PAK-FA takes to the sky!

[gogbot]

I dont know whats any one has a Problem with PAK-FA.

Sukhoi has all it needs to make an Excellent Plane.
The Goal of the project was to develop and incorporate the only tech Sukhoi has yet to master. stealth



What ever the result, it is invisible on radar and Untraceable. Whether it is more or less stealth than the F-22 is not the point. If it cant be traced that is good enough.

Maneuverability.
Sukhoi plane may very well be More maneuverable given Sukhoi pedigree in making Gravity defying planes.

Payload
The PAK-FA has been designed to carry 12+ missiles or munitions.

So in conclusion, The PAK-FA is Stealth aircraft that has a greater payload,and also Sukhois Pedigree in Maneuverability.

Unless you can defeat the stealth of the PAk-FA, I dont see any reason why an aircraft manufacturer that has produced some of the best 4th gen and 4.5 gen aircraft. Incorporating the best in Maneuverability and Avionics cant learn to add a new dimension stealth and achieve the same excellent results.

Raptor meat ?
Raptor still cannot fight what it cannot see, the thing i like most about 5th gen combat is that its all about dogfights, since long range missiles are useless as you cant effectively track these planes at those ranges.

So to all those who want to do F-22 vs PAK-FA its all about dog fighting.

 

[deckingraj]

So to all those who want to do F-22 vs PAK-FA its all about dog fighting.

Thats a very interesting observation....I was told that with technology gone are the days when Dog fights were the norms...Its all BVR's now...and come these 5 generations fighters and we are back to dog fight days...However not sure how much is the technology involved vs the skills of the pilots that will decide the fate of these dogfights...

Anyways can someone shed some light on how these invisible planes talk to their counterparts or ground staff???

 

[gubbi]

T-50: A Preliminary Analysis

T-50: A Preliminary Analysis
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/29/2010 10:07 AM CST
Well, this brings back the old days when Flug Revue would pop out some over-the-fence shots obtained from the Military Missions in East Germany, and the assembled reptiles at Flight would adjourn to our secret analysis facility to figure out what it all meant.

First of all, for anyone contemplating the use of the word "Raptorski": don't. While this is an airplane that could have been the answer to the Advanced Tactical Fighter requirement, way back when, it's not an F-22 in many important ways.

In a lot of ways, the T-50 reflects the heritage of the T-10 Flanker series - it's much more like them than Sukhoi's last fighter prototype, the forward-swept-wing Su-47 Berkut, ever was. From the Flanker family, the T-50 gets the massive "centroplane" - a wide central body that blends the fuselage and inner wing - three-surface aerodynamic control and true three-dimensional thrust vectoring. The main weapons bay has been seen on a Flanker model, too.

Look at some of these in detail. The centroplane is huge, extending well outside the engines and terminating at the rear in a broad beaver-tail between the exhaust nozzles.

It accommodates a boatload of fuel on the Flanker and will do the same here. After the canard hokey-pokey in the T-10 family (in on the Su-30MK, out on the Su-35) the T-50 has something different: the forward part of the leading edge extension is movable. According to the usually well informed Flateric over at Secret Projects, it is called the Povorotnaya Chast Naplyva (PChN) or movable LEX section.

3-D thrust vectoring is also used on the Su-35. The T-50 and the T-10 family are distinguished by widely separated engines, which is important because that's the only way to use vectored thrust in roll. What's new on the T-50 is that the designers have cashed in on TVC by shrinking the tail surfaces, saving on drag, weight and signature.

With separated engines and a wide body, the T-50 designers have been able to install dual front and rear weapon bays. Added to this are side bays outboard of the engines. Flateric reports that each bay is designed to hold "at least two" missiles and that the outer bays are designed for short-range AAMs. The centerline bays could each hold two large weapons (like R-33s) or three-to-four of the newly announced RVV-MD. The latter has folding wings, as does the RVV-SD development of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) family - the latter explaining why the underwing bays are small.

The big new feature of the T-50 is stealth. The aircraft that flew today is a prototype - and it does not show visible features like a frameless canopy and panel alignment that you'd expect on a production aircraft. Other not-very-stealthy-looking features include the gaps around the inlet (compare the YF-23) and a spherical infrared search and track housing in front of the windshield. And, of course, the nozzles are round. But it has a chined forebody, edge alignment and (probably) inlet line-of-sight blockage and internal weapons.

Apparently the designers and systems analysts have looked at the thorny question of "how much stealth do we want to pay for?" and have come up with a different answer than the F-22 designers. The fact that the armed forces of potential adversaries don't have S-300 and S-400 missiles may have something to do with that answer.

Supercruise? Definitely. The aircraft has a lot of power, and you would not go with that sharply swept delta wing if that wasn't the goal.

vidcap by Matej from Secret Projects

The big question is how long the aircraft will take to enter service, which is a product of three factors - how much money is available, how many resources industry can muster to get the job done, and where the design, technically, stands at this point.

The first question depends largely on the Russian economy, and on the priority which the military gives to the fighter. At the moment, the strategic rocket forces are the priority and are elbowing all others away from the trough; also, the military could decide that the Su-35 is a good upgrade route for now. The X-factor: whether and when India will join the program, and how much cash it will involve.

The second - industry's ability to execute the program - is hard to estimate. On the downside, Russia has not inducted a brand-new aircraft into service since the 1980s. However, there are signs of a new development strategy at work here: the T-50's engines are outgrowths of the Su-35's and are being test-flown on a T-10 airframe, and the flight control system and (very likely) cockpit and avionics may be similar.

How far along is the program? Russian practice historically has been to start development with a series of prototypes that successively conform more to the production design. That's followed by an early series of aircraft that are "pre-operational" - flown by service units. Today's T-50 is, in US terms, something between a technology demonstrator and a systems development and demonstration aircraft.

Upshot - I would expect to see quite a few Su-35S regiments operational before we see a combat-ready T-50 - but with the caveat that a lot of Indian money could change things.

 

[PAFAce]

Congratulations Russia and Sukhoi! Massive achievement. There is certainly egg on my face, I had presumed this would be a tech demonstrator. It seems like a first ptototype (the Indian members were right),

In my defence, however, what I had assumed was that the PAK-FA FGFA would be a new design, comparable to the F-22. I had expected that Su-27 redesigned for Stealth (which is what this looks like) would be a separate project, like the F-15 Silent Eagle. What disappoints me about this whole thing is that we won't be seeing an F-22 type monster emerging fromt he Russians (unless they have another secret up their sleaves).

Good news for India too. PAK-FA and MCA would be great additions. What is the timeframe expected for induction? The Russians on some other forum are predicting about 5 years for their induction, so I guess roughly 7-8 years for India? Also, how exactly will the FGFA differ, apart from being twin-seater.

I can't wait for more information to come out. Thanks for the videos and pictures.

Edit
Oops. Before I get run over by rabid dogs, I must admit. The design looks like a souped up Su-27, it may well be entirely new.

AS FOR THE REST including J10/J17 thats NOW YESTERDAYS NEWS too old too little no USE to anybody in 2017

That's total BS. They will be very relavent well into the next decade. India won't have huge numbers of this by 2020, so it would still heavily rely on the Su-30MKI and the MMRCA. J-10B and JF-17 are definitely relavent to that.

What you meant to say is, the JF-17 and J-10B might go slightly out of favour in Pakistan now, as we look for a fifth Generation solution as well. Live I've said before, Pakistan should not spend a single penny more on 4th Generation acquisition programs. JF-17 and FC-20, then that's it, it's time for Next-Gen.

I do believe the United States Department of Defence will use this as an excuse to ask for the government to reconsider closing the F-22 assembly line. This aircraft will be blown out of proportions, they will make it seem as if this this was the Death Star from the Star Wars. So be cautious, if you find tidbits about how "amazing" the PAK-FA is, take it with a hint of salt.

 

[Merilion]

oh just saw this news.
a beautiful bird, i like it. congrates!

 

[no_name]

Another point that many missed here is the placement of the engines on PAK-FA. If you look closely the engines are aligned at an angle to the central axis with the nozzles pointing lightly outwards. Wrt the explanation that you gave regarding wide placement of engines and their effect on flight control, what do you think about this development? Sukhoi engineers probably had a very good reason to design the placement of eninges in that particular manner.

Reducing radar reflection? If you look at the front end pic the engine inlet also seems to point at an agle outward and not straight forward.

 

[gubbi]

guppi also to remind other members that PAK-FA is the first prototype vs F-22
to others never jump to the conclusion at this point therefore "PAK-FA is a dead meat for F-22 is invalid and foolish statement wise men should know it" pride aside lil americans focus on current issues we all will see the final version won't we?

I always find these x vs y threads unnecessary and stupid.
However, as of today F-22 does rule the skies anywhere. That does not mean that there will be no contenders for the crown and with time IMHO, the PAK-FA will give the F-22 a run for its money.
SO you are right, statements like the above are indeed unwarranted and juvenile coming from a person with such vast experience.

 

[waraich66]

Russia launches plane to rival 'US stealth fighter'

Russia's response to the US stealth fighter, a new fifth-generation fighter, has made its first successful flight.

The "fifth generation" jet is designed to be invisible to radar. Russia's air force hopes to acquire it in 2015.

 

[Supersonic26]

PAK-FA is breed between F-22 raptor and Berkut Su-47. PAK-FA body 75percent is like F-22 (from shoulder to bottom) and its Cokpit and nose is like Berkut su-47. What it means is PAK-FA can cut air more easily and its more maneuverable then F-22 raptor. Now i want to ask the members who making fun of PAK-FA have u seen Su-30MKI and F-22 raptor side by side? Both doing same moves even both design is different. What sukhoi-30MKI lack was Stealth, after burner, size, nex generation weapons etc etc. Yet sukhoi-30MKI Makes F-22 raptor worried. Now PAK-FA is getting ready. It has Stealth, after burner, speed, it will be more maneuverable then sukhoi-30MKI and will carry all next generation weapons. How about that now? F-22 a fat beast from front while PAK-FA Slim from front and more better design.

 

[toxic_pus]

Frankly speaking, from the looks of PAK-FA, it appears that Su-27 had some real rough unprotected sex with YF-23.

 

[TaimiKhan]

PAK FA has nothing to do with CHINA..

NEXT THING will here ACM tanvir is in moscow negoiating free sales of PAK FA for PAF

Feel sorry for your state of mind.

Anyway, get your memory updated, ACM Tanvir went on retirement nearly 1 year ago, so get over it whatever you have in your mind.

 

[Tiger Awan]

After all the discussion I still want to know one thing.
I could not get any idea from pics so

How many missiles can this plane carry internally????

or all 12 missiles will be carried externally adding to the marvelous stealth features of the fighter?

 

[ptldM3]

The PAK-FA's wide engine placements allows 3D vectoring, however, we do not know the extent of TV automation. Is the pilot allowed individual nozzle vector controls? Now that would remove a lot of mathematical complexity from the flight control laws but would transfer the burden to the pilot. After all, what good in having a feature if you do not know how or allowed to use that feature? Remember UA 232 above where the pilot had to manipulate the throttles himself. This mystery alone begs us to wonder how does Sukhoi view the pilot. Is he a 'killer' first and 'flyer' second? Or would the TV training and operation be so intensive that he would be so busy working the nozzles that he can lose situational awareness and lose the fight?

.

Interesting read.

The following link says the SU-47 pilot may operate the TVC manually or automatically. The TVC may also be turned on or off. However, i dont think the SU-47 had TVC. My guess is that the SU-30 has this capability, thus the SU-47 would have it to.

TVC thrust vectoring control can operates by manual and automatic modes.

SUKHOI Su-47

I can relate to losing an engine, the aircraft banks hard, luckely it was a training flight, and my brother was the pilot at the controls with todays computers an engine flare-out is much safer. Moreover, the pilot can ease off the throttle and use the vertical stabablizer to counter-balance to pull.

I really hope the Pakfa gets two boxy exhause nozzles, but with the exception they be 3D TVC. Something similar to this picture, but with the option to pivot in a 360 dagree motion.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_No-LbRWJMSI/SJdakYWwiNI/AAAAAAAAAJY/hmMiLQBySxU/s320/su27ps-1.jpg

I know we are all thowing up pakfa but here is another video, the first minute or two is the best, and i'm sure many have probably seen it but i don't care, notice that at the 24-25 second mark the pakfa moves it vertical stabalizers, but instead of having a ruder, the whole thing moves....it's neat Also checkout the cockpit at the 2:57 second mark, it's the SU-35BM cockpit but rumor has it the pakfa will have the same one or very similar.

 

[toxic_pus]

Meanwhile, the first reactions are coming in. A must read for the armchair analysts here.
----------------------------------------------
T-50: A Preliminary Analysis

- Bill Sweetman

Well, this brings back the old days when Flug Revue would pop out some over-the-fence shots obtained from the Military Missions in East Germany, and the assembled reptiles at Flight would adjourn to our secret analysis facility to figure out what it all meant.

First of all, for anyone contemplating the use of the word "Raptorski": don't. While this is an airplane that could have been the answer to the Advanced Tactical Fighter requirement, way back when, it's not an F-22 in many important ways.

In a lot of ways, the T-50 reflects the heritage of the T-10 Flanker series - it's much more like them than Sukhoi's last fighter prototype, the forward-swept-wing Su-47 Berkut, ever was. From the Flanker family, the T-50 gets the massive "centroplane" - a wide central body that blends the fuselage and inner wing - three-surface aerodynamic control and true three-dimensional thrust vectoring. The main weapons bay has been seen on a Flanker model, too.

Look at some of these in detail. The centroplane is huge, extending well outside the engines and terminating at the rear in a broad beaver-tail between the exhaust nozzles.

It accommodates a boatload of fuel on the Flanker and will do the same here. After the canard hokey-pokey in the T-10 family (in on the Su-30MK, out on the Su-35) the T-50 has something different: the forward part of the leading edge extension is movable. According to the usually well informed Flateric over at Secret Projects, it is called the Povorotnaya Chast Naplyva (PChN) or movable LEX section.

3-D thrust vectoring is also used on the Su-35. The T-50 and the T-10 family are distinguished by widely separated engines, which is important because that's the only way to use vectored thrust in roll. What's new on the T-50 is that the designers have cashed in on TVC by shrinking the tail surfaces, saving on drag, weight and signature.

With separated engines and a wide body, the T-50 designers have been able to install dual front and rear weapon bays. Added to this are side bays outboard of the engines. Flateric reports that each bay is designed to hold "at least two" missiles and that the outer bays are designed for short-range AAMs. The centerline bays could each hold two large weapons (like R-33s) or three-to-four of the newly announced RVV-MD. The latter has folding wings, as does the RVV-SD development of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) family - the latter explaining why the underwing bays are small.

The big new feature of the T-50 is stealth. The aircraft that flew today is a prototype - and it does not show visible features like a frameless canopy and panel alignment that you'd expect on a production aircraft. Other not-very-stealthy-looking features include the gaps around the inlet (compare the YF-23) and a spherical infrared search and track housing in front of the windshield. And, of course, the nozzles are round. But it has a chined forebody, edge alignment and (probably) inlet line-of-sight blockage and internal weapons.

Apparently the designers and systems analysts have looked at the thorny question of "how much stealth do we want to pay for?" and have come up with a different answer than the F-22 designers. The fact that the armed forces of potential adversaries don't have S-300 and S-400 missiles may have something to do with that answer.

Supercruise? Definitely. The aircraft has a lot of power, and you would not go with that sharply swept delta wing if that wasn't the goal.

The big question is how long the aircraft will take to enter service, which is a product of three factors - how much money is available, how many resources industry can muster to get the job done, and where the design, technically, stands at this point.

The first question depends largely on the Russian economy, and on the priority which the military gives to the fighter. At the moment, the strategic rocket forces are the priority and are elbowing all others away from the trough; also, the military could decide that the Su-35 is a good upgrade route for now. The X-factor: whether and when India will join the program, and how much cash it will involve.

The second - industry's ability to execute the program - is hard to estimate. On the downside, Russia has not inducted a brand-new aircraft into service since the 1980s. However, there are signs of a new development strategy at work here: the T-50's engines are outgrowths of the Su-35's and are being test-flown on a T-10 airframe, and the flight control system and (very likely) cockpit and avionics may be similar.

How far along is the program? Russian practice historically has been to start development with a series of prototypes that successively conform more to the production design. That's followed by an early series of aircraft that are "pre-operational" - flown by service units. Today's T-50 is, in US terms, something between a technology demonstrator and a systems development and demonstration aircraft.

Upshot - I would expect to see quite a few Su-35S regiments operational before we see a combat-ready T-50 - but with the caveat that a lot of Indian money could change things.

 

[azfar]

any pics of internal weapon bays