth first, especially with the rapidly improved air to air missiles that are available on the market.


Well, as I said, the T-50 design bears evidence that Sukhoi does acknowledge the first-look advantage and attempts to secure it (good, though not F-22-level LO to reduce the enemy's detection range, very powerful air-to-air sensor suite - probably the most comprehensive among 5th generation fighters in fact* - to increase its own). Only they do not emphasize it quite as strongly as other 5th generation designs and chose to re-direct some of the effort towards other capabilities (useful for denying first-shot even when detected, and subsequently defeating the shot if necessary). In other words, the PAK-FA survivability concept is not 'F-22 minus some LO' (which would indeed be clearly less capable) but 'F-22 plus a few other things, minus some LO' (where it is not at all 'clear' which is better, especially when the operational environment may be significantly different**). The corollary is that it's also not clear that this approach is any less challenging to engineer, as the reduced investment in LO (such as it is) is balanced by increased effort in other areas (which may or may not come more easily to the Russian industrial and scientific base, but it's the end result that counts).

* wide radar field of regard (thanks to cheek arrays), IRST, situational awareness EO system - neither the F-22 nor the F-35 nor the J-20 tick all those boxes.

** Take the Su-27 and F-15 - the former's N001 radar provides competitive detection range performance but inferior situational awareness - however, the F-15 depends more on its radar for situational awareness because (at least until the early 2000s) it lacked an intra-flight datalink and still lacks an IRST. The US solution eventually proved highly effective, but Sukhoi successfully designed their way around the issue with a different approach - they were both able to hold their own against MiG-29s (the Flanker even in a less favourable environment).
 
GTX said:
Wishful thinking to say the least


I would definitely put a good chunk of the opportunities mentioned in that category, but some of them are very good possibilities (Vietnam for one, or Algeria, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Iran and Malaysia - perhaps even Egypt, who knows where they'll be in 30 years?).
 
LowObservable said:
And if anyone wants to start an argument about AMRAAM's limitations or otherwise, I suggest that they first look at the ops analysis and competition that led to Meteor.

Assuming the AIM-120D doesn't have a dual-pulse motor a possible "fix" could be as simple as adding one. (Personally, I'd prefer something like a 2-stage CUDA where a booster lofts the CUDA into "the basket" and then it's motor and guidance system light up for the end game. Seems to me a mix of standard CUDAs and 2-stage CUDAs could maximize flexibility while keeping costs reasonable.)
 
As I said, look at the history. Raytheon offered the two-pulse ERAAM as a step towards the air-breather (then called FMRAAM) and the response was Daniel 5:27.

Theoretically one could develop all kinds of new missiles as a counter to the Russian approach, but in practice, a highly indelicate expression involving my aunt, and under what circumstances she might be my uncle, leaps to mind.
 
LowObservable said:
Theoretically one could develop all kinds of new missiles as a counter to the Russian approach,

Call me crazy but trying to dodge AMRAAMs doesn't seem like a winning "strategy" to me.
 
Ask the people who ran the JOUST simulations at Farnborough in the late 80s/early 90s, and concluded that a notional "Super Flanker" could dodge AMRAAM (or any evolutionary development thereof) well enough to reduce its effective range quite dramatically. That's where SR(A)1239 came from.
 
LowObservable said:
Ask the people who ran the JOUST simulations at Farnborough in the late 80s/early 90s, and concluded that a notional "Super Flanker" could dodge AMRAAM (or any evolutionary development thereof) well enough to reduce its effective range quite dramatically. That's where SR(A)1239 came from.

I guess time will tell. The DoD doesn't seemed concerned enough (yet) to be wringing their hands over it.
 
LowObservable said:
Ask the people who ran the JOUST simulations at Farnborough in the late 80s/early 90s, and concluded that a notional "Super Flanker" could dodge AMRAAM (or any evolutionary development thereof) well enough to reduce its effective range quite dramatically. That's where SR(A)1239 came from.

If you can, please post info on "JOUST." That sounds like a big piece of info.
 
Something from Jane's IDR, 1998 -
The UK Defence Research Agency developed its Joust simulation to explore the effect of active-radar missiles, better sensors and more agile aircraft on air combat. A workstation-based system, using wide screens rather than domes and "virtual" cockpit displays rather than realistic mock-ups, Joust has attracted interest from a number of export customers.
Even a brief Joust engagement shows how complex the BVR fight of the 2000s might be. The attacker no longer needs to run blindly behind the missile in order to guide it: he is free to manoeuvre through as much as 90 degrees as long as he can still track the target. The target, meanwhile, can counter-attack with a BVR launch of his own and then try to evade the incoming missile, perhaps by losing altitude and drawing the missile down into denser air where it will quickly run out of energy. If the bogey then breaks hard upwards, the missile may not be able to follow.
Rather than the classic indecisive exchange of BVR missiles, leading to the "merge" into a WVR fight, Joust simulations show extended multi-shot BVR fights with the opponents alternately slashing and dodging, but staying out of visual range and avoiding a slow, turning engagement. Often, the loser is the one who runs out of altitude first, and ends up subsonic and out of options.
Joust simulations were instrumental in persuading the Royal Air Force that the differences in performance between the AMRAAM and the Vympel R-77 (AA-X-12 Adder) are real and significant. The R-77, a heavier missile with a bigger motor, is assessed as having better kinematics and better energy-at-range than the AMRAAM. Consequently, the RAF has not yet committed to AMRAAM for the EF 2000 and has defined Staff Requirement (Air) 1239 for a new AAM.
 
GTX said:
Wishful thinking to say the least

I imagine that the appearance of the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 were a surprise to the Center for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade when the estimated the export potential of the Sukhoi PAK FA.
 
Trident said:
Well, as I said, the T-50 design bears evidence that Sukhoi does acknowledge the first-look advantage and attempts to secure it (good, though not F-22-level LO to reduce the enemy's detection range, very powerful air-to-air sensor suite - probably the most comprehensive among 5th generation fighters in fact* - to increase its own). Only they do not emphasize it quite as strongly as other 5th generation designs and chose to re-direct some of the effort towards other capabilities (useful for denying first-shot even when detected, and subsequently defeating the shot if necessary). In other words, the PAK-FA survivability concept is not 'F-22 minus some LO' (which would indeed be clearly less capable) but 'F-22 plus a few other things, minus some LO' (where it is not at all 'clear' which is better, especially when the operational environment may be significantly different**). The corollary is that it's also not clear that this approach is any less challenging to engineer, as the reduced investment in LO (such as it is) is balanced by increased effort in other areas (which may or may not come more easily to the Russian industrial and scientific base, but it's the end result that counts).

* wide radar field of regard (thanks to cheek arrays), IRST, situational awareness EO system - neither the F-22 nor the F-35 nor the J-20 tick all those boxes.
favourable environment).
[/size]



Your comment reminds me so much of Boeing PR people claiming that unlike the f-35, the super hornet employs a more diverse set of approaches toward survivability - beside reducing RCS, also include towed decoy, electronic countermeasures. *roll eyes*


Stealth will always be your first option because it has overwhelming advantage over the other options that you listed - Using a powerful sets of radars hoping to detect the stealthy enemy also advertises your own positioning. And kinetic performance is to get you quickly into position that provide geometrical advantage. However, being stealthy means you are already in that geometrically advantageous position long before your opponent can 'race' there with their supposedly more superior kinetic performance.
 
Triton said:
GTX said:
Wishful thinking to say the least

I imagine that the appearance of the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 were a surprise to the Center for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade when the estimated the export potential of the Sukhoi PAK FA.


Ah but will we see them exported?
 
GTX said:
Triton said:
GTX said:
Wishful thinking to say the least

I imagine that the appearance of the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 were a surprise to the Center for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade when the estimated the export potential of the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Ah but will we see them exported?
The J-31 maybe. China will treat the J-20 like the US treats the F-22.
 
[list type=decimal]
[*]You said J-20 and ... J-31,
[*]It is one thing to offer them for export...another altogether to actually export any.
[/list]
 
GTX said:
[list type=decimal]
[*]You said J-20 and ... J-31,
[*]It is one thing to offer them for export...another altogether to actually export any.
[/list]

I thought that you might be referring to a specific news story in which AVIC reversed its decision to offer the Shenyang J-31 for export. The Pravda article also estimated the export of up to 100 units of the Sukhoi PAK FA to China in the years 2025-2035. This seems highly unlikely at the present time considering that China is currently developing the Chengdu J-20. Of course, offering an aircraft for foreign sale does not necessarily result in sales and prototype fighters don't necessarily result in production fighters.
 
Triton said:
GTX said:
[list type=decimal]
[*]You said J-20 and ... J-31,
[*]It is one thing to offer them for export...another altogether to actually export any.
[/list]

I thought that you might be referring to a specific news story in which AVIC reversed its decision to offer the Shenyang J-31 for export. The article also estimated the export of up to 100 units of the Sukhoi PAK FA to China in the years 2025-2035. This seems highly unlikely at the present time considering that China is currently developing the Chengdu J-20. Of course, offering an aircraft for foreign sale does not necessarily result in sales.

You mean like the Chinese Su-35 that just won't die but never seem to materialize :p.

Anyways, I wouldn't put too much stock to AVIC's interest in exporting the J-31 right now. Shenyang is just looking for customers in the event that their attempt to lure the PLA into buying doesn't work.
 
Iran is also doing defense business with China and China is importing Iranian oil. I wonder if Iran may be an export customer of the Shenyang J-31 rather than the PAK FA. The Pravda article projected 36-48 units of the PAK FA in the years 2035-2040.
 
Triton said:
Iran is also doing defense business with China and China is importing Iranian oil. I wonder if Iran may be an export customer of the Shenyang J-31 rather than the PAK FA.

I'd think if the J-31 ever got going there would be more than a few customers. (Basically, everybody who'd like an F-35 but can't buy one.) I wonder if they could even tempt Russia?
 
Are you seriously suggesting Russia might be "tempted" to buy J-31.

...

Wow, just wow. :eek:
 
Why not? They do have plan to replace the mig-29. They have bought foreign goods before - mistral class amphibious assault ship from France and uavs from Israel.
 
flanker said:
Are you seriously suggesting Russia might be "tempted" to buy J-31.

...

Wow, just wow. :eek:

Why not? They're buying French Mistrals.
 
Isn't Russia working on it's own replacement for the MiG-29?
 
As far as i understand still a paper plane. The PAK FA wouldnt fly without serious investment from russia. So unless russia can convince india to merge their light 5th gen combat aircraft program, i doubt it would get past being a paper plane.
 
Triton said:
Iran is also doing defense business with China and China is importing Iranian oil. I wonder if Iran may be an export customer of the Shenyang J-31 rather than the PAK FA. The Pravda article projected 36-48 units of the PAK FA in the years 2035-2040.

Too politically sensitive right now, but maybe in the future if the nuclear issue has some form of settlement.

sferrin said:
flanker said:
Are you seriously suggesting Russia might be "tempted" to buy J-31.

...

Wow, just wow. :eek:

Why not? They're buying French Mistrals.

Because Russia wouldn't want to prop up a rival arms dealer, I think. Out of all potential arms dealers in the world, China intrudes on their market the most.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom