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

[flanker]

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.

That is because the weaponbays were not sized after MRAAMs but other things. Things F-22 doesnt and will never carry.

 

[Trident]

Why are people getting downright defensive?

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...

See sketch below... the width and depth would appear to give ample room for 3 AAMs per bay even accounting for all of the caveats you mention. Look at the F-22 bay, the lateral clearance required between the outer missiles and the bay sides isn't very large and in my example the the missiles aren't even staggered.

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.

I realize that, which is why I assumed an adapter (think an internal triple ejector rack) which fits into the known twin attachment points in the sketch below. Since the adapter needs to bear not only the missile weight (however 3x200kg is less than even a single Kh-58, leaving considerable reserves) but also the loads from kicking them out of the bay, it's clearly not an entirely trivial and potentially somewhat bulky piece of hardware. I may have drawn it too compact in that regard (note the enormous reserve of space underneath though) but it doesn't strike me as unprecedented. Why, for instance, would it be harder than cramming a third MRAAM into the F-35 bay or the quadruple SDB pallet on both the F-22 and -35?

That missiles inside the doors amounts to a major redesign isn't up for debate though - that was just me thinking out loud (and in fact with an eye toward even more serious optimization surgery which this change would open the door to). While 3 MRAAMs per bay is a relatively straightforward upgrade, deleting the SRAAM bays isn't going to happen, not denying that.

That is because the weaponbays were not sized after MRAAMs but other things. Things F-22 doesnt and will never carry.

Yup, and I'm merely pointing out that there is some interesting growth potential which results from these circumstances

Talk about a can of worms.

 

[Avimimus]

Interesting.

Have you looked at the possibility of also stacking missiles in front of each other? They'd have to be quite squat.

 

[Trident]

Interesting.

Have you looked at the possibility of also stacking missiles in front of each other? They'd have to be quite squat.

You mean like the quadruple SDB pallet? As you say, it would have to be a stubby design and I'm not aware of an existing or projected weapon in Russia that would lend itself to this arrangement (even a 9M338K-derived SRAAM would be almost 3m, and the bays are 4.2m IIRC?).

 

[Avimimus]

Interesting.

Have you looked at the possibility of also stacking missiles in front of each other? They'd have to be quite squat.

You mean like the quadruple SDB pallet? As you say, it would have to be a stubby design and I'm not aware of an existing or projected weapon in Russia that would lend itself to this arrangement (even a 9M338K-derived SRAAM would be almost 3m, and the bays are 4.2m IIRC?).

Yeah, I don't know of any existing weapon. But there is the possibility that the Russian's could be inspired to copy CUDA:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17332.0.html

They are developing a new generation of missiles after-all, and probably they'll develop another generation on top of that before the T-50 ends its service life. It is interesting to consider.

 

[Trident]

Yes, in the long term I suppose there's no reason why a CUDAski would not work just as well for the T-50 as the original concept does for the F-35. If they are willing to take the risk of stacking vertically (thereby accepting the possibility that one malfunctioning missile/ejector could block multiple others), potentially even better.

 

[bananaman]

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

Interesting......look what i found in chinese forum
http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2142672&extra=

 

[flateric]

Again, it's all wrong. See patent.

 

[TomcatViP]

Where?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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

Patent images in this message on the previous page (click on "quote" line to go see it)

 

[TomcatViP]

Thank you PaulMM

 

[flanker]

T-50-9 was doing taxiing runs yesterday. In theory that frame was to be "complete" in terms of electronics but very unlikely that is still true. Either way, crossing fingers for -10 and -11 this year too, thus completing the prototypes.

 

[FighterJock]

T-50-9 was doing taxiing runs yesterday. In theory that frame was to be "complete" in terms of electronics but very unlikely that is still true. Either way, crossing fingers for -10 and -11 this year too, thus completing the prototypes.

It will be interesting to see if T-50-9 was indeed carrying a full set of electronics. If not then we will just have to wait until -10 or -11 to fly. By the way any word on the progress of FGFA the Indian Air Force T-50 variant?

 

[flanker]

Nope.

 

[flanker]

T-50-9 has flown. 3 new frames in just under a year.

 

[FighterJock]

T-50-9 has flown. 3 new frames in just under a year.

Good news for Sukhoi. Now we wait for -10 and -11 to fly, then on to series production. B)

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Wasn't there supposed to be a change or modification of the SRAAM bays starting with the "second stage" PAK FA (so T-50-8 onwards)? I don't really see any difference in the pictures, at least in shape. Is it supposed to be an external shape change, internal change, or both?

 

[flanker]

Wasn't there supposed to be a change or modification of the SRAAM bays starting with the "second stage" PAK FA (so T-50-8 onwards)? I don't really see any difference in the pictures, at least in shape. Is it supposed to be an external shape change, internal change, or both?

I dont remember where that rumor started from, but since that change has not been seen - it was most likely a false rumor.

First pic of T-50-9, certainly didnt expect this...

 

[Deino]

Tatatatatata ....

 

[RAP]

Very nice! Thanks!

 

[flanker]

Higher res;

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8585073
+
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8585072

 

[Avimimus]

New tail cone?

 

[Trident]

Not any newer than on 056 & 058

 

[flanker]

Yup, along with other things that is standard for Phase 2 frames.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Wasn't there supposed to be a change or modification of the SRAAM bays starting with the "second stage" PAK FA (so T-50-8 onwards)? I don't really see any difference in the pictures, at least in shape. Is it supposed to be an external shape change, internal change, or both?

I dont remember where that rumor started from, but since that change has not been seen - it was most likely a false rumor.

First pic of T-50-9, certainly didnt expect this...

And it looks like it didn't change for T-50-9 either. That being said, it's possible that something inside is changed rather than outside.

 

[flanker]

...

 

[Trident]

Cool Hindenburgers

EDIT: And does that thing look FAST from this angle or what?!

 

[flanker]

Front direct rear it looks like it is made out of 70% engine.

http://russianplanes.net/images/to210000/209657.jpg

 

[_Del_]

Not a huge fan of that scheme, but it's still one of the prettiest things flying for my money.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Those EFTs appear to have a slight downward incidence angle, somewhat like some of Typhoon's pylons. I believe the outboard ASRAAM pylons on the Typhoon are angled downwards slightly due to some supersonic carriage effects, IIRC. What is the capacity of those tanks?

 

[FighterJock]

Not a huge fan of that scheme, but it's still one of the prettiest things flying for my money.

It takes a lot to get used to the digital camouflage scheme, I remember when they were trying it out on the Flanker's, I initially thought it was hideous looking.

 

[flanker]

Who is "they"? Ukrainian Airforce?

 

[Desertpilot]

This bird is BEAUTIFUL. Made even more so with the "digital" scheme...

Any chance someone has a handle on the FS paint codes for those colors?

I'd love to make a model of that scheme...

 

[flanker]

Serials officially in 2019 now. First it was 2015, then 16, then 17, then 18...

In theory all the remaining prototypes will be delivered this year, so mid-late 2018 for first serials was what i expected. But i guess either;

a - They dont want to lay down any serials at all until all prototypes are done (putting production on hold, basically) and done with the testing.

or

b - They want serial frames to have Izd.30 from the get go even though it is bound to be very buggy in 2019 still.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AIRCRAFT AIR INTAKE
(57) Abstract:
FIELD: airpower.
SUBSTANCE: in the air channel (1) of airplane air
intake, an anti-radar grid (6) is installed at an angle γ,
ranging from 30 to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis
of the channel. The air channel (1) is limited by walls
of air inlet, and also by movable panels (2, 3). On the
one side the air channel (1) is opened for airflow
through inlet (4) of air intake, and on the other side
from the inlet (4), the air channel (1) is connected to
the input guide vanes (5). Grid I length in a direction
parallel to longitudinal axis of the channel, depends on
diameter of air channel in place of grid (6) and is
between 0.3 and 0.6 of diameter d of air channel (1).
The distance along the longitudinal axis of the air
channel (1) from the grid to the input guide vanes (5)
is from 0.7 to 1.2 of diameter d of channel (1).
EFFECT: invention reduces the radar visibility of
the airplane air intake by increasing radio-absorbing
and radio-suppressing capacity of air channel due to
lengthening of its reflecting planes.

 

[Trident]

Interesting... but rather vague (possibly deliberately so). The ranges stated for relative positioning and sizing of the device are wide, and little indication is given as to which of the three options offered regarding its configuration is the preferred solution.

While this patent may well turn out to cover the layout which is actually implemented on the T-50, it's so generic that I can draw only two conclusions at this point:

1. It serves as yet another confirmation that Sukhoi plans to use a blocker. This was widely hinted at before, and expected due to the straight-through duct geometry, so the revelation is not altogether game-changing.

2. The blocker will likely not be integrated with the inlet guide vanes of the engine fan (a minimum separation of 0.7 duct diameters).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

North American Rockwell registered a near identical patent in 1968, related to their FX design.

https://www.google.com/patents/US3509568

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

North American Rockwell registered a near identical patent in 1968, related to their FX design.

https://www.google.com/patents/US3509568

This is for the FX that resulted in F-15? I'd be surprised if they were considering reducing RCS that far back.

 

[Sundog]

North American Rockwell registered a near identical patent in 1968, related to their FX design.

https://www.google.com/patents/US3509568

This is for the FX that resulted in F-15? I'd be surprised if they were considering reducing RCS that far back.

Actually, there is a patent in the early 70's for a plasma field in the inlet of the F-15 to hide the fan face from radar. Stealth actually was being considered back then, as stealth investigations really accelerated in the late 50's and early 60's leading up to HAVE BLUE in the mid 70's.