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

[flanker]

Getting a bit slow here i see...

Excellent video released, showing T-50-1 during high AoA trails and other snacks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IfG0dr8cPRU

Sum up of the video:

- They claim more than 500 flights has been made. I firmly believe that is a big pile of malarky. Correct number is around 300.
- They claim that top speed is 500 km more than F-22, and say that T-50's top speed is 2500 km. I don't think i need to point out just how BS that is.
- It is also claimed that T-50 is lighter and has greater range than F-22, which sounds correct.
- T-50 exceeded expectations, in for example supercruise and super maneuverability.

 

[Avimimus]

It is nice to see that security around the video footage is becoming more relaxed.

The big surprise for me is that it sounds like they are 'a stone's throw' from it being optionally manned.

Of course, Buran had similar capabilities a long time ago - but without sensor fusion, automatic target identification (and prioritisation?) and the complex flight envelope.

 

[Sundog]

Have they begun weapons separation tests? At around the 2:40 mark in the video when the T-50 does the flyby, it looks like it has a camera pod attached under the right (Left side since it's from the front) of the engine/intake nacelle.

 

[flateric]

not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did

 

[Radical]

As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

 

[flanker]

As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Just because you put in more power doesn't mean you can go faster. Structural limits doesn't change. Take this with a huge grain salt, as accuracy of this is around rumor level:

Так на испытаниях этой весной при полной загрузке топливом и массагабаритными макетами вооружений 4й борт взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135кмч и максимальной 2610кмч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24300 метров - дальше не пустили.

This spring fully loaded with fuel and dummy weapons 4th board took off from the 310 meters, has reached cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum speed of 2610km/h, there were also potential for more, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - wasn't allowed higher.

Information is from a second hand source, but originally it is from radioscanners apparently. As said, take with a lot of salt.

 

[Sundog]

not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did

OK, thanks, that makes sense.

 

[flanker]

not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did

Not only that, but it is also seemingly battling an internal issue if it should or shouldn't. (it goes back and forth)

 

[antigravite]

Definitely needs to be associated to another thread. Let's start it up here. Moderator move it where it belongs to. PAK-FA related, maybe?


A.


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument;jsessionid=E6C64B978975E303EAB9D13B3266C702.espacenet_levelx_prod_2?FT=D&date=20130605&DB=&&CC=EP&NR=2599719A1&KC=A1&ND=1&locale=en_EP

 

[Radical]

Have the other patents been formally translated as well?

 

[Radical]

As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Just because you put in more power doesn't mean you can go faster. Structural limits doesn't change. Take this with a huge grain salt, as accuracy of this is around rumor level:

Так на испытаниях этой весной при полной загрузке топливом и массагабаритными макетами вооружений 4й борт взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135кмч и максимальной 2610кмч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24300 метров - дальше не пустили.

This spring fully loaded with fuel and dummy weapons 4th board took off from the 310 meters, has reached cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum speed of 2610km/h, there were also potential for more, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - wasn't allowed higher.

Information is from a second hand source, but originally it is from radioscanners apparently. As said, take with a lot of salt.

I am definitely taking the 2610 km/h claim with a grain of salt. Especially when flateric said pretty assertively that max speed was supposed to be between 2135 km/h and 2300 km/h, lowered from the initial 2500 km/h requirement. Unless flateric is deliberately downplaying the PAK-FA's capabilities. It's also quite possible that the PAK-FA vastly exceeds the requirements. After all, its high speed performance is better than expected.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9717.msg144759.html#msg144759

 

[EricChase88]

At first F-22 stated top speed and supercruise speed was also lower for a long time than now. It should be no surprise if T-50 is substantially faster than currently stated. F-22 exceeded requirements so I don't see why T-50 cannot.

 

[flateric]

Because of construction materials T limits, as it was said many times.

 

[Radical]

I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

At first F-22 stated top speed and supercruise speed was also lower for a long time than now. It should be no surprise if T-50 is substantially faster than currently stated. F-22 exceeded requirements so I don't see why T-50 cannot.

What is the purpose of posting non sequiturs, especially for things we already established, in a thread that is trying to get facts over rumors?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

This thread is brought to you by the letter P. P for prototype

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

[/size]On the engine for the PAK FA
[/size]
[/size]Reporters asked about the future fifth-generation fighter engine being developed for the program "promising aviation complex tactical aircraft" (PAK FA), Fedorov noted that work is being done extremely well under the leadership of chief designer STC them. Arkhip Cradles Eugene Marchukova.Design Bureau NPO "Saturn", headed by chief designer Yuri Shmotinym, did a great job on the new gas generator engine characteristics have turned out much better than expected by the customer. Now comes the final configuration of the motor and coordination with the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Sukhoi asks on placing the engine on the aircraft. President of JSC "UAC" Mikhail Pogosyan puts a condition that the engine installed in the aircraft without any change in the support (now at T-50 or PAK FA fighter jet engines are installed ed. "117" before the new engine). Installing the engine of the second stage will dramatically increase the speed of the aircraft, as the increase thrust and acceleration, in addition, the engine will be easier to maintain.
[/size]
[/size]It should be noted that one of the conditions for the developer fighter is the price of a new engine - it should not be higher than the price of the engine, "izd. 117", which is set today, and this demand will be met and maintained. The engine in the production of the most cost-effective when it is released in large series, as it is today, for example, the engine AL-31 FP / FN in Moscow "Salyut" and Ufa MPO. Today, there is confidence that even at half of the series, which now is, the production of the new engine will be cost-effective. Now an estimated price corresponds to the engine "izd.117."
[/size]

http://vpk.name/news/93188_presskonferenciya_npo_saturn.html[/size]

 

[Sundog]

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

They're most likely towed in to minimize drag during supercruise. At supersonic speeds, the flow tends to be conical off of the nose, so having the nacelles angled aligns them with the airflow at it's main design point within the flight envelope. I don't think they would angle them for engine out since they have 3D TV to adjust the thrust vector of the operating engine for such situations.

 

[flateric]

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

That's exactly the reason given in patent application (that makes one wonder why people lazy to read things), but as Sundog says, it has multiple pros.

 

[flanker]

I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Compared X-35 and F-35 lately? Or F-22 and YF-22?

 

[Radical]

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

They're most likely towed in to minimize drag during supercruise. At supersonic speeds, the flow tends to be conical off of the nose, so having the nacelles angled aligns them with the airflow at it's main design point within the flight envelope. I don't think they would angle them for engine out since they have 3D TV to adjust the thrust vector of the operating engine for such situations.

I thought the TV isn't really 3D, but 2D with plane of rotation angled from the vertical? As a side note, does the EMD F-23 tow it's engines out to do the same?

I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Compared X-35 and F-35 lately? Or F-22 and YF-22?

Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon, I think the more relevant comparison is with the EMD F-22 and F-35, not YF-22 and X-35. This isn't just with the T-50, J-20 also has a lot of panels and lines facing the front.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon, I think the more relevant comparison is with the EMD F-22 and F-35, not YF-22 and X-35. This isn't just with the T-50, J-20 also has a lot of panels and lines facing the front.

I'm very curious to see what changes and what stays the same. Are these closer to prototypes in the YF-22 X-35 mold? Or are they closer to pre production aircraft? Time will tell.

 

[Radical]

Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon, I think the more relevant comparison is with the EMD F-22 and F-35, not YF-22 and X-35. This isn't just with the T-50, J-20 also has a lot of panels and lines facing the front.

I'm very curious to see what changes and what stays the same. Are these closer to prototypes in the YF-22 X-35 mold? Or are they closer to pre production aircraft? Time will tell.

If PAK-FA is still at YF-22 or X-35 stage, then the plane being in service before the end of the decade like they are planning is ridiculously optimistic.

 

[flanker]

Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon, I think the more relevant comparison is with the EMD F-22 and F-35, not YF-22 and X-35. This isn't just with the T-50, J-20 also has a lot of panels and lines facing the front.

Again i stress you really should look into difference in that area between X-35 and F-35. It is not like they added one extra tooth panel each for each of the prototypes. It literally got them all when it became F-35.

All T-50's so far are prototypes. So when T-50 is lets say first serial frame (T-50-10 possibly) and it wont use "tooth" panellines to a much greater extent, then you will have a point.

And Russians skipped ATF stage, they did not make a pure technology demonstrator like YF-22 and MiG-1.44 were. I expect there will be very few changes between T-50 and serial T-50 frame wise.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

The changes are subtle. Panels have changed. Structure has been strengthened. It is very much in prototype stage.

 

[bring_it_on]

So they will go from prototype stage to operational in a matter of 2-3 years?

 

[flanker]

So they will go from prototype stage to operational in a matter of 2-3 years?

Depends how you count? If everything goes to plan, first "serial" T-50 will be delivered in 2016. (MoD has timeframe set to 30'th des 2016) And that is 6 years after first prototype flew.

EDIT: Fixed the date, document found here: http://mil.ru/mod_activity_plan/doc.htm

 

[bring_it_on]

That is when the first operational T-50 (or operational configuration) would leave the production line...Is this the time frame for operational capability? Thats what i was alluding to..The First Production/Operationally representative F-22 was delivered and flew much earlier then the F-22 IOC or FOC. When is the in service entry for the T-50? That is Initial operational capability !

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=524038

 

[flanker]

T-50-2 is back, interesting enough without stinger mod and LEVCONs seem to be static.

 

[flateric]

She got excessive infusion of adamantium...and underside now looks like another Tron hero.

 

[flanker]

Reflecting T-50-4 i assume?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

panel modification seem similar to T-50-4 as well. I wonder if they changed the wingtips...

 

[EricChase88]

As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Just because you put in more power doesn't mean you can go faster. Structural limits doesn't change. Take this with a huge grain salt, as accuracy of this is around rumor level:

Так на испытаниях этой весной при полной загрузке топливом и массагабаритными макетами вооружений 4й борт взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135кмч и максимальной 2610кмч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24300 метров - дальше не пустили.

This spring fully loaded with fuel and dummy weapons 4th board took off from the 310 meters, has reached cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum speed of 2610km/h, there were also potential for more, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - wasn't allowed higher.

Information is from a second hand source, but originally it is from radioscanners apparently. As said, take with a lot of salt.

The speed claim should be accurate. This is the quote from Russian Air Force general Mikhailov about PAK-FA speed.

"Одновременно с исчезновением призрачной надежды на индийские деньги понижались требования к новому самолету. Так, главком ВВС Владимир Михайлов снизил на 0,15 М крейсерскую скорость: «К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15 М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число – 0,15 – влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля и увеличение веса самолета». По его словам, анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что хотя они и способны ходить примерно на таких скоростях, но редко на них выходят..."

"Along with the disappearance of the illusory hopes on Indian money went down the requirements for new aircraft. Thus, the Air Force Commander Vladimir Mikhailov reduced by 0.15 m Cruising speed: "For example, given a description of 2.15 M, the aircraft flew so fast, but this number - 0.15 - entails the need to strengthen the keel and weight gain the aircraft. "According to him, the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that although they are able to walk around at those speeds, but they rarely go out ... "

So supercruise speed have decreased from Mach 2.15 to Mach 2, which is 2135 km/h. General confirms the T-50 is meant to be Mach 2 supercruiser, like what aircraft engineers have said.

Also, General Zelin also said PAK-FA max speed will exceed F-22. http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120213/171286237.html

 

[flanker]

As far as i know, he himself never said "cruising speed".

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Also, General Zelin also said PAK-FA max speed will exceed F-22. http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120213/171286237.html

“This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range,” Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.

Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.”


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/06/18/putin-declares-new-russian-built-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-better-than-f-22-raptor/#ixzz2aARpke1V
Defense.org

All of this must be true because it was said.

 

[EricChase88]

As far as i know, he himself never said "cruising speed".

крейсерскую скорость means cruising speed. This is directly from interview.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As far as i know, he himself never said "cruising speed".

крейсерскую скорость means cruising speed. This is directly from interview.

And?

 

[EricChase88]

Also, General Zelin also said PAK-FA max speed will exceed F-22. http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120213/171286237.html

“This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range,” Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.

Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.”


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/06/18/putin-declares-new-russian-built-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-better-than-f-22-raptor/#ixzz2aARpke1V
Defense.org

All of this must be true because it was said.

So why should we trust Metz's word but not Zelin?

 

[EricChase88]

As far as i know, he himself never said "cruising speed".

крейсерскую скорость means cruising speed. This is directly from interview.

And?

It means supercruise speed was reduced from Mach 2.15 to Mach 2. This is directly from interview by Mikhailov about PAK-FA program requirements.