Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]

[Spring]

The whole yf-23 design was studied before any kind of stealth requirement was demanded, these flats were there before any stealth requirement.

At such high temperatures, any exhaust will get heated at the same rate, square shape does not really matters, unless the exposed area is really huge (is not perimeter what matters btw), more important than the shape of the exhaust is the use of ceramic materials, to stop heat conductivity

to the plume itself it is rapidly cooled by the atmosphere and while visible does not provide the right kind of information most IR seekers need

It really does not matter how fast the plume is cooled down (which i pretty doubt the 22's exhaust does this), what matters is to take that heat and to turn it into something else...

No matter how fast you cool it down, is the same quantity of enery thrown to the system, but mostly important the cooling process comes from the same temperature higher peak, if you don't understand what does this means,i'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

A small but good boxer will often beat a big but bad boxer. But a big good boxer will always beat a small good boxer.

Stop this kind of phrases, are really annoying..... give me an explanation how the F-22 with all it surfaces pointing down is stealth

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

tbh, radar stealth is often confusing for a lot of people. pointblank RCS measured in the L-band and X-band are very different in that X-band RCS is bigger than L-band by a factor of 100(or square of the difference of their bandwidth/lambda). a very odd fact though is that spheres/spheroids aren't affected by bandwidth at all(which also also why curved faceted shapes are described to be stealthier than just faceted shapes because of the creeping wave effect).

whether that 0.5m^2 claim is true or not, it would be safe to assume that measurement was taken at pointblank X-band or even at a higher frequency. conversely, an RCS of 0.0001m^2 would be achievable at L-band or even lower frequencies. again, this reflects the intended mission parameters of an aircraft.

regarding IR signature management, I'm more inclined to believe that the YF-23's IR signature is significantly reduced as to please the Naval requirement as compared to the YF-22. as far as the F-22's radar rear aspect is concerned, though its nozzles are stealthy, the engine exhaust face is seldom taken into consideration in that they're visible to radar unlike the YF-23's buried engines.

In light of the PAK FA, it would be safe to assume that they invested a lot of effort to reduce IR and radar emissions with its designated engine and nozzles.

Abe does have a point though that it's usually the airframe itself that is IR stealth treated since it's the forward hemisphere that is often intercepted by sensors, hence the logical area of concern.

 

[flanker]

At such high temperatures, any exhaust will get heated at the same rate, square shape does not really matters, unless the exposed area is really huge (is not perimeter what matters btw), more important than the shape of the exhaust is the use of ceramic materials, to stop heat conductivity...

Actually i have read that the most effective ratio is 1/8 (height to width on exhaust). So shape really matters.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

the obvious design trade off ofc would be not being able to use 3D TVC though heat management may be done with axissymmetric nozzle with ejector nozzle design incorporated.

 

[flateric]

new clues appeared that T-50 was dismantled not for repairs, but for transportation to LII

 

[Woody]

A possible reason that the T-50 has a 2 piece canopy could be that the front screen is made from something more heat resistant than polycarbonate. Such high temperature resistant materials are most likely heaver and less malleable, making them impractical for a single piece frameless canopy.

The F-22 and F-16 have polycarbonate canopies and polycarbonate starts to softens at around 150 degrees C limiting the maximum sustained speed (so did the YF-23).

Perhaps this is an indication that the T-50 expects to fly faster longer.

Cheers, Woody

 

[nn903]

An interesting analysis here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

 

[Matej]

In fact the canopy is made from the three pieces of the transparent material. The movable part has the joining line on the top. Its good for the structural integrity, but a bit odd.

 

[flanker]

Okei, as i said, a bit rivet counting, and smaller details Matej...

1- Windshield should be in a straight line.
2- I am a bit confused about this one. The inflight pic (the high res one where it is taking off) shows that these are details are for themself, with grey stripe between the sensors, while other pics (like Flateric's special pic that he posted a bit back) shows that there are on one metal plate. The first highres pics with the front wheel off shows these two as on one metal plate. So my theory is that Flaterics newest pic actually shows the ground test article, and not T-50-1. ???
3- There is a small sideways L sensor on the underside of the nose.
4 - Should be slightly bigger?
5- The line across the nose should be stronger imho.
6- Lacks a "tooth" on the inside.
7- Whole mesh is oversized imho. I know it is hard to judge from the pics, but it deffinetly should be shorter.
8- Bigger "tooth" with bigger angles.
9- Fairing for the IRST looks sliiiiiiiiightly too long.
10- The bottom part of the yellow stripe should extend slightly more. It should be above (and sliiiighly beyond) the beginning of the rectangle for the in flight refuel probe.

 

[Foxglove]

Quote from overscan:
Su-47 has some reduced RCS features. It was claimed to be reduced by about a factor of 10. That isn't stealthy, unless you consider the Su-35 "stealthy".

Plasma stealth developed for MiG 1.44? Evidence for this claim? I never saw any link made except by journalists after the fact. Perhaps you should talk with someone who worked on the Mikoyan MFI program about how that program went generally, you might find it interesting. Suffice to say, the Chief Designer was an ex-test pilot with little design ability who surrounded himself in mediocrity so as not to show himself up. His previous design CV consisted of being MiG-23/27 chief designer from 1970 onwards. The good guys were tied up on other programs, so MFI got the "B team".

You describe plasma stealth as a Russian speciality, but aside from failed experiments on the Meteorit missile, a press release in 1999 and some minor discussions on using plasma to shield an antenna, we've seen nothing concrete at all. I could describe anti-gravity as a "British speciality" based on the GreenGlow studies, but that would be silly.

I'd like to see the link you refer to on ATS, as its full of fruitcakes normally so I avoid it where possible.

It all depends what you understand by stealth, which by definition is RCS, albeit to a much greater degree in modern US designs than anywhere else. The Su-35 has never had any stealth features except for the rumoured plasma screen in front of the radar dish.
I found information on plasma stealth developed for the MiG-1.44 in a back issue(2000?) of one Russian magazine, 'Krylia Rodiny', I think. I have a photocopy of this article somewhere, when I find, I'll post it.
I don't know Grigorij Siedov's qualifications or competence, but as at the time Article 1.44 was being developed, Mikoyan did little else, apart from some minor upgrades to MiG-29. It would be illogical to put a second-rate designer on a project that the future of the company might have hinged upon.
As for plasma being a Russian speciality, you don't hear too much about research in this field elsewhere-hence the inference. Of course, just because we don't hear about it, it doesn't mean others are not working on it. Still, if you go to the Keldysh Institute site, you'll see that a lot of their work revolves around plasma, including the onboard Marabu plasmatron. In short, as somebody put it, it is, for obvious reasons of secrecy, a bit of a speculation, but definitely informed.
Here's the link you wanted: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread89869/pg1

 

[Avimimus]

tbh, radar stealth is often confusing for a lot of people. pointblank RCS measured in the L-band and X-band are very different in that X-band RCS is bigger than L-band by a factor of 100(or square of the difference of their bandwidth/lambda). a very odd fact though is that spheres/spheroids aren't affected by bandwidth at all(which also also why curved faceted shapes are described to be stealthier than just faceted shapes because of the creeping wave effect).

whether that 0.5m^2 claim is true or not, it would be safe to assume that measurement was taken at pointblank X-band or even at a higher frequency. conversely, an RCS of 0.0001m^2 would be achievable at L-band or even lower frequencies. again, this reflects the intended mission parameters of an aircraft.

regarding IR signature management, I'm more inclined to believe that the YF-23's IR signature is significantly reduced as to please the Naval requirement as compared to the YF-22. as far as the F-22's radar rear aspect is concerned, though its nozzles are stealthy, the engine exhaust face is seldom taken into consideration in that they're visible to radar unlike the YF-23's buried engines.

In light of the PAK FA, it would be safe to assume that they invested a lot of effort to reduce IR and radar emissions with its designated engine and nozzles.

Abe does have a point though that it's usually the airframe itself that is IR stealth treated since it's the forward hemisphere that is often intercepted by sensors, hence the logical area of concern.

Thanks for this post.

The Su-35 has never had any stealth features except for the rumoured plasma screen in front of the radar dish.

What about tests with radar absorbant materials?

 

[SOC]

Jane's reported the whole plasma stealth thing back in the 98-00 timeframe. I have a copy of the article around here somewhere. Apparently BAe was trying to replicate the claimed Russian results but was having problems doing so. Not that this means the Russians didn't make it work, they've always had some big brains in the physics department over there. Interesting to see Marabou brought up-that's supposed to have been the RCS-reduction system for the Meteorit cruise missile.

 

[flateric]

it actually was, but name Marabou is someone's (Kalashnikov) fantasies

 

[donnage99]

The whole yf-23 design was studied before any kind of stealth requirement was demanded, these flats were there before any stealth requirement.

Reducing RCS has always been a requirement from the start, only in the later phase of the program does the Air Force put more emphasis on stealth requirement (and this doesn't mean that northrop didn't put greater emphasis on stealth from the start either).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Stop this kind of phrases, are really annoying..... give me an explanation how the F-22 with all it surfaces pointing down is stealth

LOL. You really have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about.

Stealth for an aircraft does not need to reduce the entire 360 degree spherical RCS. Why? Because an aircraft is moving in the air (surprise, surprise). If it was to sustain hover in the middle of the battlespace then it would be a different story.

The nature of the angular relationship between an aircraft at even high altitude and a ground radar is such that it is only at extremely close ranges (extreme for air combat) that the radar can look up at the underside of the aircraft. The world we can fly our planes in is a lot wider and longer than it is high. Many radars also lack a high angle look up because of the design of their antenna. For example a radar on the ground looks at an aircraft 100km away at an altitude of 40,000 feet with a look up angle of only 7 degrees, 20km away and the angle is changed to 31 degrees. Still an acute angle.

Even if a look up is provided the aircraft is moving. This is the same principle as RCS spikes to 40-50 degrees off the cardinal points. On paper and without any understanding of the practical application of stealth this may look bad. But in reality with an aircraft moving in the opposite direction to its source of thrust (ie straight ahead) even the fastest scanning radar is only going to get a handful of returns on these spikes and bottom looks. Because the aircraft quickly moves through the air space in which its angular relationship to the radar enables these RCS spikes to exsist.

Unless of course that radar is going to be able to move and match the angular relationship to the vector of the aircraft. Which for that sort of capability you will need to turn to our good friends at Stavetti, Inc.

 

[Woody]

Mmmm... painted...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a139a16b2-7c04-411a-bd67-5db2e0e980cd&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Unsurprisingly from the Ares blog.

Cheers, Woody

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

guessing from the painted number, it would either indicate T-50-1 or Su-51 ???

anyway, since the intakes are offset vertically and a space exists underneath it, anybody reckon putting something in it like E-war mods?

 

[flanker]

That is Photoshop of an existing picture.

 

[lancer21]

That is Photoshop of an existing picture.

I think so too , even if it looks gorgeous in that cammo ...hope the real bird is as good!

 

[Deino]

I had that "strange" feeling in my stomach too at first, but since it is not exactly the same picture – at least one I haven’t seen before – I tend (hope ???) to say its real.

Deino

 

[lancer21]

On second thoughts ,after staring at these pic side by side, i am haveing doubts too, but the bloody PS i so good these days is hard to differentiate them! Besides i would expect such a pic to come from russian media ...ARES is not russian ..is it ? ???

Still very , very nice nonethelss , thanks!

 

[Stargazer]

After comparing both pictures, I'm convinced this is NOT a photoshop but an actual photograph. There are noticeable differences, especially the angle of the rightside wing. Besides I doubt that the Ares blog would resort to doctored pictures without saying so.

 

[lancer21]

Ok on another note, did the second and third flights occured on the 12th and 13th or 12th and the 15th of feb?

Edit: no i think i got it mixed up , i had the feeling i saw somewhere the third flight being on the 15th , but i saw Flateric's post...

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

having done plenty of PS'd stuff before, I'd say it isn't PS'd

 

[flateric]

without crop
via Radist at VIF2NE

 

[lancer21]

Ok i'm convinced its no PS too...interesting to note the new low viz national markings ( red star...)

Again , beautiful!

 

[flanker]

I saved it, and info says it was taken 13'th. So, seems it is real anyway. ;D Somebody asked nemetc about it, so we will just have to wait and see what he answers to be 101% sure.

 

[Woody]

Sadly I'd say the '51' and the star are too sharp and pixilated compared to the the rest of the image and the wing tunnel is too well lit (and I've been using P-shop professionally for 20 years (but I have been fooled before)).

But it does draw my attention to the black square just to the rear of the right intake which is there on the original. Any ideas?

Cheers, Woody

 

[flanker]

Sadly I'd say the '51' and the star are too sharp and pixilated compared to the the rest of the image and the wing tunnel is too well lit (and I've been using P-shop professionally for 20 years (but I have been fooled before))

Cheers, Woody

Number 51 is what i also noticed at first in the smaller pic. Seemed pixilated indeed.

But it does draw my attention to the black square just to the rear of the right intake which is there on the original. Any ideas?

Cheers, Woody

What about it? It is just some mesh.

 

[flateric]

it's original photo
please stop meaningless discussions on PS, OK?

 

[yasotay]

Well I think it is painted. If you are going to show the new fighter to the leadership and do a big press release, I think you would paint the aircraft for the event. God knows how many times I washed and cleaned Apache heilicopters for Senator (insert name here circa 1987). That off yellow just does not do what a cool greay cammo pattern does for public opinion.

I have now expended my entire knowledge base on 5th generation fighter aircraft. ;D

 

[sferrin]

Besides, once it's painted it can be called a "production" aircraft.

 

[Avimimus]

it's original photo
please stop meaningless discussions on PS, OK?

However, if one examines the treeline it shows that the airplane is flying over the same part of the same runway at a similar pitch and the picture is taken from a similar angle. Which is enough to fool me into thinking that it is a fake.

 

[sferrin]

it's original photo
please stop meaningless discussions on PS, OK?

However, if one examines the treeline it shows that the airplane is flying over the same part of the same runway at a similar pitch and the picture is taken from a similar angle. Which is enough to fool me into thinking that it is a fake.

Add my vote to 'shopped.

 

[mrdetonator]

it's original photo
please stop meaningless discussions on PS, OK?

Interesting, if I remember correctly the "inside guy" told that only the radome is white, the rest is two tone grey camo, but as I see it is different. Ugly camo, I hope it is PSed as well.

 

[lancer21]

Well peoples from paralay and Quadro himself say that the pic is authentic , sent by Sukhoi to the press , but for some reason that Maxim Pyadushkin guy put in on Aviation Week...
Also from what i can make from the bloody babelfish , it seem that the underwing weapon bays are somewhat confirmed...( who's Makarov ? ???)

 

[Sundog]

Add me to list of people who say this isn't shopped, as it is obviously from a different position on the runway, as can be seen by the object on the airfield in the backgroud and the factory smoke is also different in the background. Also, the plane in both photos was taken from a different angle as can be seen by the position of the nosewheel in reference to the airframe. In one pic, the sky is the back ground behind the nose wheel and in the other, the wing is the background. Which means it's a different photo from that of it unpainted.

All this really tells me is that the photo was taken from close to the same spot on the same airfield as that of the first flight. It's almost as if there is a designated area for taking photos on the airfield. That's craziness!!!

 

[flateric]

However, if one examines the treeline it shows that the airplane is flying over the same part of the same runway at a similar pitch and the picture is taken from a similar angle. Which is enough to fool me into thinking that it is a fake.

would you also guess that photographer with his Canon 450D (not EOS-1D as with previous photos) was standing at the same parking lot allowed for media access? (hint! hint!)

 

[Bailey]

Well having read all the EXIF info and taken a good look at areas like reflections in the photo, I joining the vote for it being real.

Cheers Bailey.

 

[flateric]

who's Makarov ? ???

Makarov is our CHOD

those who continiously wish to discuss "photoshoped image" and don't know, what is EXIF, will probably will do it better with three day ban

for further consideration
http://www.take-off.ru/asp/PAK_FA_3rd_flight