Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,454
- Reaction score
- 1,958
Far too sloppy..... 
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,188
- Reaction score
- 6,082
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/russian-and-indian-hypersonic-missiles.html
Russians have announced creation of special fuel for hypersonic vehicles and missiles, as well as the creation of an oxygen-free engine for the PAK FA fighter jet.
Maxim Kuzyuk, CEO of the Aviation Equipment Holding (part of the state corporation Rostec), believes that the PAK FA engine can start without oxygen. “When creating the PAK FA, we were set the task of developing an oxygen-free starting system. Plasma ignition systems are installed in the main combustion chamber and the afterburner. This innovation is integrated into the nozzle with the plasma system – inside it, simultaneously with the admission of kerosene, a plasma arc is created,” said Kuzyuk. He underlined that this is a “unique” system, with no analogues anywhere in the word.
Russians have announced creation of special fuel for hypersonic vehicles and missiles, as well as the creation of an oxygen-free engine for the PAK FA fighter jet.
Maxim Kuzyuk, CEO of the Aviation Equipment Holding (part of the state corporation Rostec), believes that the PAK FA engine can start without oxygen. “When creating the PAK FA, we were set the task of developing an oxygen-free starting system. Plasma ignition systems are installed in the main combustion chamber and the afterburner. This innovation is integrated into the nozzle with the plasma system – inside it, simultaneously with the admission of kerosene, a plasma arc is created,” said Kuzyuk. He underlined that this is a “unique” system, with no analogues anywhere in the word.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,344
- Reaction score
- 9,095
bobbymike said:
"Oxygen free engine". I wonder what those air intakes are for.
As for "oxygen-free starting system" is that really that uncommon? The F-16 uses hydrazine (oxygen free) for air-start for example.http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1056
And how does "plasma arc" differ from a plain old spark plug? Or is this all just marketing with generic technology wrapped up in a package of buzzwords?
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,454
- Reaction score
- 1,958
sferrin said:"Oxygen free engine". I wonder what those air intakes are for.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1056
And how does "plasma arc" differ from a plain old spark plug? Or is this all just marketing with generic technology wrapped up in a package of buzzwords?
Bad translation or yes.. some technological buzzwords to attract press.
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 240
Hey Flateric, do you have a PDF or in general full text for the "Canopy" R&D? My google-fu is failing me.
EDIT: NVM, seems i found it here: http://gzakupki.ru/monitoring/competitiondet.aspx?notificationNumber=0173100009512000232
I remember some contract including MiG-31 canopies, any idea which?
EDIT: NVM, seems i found it here: http://gzakupki.ru/monitoring/competitiondet.aspx?notificationNumber=0173100009512000232
I remember some contract including MiG-31 canopies, any idea which?
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 240
Nah, Ashug is for Su-34, T-50 and Yak-130. "Canopy" is oddly enough *only* for T-50. There are certainly new canopies rolling off for MiG-31 now, most notably all the MiG-31BSM's are with them and same with newly refurbished "vanilla" ones. Definitely seen some kind of contract on that before.flateric said:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,999
- Reaction score
- 10,537
Could be some maskirovka involved, we'll have to wait and see.
dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 213
It mean more for a bankruptcy , no money to develop something else of the legacy old Sukhoi.
CxxTxx
You ate my glittery ponies?
- Joined
- 9 May 2013
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 4
What? A fighter development deal with the Russians went bad?
Who could have predicted this? I mean who??
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/defence-ministry-ignores-russia-s-requests-to-discuss-fighter-project-115040200031_1.html
Ted
Who could have predicted this? I mean who??
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/defence-ministry-ignores-russia-s-requests-to-discuss-fighter-project-115040200031_1.html
Ted
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,319
- Reaction score
- 1,847
Re: What? A fighter development deal with the Russians went bad?
The Indians fundamental problem is that they have more aircraft development/procurement programmes than they have money. The IAF is currently receiving Su-30MKIs, upgraded Mirage 2000s, upgraded Mig-29s and upgraded Jaguars. On top of that LCA development is ongoing (its still creeping towards possible operational use in a single squadron), MMRCA negotiations are ongoing, FGFA remains stalled, there is an embryonic indigenous 5th gen programme and multiple UAS development programmes including a tentative UCAV as well as work being considered for an Su-30MKI deep upgrade. If ever there was a force that needed a rationalisation programme the IAF is it.
As a customer the Indians have a reputation for not executing, there is hardly a defence contractor out there that does not have a story to tell about being lead down an expensive path to the point of being on the verge of receiving a large contract only for everything to stall and eventually vanish.
CxxTxx said:
The Indians fundamental problem is that they have more aircraft development/procurement programmes than they have money. The IAF is currently receiving Su-30MKIs, upgraded Mirage 2000s, upgraded Mig-29s and upgraded Jaguars. On top of that LCA development is ongoing (its still creeping towards possible operational use in a single squadron), MMRCA negotiations are ongoing, FGFA remains stalled, there is an embryonic indigenous 5th gen programme and multiple UAS development programmes including a tentative UCAV as well as work being considered for an Su-30MKI deep upgrade. If ever there was a force that needed a rationalisation programme the IAF is it.
As a customer the Indians have a reputation for not executing, there is hardly a defence contractor out there that does not have a story to tell about being lead down an expensive path to the point of being on the verge of receiving a large contract only for everything to stall and eventually vanish.
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 1,312
Polish? ???
There are various factions on this and other projects in India that have in the past simply made stuff up to further agendas, via various media channels. Some of this can be seen in this very article.
I take every single media release re Indian defence projects or procurements with shovelfulls of salt, particularly when terms such as "sources say" and "the letter states" followed by an entire definitive closed-and-shut-case article being written, with terms such as "This is a precipitous fall from grace for a co-development project..."
AFAIK, the Rafale and PAK FA are two completely different programmes for India in any event. The article is even forced to mention that.
EDIT: I agree with JFC Fuller above also re the plethora of platforms in Indian service. If it was up to me personally, I would stop the upgrades of certain of these forthwith, and have a long hard look at a certain long-meandering indiginous programme.
There are various factions on this and other projects in India that have in the past simply made stuff up to further agendas, via various media channels. Some of this can be seen in this very article.
I take every single media release re Indian defence projects or procurements with shovelfulls of salt, particularly when terms such as "sources say" and "the letter states" followed by an entire definitive closed-and-shut-case article being written, with terms such as "This is a precipitous fall from grace for a co-development project..."
AFAIK, the Rafale and PAK FA are two completely different programmes for India in any event. The article is even forced to mention that.
EDIT: I agree with JFC Fuller above also re the plethora of platforms in Indian service. If it was up to me personally, I would stop the upgrades of certain of these forthwith, and have a long hard look at a certain long-meandering indiginous programme.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,526
- Reaction score
- 3,146
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 240
Okei, i replayed that part like a dozen times and seems i was wrong. He *does* say "nipodviznij" but the ni is lower in the mix and harder to hear unless one is really really paying attention because of the "cut" just before that. So yup, windshield it is.
RadicalDisconnect
Anthony Foulke
- Joined
- 28 April 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 6
http://savepic.net/6587976.png
From Paralay. Though it seems like performance figures are inflated.
From Paralay. Though it seems like performance figures are inflated.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,188
- Reaction score
- 6,082
From International Business Times:
Russia’s announcement this week that it will be operating a sizable contingent of its first stealth fighter, the Sukhoi PAK-FA (also known as T-50), by 2020 has intrigued from the defense world. The first deliveries will begin in 2016, and in four years' time the Russians will field 55 of the impressive-looking jet, which resembles closely the American F-22.
But the aircraft’s general stealth capabilities, and whether Russia truly has entered the small club of countries capable of producing stealth technology, are still debated. Only the U.S. has stealthy aircraft in service; China has flown prototypes.
“The T-50 is a sort of work in progress,” said Richard Aboulafia, a military aviation expert and vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation consultancy firm. “There’s certainly an aspect of stealthiness, but stealth is about a lot more than just a smartly designed airframe. It’s about coatings, which is extremely proprietary.”
The T-50 is also the product of a partnership between the Indian and Russian governments, with both contributing to the cost of developing the plane, estimated at around $10 billion, but with some sources mentioning figures as high as $35 billion. The program is expected to produce about 200 jets. Vladislav Goncharenko, the deputy director for combat aircraft of United Aircraft Corporation, Russia's state-controlled aviation conglomerate, said the Russian Air Force has already received five T-50s with another three in construction. But the question of whether the T-50 joins the United States’ F-22 and F-35, and China’s Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31, in the circle of stealthy fighters is a difficult one. Different standards of stealth technology and maneuverability, and different computer systems, mean that each aircraft, according to Aboulafia, has different qualities as well as flaws. Yet, the American F-22 remains unmatched.
“The T-50 doesn’t even vaguely compare to the F-22, that’s for sure. The F-35 is another story,” said Aboulafia, who also mentioned that China’s aircraft were far too observable and suffered from poor engine technology, which is supplied by Russia “The Sukhoi series are really good fighters; fast, agile and have lots of power – that’s not the F-35, which is much stealthier, but far too dependent on it.”
But Russia won’t be too upset even if the airplane proves to be not the equal of the F-35. The T-50 comes in at a fraction of the price of the Lockheed Martin jet, which is expected to cost upwards of $1.5 trillion. According to retired U.S. Air Force Gen. David Deptula, who was deputy chief of staff of the USAF, the T-50 is a “pretty sophisticated design” and has “greater agility” and a more aerodynamic design” than the F-35. However, Deptula said the U.S. still has the edge in terms of sensors and data fusion, two critical components of modern warfare. Overall, it appears that Russia is developing a competitive aircraft, but perhaps some years from developing a pure stealth aircraft. “The Russians are moving in the right direction, that much is true,” Aboulafia said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - For the hundredth or so time WHY DID we not build 400 or so F-22s? Yes that's rhetorical
Russia’s announcement this week that it will be operating a sizable contingent of its first stealth fighter, the Sukhoi PAK-FA (also known as T-50), by 2020 has intrigued from the defense world. The first deliveries will begin in 2016, and in four years' time the Russians will field 55 of the impressive-looking jet, which resembles closely the American F-22.
But the aircraft’s general stealth capabilities, and whether Russia truly has entered the small club of countries capable of producing stealth technology, are still debated. Only the U.S. has stealthy aircraft in service; China has flown prototypes.
“The T-50 is a sort of work in progress,” said Richard Aboulafia, a military aviation expert and vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation consultancy firm. “There’s certainly an aspect of stealthiness, but stealth is about a lot more than just a smartly designed airframe. It’s about coatings, which is extremely proprietary.”
The T-50 is also the product of a partnership between the Indian and Russian governments, with both contributing to the cost of developing the plane, estimated at around $10 billion, but with some sources mentioning figures as high as $35 billion. The program is expected to produce about 200 jets. Vladislav Goncharenko, the deputy director for combat aircraft of United Aircraft Corporation, Russia's state-controlled aviation conglomerate, said the Russian Air Force has already received five T-50s with another three in construction. But the question of whether the T-50 joins the United States’ F-22 and F-35, and China’s Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31, in the circle of stealthy fighters is a difficult one. Different standards of stealth technology and maneuverability, and different computer systems, mean that each aircraft, according to Aboulafia, has different qualities as well as flaws. Yet, the American F-22 remains unmatched.
“The T-50 doesn’t even vaguely compare to the F-22, that’s for sure. The F-35 is another story,” said Aboulafia, who also mentioned that China’s aircraft were far too observable and suffered from poor engine technology, which is supplied by Russia “The Sukhoi series are really good fighters; fast, agile and have lots of power – that’s not the F-35, which is much stealthier, but far too dependent on it.”
But Russia won’t be too upset even if the airplane proves to be not the equal of the F-35. The T-50 comes in at a fraction of the price of the Lockheed Martin jet, which is expected to cost upwards of $1.5 trillion. According to retired U.S. Air Force Gen. David Deptula, who was deputy chief of staff of the USAF, the T-50 is a “pretty sophisticated design” and has “greater agility” and a more aerodynamic design” than the F-35. However, Deptula said the U.S. still has the edge in terms of sensors and data fusion, two critical components of modern warfare. Overall, it appears that Russia is developing a competitive aircraft, but perhaps some years from developing a pure stealth aircraft. “The Russians are moving in the right direction, that much is true,” Aboulafia said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - For the hundredth or so time WHY DID we not build 400 or so F-22s? Yes that's rhetorical
donnage99
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 410
Weapon acquisition is based upon potential threat assessment. We talk about thousands of pages of scholastic studies using both open sources and classified datas. Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think internet heroes like us have the knowledge to make that kinda call such as how many airframes we need, etc. lol. I do agree that there's validity in the fact that perhaps it would have been better if we further develop the f-22 into multirole fighter with better internal carriage while continue to upgrade the teens series like the russians did with their flankers. Perhaps that would have been a more cost effective and mission relevant instead of trying to supply every branch with an overly sophisticated stealth aircraft of the same design. But then again, I don't know and hindsight is 20/20.bobbymike said:
I shutter at the thought of a fleet wide grounding during time of political tension between our nation and potential adversary.
RadicalDisconnect
Anthony Foulke
- Joined
- 28 April 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 6
Relaying this from flanker's post on Key Pubs,
T-50 flight hours:
Clarifying designations (from my understanding):
- T-50-5 will be rebuilt as T-50-5R, and will cannibalize from the unfinished T-50-6. (I personally think this is odd. Why not cannibalize parts from T-50-5 to finish T-50-6?)
- T-50-6 was supposed to be a flying airframe of "phase 1" and was misreported as T-50-6-1.
- T-50-6-1 is the static frame of "phase 2", now known as T-50-7.
- T-50-6-2 is flying phase 2 airframe.
Again, I presume that came from the same source.
The statement about the new engine seems to run counter to previous reports that the Izd30 wouldn't be ready until 2017 or so. Or is this yet another interim engine? ???
T-50 flight hours:
Source; http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/4...-2/#post120868
Clarifying designations (from my understanding):
- T-50-5 will be rebuilt as T-50-5R, and will cannibalize from the unfinished T-50-6. (I personally think this is odd. Why not cannibalize parts from T-50-5 to finish T-50-6?)
- T-50-6 was supposed to be a flying airframe of "phase 1" and was misreported as T-50-6-1.
- T-50-6-1 is the static frame of "phase 2", now known as T-50-7.
- T-50-6-2 is flying phase 2 airframe.
Again, I presume that came from the same source.
The statement about the new engine seems to run counter to previous reports that the Izd30 wouldn't be ready until 2017 or so. Or is this yet another interim engine? ???
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 240
The statement about the new engine seems to run counter to previous reports that the Izd30 wouldn't be ready until 2017 or so. Or is this yet another interim engine?
710 is not flying with Izd.30...
Deino said:
Information is per 7'th may btw.
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 15
Do we know much about what's in the Indian contract? Wondering specifically if it contains points restricting the export of the T-50 to other countries. I can't help but imagine Pakistan waiting to see if the program pans out and buying, or at least trying to buy, 100 odd if it looks like the program is on track and the Indians ates going to get them. Alternatively they might be a ripe customer for a Chinese export aircraft in this class, it would be an easy way for China to bring Pakistan into their sphere (keep them dependant on support/arms) which would be a natural move given their history with India.
flanker
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 20 March 2008
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 240
Some more information on flight hours from the same guy from about a year ago. According to his numbers T-50-4 has only flown 11 times in Akhtubinsk over a span of almost a year and T-50-3 has flow none. The later is with 100% certainty false as there is a video showing T-50-3 taking off in Akhtubinsk. T-50-4 is also shown flying, so they must have been lucky to catch it on one of the "11" flights. (i am putting this information at question too considering -3 information is completely false)
RadicalDisconnect
Anthony Foulke
- Joined
- 28 April 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 6
flateric said:
I thought the 129 was the low pressure compressor (i.e. fan), not the turbine.
Similar threads
-
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part II [2008-2009]- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 451
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]- Started by flateric
- Replies: 872
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]
- Started by Matej
- Replies: 760
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]
- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 455