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

[fightingirish]

Here an article in Russian about the Test shooting with the T-50 (PAK FA) cannon.
Link (Russian): http://uacrussia.livejournal.com/52986.html

 

[bring_it_on]

JED overview of the PAK-FA - https://www.scribd.com/document/325849649/AOC-PAK-FA?secret_password=mTr3vdrE0Qwm2nxZym1K

 

[Deino]

I just wanted to ask again - patience is really not my best virtue - if there are any news concerning T50-8 or any other new bird when I found this:

https://ria.ru/arms/20161020/1479651680.html

Translated via Bing (I'm sorry !)

Rybinsk (Yaroslavl region), October 20 -. RIA Novosti ninth prototype fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) has started testing, told reporters on Thursday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.

The first PAK FA should go into service in 2017, formerly commander confirmed videoconferencing Viktor Bondarev.

"Today we have nine aircraft already out We went to comprehensive testing, testing aircraft weapons, all avionics complex." - Borisov said.

According to him, tests are on schedule, "special no complaints."

"Aircraft performance characteristics have already been confirmed today turn to the issue of complex tests, including tests of aviation combat complex.", - He added.

Borisov noted that the T-50 "crossed all the requirements that are now brought to this kind of aircraft.

Just wanted to ask ... but what are these 9 aircraft??

All we know so far are ...

1. T50-1
2. T50-2
3. T50-3
4. T50-4
5. T50-5 no longer but now T50-6 = T50-5R
6. T50-7 = static test specimen
8. T50-8
9. T50-???

If they also include the static test specimen like T50-KNS and T50-7 it's a bit lame IMO....

Deino

 

[flanker]

You forgot about the newest frame Deino, T-50-6-2. He is almost certainly talking about T-50-8, with it being ninth he is probably counting the 6 flying as of now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5R, 6-2) and the two static frames -0 and -7. Ignoring KNS and that 5 and 5R are different aircraft, but whatever.

It is unclear what he said anyway. RIA and Zvezda has very different transcripts for the exact same line.

 

[Deino]

You forgot about the newest frame Deino, T-50-6-2. He is almost certainly talking about T-50-8, with it being ninth he is probably counting the 6 flying as of now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5R, 6-2) and the two static frames -0 and -7. Ignoring KNS and that 5 and 5R are different aircraft, but whatever.

It is unclear what he said anyway. RIA and Zvezda has very different transcripts for the exact same line.

Thanks a lot, but this would make still 1, 2, 3, 4, 5R, 6-2 and 8 ... so only flyable 7 airframes ?? Or am I wrong? How does he come to 9 ?

 

[flanker]

As i already said;

...he is probably counting the 6 flying as of now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5R, 6-2) and the two static frames -0 and -7

I trust Zvezda's quote more which is different than the one by RIA despite both being transcripts...

Девятый самолет ПАК ФА выходит из опытной партии.

Ninth aircraft PAK-FA exits/leaves from the experimental batch.

That is the direct translation. Which atleast directly seems to me what he is saying is that ninth T-50 will be more serial, which is in line with what the infamous Azohen Vey said that T-50-9 should be complete in terms of electronics. Borisov didnt say directly a new prototype has joined the ranks.

So what he probably meant is that ninth (aka T-50-9) T-50 will be closer to serial. It is not ninth T-50 prototype in total, and 10'th *flying* T-50 because in reality there were two different T-50-5's, but it is easier to refer to T-50-9 as ninth.

 

[kaiserbill]

From what I can gather, this is a new pic of T-50-6-2.

 

[Deino]

From what I can gather, this is a new pic of T-50-6-2.

But is T50-6-2 not already '056' ??? ... I'm really lost already :-[

1. T50-0 = static
2. T50-1 (051)
3. T50-2 (052)
4. T50-3 (053)
5. T50-4 (054)
6. T50-5 no longer ... now + T50-6-1 = T50-5R (055)
7. T50-6-2 (056)
8. T50-7 = static
9. T50-8 (??)

Or am I still wrong ??

 

[GTX]

From what I can gather, this is a new pic of T-50-6-2.

Oh, those rivets...

Thanks for this - it is interesting to see a close up of the LEVCONs.

 

[Deino]

From what I can gather, this is a new pic of T-50-6-2.

Any final outcome if this Bird is indeed 6-2? ... And just to be sure the no. 6-2 is now n. 056???

Deino

 

[flanker]

Yes to all of the above. From an insider who works at LIS at KnAAZ;

Testfitted new missiles in the past few days, fit very well into the bay. And the inner fueltank is a very good fit too. Soon it will fly.

Not entirely sure what he means re fueltank, sounds like there can be one placed instead of missiles inside of the main bays? Asked for clarification.

 

[Deino]

Yes to all of the above. From an insider who works at LIS at KnAAZ;

Testfitted new missiles in the past few days, fit very well into the bay. And the inner fueltank is a very good fit too. Soon it will fly.

Not entirely sure what he means re fueltank, sounds like there can be one placed instead of missiles inside of the main bays? Asked for clarification.

Sounds interesting, but back to my question above: Any final outcome if this Bird is indeed 6-2? ... And just to be sure the no. 6-2 is now n. 056???


Thanks in advance,
Deino

 

[flanker]

I already said yes to all of the above man...

 

[Deino]

I already said yes to all of the above man...

Sorry and thanks a lot for Your patience with my own chaos ! I think I'm either getting old or here simply too much at work at the moment.

Thanks again.

Deino

 

[FighterJock]

Just found this video on YouTube on the PAK-FA, don't know what you all will think of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKmRK_J7ao4

 

[stealthflanker]

The sound in the vid is so robotic... Like my Microsoft sam...

 

[flanker]

T-50-8 has started doing taxiing tests, to fly very soon.

 

[flanker]

The new engine (izd.30) tech demonstrator had its first test firing 5 days ago!

As of now, the plan is to fit an actual engine to T-50 in late 2017 and start testing in 2018.

 

[flanker]

T-50-8 made its first flight today. Three T-50's flown in a span of one year.

 

[FighterJock]

T-50-8 made its first flight today. Three T-50's flown in a span of one year.

That is great news for the PAK-FA program, wonder when we will see any video footage of it?

 

[Deino]

T-50-8 made its first flight today. Three T-50's flown in a span of one year.

First of all CONGRATS !!!

Sorry, again me .... but which three T50s??

via http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/86324/ ... so these three in "nearly" one year span are 5R, 6-2 and now 8 ?

Т-50-5Р — 16 октября 2015 года
Т-50-6-2 — 27 апреля 2016 года
Т-50-8 — 17 ноября 2016 года

Can't wait for images

 

[flanker]

T-50-8 made its first flight today. Three T-50's flown in a span of one year.

That is great news for the PAK-FA program, wonder when we will see any video footage of it?

Well, i certainly dont expect anything from Sukhoi. They have yet to confirm that T-50-6-2 has flown or shared any official pictures about it. Cant recall if they ever confirmed -5R, but certainly didnt share any pictures then either.

On top of that, Chinese are in Ramenskoye at the moment, training to get their clearances for Su-35S. Because of that, it is possible that T-50-8 wont visit Ramenskoye at all and go directly to Akhtubinsk, which is a black hole.

T-50-8 made its first flight today. Three T-50's flown in a span of one year.

First of all CONGRATS !!!

Sorry, again me .... but which three T50s??

via http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/86324/ ... so these three in "nearly" one year span are 5R, 6-2 and now 8 ?

Т-50-5Р — 16 октября 2015 года
Т-50-6-2 — 27 апреля 2016 года
Т-50-8 — 17 ноября 2016 года

Can't wait for images

Yes, those.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Ground tests of the T-50's new engines have started. Article for subscribers only though.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/first-test-starts-sukhoi-t-50-s-new-engine

 

[flateric]

To be precise, _demonstrator engine_

 

[totoro]

if demonstrator and not a prototype, would that mean a few more years until development and testing cycle is complete?

 

[flanker]

That would be true either way, but it is extra true in this case. As of now the plan to do acceptance testing will be done in 2020. Realistically we are probably looking at 2022 or something like that.

 

[flanker]

T-50-8 has possibly arrived to Zhukovsky in An-124.

 

[flanker]

T-50-6-2 and T-50-8 pictures;

http://www.knaapo.ru/press-centre/gallery/22/

I have attempted to pull out high resolution pictures, but no luck. Like so;

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-055/t-50-055_01_hires.jpg

 

[Deino]

Anyway ... thanks a lot !

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Does T-50-8 have SRAAM bay changes that flanker mentioned earlier? It looks the same from these pictures.

 

[Deino]

IFR-test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n7tJnM-Fkc

 

[FighterJock]

IFR-test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n7tJnM-Fkc

A highly interesting video Deino, thanks for posting. B)

 

[Deino]

T50-8 war spotted at Zhukovsky

 

[flateric]

Many of you wondered for a long time what it looks like...enjoy.

 

[flanker]

Sweet, thanks for heads up.

 

[Trident]

Certainly interesting. Seeker FoV shown in plan view seems modest compared with the +-90° gimbal limit seen in modern Western SRAAMs. Still, that is a function of the missile type, not the aircraft, and the solution on the T-50 clearly gives a potential FoV equal to or better than on the F-22 and J-20. Particularly in the upward direction (at the very least compared to the J-20 where the canard is in the way) which would be a significant advantage in a dogfight when unable to pull lead pursuit on your target.

However, all three neatly put into perspective the debilitating complexity incurred by accommodating legacy LOBL SRAAMs, IMHO. A couple of months ago I did some basic sketches which seemed to indicate that it might *just* be possible to have 5 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs on the T-50 without dedicated SRAAM bays at all. One SRAAM (folding-fin 9M338K type) rail-mounted on the inside of each forward main weapons bay door plus 2 MRAAMs in the bay proper (canted ejector trajectory to clear the door mounted SRAAMs) and MRAAMs on triple ejectors in the rear bay. That'd be only 1 MRAAM down on the F-22 while eliminating 2 weapons bays with associated weight, drag, RCS and cost!

Granted it was really tight and I did not work diligently enough to be sure that there wasn't a clash somewhere after all, but still it seemed within the realm of possibility with careful staggering and alignment. Apart from ensuring clean separation of the forward MRAAM pair (could get *very* messy during maneuvers I suspect!), the only other major stumbling block seemed to be reliable LOAL (2-way datalink for confirmation of lock on to the correct target) for the SRAAMs.

Formidable challenges no doubt, but is working out those problems really so hard that compromising the aircraft with dedicated SRAAM bays (extending trapeze launchers for FoV, weight, RCS, drag, cost) is preferable? Especially if, as has happened on the F-22 and possibly the T-50, the bays are sized for missiles not originally designed to be compact (AIM-9M, R-73 derivative).

 

[flateric]

There are four internally carried MRAAMs on T-50. Two per bay. At least on WT model.

 

[Trident]

I know, but at a cross section of approximately 0.6x1.0m, that leaves A LOT of unused space, so I could definitely see denser A/A load-outs in future.

 

[Avimimus]

I know, but at a cross section of approximately 0.6x1.0m, that leaves A LOT of unused space, so I could definitely see denser A/A load-outs in future.

Shouldn't a lot of that may be reduced by bay hinges, weapon trapezes etc? Perhaps the Kh-38 gives us the best estimate (especially if the pays are sized around such air-to-surface missiles): 4.2 metres in length and a 310 cm diameter...

It does seem that payload depth isn't a priority. I wonder if we'll see Su-34 or PAK-DA missile trucks being developed? Or whether payload depth simply isn't a priority.

That said there is a lot of potential for growth in the PAK-FA armament. By using more compact folding-fin missiles which dedicate more volume to the diameter of the missile itself it should be possible to fit the T-50 with missiles that have superior ballistic performance and sensor sizes. This could substantially increase the first-shot PK (at least until we see DEWs make their appearance).

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

The volume may be there, but the structural load paths to handle additional hardpoints may not. I don't think a hardpoint can be arbitrarily placed in the weapon bay. For instance, in order to have weapon hardpoint on the door, the structural design of the door and hinge may have to be substantially strengthened or altered. I believe the LAU-147 launcher on the F-35 is mounted such that the hinge bears most of the load rather than the bay door itself.