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

[Sundog]

If you guys look at the high res bottom view pic that Flateric provided on the previous page, you can clearly see the doors for the side missile bays on the bottom of the LEX. It's the gray part on the outside, away from the nacelle, of each "pod" and that is where the short range AAM's are to be located.

 

[bobbymike]

I scanned most of the posts and did not see any range estimates. From London Times Online.

Many of the aircraft’s capabilities remain secret but officials have described the T-50 as the first Russian fighter equipped with radar-evading stealth technology, a key component of so-called fifth generation jets. It is believed to combine supersonic cruising speed, an operational ability of more than three hours and a range of up to 5,500km (3,430 miles), nearly twice the distance of the American F-22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow does 5,500km range seem high to anyone?

 

[Sundog]

Wow does 5,500km range seem high to anyone?

On internal fuel, I would say it's definitely high. With four or five large drop tanks. it might be doable. Then again, I don't know what the Raptor's range is with four underwing tanks, though operationally, it seems it only uses two.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I rather doubt it has a 5,500km range. I imagine the production aircraft will be comparable to the F-22A in that regard.

In my experience there are many varying and often misleading statistics for Russian aircraft. For example I have seen a source claim the Mig-35 has a 3,500km range on internal fuel alone, and in the past I believe Sukhoi has managed to release different dimensions for the standard Su-27 flanker.

This is truly a fine looking bird, I would like to see it camouflaged like Russian Flankers but that would probably screw up the whole RAM business.

Anyone want to bet how many get produced in this day and age?

Probably more than the F-22 ...... ;D How long 'til it gets labeled the Black Widowski???

If that is the case I will bash my head into the wall and go insane trying to build F-22s and F-23s out of scrap metal from the nearby recycling center.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There are no official stats released. All articles seem to be referencing Wikipedia.

 

[Woody]

At last...

Looks like what the Flanker was to the F-15 only this time to the F-22. What it lacks in stealth it may well make up for in radar detection range and could possibly get the 'first look' against an F-22.

But seriously the stealth only has to be good enough to defeat the active seeker of an AMRAAM to bring it to the close-in dog fight, in which case Flanker/Fulcrum wing profiles, 3D TVC and AA-11s would win the day.

That it hasn't surrendered mach 2+ speed and long range for stealth and will be offered for affordable export will also be a serious threat to US air supremacy.

RE, the underwing panniers: possibly weapons bays, possibly actuator housings but I don't think they'd be there unless they added to the aerodynamics.

Roll on another arms race as long as they never get used. I'm a cold war kid. How else do you think we got our computers and flat screen TVs? Not from F1 that's for sure ;D

Cheers, Woody

PS. you can fill 2 big bays with lots of small weapons but not the other way around.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I am very impressed with the T-50 prototype. It is a very cool looking aircraft indeed - in fact world-class! Very comparable to the USAF's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters in both stealth and performance. I wonder what its code name will be(?) Beautiful aircraft - just beautiful.

:

Agreed Scott. "F-23 Blackwidow II", you must be a seriously talented engineer to be able to measure RCS and performance from a photograph. I'd say the jury is out on the level of stealth included, and performance remains to be seen.

 

[Thorvic]

Going off the underside image, does it aoper there are two wing pylon locations and possibly another pair on the intakes ?

G

 

[fightingirish]

First 3-view drawing from Paralay.
Source: http://paralay.iboards.ru/

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On the claimed range of 5,500 km that equals a radius of action of 1,500 NM. That wouldn't surprise me too much for a best altitude/cruise profile (ie Mach <0.9) because there seems plenty of internal volume for fuel. In particular all that space above the inlets/engines where the aircraft is 22 feet wide. That looks like around 1,000-1,500 gallons of space for fuel there or 7,000-10,000 lbs of jet fuel. Not to mention the wings and back of the centre spine. Though I imagine all that fuel is for trying to get a tactical radius (~200-400 NM) at high enough thrust for supersonic cruise. Because all that width is a lot of surface area to be reflecting RF... and the Russians will need every bit of speed they can muster to survive against US type air forces.

 

[Woody]

I seriously hope they're going to use that tail sting for something more useful than just a drogue shoot!!!

Thorvic: Going off the underside image, does it aoper there are two wing pylon locations and possibly another pair on the intakes ?

Are they the yellow spots?

I would expect there to be the tradional Russian massive external stores provision for the unromantic asymetric warfare - not just the primadonna interceptor internal AAMs (F-22, I'm looking at you).

Cheers, Woody

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Abe, what is the point of discussing a fictional range figure? No range figures have been disclosed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, what is the point of discussing a fictional range figure? No range figures have been disclosed.

I though Flateric quoted the range? Anyway I thought I might actually inject something remotely like measurement into the discussion (the volume available above the inlets/engines/weapons bays). As opposed to the majority of post T-50 first flight commentary that seems to be in the main Romanticism. Or an attempt to fit the aircraft into political agendas relating to the US aerospace industry.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nope, just endless repetition of the specs from Wikipedia in tv and website articles.

Having done some very preliminary scaling from the photos and assuming the engine is roughly AL-31F sized, it looks to me more like 19m in length. Also the underside picture is foreshortened and makes the nose looks shorter and fatter than it is. I would put the span at about 12m, not 14m.

Paralay's two drawings don't match when you compare them. I think the side view is quite good, which means the geometry problems are probably with his top view.

 

[red admiral]

Double IRST arrangement?

 

[flanker]

I think they mentioned on tv that the quoted range of 5500 km is with one in flight refueling. And yes Thorvic, there are 6 spots for pylons and weapons outside. Two on each wing, and one on each intake.

PS: Red Admiral, i think the ball behind canopy is not IRST. But a "MAK" type of device seen on Su-24. I don't think it is installed yet.

 

[F-23 Blackwidow II]

All of my comments about the T-50 prototype is pure speculation and admiration. But you would have to admit that it is a beautiful aircraft - yes? Here is an attachment of the T-50 flight simulator.

 

[fightingirish]

No, it is the Rafale-simulator.
Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7929.msg80982.html#msg80982

 

[Kryptid]

Does anyone have any idea when the second test flight may be and what may be tested on it? Did the aircraft go supersonic on the first flight?

I assume the nose probe will be deleted on the production model?

 

[starviking]

Is Paralay's depiction of the radar in the side view speculative or based on hard info? Looks like a swash-plate design.

 

[Avimimus]

it will replace -29 and -27, MiG-31 will be modernized to MiG-31BM level

What is to prevent a two-seat T-50 from replacing the Mig-31 completely (other than money)? It would seem that the avionics are more powerful, range is rumoured to be greater and the payload should be at least as large as the earlier model Mig-31s. The difference in speed can't matter that much, can it?

I'll be interested to see if it has the Range of the MiG-31, but the MiG-31 is larger than people think and I doubt the PAK-FA can do 1000mph on the deck like the MiG-31 can, because I just don't see the PAK-FA being built to that q-limit. Much less, those Amos missiles would probably force the PAK-FA to be subsonic, as I don't see the T-50 being able to carry those internally.

Having said that, I'm not saying they couldn't replace it with the PAK-FA, but I just don't see the PAK-FA filling the MiG-31's role. Not to mention, that giant nose in the MiG-31 means it carry a much more powerful RADAR than the PAK-FA's, assuming they use the same spec technology. There are very good reasons Russia is keeping the MiG-31 and until I see the official specs for the T-50, I'm going to remain skeptical. For a powerful long range interceptor, the Foxhound is tough to beat.

I've always had a soft-spot for the Mig-31 myself.

Weight shouldn't be a problem considering the 3,000kg internal payload. The fueselauge diameter of the R-33 would require an extra 120cm if two missiles were mounted side-by-side in place of the KAB-1500 and the R-33 is only about 75cm longer than the RVV-AE. So, it shouldn't be impossible to carry at least two missiles (one in each bay), possibly even leaving enough room for a pair of RVV-AE. This is a conservative guess. I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft doesn't can't fit at least four wingless R-37 derivatives - although this possibility may already be contradicted by the mention of carrying only two 400km range weapons (I doubt that this could be refering to the K-100 as it would require and extra 250cm in length compared to an RVV-AE).

What we need is measurements of the bays. If they are over 6 metres in length it may be able to carry the Novator K-100, if the bay is more than 750cm in width it may be able to carry a pair of derivatives of the R-37, anything smaller and it is likely that there is only a single R-37 derivative per bay...

As for the range, there is no way of telling for certain at this point, although I'd assume it to be higher than the F-22 given the clear optimisation of the T-50 for internal volume and payload over speed.

 

[Woody]

given the clear optimisation of the T-50 for internal volume and payload over speed.

??? Please explain.

 

[Crockus]

My first post, hello dear friends.

A highly interesting thread, just finished reading it. My humple contribution, a detailed picture of the F-22 Raptor portraying in hi rez its own rivets, I think it's good enough for comparison with this one.

Regards, Socrates

 

[Matej]

Is Paralay's depiction of the radar in the side view speculative or based on hard info? Looks like a swash-plate design.

Piotr Butowski rocks once again.

 

[sferrin]

My first post, hello dear friends.

A highly interesting thread, just finished reading it. My humple contribution, a detailed picture of the F-22 Raptor portraying in hi rez its own rivets, I think it's good enough for comparison with this one[/url].

Regards, Socrates

See that bendy thing in the guys hands? That's not used for driving "rivets". And those are just for removable panels. You'll note there aren't any "rivets" visible on the upper, non-removable, portion of the aircraft there in your picture.

 

[flateric]

I though Flateric quoted the range?

me?? it has been said here on TV '5,500 with with refueling'

 

[mrdetonator]

My first post, hello dear friends.

A highly interesting thread, just finished reading it. My humple contribution, a detailed picture of the F-22 Raptor portraying in hi rez its own rivets, I think it's good enough for comparison with this one[/url].

Regards, Socrates

See that bendy thing in the guys hands? That's not used for driving "rivets". Also, when trotting out the F-22 or F-35 note that the fastener heads are BELOW the surface of the skin when installed. That matters. And those are just for removable panels. You'll note there aren't any "rivets" visible on the upper, non-removable, portion of the aircraft there in your picture.

Of course, rivets are hidden under a thick layer of paint, need to look at stripped F-22 I think would be like this below(F-35).
But I`m wondering why is he(F-22 technician) using such a BIG driver tool for 2 hands instead of typical onehanded T-shaped one for opening fasteners? It is much quicker to open a typical quarter turn fastener on removable panels, unless there is a thread. Therefore I think those on the F-22 are screws.

I`m repeating my self again, but from those several Sukhoi T-50 detail photos showing front fuselage workmanship, panel alignment, riveting I`m very pleased finally, bcs that is another level compared to Su-27/30 family.

 

[mrdetonator]

I though Flateric quoted the range?

me?? it has been said here on TV '5,500 with with refueling'

Correct, almost every Russian TV news spot was saying that number from beginning, 5500km with inflight refueling. Maybe guys not understanding russian were thinking that is the range on internal fuel, thus were sceptical... ;D

 

[flanker]

Does anyone have any idea when the second test flight may be and what may be tested on it?

From an interview it was said next one will be on monday. And how are we supposed to know what they will test on it then?

Did the aircraft go supersonic on the first flight?

Taking that big risk on first flight, are you kidding me?

I assume the nose probe will be deleted on the production model?

Probably yes, since Su-35 can do without it.

 

[DFC]

Apparently a frameless cockpit is likely.
given below is a link to a tender.

http://zakupki.gov.ru/Notification.aspx?PurchaseId=403793

The diagram below is possibly from the November issue of Russian version of Popular mechanics.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iibL3efnMDw/S2RBMaHVTzI/AAAAAAAABUg/j8W0995NhqE/s1600-h/PAK-FA+diagram.jpg

 

[flateric]

Apparently a frameless cockpit is likely.
given below is a link to a tender.http://zakupki.gov.ru/Notification.aspx?PurchaseId=403793

two-month old news of Ashug R&D

The diagram below is possibly from the November issue of Russian version of Popular mechanics.

nope. it was made by intoxicated long before this issue of PM was published, based on Saturn drawing
guy got weapon bays disposition almost correct

 

[sferrin]

Of course, rivets are hidden under a thick layer of paint, need to look at stripped F-22 I think would be like this below(F-35).
But I`m wondering why is he(F-22 technician) using such a BIG driver tool for 2 hands instead of typical onehanded T-shaped one for opening fasteners? It is much quicker to open a typical quarter turn fastener on removable panels, unless there is a thread. Therefore I think those on the F-22 are screws.

Where did I indicate they weren't screws? (I certainly never said they were dzus fasteners.) I think it's pretty obvious why he's using the tool he is. As for "rivets are hidden under paint" how is it that paint doesn't make rivet heads disappear on other aircraft? Maybe because there's more to it than "painted rivets" here.

 

[Stargazer]

Or perhaps they have the same sort of screw lids that IKEA gives for their DIY shelves?! ;D

 

[DFC]

two-month old news of Ashug R&D

So its unrelated?

nope. it was made by intoxicated long before this issue of PM was published, based on Saturn drawing
guy got weapon bays disposition almost correct

On which forum does this person post? Thanks in advance.

 

[Trident]

As for "rivets are hidden under paint" how is it that paint doesn't make rivet heads disappear on other aircraft? Maybe because there's more to it than "painted rivets" here.

Well, clearly the crucial piece of technology is not in the rivets themselves however, the F-35s shown and the T-50 prototype are in about the same stage of completion so it is a like for like comparison. Anything that remains to be added to those JSFs before the final coat of paint might yet currently be missing from the PAK-FA as well. Concluding that the T-50 will have exposed rivets once the final surface treatment has been applied has no basis in fact, at this point. For all we know, this particular airframe may never even receive a full production standard finish.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[frank]

My 2 cents, they sure look like screws to me, & as far as rivets being hidden under paint, I reckon if you put paint on thick enough, it'll hide them. However, on lots of smaller metal airplanes & WWII vintage airplanes modified as air racers, it's common to cover the rivets with a body filler & to cover any rivets & screws. I suppose it's not unlikely that where rivets or screws not intended to be removed for routine maintenance on an F-22 or F-35 or anything else, composite or otherwise, they could be covered with a thin layer of filler, smoothed, sanded & painted. Several light twins I know of have their windshield frames faired in in this manner.

As for "rivets are hidden under paint" how is it that paint doesn't make rivet heads disappear on other aircraft? Maybe because there's more to it than "painted rivets" here.

Well, clearly the crucial piece of technology is not in the rivets themselves however, the F-35s shown and the T-50 prototype are in about the same stage of completion so it is a like for like comparison. Anything that remains to be added to those JSFs before the final coat of paint might yet currently be missing from the PAK-FA as well. Concluding that the T-50 will have exposed rivets once the final surface treatment has been applied has no basis in fact, at this point. For all we know, this particular airframe may never even receive a full production standard finish.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Spring]

The F22 is full of rivets,as the F23 was, as the F117 was, as the F35 is.

This is annoying, because this 'rivetless' trash comes from all these dumb popular books , and only when is about to troll the russians the facts emerge..

 

[sferrin]

The F22 is full of rivets,as the F23 was, as the F117 was, as the F35 is.

This is annoying, because this 'rivetless' trash comes from all these dumb popular books , and only when is about to troll the russians the facts emerge..

Nobody is saying there aren't rivets.

 

[Sundog]

Well, clearly the crucial piece of technology is not in the rivets themselves however, the F-35s shown and the T-50 prototype are in about the same stage of completion so it is a like for like comparison. Anything that remains to be added to those JSFs before the final coat of paint might yet currently be missing from the PAK-FA as well. Concluding that the T-50 will have exposed rivets once the final surface treatment has been applied has no basis in fact, at this point. For all we know, this particular airframe may never even receive a full production standard finish.

Yeah, I agree. I think many are confusing the prototype for the production aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if this bird doesn't have half of the systems the production version will have. Right now, they would be most concerned with expanding the flight envelope and testing the FCS, etc. Now, I'm not saying it won't be retrofitted to have all of the systems, but right now I'm sure they're just trying to get the flight test program going.

As for whoever asked about the nose probe, those nose probes are very advanced flight instrumentation to make sure they have accurate measurements during flight tests and are are also used to "dial in" the aircraft's air data system during flight testing. The production version will definitely not have that. In fact, the production version won't have the pitot's, which look like the standard Flanker/Russian pitots on the fuselage sides. I'm sure, for LO reasons, it will receive a flush air data sensor system.

 

[sferrin]

The F-22 has two pitots and no AOA sensor. The F-35 has no pitots (apparently) but has AOA sensors. What's up? ???